Least Favorite course rated 4/5 or better?

[sidewinder22]

I'll always disagree with people thinking Deis Hill is overrated. Add a handful of trees and its close to perfect IMO. Unpopular opinion, but I've always felt peoples conditioning and lack of distance colors their view on that one too much. Sure #1, #13 and #18 are on the too open side, but from some reviews you'd think there aren't any wooded holes. Half the course is wooded. Stuff like #2, #5, #6, #7, #17 etc. aren't wide open bombers. It has some of the most memorable holes I've played, the best tee signs I've ever seen, killer elevation, three sets of tees and it's usually empty. It was one of the first courses I've played and 100+ courses later I miss it like hell. It's always first on my list when I vacation in Ohio.

Rolling Pines I'm curious what you didn't like about it. If someone asked me what a disc golf course should be, Rolling Pines is one of the first courses that comes to mind. Secluded, challenging, wooded with barely any undergrowth to eat your discs.

I think my review of Deis Hill is self explanatory:
https://www.dgcoursereview.com/reviews.php?id=2516&page=1&mode=rev#56625

Rolling Pines is a fine course, but it didn't really wow me and had some serious safety issues with really slippery tees and holes too close to each other. Doesn't make my personal top 25.
https://www.dgcoursereview.com/reviews.php?id=7521&page=2&mode=rev#62502

 

[Mike C]

I think my review of Deis Hill is self explanatory:
https://www.dgcoursereview.com/reviews.php?id=2516&page=1&mode=rev#56625

Rolling Pines is a fine course, but it didn't really wow me and had some serious safety issues with really slippery tees and holes too close to each other. Doesn't make my personal top 25.
https://www.dgcoursereview.com/reviews.php?id=7521&page=2&mode=rev#62502

Thanks, I like reading contrary opinions. Some notes as I read along, while I wait for my RL video to save....

Deis Hill:

I disagree about 1 having no risk. I have seen countless players hyzer out hard towards the bottom of the hill by not properly accounting for wind and elevation. It'd definitely be a better hole with more obstacles, but I think the wind and steep hill do create some risk / reward. If I throw a good drive that goes long and stays towards the top of the hill, I set myself up for an eagle. If I hyzer out to the bottom I'm playing for a birdie or par. Agreed on the long tee having bad sign placement, but since its natural there's no reason you can't take an extra step or two further back.

Agreed on your comments regarding the blue tees not being paved. To me it feels like the white tees are what the course was designed around, and many of the blue tees are more or less an after thought. There are exceptions, like #14 and #8.

It can definitely get warm out here in the summer but its never bothered me. Its something players should be aware of so its good you noted it in your review. I think it has enough benches. #1, #4, #5, #10, #11, #12, #14, #16 all have benches close by. It would be more convenient if they were right next to the tees though.

I'm immune to poison ivy so that's something I never take into account when I disc golf.

#16 plays next to the road more than over it. There's potential to go across the road, but it has to be a pretty bad shot. I disagree on #17, it's a classic tunnel shot with greater risk than most. I love it. Throw a clean shot and take an easy two, fub it and you could kick and roll down a massive hill and be scrambling for par. That's a lot more interesting than the typical flat tunnel shots.

All in all I think you played it on a bad day. Most of the times I've played it I have the course to myself save for a few people walking around the paths by 4's basket. I've never had anyone in the fairways and I've never had to wait for any groups. Not many people play it because of how hilly it is.

Would you change your rating at all if you played it on an empty day?

I admit I have some bias being able to throw far, because holes like #1 blue and #13 blue offer me eagle opportunities that someone with 300-400' of distance won't be able to shoot for. Is this good design? I think not, it caters a little too much to big arms, and gives them a bit of an unfair advantage. On the flip side, here in Charlotte I can basically count on one hand how many holes offer rewards for the ability to drive 500', which is something I find frustrating.

Damn near every single course in the world has holes that reward accuracy, but there are many 18 hole courses where being able to throw 400', much less 500' or 600', offers no benefit. I feel like most courses lean too much in favor rewarding accuracy rather than a combination of distance and accuracy. Especially in Charlotte, many of the longer holes require placement shots to hit doglegs, so on a 650' hole at Nevin I might not even use a driver, but throw a couple of hyzers with mids.

Rolling Pines:

I thought the tees were perfect, but I did play on a dry day. Might change my tune if they were wet. I enjoyed the inlaid hole numbers.

A couple holes are near impossible birdies, holes 4, 5, 14 and 16 come to mind, and hole 9 depending on the wind

I got an easy birdie on 4, messed up a roller on 5 but felt it was possible, 14 I threw too overstable of a disc for the line, 16 I had a bad drive and was punished for it. 4 I don't think is difficult, it just requires being able to throw far. The others are definitely some of the tougher par 3's I've thrown, but IMO they are par 3's for a high end player that has distance, accuracy and a large bag of tricks. e.g. if you can throw a good backhand roller it will change your perception of 5 VS someone who can't (Not trying to imply you can't, its just an example that comes to mind)

I think the gold tees cater to a higher skill level than most courses do, and the pars reflect that. That is something that I enjoy. Few courses make me work this hard for birdies, and I liked feeling challenged. That's one of the reasons I view Rolling Pines in such a positive light. Some of these holes would be listed as Par 4 at any other course. IMO its rare to find courses with pars this challenging, so when I do find it, I savor it.

There was a group on #18 when I started my round, otherwise it was empty when I played. I seem to have better luck than you when it comes to that sort of thing

 

[1978]

I didn't have my snickers yesterday. Im good now.

 

[BraveThrower43]

Rolling Pines is a fine course, but it didn't really wow me and had some serious safety issues with really slippery tees and holes too close to each other. Doesn't make my personal top 25.
https://www.dgcoursereview.com/reviews.php?id=7521&page=2&mode=rev#62502

I think this would be my answer. Even many people in Rolling pines target audience of higher level pros do not go for a hole like 4 with OB on the left and death on the right. I filmed an event out there a while ago and the card included MJ, Henry Childres, and some other pros with solid arms and no one got close to several par 3's on the longs due to distance or shape(7 and 14 are examples) but everyone got 3's unless they drastically messed up. Scoring separation just isn't there which is something I value in a course. Add that to the slick tees and the OB lines arbitrarily hanging in the trees on that par 4 up on the hill

That is by no means saying I think Rolling Pines is awful and obviously people like it. It is still a solid course in my mind that is beautiful, flows well, and allows you to rip a few drives. It just doesnt tickle my fancy.

 

[New013]

I like RL Smith but it's second tier Charlotte disc golf. Not a 4.

I'm not sure why I didn't review Rolling Pines but some of the reviews are way over the top glorifying it. It has design flaws that limit score separation, I remember that more than the beauty aspect of the land. I'd have to play it again to rate it.

Anyone giving the Patriot a 4 or higher needs to get out more and stop jerking off on amenities.

Whatever that one course we played in PA was way overrated. I'm to lazy to look it up.

 

[BraveThrower43]

I like RL Smith but it's second tier Charlotte disc golf. Not a 4.

I'm not sure why I didn't review Rolling Pines but some of the reviews are way over the top glorifying it. It has design flaws that limit score separation, I remember that more than the beauty aspect of the land. I'd have to play it again to rate it.

Anyone giving the Patriot a 4 or higher needs to get out more and stop jerking off on amenities.

Whatever that one course we played in PA was way overrated. I'm to lazy to look it up.

South hills

New? Is that really you?

 

[Mike C]

The scoring separation remark is interesting. That's something I would never think about as a more often than not solo player who rarely competes.

I'm genuinely surprised at the perception #4 at Rolling Pines gets. I really do not find it complicated at all. Throw a 450' shot straight, then putt.

#5 is much trickier....IMO you need a god-like forehand, or a high level backhand roller to have a birdie opportunity. I consider it much more difficult than #4. I even tried a few extra shots off the tee after messing up my initial throw, and none of those extra shots were much better than my first. #4 I never thought twice about, its a very straight forward hole.

I do agree with the ropes on the Par 4 on the hill (#12 I think). I feel like if you're that far down either side of the fairway, that's already punishment enough. Most players are probably going to have to pitch back in to the fairway and take a stroke just getting into position for their upshot.

I'm going to check out the tourney videos of this course now, you guys have piqued my curiosity.

 

[Mike C]

Interesting. All four players on this card chose to lay up instead of trying to setup a birdie opportunity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyZG8HMWCAU&t=10m0s

I wonder if they'd all play it the same way in a casual round with nothing on the line?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXc4ZAavmo8&t=0m50s That's how I played it for comparison.

 

[BrotherDave]

I like RL Smith but it's second tier Charlotte disc golf. Not a 4.

I'm not sure why I didn't review Rolling Pines but some of the reviews are way over the top glorifying it. It has design flaws that limit score separation, I remember that more than the beauty aspect of the land. I'd have to play it again to rate it.

Anyone giving the Patriot a 4 or higher needs to get out more and stop jerking off on amenities.

Whatever that one course we played in PA was way overrated. I'm to lazy to look it up.

He lives! New if you need a good laugh, check out this thread about your favorite course designer: https://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=126751&highlight=darlington

The scoring separation remark is interesting. That's something I would never think about as a more often than not solo player who rarely competes.

I'm genuinely surprised at the perception #4 at Rolling Pines gets. I really do not find it complicated at all. Throw a 450' shot straight, then putt.

#5 is much trickier....IMO you need a god-like forehand, or a high level backhand roller to have a birdie opportunity. I consider it much more difficult than #4. I even tried a few extra shots off the tee after messing up my initial throw, and none of those extra shots were much better than my first. #4 I never thought twice about, its a very straight forward hole.

I do agree with the ropes on the Par 4 on the hill (#12 I think). I feel like if you're that far down either side of the fairway, that's already punishment enough. Most players are probably going to have to pitch back in to the fairway and take a stroke just getting into position for their upshot.

I'm going to check out the tourney videos of this course now, you guys have piqued my curiosity.

Road and beyond is OB on #4, right? That's probably the sticking point regards to casual vs. tourney rounds. That's a wee bit narrow a landing zone from that distance for folks to bomb away confidently in a tourney setting, is my guess. I agree with you on #5, I have neither high level roller or god-like FH and I'm pretty much resigned to getting a boring 3 on that one. I'm not a Gold level player either though, FWIW.

 

[BraveThrower43]

He lives! New if you need a good laugh, check out this thread about your favorite course designer: https://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=126751&highlight=darlington

Road and beyond is OB on #4, right? That's probably the sticking point regards to casual vs. tourney rounds. That's a wee bit narrow a landing zone from that distance for folks to bomb away confidently in a tourney setting, is my guess. I agree with you on #5, I have neither high level roller or god-like FH and I'm pretty much resigned to getting a boring 3 on that one. I'm not a Gold level player either though, FWIW.

Yeah for the competitive play hole number four has too much risk with the OB and then I believe they play it as a drop zone from the short pad if you go OB so the risk there is way higher. Not worth most players going for the birdie.

Also forgot to mention the baskets. Not a fan of the kingpins because it seems they catch poorly.

 

[PoorPutter]

Castle Hayne (4.24) and Hornet's Nest (4.22) are easily my least favorite courses rated 4/5 or better. Although I haven't played Hornet's since it re-opened......I can't imagine it would change my opinion.

 

[Mike C]

Castle Hayne (4.24) and Hornet's Nest (4.22) are easily my least favorite courses rated 4/5 or better. Although I haven't played Hornet's since it re-opened......I can't imagine it would change my opinion.

What don't you like about the Nest? Not often I hear something negative about that course.

 

[PoorPutter]

What don't you like about the Nest? Not often I hear something negative about that course.

Least favorite of the 4/5 rated....that doesn't mean it's bad or I don't like it. But if I lived 3 minutes from every 4/5 course I've played, it and Castle Hayne would be the ones I would never play.

But yeah, I realize I'm an outlier on Hornet's. The front.....flat, too close to other park stuff (roads, courts, fences, parking), a couple dumb hole lengths (1.5 shots) for me. The back.....repetitive wood tunnels, tiny landing zones on multi-shot holes, uninspired use of elevation.

 

[IHearChains]

Bucksnort -- Good course in beautiful surroundings... I enjoyed it, but in no conceivable way is it better than nearby Beaver Ranch. The numbers on here are clearly inflated for some reason. It's got dirt/gravel tees, erosion issues, and some gimmicky holes that lose their appeal after the first play. Also not much variety, and almost all midrange pitch and putt par 3. Maybe a fairway driver on a couple holes. I rated it 4/5 on here, still excellent in my opinion, just should never be in the same category as the other ones I've played in the top 25.

 

[Mike C]

The front.....flat, too close to other park stuff (roads, courts, fences, parking), a couple dumb hole lengths (1.5 shots) for me. The back.....repetitive wood tunnels, tiny landing zones on multi-shot holes, uninspired use of elevation.

The front half definitely suffers from being close to the park entrance road and other activities, and I could see the 1.5 point holding true depending on what your D is. Thanks for sharing your perspective.

Bucksnort -- Good course in beautiful surroundings... I enjoyed it, but in no conceivable way is it better than nearby Beaver Ranch. The numbers on here are clearly inflated for some reason. It's got dirt/gravel tees, erosion issues, and some gimmicky holes that lose their appeal after the first play. Also not much variety, and almost all midrange pitch and putt par 3. Maybe a fairway driver on a couple holes. I rated it 4/5 on here, still excellent in my opinion, just should never be in the same category as the other ones I've played in the top 25.

Do you require a 5/5 course to have more than one or two Par 4's or Par 5's, and more holes that require the use of a driver? I do, but some seem to disagree. To me a 5/5 course has to leave me satisfied in every possible way, and if I'm rocking mids and putters on over half the holes, that is not how I'll feel after my round.

On the subject of 5/5 courses, I had previously rated Deis Hill 5/5 back when I had much less exposure to different designs. I've since changed my rating to 4.5/5 because I feel there is room for improvement.

 

[IHearChains]

Do you require a 5/5 course to have more than one or two Par 4's or Par 5's, and more holes that require the use of a driver? I do, but some seem to disagree. To me a 5/5 course has to leave me satisfied in every possible way, and if I'm rocking mids and putters on over half the holes, that is not how I'll feel after my round.

The experience of a par 4 or par 5 is so different from par 3 golf. Whereas par 3 is always drive off the same spot, on a par 4 or par 5 those fairway drives are always from a different location. I can't be totally satisfied by a course if I don't get that experience.

The only course I have reviewed on here that I rated 5/5 is Wildcat Bluff. It does have several par 4s and a legit par 5. I used to say 4.5 but I raised it to 5 when they replaced the paver stone tees with concrete tees and other improvements in the last couple of years. It also just got brand new Mach X baskets about a month ago. Bucksnort is just not on that level.

Here are a bunch of courses I've played that I would rate higher than Bucksnort, and yes I think all but Bryant Lake have several par 4 or 5 holes.

Massachusetts Leicester Maple Hill
Colorado Conifer Conifer Park/Beaver Ranch
Iowa Urbana Wildcat Bluff
Delaware Newark Iron Hill
Illinois Milan Camden II
Iowa Davenport West Lake
Wisconsin Reedsville Rollin Ridge
Pennsylvania Quakertown Nockamixon State Park
Maryland Gaithersburg Seneca Creek
Montana Billings Diamond X
New York Saratoga Springs Hyzer Creek
Wisconsin Sparta Justin Trails Big Brother
Minnesota Eden Prairie Bryant Lake Park

A lot of these are not in the top 25 on here, yet somehow Bucksnort is in the top 10. I don't get it.

 

[Mando]

Deis Hill:

I disagree about 1 having no risk. I have seen countless players hyzer out hard towards the bottom of the hill by not properly accounting for wind and elevation. It'd definitely be a better hole with more obstacles, but I think the wind and steep hill do create some risk / reward. If I throw a good drive that goes long and stays towards the top of the hill, I set myself up for an eagle. If I hyzer out to the bottom I'm playing for a birdie or par. Agreed on the long tee having bad sign placement, but since its natural there's no reason you can't take an extra step or two further back.

Agreed on your comments regarding the blue tees not being paved. To me it feels like the white tees are what the course was designed around, and many of the blue tees are more or less an after thought. There are exceptions, like #14 and #8.

It can definitely get warm out here in the summer but its never bothered me. Its something players should be aware of so its good you noted it in your review. I think it has enough benches. #1, #4, #5, #10, #11, #12, #14, #16 all have benches close by. It would be more convenient if they were right next to the tees though.

I'm immune to poison ivy so that's something I never take into account when I disc golf.

#16 plays next to the road more than over it. There's potential to go across the road, but it has to be a pretty bad shot. I disagree on #17, it's a classic tunnel shot with greater risk than most. I love it. Throw a clean shot and take an easy two, fub it and you could kick and roll down a massive hill and be scrambling for par. That's a lot more interesting than the typical flat tunnel shots.

All in all I think you played it on a bad day. Most of the times I've played it I have the course to myself save for a few people walking around the paths by 4's basket. I've never had anyone in the fairways and I've never had to wait for any groups. Not many people play it because of how hilly it is.

Would you change your rating at all if you played it on an empty day?

I admit I have some bias being able to throw far, because holes like #1 blue and #13 blue offer me eagle opportunities that someone with 300-400' of distance won't be able to shoot for. Is this good design? I think not, it caters a little too much to big arms, and gives them a bit of an unfair advantage. On the flip side, here in Charlotte I can basically count on one hand how many holes offer rewards for the ability to drive 500', which is something I find frustrating.

Damn near every single course in the world has holes that reward accuracy, but there are many 18 hole courses where being able to throw 400', much less 500' or 600', offers no benefit. I feel like most courses lean too much in favor rewarding accuracy rather than a combination of distance and accuracy. Especially in Charlotte, many of the longer holes require placement shots to hit doglegs, so on a 650' hole at Nevin I might not even use a driver, but throw a couple of hyzers with mids.

Very disappointed to see you drop the rating for Deis Hill. I went through a similiar debate with Sidewinder22 and felt like he caught the course on a bad day plus he hates poison ivy like no other. Normally, i agree with him on everything except maybe Whispering Falls...

 

[Mando]

I wasn't intentionally trying to be condesending, however Im trying to point out a flaw in your reviews that also manifests itself in your videos (which are GREAT by the way)

When you start off reviewing a course by determining whether it is challenging or not limits your validity, in my opinion. Especially when you have such a high impression of your own abilites. To me its akin to giving a positive nod to something just because it is local, or because it simply has a pond in it or whatever other silly reasons that people review courses. You are reviewing a course for you personally, and you appear to be very proud of your ability. I think reviews should be for others, why else put out a public review. To what end are you being helpful by putting out a review that is framed by your amazing ability to make the most difficult holes on a course seem easy? Your reviews and posts come off as even the opposite, like you purposely say how easy hard holes are, thats how I enter looking at your reviews or videos...because you discuss it so much.

What is actually helpful is reviewing a course in a way where players can decide whether they want to test their skills against it...not figure out whether their skills match up to yours first (by watching you shoot 18 under in a video) then comparing that metric to the course or your review. Its always flawed because you put off an air of perfection which obvously isnt the truth.

I hover around 1000 rated depending on injuries and course work. I have at least an idea what holes are difficult and which are not and at the very least I review scores and score cards so I have data on my side. As the person that is in charge of keeping courses fair in Charlotte, i look at that stuff. Your reviews come off as more of self promotion than they do actually helpful.

Ive played 250 in 42 states. Many of the most challenging courses I've played would be in the bottom 30 courses I've played. Challenging by no means means designed well, safe, pretty, fun, or even logistically able to follow.

Reviewing courses based on your own perceived skill level seems a bit lazy, non helpful, and the whole premise of the opening post reads to me like: "Im so good at disc golf that I found RL Smith easy, thus it is over rated." I haven't met many players including traveling pro's that determined there was a lack of challenge at RL Smith. Im honestly not even disagreeing with the disc rating. Punative OB, substandard holes here and there, risk of a deadly flash flood, unfair asks of the drive/putting surface, seasonal maintenance concerns along hole 2,3,18, erosion over teepads, and long transitions might be more helpful.

Wow ! One of the best posts I've ever read on DGCR.

 

[tallpaul]

The experience of a par 4 or par 5 is so different from par 3 golf. Whereas par 3 is always drive off the same spot, on a par 4 or par 5 those fairway drives are always from a different location. I can't be totally satisfied by a course if I don't get that experience.

The only course I have reviewed on here that I rated 5/5 is Wildcat Bluff. It does have several par 4s and a legit par 5. I used to say 4.5 but I raised it to 5 when they replaced the paver stone tees with concrete tees and other improvements in the last couple of years. It also just got brand new Mach X baskets about a month ago. Bucksnort is just not on that level.

Here are a bunch of courses I've played that I would rate higher than Bucksnort, and yes I think all but Bryant Lake have several par 4 or 5 holes.

Massachusetts Leicester Maple Hill
Colorado Conifer Conifer Park/Beaver Ranch
Iowa Urbana Wildcat Bluff
Delaware Newark Iron Hill
Illinois Milan Camden II
Iowa Davenport West Lake
Wisconsin Reedsville Rollin Ridge
Pennsylvania Quakertown Nockamixon State Park
Maryland Gaithersburg Seneca Creek
Montana Billings Diamond X
New York Saratoga Springs Hyzer Creek
Wisconsin Sparta Justin Trails Big Brother
Minnesota Eden Prairie Bryant Lake Park

A lot of these are not in the top 25 on here, yet somehow Bucksnort is in the top 10. I don't get it.

This is a fantastic list and I would agree on all but Bryant (I've not played a couple). While Bryant is as pretty as it gets; it's a par 3 course. Bucksnort gets it's ranking because it's a one of a kind course. (And, it's "shortness" allows lesser player's to love it; as it does not "beat them up" score wise.)

 

[Mike C]

The experience of a par 4 or par 5 is so different from par 3 golf. Whereas par 3 is always drive off the same spot, on a par 4 or par 5 those fairway drives are always from a different location. I can't be totally satisfied by a course if I don't get that experience.

Agreed, very well said. I'd also add that having to rely on messing up a drive to get a chance to throw a genuine approach shot is not what I consider very strong course design. My old home course was like that for all but one hole from the shorts, and from the longs maybe 3 holes. It was a 24 hole course too.