Reviewing 9ers vs 18ers

[ray1970]

i appreciate when reviewers who are experienced golfers give their evaluation of the level of the course using red, white, blue, gold labels.

Not all of us live in a geographical area where red/white/blue/gold really mean anything.

Also, as someone who is used to playing courses with a single tee and a single basket (that could be in different positions) when I have the opportunity to play a course with multiple tees and/or baskets it can be confusing unless signage is very good.

If I told you a course was a good blue level course I'd just be blowing smoke because I really have no idea what that means.

 

[dreadlock86]

fair enough. an even bigger problem is that few courses actually correspond to those labels. most are a mix of difficulty levels across different holes. even more so on courses that have multiple tees and basket positions.

 

[Shallows]

Rocks do not belong in a martini, any more than dog walkers belong on a disc golf course.

Absolutely. Downvoting all of Wellsbranch's reviews for this heinous take.

 

[jamespenn]

I just read a review by someone who gave a 9-hole course in Massachusetts Five Discs, and the same reviewer also gave Maple Hill in MA Two Discs. Maybe they get tired after 9 holes. Some people prefer TV dinners over Chateaubriand too.

Where I live there aren't a lot of 9-hole courses, but 3 of the 30 courses I've reviewed are 9-holers. I don't think I treated them any differently than an 18-hole course, since I usually go around twice anyway whenever I go there. A nine-holer that is fun to play twice and has a bunch of interesting features and strategic choices is just as good as an 18-holer. Really it doesn't matter how many holes there, although I suppose 9 should be a minimum, and some sort of formal teeing areas. Otherwise it's just a practice field with baskets.

 

[ru4por]

I just read a review by someone who gave a 9-hole course in Massachusetts Five Discs, and the same reviewer also gave Maple Hill in MA Two Discs. Maybe they get tired after 9 holes. Some people prefer TV dinners over Chateaubriand too.

Where I live there aren't a lot of 9-hole courses, but 3 of the 30 courses I've reviewed are 9-holers. I don't think I treated them any differently than an 18-hole course, since I usually go around twice anyway whenever I go there. A nine-holer that is fun to play twice and has a bunch of interesting features and strategic choices is just as good as an 18-holer. Really it doesn't matter how many holes there, although I suppose 9 should be a minimum, and some sort of formal teeing areas. Otherwise it's just a practice field with baskets.

Yeah, looks like he gave MH a 2 disc based on being disgruntled over pay to play and some "sass" from the guy in the clubhouse. I think the entire experience should have some input on your rating, but should not dictate it. I think stuff like that is better covered in the review, not the rating. BUT......telling others how to review and rate courses has never really worked.