Bad/Homer Course Reviews

[HyooMac]

Originally Posted by enragedmullet

New red flag alert. Three 5-star reviews that probably have 200 words among them for Browns n Bows in Browns Valley, CA.

VK has the most recent reviews of all three and it's like night and day comparing them.

Here's what I learned from a full reading of all his reviews:

Prefers courses with nobody around
Wary of playing near gang members or transients
Very enthusiastic about pro shops
Has a bad back

I think that covers it

[enragedmullet]

Originally Posted by HyooMac

Here's what I learned from a full reading of all his reviews:

Prefers courses with nobody around
Wary of playing near gang members or transients
Very enthusiastic about pro shops
Has a bad back

I think that covers it

That's actually not too far off from me. Likes playing alone or with just a couple others, wary of weirdos, bad back.

[markmcc]

I thought that this was an interesting pro: Catch-and-release trout fishing: single, barbless hook w/ approval from Pro Shop. But only if this was (GFSR) Good Fishing Spot Review.

[ejvogie]

Originally Posted by markmcc

But only if this was (GFHR) Good Fishin' Hole Review.

FTFY

[zendragon]

There is a new course in my area that was opened last year. It's still got a little bit of work to go, but overall, pretty much done. There are two holes that are littered with small trees, leaving, in my opinion, no real line for a good shot through. I did a small write up of my initial experience on the local facebook page, and asked the designer if there was plans to remove one or two of the trees to make it more playable. The short answer was no, they liked the challenge of all the trees. And overwhelmingly, that's been the consensus when I've asked people.

The thing is I've played there quite a bit since then, and the last time I played, on one of the holes, I had, what I thought was the perfect line, sneaking just around one tree on a perfect line to either skip into, or right under the basket, except I hit another tree that was in the perfect position to stop that skip. And this has been every line I can conceive of on this hole, both RHBH, RHFH, or LHBH. There just doesn't seem to be a line for anything other than a very long birdie look.

If I actually wrote this up in a review on here, I feel like I would get blasted for taking off points for those two holes, that several people seem to love. Does that make my opinion invalid, or make it a bad review? Serious question, not rhetorical here. Is it ok to have a dissenter who provides a perspective outside the norm or do you think it's bad because it could dissuade people from playing a course that many others find very enjoyable?

[Steve West]

Originally Posted by zendragon

... Is it ok to have a dissenter who provides a perspective outside the norm or do you think it's bad because it could dissuade people from playing a course that many others find very enjoyable?

It's OK if you explain why you don't like it. Add why others might like it, if you can imagine why.

In this case, it sounds like the trees are a crap shoot; but many people like to gamble.

[HyooMac]

Originally Posted by zendragon

There is a new course in my area that was opened last year. It's still got a little bit of work to go, but overall, pretty much done. There are two holes that are littered with small trees, leaving, in my opinion, no real line for a good shot through. I did a small write up of my initial experience on the local facebook page, and asked the designer if there was plans to remove one or two of the trees to make it more playable. The short answer was no, they liked the challenge of all the trees. And overwhelmingly, that's been the consensus when I've asked people.

The thing is I've played there quite a bit since then, and the last time I played, on one of the holes, I had, what I thought was the perfect line, sneaking just around one tree on a perfect line to either skip into, or right under the basket, except I hit another tree that was in the perfect position to stop that skip. And this has been every line I can conceive of on this hole, both RHBH, RHFH, or LHBH. There just doesn't seem to be a line for anything other than a very long birdie look.

If I actually wrote this up in a review on here, I feel like I would get blasted for taking off points for those two holes, that several people seem to love. Does that make my opinion invalid, or make it a bad review? Serious question, not rhetorical here. Is it ok to have a dissenter who provides a perspective outside the norm or do you think it's bad because it could dissuade people from playing a course that many others find very enjoyable?

I'm in favor of including anything that's a valid reflection of your playing experience. Others here helped me this year by suggesting some of my "Cons" are actually "Other Thoughts" and I recommend that's the case here. It sounds like the holes have been designed that way on purpose - so it's not really a "flaw" as much as it is a refection of designer's intent...that some people might not enjoy.

You raise a really good point though. I posted one this morning (Scarboro Hills) that was somewhat less positive than others on the site. And it was clear the place has a really active club. So, I'm still waiting to see if I have incurred the wrath of the locals.

[davetherocketguy]

Originally Posted by HyooMac

I'm in favor of including anything that's a valid reflection of your playing experience. Others here helped me this year by suggesting some of my "Cons" are actually "Other Thoughts" and I recommend that's the case here. It sounds like the holes have been designed that way on purpose - so it's not really a "flaw" as much as it is a refection of designer's intent...that some people might not enjoy.

You raise a really good point though. I posted one this morning (Scarboro Hills) that was somewhat less positive than others on the site. And it was clear the place has a really active club. So, I'm still waiting to see if I have incurred the wrath of the locals.

I wear the wrath of the locals as a badge of honor. I have several reviews where that obviously happened and I don't care because I said what I thought needed to be said.

[Monocacy]

Originally Posted by zendragon

If I actually wrote this up in a review on here, I feel like I would get blasted for taking off points for those two holes, that several people seem to love. Does that make my opinion invalid, or make it a bad review? Serious question, not rhetorical here. Is it ok to have a dissenter who provides a perspective outside the norm or do you think it's bad because it could dissuade people from playing a course that many others find very enjoyable?

You explained your views, and those of others, eloquently. That's all I ask for when I am trying to figure out where to play.

You may still get blasted, of course.

Originally Posted by HyooMac

I posted one this morning (Scarboro Hills) that was somewhat less positive than others on the site. And it was clear the place has a really active club. So, I'm still waiting to see if I have incurred the wrath of the locals.

Your review did not match my recollection of Scarboro Hills, but I have not played there since 2013. Since that was so long ago we may have played rather different courses, or we may just value different things. Or both.

What I recall from playing Scarboro Hills was: 1) several challenging and fun wooded holes that I can still picture vividly 9 years later; and 2) several filler holes on the front 9 that did not add much to my enjoyment of the course.

I'm not a local but I had no issue with your review.

[BogeyNoMore]

Originally Posted by Monocacy

You explained your views, and those of others, eloquently. That's all I ask for when I am trying to figure out where to play.

You may still get blasted, of course.

^ This is all I ask.
Have a take, and support it.

I'd argue that dissenting points of view are among the most important, because we don't necessarily want to encourage a "groupthink" mentality.

The thing is, when you agree with the masses, people don't necessarily feel like they need an explanation, because it's obvious to most people.

But when a perspective is counter to the consensus, a good explanation provides some much needed context. That way, readers understand where that reviewer is coming from, rather than tossing them off as being F.O.S. or having some agenda.