Reviewing 9ers vs 18ers

[wellsbranch250]

I recently got a complaint about one of my reviews of a 9 from the designer. I sent him a note complimenting him on the layout, and he asked why I didn't rate it a 5.0. Hell, I thought my review was pretty positive...but it's just a nine in a park

Top ten reasons why I didn't give your course a 5.0.
10. No bar, thus no opportunities to order a martini on the rocks.
9. I don't believe in stuffing the ballot box just so I can inflate your ego.
8. If I had designed the course exactly the same way, I would have also not rated it a 5.0, or anywhere close to that.
7. Cause my review was posted on DGCR and not Udisc. Udisc relies on 2 lines and the points don't matter.
6. Only the best of the best of the best get 4.5s. Your course design is however the best disc golf course in this section of the park, currently.
5. I was about to give it a 5.0, but then I realized it's not a 10 point scale.
4. Because I reserve 5.0s ratings for courses that should be on everyone's bucket list. This one doesn't even belong on any ones chumbucket list.
3. I thought about giving it a 5.0 before I arrived, but playing it very much ended those thoughts.
2. Cause I don't want to ruin my reputation as a reviewer like the way you ruined your reputation as a designer.
1. Cause it's not a 5.0.

 

[sillybizz]

i don't think so. i don't think more holes necessarily makes a better course.

better land (plus a smart designer) makes better holes makes a better course. i'd rather play 12 holes on interesting topography than 18 where the first six are in an open field before getting to the good stuff. i'd also rather play 12 good holes on that land than 18 decent holes on the same piece of land.

9ers often suck and rate low because they tend to be on small plots of land that don't have interesting topography or many obstacles. but i've also played 9ers on really cool pieces of land that make for great rounds. i'm not going to knock a fun, well-designed course on a great piece of land just because there wasn't enough space to cram in 18 holes. and conversely, 18 holes aren't getting an extra points from me just for hitting a magic number. i see the rating as the intersection of land quality versus design decisions.

:thmbup::clap:

Yes a million times this. Too many course designers have tunnel vision for the magic number. The plot of land you've been given may not hold 18 or 9 or a multiple of 3. Perhaps the plot of land given to you is perfect for 11 holes or 7 or 19 or 15 or 23 or whatever. You lower the ceiling of a course right away when you must hit the magic number, biggest reason courses have filler holes. I can't even tell you how many times I've put this in the cons section of one of my reviews. It's my #1 pet peeve of course design.

 

[DavidSauls]

Top ten reasons why I didn't give your course a 5.0.
10. No bar, thus no opportunities to order a martini on the rocks.
9. I don't believe in stuffing the ballot box just so I can inflate your ego.
8. If I had designed the course exactly the same way, I would have also not rated it a 5.0, or anywhere close to that.
7. Cause my review was posted on DGCR and not Udisc. Udisc relies on 2 lines and the points don't matter.
6. Only the best of the best of the best get 4.5s. Your course design is however the best disc golf course in this section of the park, currently.
5. I was about to give it a 5.0, but then I realized it's not a 10 point scale.
4. Because I reserve 5.0s ratings for courses that should be on everyone's bucket list. This one doesn't even belong on any ones chumbucket list.
3. I thought about giving it a 5.0 before I arrived, but playing it very much ended those thoughts.
2. Cause I don't want to ruin my reputation as a reviewer like the way you ruined your reputation as a designer.
1. Cause it's not a 5.0.

Let's keep that where we can copy-and-paste it later. I'm sure it will come in handy.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

There's no one-size-fits-all answer.

A lot of niners are beginner, family friendly, putter courses that might require a mid on some of the longer holes, often in fairly wide open spaces. That obviously limits the nature of the course, and thus ratings.

But if someone puts in a challenging niner that offers good variety, is well executed, with quality tees, baskets, and signage, no one should let the fact that it's just a niner hold them back from a higher rating. I'll list Two Mile Run Extension, Linbrook, and Mason Sports Park as niners I think earn every bit of a 3.5.

That said, one of the biggest factors in my ratings is variety. It's a lot harder to get the same variety out of nine holes, that you can out of 18, assuming the 18 don't do the same thing all the time.

Adding dual tees plus dual baskets, like Two Mile Run, can definitely help enhance variety. But it can also add to congestion.

I've said this before:
If Harmony bends consisted of the 9 hole loop (#'s 1-8 plus 18), which is a very playable nine-hole loop starting from the parking lot, I'd give it a 4.0.

You could lop off several great holes (9, 10, 13, 15, are all excellent holes), and that 1-8 plus 18 would still be an excellent course.

 

[ray1970]

So, given that they were put in on the same piece of property, which would likely be deserving of a higher rating - an 18 hole course with little to no challenge and short distances or a 9 hole course with nine long holes laid out well that offered plenty of challenges and no two holes were the same?

 

[glassila]

So, given that they were put in on the same piece of property, which would likely be deserving of a higher rating - an 18 hole course with little to no challenge and short distances or a 9 hole course with nine long holes laid out well that offered plenty of challenges and no two holes were the same?

The 9 for sure.

 

[ray1970]

The 9 for sure.

That's what I would think. So in this example maybe the 18 holer would deserve a 2 rating where the 9 hole course could easily get rated a 3.5.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

So, given that they were put in on the same piece of property, which would likely be deserving of a higher rating - an 18 hole course with little to no challenge and short distances or a 9 hole course with nine long holes laid out well that offered plenty of challenges and no two holes were the same?

I'd likely rate that niner at 3.0-3.5, and not all holes have to be long. It's okay to have an ace run, and some normal par 3 lengths.

A ho-hum 18 gets a 2.5 from me, maybe less if it doesn't feel as good as a "typical" course, which is what 2.5 designates.

 

[DavidSauls]

I've said this before:
If Harmony bends consisted of the 9 hole loop (#'s 1-8 plus 18), which is a very playable nine-hole loop starting from the parking lot, I'd give it a 4.0.

You could lop off several great holes (9, 10, 13, 15, are all excellent holes), and that 1-8 plus 18 would still be an excellent course.

My example is Ashe County. If they lost the Front 9, the Back 9 alone would still be a 4.0 course to me. And that's including a stupid triple mando on hole 10.

 

[knobby325]

I've been to a couple of 18s that were expanded from 9s and my thought was...just should have kept the 9, or maybe 12. I've also been to several properties where I could easily make another 9 in my mind, so an under utilization of the available area.

I think why so many 9s get low marks is the prevalence of them in small city parks. Glad to see baskets, but jammed in with a walking trail, a playground or two, basketball courts, baseball fields, 3 shelters and a horseshoe pit, may be a bit much. You can still find times you're not bothering others, but the hazards are there.

 

[dreadlock86]

It could be rated as a 90-holer, if you have enough time.

i hate that course. it's the same shots over and over again

So, given that they were put in on the same piece of property, which would likely be deserving of a higher rating - an 18 hole course with little to no challenge and short distances or a 9 hole course with nine long holes laid out well that offered plenty of challenges and no two holes were the same?

absolutely the 9. i would give it between 3.0 and 4.0 depending how cool the land/shots are, whereas the 18 would get something like 2.0 to 2.5

 

[txmxer]

Hahaha :clap:



I get what you are saying, but 9-hole courses rated 3.0 or above are often VERY fun to play. I actively seek them out on road trips when I want to break up a long drive.

That's being able to read between the lines. You are giving away the "secret".

I'm planning a trip to North Carolina to see family. Contemplating driving. Contemplating bagging courses.

There are complications to that, but I don't want to drag this into my mental drama.

In general I have the heart of a course philanderer. But like anybody that has a few extra years, I can't go like I once could. Quality counts.

Point being a 2.5 niner might be a better experience than a 3.x 18 for a variety of reasons.

My eyes are opened! I've seen the light.

As said before, I've not played a 9 hole course. My assumption is that it's nine because of a lot of compromises. The alternative view could be that it's a masterpiece and size doesn't matter.

(Insert innuendo here)

IF I can piece together a cross country road trip, I'll keep this wisdom in mind.

 

[wolfhaley]

Discussions like these are why I advocate for 27-hole courses.

You need to just move to MI already, it's right there.

If Minnesota is the land of 10,000 lakes, then Michigan should be called the land of 20 plus hole course awesomeness.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

My thoughts on 24 (or more) holes vs 18:

From the perspective of what it's like to play the course as a casual player, a lot of courses that are more than 18 holes tend to get repetitive, because the designers didn't really do a good job of adding additional variety in those extra holes. So I don't necessarily think more = better. It really comes down to how many holes feel/play very similar to other holes on the course.

From a tournament or league perspective, more holes allows you to accommodate more players, without necessarily "overloading" cards.

Additional holes can also serve to favors consistently good players, vs players who hava a tendency to have a hole blow up their score, because they provide additional opportunities to make those errors.

I guess you could claim they provide additional opportunities for aces and birdies, but that still seems to favor consistent players more so than it does erratic players.

Michigan used to have more 18 plus courses then we currently have, but several of the parks have expanded from 24 or 27 hole courses, to 2 x 18's.

 

[HyooMac]

Top ten reasons why I didn't give your course a 5.0.
10. No bar, thus no opportunities to order a martini on the rocks.

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

Or bike racks on a concrete tee.

Or picnic tables in a fairway.

 

[DavidSauls]

My thoughts on 24 (or more) holes vs 18:

From the perspective of what it's like to play the course as a casual player, a lot of courses that are more than 18 holes tend to get repetitive, because the designers didn't really do a good job of adding additional variety in those extra holes. So I don't necessarily think more = better. It really comes down to how many holes feel/play very similar to other holes on the course.

From a tournament or league perspective, more holes allows you to accommodate more players, without necessarily "overloading" cards.

Additional holes can also serve to favors consistently good players, vs players who hava a tendency to have a hole blow up their score, because they provide additional opportunities to make those errors.

I guess you could claim they provide additional opportunities for aces and birdies, but that still seems to favor consistent players more so than it does erratic players.

Michigan used to have more 18 plus courses then we currently have, but several of the parks have expanded from 24 or 27 hole courses, to 2 x 18's.

Of the courses in my area that expanded beyond 18, they avoided repetition, and the expansions are optional -- loops that you can add to the original 18. One has a loop of more open, longer holes than the basic 18; another is a fairly open course with a loop in dense woods.

When we added a 24-hole option to Stoney Hill, we started getting higher reviews and more traffic. Among other things, being remote, it seemed more people found it worthwhile to drive here for a 24-hole round, than an 18-hole round. For years, as we kept making changes, that 24-hole route was the most popular.

We've reached that 2x18 layout, sort of, since the two layouts overlap each other. It's still one course, but players have mostly quit playing the 24- or 27-hole options; they tend to play one layout or the other, or both if they have the time and energy.

 

[Jukeshoe]

You need to just move to MI already, it's right there.

If Minnesota is the land of 10,000 lakes, then Michigan should be called the land of 20 plus hole course awesomeness.

I live spittin' distance, no need to pull up roots!

 

[wellsbranch250]

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

maybe its a regional thing. 20 years ago i was a bartender in the milwaukee area. martinis on the rocks got ordered quite a bit. it was about 50/50 straight vs on the rocks. a couple of my aunts drank em on the rocks all the time at family get togethers.

 

[ThrowaEnvy]

maybe its a regional thing. 20 years ago i was a bartender in the milwaukee area. martinis on the rocks got ordered quite a bit. it was about 50/50 straight vs on the rocks. a couple of my aunts drank em on the rocks all the time at family get togethers.

It's kinda like putting ice cubes in wine, not only does it keep the drink colder but it slips in some extra water content so you get a little extra longevitty to your evening and feel a little better in the morning. The older I get the more sense it all makes...

Is there many/any 9 hole courses rated above a 4?

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Of the courses in my area that expanded beyond 18, they avoided repetition, and the expansions are optional -- loops that you can add to the original 18. One has a loop of more open, longer holes than the basic 18; another is a fairly open course with a loop in dense woods.

When we added a 24-hole option to Stoney Hill, we started getting higher reviews and more traffic. Among other things, being remote, it seemed more people found it worthwhile to drive here for a 24-hole round, than an 18-hole round. For years, as we kept making changes, that 24-hole route was the most popular.

We've reached that 2x18 layout, sort of, since the two layouts overlap each other. It's still one course, but players have mostly quit playing the 24- or 27-hole options; they tend to play one layout or the other, or both if they have the time and energy.

You reference examples of what I'd call "course expansion done right." I applaud adding holes that don't duplicate what a course already has. Unfortunately, that's not always the case.

I'm sure many of us have seen courses where holes were added "just because we can," rather than introducing new shots or incorporating design elements absent from the original layout.