DGCR v UDisc Rating

[cox3]

Nice data. My subjective experience has been that the UDisc is rating is almost exclusively a rating of the maintenance of the course. The quality of the holes, distance of the holes, or in a lot of cases even the number of holes seem to be irrelevant. The DGCR rating is much more reflective on the quality of the holes, etc.

Both are useful. I find DGCR much better for determining what courses are "must plays" and you should build a day/trip around. I like UDisc for decided which "filler" courses (usually the 9 hole ones) are worth the time to play and which are more of a headache than they're worth.

For instance, a 9 hole course that is all 150 foot holes with natural tees but zero navigation or maintenance issues is probably a 3.0-3.5 on UDisc and probably a 1.5-2.0 on DGCR. Likewise, an 18 hole course with decent holes but a super confusing layout and no signage and tall grass everywhere is probably still a 1.5-3.0 on DGCR but is much more likely to be a 1.5-2.5 on UDisc.

I've gotten to where I really don't even bother with stuff with low ratings on UDisc because those always seem to be the ones I wished I hadn't bothered with before I started looking at UDisc. I don't mind playing 15 minute 9 holers or 45 minute 18 holers though-- which often still have low DGCR ratings.

 

[ThrowBot]

I appreciate the analysis. Like many on here, I've had the intuitive sense that udisc course ratings are inflated. It's nice to see that validated with some hard numbers.

The Y-axis intercept of 2.4 is especially entertaining. It's been a running joke (but also the truth) that any course rated under 3 on uDisc must have something WRONG with it.

 

[ballgolfconvert]

I never trust the number of stars in general. Written words have much more meaning to me.

 

[ray1970]

So, this thread got me curious and I had to look up the rating here and see how it matched up to the Udisc rating.

It came in at 3.82 here with a whopping 22 reviews.

Udisc had it at a 4.2 with 100 reviews.

The difference between the two isn't huge but I don't think I'd rate the course as highly as either of the two.

I did find it funny that one of the Udisc reviews was from a couple of days ago and the course has been closed down for about a month for some sort of drainage project.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

I never trust the number of stars in general. Written words have much more meaning to me.

Yeah, when Carl Sagan claimed billions and billions of stars for the universe, that had to be the worst case of homeboy bias ever.

But to his credit, he did describe the universe in pretty good detail. You may not agree with his rating, but he provided a lot of useful information.

 

[donnyv]

I love dgcr but I just don't get any reviews on here. I never mention to any of our players to go and rate, vote, review, promote, like or etc about our course. Them telling me in person is good for me. I try to stay humble and not boast about our course but when people say that they like and think Mill Creek is better than Flip City I'm speechless. Flip is my favorite course

Anyways, I just want everyone to have a good time and stay safe. Welcome back to everyone always. Course is looking better than ever.

Mill Creek DGC
Avoca MI (20 minutes west of Port Huron)

Dgcr - 1 review 4.0 rating by donnyv a few years ago

Udisc - 92 reviews 4.7-4.8 rating with about 20 reviews that are more than a grade.

I don't have the udisc pro app so I don't really use udisc much. I just stick to dgcr and use discgolfscene as backup. I might get the udisc app but am in no big hurry. I've been saying that for almost 5 years too.

Dgcr is still my favorite. One of these days my course will make it front page for the Hole Of The Day

 

[Mando]

If you read DGCR's instruction for rating courses, there would be no 5's, because every course can be improved. That being said, what are the best ways to rate a course, if you can choose 5-7 criteria ?

 

[DavidSauls]

I mostly rate courses by a highly subjective formula -- everything else being equal, would I want to play them more or less than other courses I have rated. With a little adjustment for what I think other disc golfers I know might like, since I view the ratings and reviews as recommendations.

I'm not sure about criteria, but aesthetics is one of the largest factors in my enjoyment, and thus rating. The way I see it, if 75% of reviewers feel the same, that criteria is weighed 75%.

Holes that are unique are pretty high on my list -- assuming they play well, of course.

Some criteria just earn demerits. Great tees don't mean much, but really bad tees can diminish a course to me. P2P doesn't matter much; I figure potential visitors can weight the course's quality, vs. their wallet, and make their own decision.

That doesn't get me to 5-7 criteria, I know, but it's a start. I'm sort of working backwards, thinking about what features are on my favorite courses, and least favorite ones.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

I've been bullet pointing what I think are among the most important criteria for years criteria for a while:
Variety
Elevation
Challenge
Aesthetics
Memorable/unique holes
Equipment
Nav and routing
Fun factor

I try to be objective, but freely admit there's more than a bit of subjectivity in my ratings. As Dave said, I'm kinda comparing a course with every other course I've played. I also provide a single word next to each criterion, to show where I think it falls DGCR's rating spectrum (i.e. Abysmal = 0.5 - Best of the Best = 5.0)

Also to Dave's point: no matter how wonderful tees, baskets and signs are, they won't turn a 3.5 into a 4.0 if the disc play isn't excellent on it's own. But if they're a problem, it can keep a course with 4.0 disc play from achieving 4.0.

5.0 says Best of the Best. People will never agree what the best course is, any more than we'll ever agree on who the best coach, Pitcher, QB, guitarist....is.

But you can't have that conversation without mentioning certain people. Even if you end up saying Nolan Ryan isn't the best ever, that conversation can't happen without his name being mentioned.

I award 5.0's to courses that, IMO, belong in that conversation.

 

[Mando]

I've been bullet pointing what I think are among the most important criteria for years criteria for a while:
Variety
Elevation
Challenge
Aesthetics
Memorable/unique holes
Equipment
Nav and routing
Fun factor

I think that list nails it ! Now what order would you put them in, assuming they are not weighted equally ?

 

[Mando]

I've been bullet pointing what I think are among the most important criteria for years criteria for a while:
Variety
Elevation
Challenge
Aesthetics
Memorable/unique holes
Equipment
Nav, routing & Flow
Fun factor
Course Maintenance

I took the liberty of adding Flow and Course Maintenance to the list.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Variety is definitely my most important criterion.

Then probably...
Aesthetics
Fun Factor
Challenge
Elevation
Memorable holes
Routing/Nav
Equipment

But ultimately there's overlap. Fun factor gets killed by lack of variety or an entirely flat course. Elevation can really enhance aesthetics, make for memorable holes, and dramatically affect challenge. And IMO, it's simply more fun to play a course you think is beautiful.

But I try to rate each category on its own the best I can. Readers can place their own importance to them. Their weighing may differ from mine.

Again the very best equipment really isn't much better than decent equipment. But bad equipment gets points deducted.

Routing/Nav problems aren't nearly as big a crime on a flat, short course as they are on a hilly, behemoth of a course that's already a demanding hike to play. Chaps my @ss to spend a bunch of extra steps on hilly terrain searching for the next tee... or worse finding out you've arrived at the tee for a different hole.

 

[DavidSauls]

I have a good hole / bad hole ratio rattling in my head when I think of a course.

For good holes, I think of Duvall saying that on a good hole, "you should stand on the tee feeling a combination of anticipation and anxiety." A great hole has this, plus dramatic and unique features.

A bad hole, to me, comes in two flavors, (1) a boring hole and (2) a hole that even if I score well, I don't enjoy, such as too-tight wooded holes.

I'll forgive any course 2 bad holes, but after that, they start to weigh on me. The number of good and great holes are what elevate courses to the upper ratings.

 

[DavidSauls]

My aesthetics meter goes beyond scenery. If I can hear heavy traffic while playing, I'll give it some demerits. Courses with a lot of shared space with other activities, also lose a bit there.

 

[DavidSauls]

Variety is definitely my most important criterion.

That, too.

I've played some courses full of fine holes, that weren't quite the sum of their parts because the holes were so similar.

 

[Mando]

Variety is definitely my most important criterion.

Then probably...
Aesthetics
Fun Factor
Challenge
Elevation
Memorable holes
Routing/Nav
Equipment

But ultimately there's overlap. Fun factor gets killed by lack of variety or an entirely flat course. Elevation can really enhance aesthetics, make for memorable holes, and dramatically affect challenge. And IMO, it's simply more fun to play a course you think is beautiful.

But I try to rate each category on its own the best I can. Readers can place their own importance to them. Their weighing may differ from mine.

Again the very best equipment really isn't much better than decent equipment. But bad equipment gets points deducted.

Routing/Nav problems aren't nearly as big a crime on a flat, short course as they are on a hilly, behemoth of a course that's already a demanding hike to play. Chaps my @ss to spend a bunch of extra steps on hilly terrain searching for the next tee... or worse finding out you've arrived at the tee for a different hole.

I agree with variety. It could actually occupy two criteria; one for the landscape variety and another for variety of the hole design. Udisc has diminished the importance of navigation...it's last in my book.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

I have UDisc, and no doubt it's nice for nav. But there's no substitute for a few arrows telling you the next tee is that way.

You shouldn't have to pull your phone out to find your way round a course. Along the lines of something Dave said, that can detract from aesthetics if part of your aesthetics is getting to "unplug" for a couple of hours and simply enjoy a walk through the woods and watching your discs fly. Plus, not everybody has U-Disc. And you can't always count on a decent signal.

I recently played a course where I couldn't use U-Disc because cell reception sucked: Big Beaver just west of Pittsburgh. Wonderful woodsy course that's hilly as hell. Man, was I ever grateful every basket had an arrow pointing toward the next tee! Part of the allure was being in the moment, not touching my phone.

I'm not against U-Disc, but I only use it when I have to.

 

[DavidSauls]

I'm not sure if I've ever docked a course for navigation, though I've probably mentioned it in comments. Mainly because, once you've played it twice, it's no longer an issue. I know that's not help for the traveling disc golfer course-bagging, but I'm rating the course for more than just them.

 

[Mando]

According to DGCR, Remember a "5" is the ultimate...nothing could be done to improve the course...it's perfect in every way. If you follow those instructions, there are no "5"s . Unattainable. Udisc gives the rating options, without the ridiculously subjective baggage, which is why Udisc is considered inflated.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

I'm not sure if I've ever docked a course for navigation, though I've probably mentioned it in comments. Mainly because, once you've played it twice, it's no longer an issue. I know that's not help for the traveling disc golfer course-bagging, but I'm rating the course for more than just them.

Unsurprisingly, I'm completely on the same page.

But to your point: most of the courses I've played, I'll likely never play again. And those I do replay, it may be years in between. I just played Idlewild for the 2nd time in a decade. Six years between visits to Deer Lakes and Moraine. Out of all the courses I've played outside of Michigan, I've only replayed 13 of them.

Navigation is really only an issue for first timers and infrequent visitors. It's easy to overlook horrid navigation after a couple of rounds.