How many courses have you played that are the highest rated in their state?

[Monocacy]

Originally Posted by Olorin

A question... does a course have to challenge the highest skill level (Gold) to get the highest rating? Or should a course be rated on how well it challenges a designated skill level? To make it practical... could a White level course (for 875-924 rated players) be rated higher than a Gold level course (for 975-1025 rated players), assuming that everything else was identical?

Good question.

For me, the highest-rated courses should be able to challenge a wide range of skill levels, preferably ranging from experienced sub-900 rated players to at least the local/regional pro level (950-970 or so). Seems like that would encompass a broad swath of those who play disc golf regularly.

Some courses challenge different skill levels with multiple tees and/or pin positions. On other courses, a well-designed hole might be a challenging birdie for a local pro or a tough par for a chucker like me.

The very top pros are their own category, and most of us are not really in a position to rate whether a course is suitable for their rarefied skills.

But I am curious how you would answer your own question.

[mrclc]

22, which is surprisingly low because I usually consult the state Top 10 when traveling.

Delaware -- Iron Hill
Florida -- The Green Gauntlet
Georgia -- Hobbs Farm
Kentucky -- Idlewild
Louisiana -- Lake Claiborne Whitetail
Maine -- Sabbatus Eagle
Massachusetts -- 501
Michigan -- Flip City
Minnesota -- Blue Ribbon Pines
Missouri -- Harmony Bends
Nebraska -- Cottonmill
New Jersey -- Stafford Woods
New Mexico -- Sipapu Resort
New York -- Warwick Park
Ohio -- Caesar Ford Park
Pennsylvania -- Muddy Run
South Dakota -- Spearfish Canyon
Tennessee -- Harmon Hills
Texas -- Selah Lakeside
Vermont -- Brewster Ridge
West Virginia -- Whippin' Post
Wisconsin -- Rollin Ridge

[whitefedora]

Colorado - Bucksnort
Connecticut - Wickham
Delaware - Iron Hill
Illinois - Fairfield
Kentucky - Idlewild
Maine - Sabattus Eagle
Maryland - Seneca
Massachusetts - 501
Michigan - Flip City
Minnesota - BRP
Missouri - Harmony Bends
New Hampshire - Salmon Falls
New Jersey - Stafford Woods
New York - Warwick
Pennsylvania - Muddy Run
Tennessee - Harmon Hills
Texas - Selah
Vermont - Smugglers
West Virginia - Paw Paw
Wisconsin - Rollin Ridge

Yeah, only 20 here, but to be fair some of the old state's number 1's were courses I bagged when they sat at that honor.

[BogeyNoMore]

Originally Posted by BogeyNoMore

1. Michigan - Flip City
2. Illinois - Fairfield Park
3. Kentucky - Idlewild (but I think Iffy Hollers is even better)
4. West Virginia - Whippin' Post & Woodshed
5. Georgia - Hobbs Farm (also Flyboy)
6. Tennessee - Harmon Hills
7. North Carolina - Ashe County
8. South Carolina - Langley Pond
9. Missouri - Harmony Bends
10. Maryland - Seneca Creek
11. Minnesota - BRP (liked Bryant Lake better)
12. New Jersey - Stafford Woods
13. Delaware - Iron Hill

In another month, I should be able to add these:
14. Connecticut - Nichols Field
15. Rhode Island - Willow Valley
16. Massachusetts - 501 Disc Golf + Maple Hill
17. New York - Warwick Park/Brakewell Steel

[Olorin]

Originally Posted by Monocacy

But I am curious how you would answer your own question.

To be honest, I'm not sure right now.

In theory, I maintain that courses should be rated on how well they serve their intended player level(s). So if the same amount of resources and effort are used (which almost never happens) then a Red or even Green level course should theoretically be able to be rated as high as a Blue or Gold level course.

It seems that most reviewers give extra credit to courses for being longer and more difficult. Think of Jackson at the IDGC. If it was shorter and scaled down for White level players (875-924 PR) but it still had all of the same design elements, with the same number of par 4s and par 5s, would it be rated as high as it is now? I don't think so, but I would like to think that I would rate it just as high as it is now.

In practice, my rating philosophy has evolved over time, and many of my highest rated courses were given high ratings because they challenge more highly skilled players.

This question also gets complex because the lower the intended skill level the more open the course usually is. Tight difficult holes that require an advanced shot shape to challenge Blue level players are not as appropriate for Green, Red, or even White level players, so the holes designed for lower skill levels are often not as interesting.

[elmexdela]

Originally Posted by Olorin

To be honest, I'm not sure right now.

In theory, I maintain that courses should be rated on how well they serve their intended player level(s). So if the same amount of resources and effort are used (which almost never happens) then a Red or even Green level course should theoretically be able to be rated as high as a Blue or Gold level course.

It seems that most reviewers give extra credit to courses for being longer and more difficult. Think of Jackson at the IDGC. If it was shorter and scaled down for White level players (875-924 PR) but it still had all of the same design elements, with the same number of par 4s and par 5s, would it be rated as high as it is now? I don't think so, but I would like to think that I would rate it just as high as it is now.

In practice, my rating philosophy has evolved over time, and many of my highest rated courses were given high ratings because they challenge more highly skilled players.

This question also gets complex because the lower the intended skill level the more open the course usually is. Tight difficult holes that require an advanced shot shape to challenge Blue level players are not as appropriate for Green, Red, or even White level players, so the holes designed for lower skill levels are often not as interesting.

wut are you talkin about

so a crappy no horse town with baskets between baseball fields and is short af serves their intended chucker audience and receives 5/5 for fulfilling their target audience

[DavidSauls]

I'm not sure, but I think one reason the higher-skill-level courses rank higher is this:

It's more fun playing a course over your head, than under it.

If a white level player plays a gold level course, his score may be atrocious, but he might enjoy the challenge. If a gold level player plays a white level course, he'll find it a bit boring.

[knobby325]

3 Currently

IA - Wildcat Bluff (Got 20 of the Top 25 in IA)
MO - Harmony Bends
RI - Willow Valley

Also have #11 in CA (Bijou) and #13 in NE (Crystal Cove)

[Olorin]

Originally Posted by elmexdela

wut are you talkin about

so a crappy no horse town with baskets between baseball fields and is short af serves their intended chucker audience and receives 5/5 for fulfilling their target audience

That is not at all what I'm saying. A Red level course would still have to be as fantastic as any more difficult course to be rated a 10 in my ratings (or a 5 on DGCR). It would have to have all of the first class Design + Basics + Amenities as any other top rated course.

[Olorin]

Originally Posted by DavidSauls

I'm not sure, but I think one reason the higher-skill-level courses rank higher is this:

It's more fun playing a course over your head, than under it.

If a white level player plays a gold level course, his score may be atrocious, but he might enjoy the challenge. If a gold level player plays a white level course, he'll find it a bit boring.

That's another well worded answer and I agree. I'm a Pink level player so I'm at the top of the Red scale but may be a low level White level. Gold level courses like Jackson at the IDGC are no fun for me because they are so far above my skill level. I also get bored at Green level courses for being not challenging enough for me, but they are also not designed for my skill level. Is the Gold level course inherently better than the lower skill level course?