How you can tell course ratings are BS on here

[prerube]

I don't think flyboy needs to defend itself. I think the thread is a result of someone being upset that flyboy took over one of the top spots over someone elses favorite course. Then I think there is a side issue that the OP is upset at his number of thumbsdown. If flyboy is a 4.5 or a 5, who cares it is still a great course and should not be belittled so other courses can rise again. Want to know a secret? In 3 months the top 5 will be totally different again.

 

[cmcolomb]

Thanks Kelly!!!!

FINALLY!!! the voice of reason has spoken. I love Flyboy and I hold Kelly in my highest regards!! YOU RULE!!

 

[U_NICED_ME]

Gosh, I want to try this course out!! UGH...just checked 8 hours away

 

[billnchristy]

But you can see us again!

 

[U_NICED_ME]

This is true! I saw that you and Christy played there and that she really liked it!

 

[tallpaul]

I don't think Chuck was really criticizing Kelly. This thread has gotten down to the "nitty gritty" of what makes a PERFECT course, and he was just pointing out a couple VERY MINOR flaws. Also, he inadvertently (or, perhaps on purpose), let it be known that people DO NEED to get in touch with you in advance. I am not sure he would give any of HIS designs a five rating. Chuck's a nerdy perfectionist geek by all accounts. After this thread; I'm looking to play Flyboy; as if I wasn't already. My spring trips try to grow and grow in scale on me...

 

[Sadjo]

If those are the only obstacles you ever expect to get, then you probably need to use them. Get the vines growing all over the fences so they eventually look more natural. Things like this are trade-offs between better design/challenges with them versus better aesthetics without them. A nicely mowed and striped football field might be aesthetically pleasing but not be much fun for DG. That's why my bias would be for keeping everything there you can use well and have them remove what you don't need after you're happy with your design.

When looking at the property and walking the property, I think the only way to have a full 18 is to keep some of the fences thus allowing for a structure to help separate holes.

The property is 17 acres that also has an old school building that it being renovated. After taking the school and parking lot into account, without keeping the old-ball field fencing, I think we lose the ability to fit 18 holes is.

I've attached a scan of an aerial map of the property. The other than the dugouts, the other items in and around the ball field are portable storage buildings and heavy equipment that will be moved.

We have use of all the property.

 

[Sadjo]

^^^^^Scan didn't attach. I'll try again later.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I don't think Chuck was really criticizing Kelly. This thread has gotten down to the "nitty gritty" of what makes a PERFECT course, and he was just pointing out a couple VERY MINOR flaws. Also, he inadvertently (or, perhaps on purpose), let it be known that people DO NEED to get in touch with you in advance. I am not sure he would give any of HIS designs a five rating. Chuck's a nerdy perfectionist geek by all accounts.

This is the case. I just got off the phone with Kelly to talk things over and tallpaul got the essence of it. Kelly told me about some of the improvements since Tom's and my visit in September and I'm happy to say he's now around 4.75 in my book and still rising. He's got several more things up his sleeve and we joked that either you have to be less than 5 right now if you're making things better or if you're 5 now, then what a 5 is will have to change by spring.

Since I'm not doing formal reviews he asked if I'd comment on the 1600 ft hole. I think this might be the only way to really do a hole this long and have it make some sense. The challenge to keep your shots within a runway this narrow and bounded by OB is not a challenge you typically see. You might think it's four or five repetitive throws, but unlike what many think about runways, it's not flat except side to side. So there is some elevation change which prevents you from getting into a groove. Not only that, you're not always in the same spot left to right on the runway which requires angle adjustments for the next throw in addition to elevation changes. Holes over 1200 feet shouldn't become common but this is one where it works and people will have fun trying it.

Oh, and tallpaul, I maybe have a few 5 disc designs but it's always the execution by the owner and their amenities that might not meet expectations so the overall course doesn't merit a 5 disc rating.

 

[billnchristy]

I think it is just a philosophy difference. I grew up in a world where you CANNOT get a 5 and I hate that idea, why have it if it is unattainable?

Therefore, 5 is the best there is, not the best that could ever be, but the best there is RIGHT NOW.

Right now, to me, Flyboy is among best there is....4.5 and down is for everyone else.

 

[billnchristy]

 

[denny ritner]

great discussion. i look forward to the day(s) that i get to play flyboy and other courses that have been mentioned here.

imho disc golf courses that merit a 5 rating yet to exist. the major thing holding most 4.5 rated courses back from the elusive 5 is the lack of dynamic greens. baskets on flat, open ground lack an important aspect of risk/reward. most disc golfers are familiar with those terms as they apply to full shots, but our game has a big hurdle to overcome in bringing the potential for three-putting into the forefront.

chuck and others have suggested smaller and/or uni-directional type specialty targets. i do see the usefulness of these types of experiments for demonstrating concepts, but love our baskets (as long as their catching consistency can be improved - another topic altogether).

i see the great need for moving dirt on "the greens" to create situations that cause players to really think on their throws to the green about where to place the disc that will balance the risks of bogeys with the rewards of birdies according to their particular tolerance for risk, wind conditions, standing in a competitive round, etc. there are tons of opportunities to creatively express additional challenge around the basket. this is the real opportunity for our course designs to improve markedly.

one additional point: most of the reviewers on this site (myself included) are biased towards over-rating courses. assuming that the entire set of disc golf courses are normally distributed according to quality, and given a scoring range of 0 to 5, the mean score should be (5+0)/2 = 2.5. i believe that many would look at the ratings and assume that 3 should be the mean score. this would be true if the rating system was from 1 to 5, (5+1)/2 = 3.

the data that fed this image was from 10 trusted reviewers, each with a minimum of 30 reviews.

 

[craigd]

FlyBoy is the only thing other than a woman I have ever jerked off to.

Nice first post Matt! I think you had too much Sidelines brew last night

 

[billnchristy]

Nice first post Matt! I think you had too much Sidelines brew last night

Or too much time with those pics you took of flyboy...that hole 3 centerfold IS kinda hot. :\

 

[tallpaul]

great discussion. i look forward to the day(s) that i get to play flyboy and other courses that have been mentioned here.

imho disc golf courses that merit a 5 rating yet to exist. the major thing holding most 4.5 rated courses back from the elusive 5 is the lack of dynamic greens. baskets on flat, open ground lack an important aspect of risk/reward. most disc golfers are familiar with those terms as they apply to full shots, but our game has a big hurdle to overcome in bringing the potential for three-putting into the forefront.

chuck and others have suggested smaller and/or uni-directional type specialty targets. i do see the usefulness of these types of experiments for demonstrating concepts, but love our baskets (as long as their catching consistency can be improved - another topic altogether).

i see the great need for moving dirt on "the greens" to create situations that cause players to really think on their throws to the green about where to place the disc that will balance the risks of bogeys with the rewards of birdies according to their particular tolerance for risk, wind conditions, standing in a competitive round, etc. there are tons of opportunities to creatively express additional challenge around the basket. this is the real opportunity for our course designs to improve markedly.

one additional point: most of the reviewers on this site (myself included) are biased towards over-rating courses. assuming that the entire set of disc golf courses are normally distributed according to quality, and given a scoring range of 0 to 5, the mean score should be (5+0)/2 = 2.5. i believe that many would look at the ratings and assume that 3 should be the mean score. this would be true if the rating system was from 1 to 5, (5+1)/2 = 3.

the data that fed this image was from 10 trusted reviewers, each with a minimum of 30 reviews.

My average rating is 2.5. From what I've noticed; most TRs are right around that...at least the one's I have been paying attention to. Regarding my own ratings; I am sure that a number of the courses I've given 2 or 2.5 ratings to, probably belong .5 or more below that. It's just tough for me to rate courses real low. I come from the days when any course was to be cherished. Having helped install and maintain courses; I also understand the effort involved. Therefore, I have to force myself to give a very low rating to a course that I'm sure guys put blood, sweat and tears into; especially if it's the land/space that made it tough for them to do much better.

Many newer raters simply haven't seen the best of the best and don't have much frame of reference to go by. This is where the HBB comes into play for the most part. I don't think it's intentional; it's just that they like the courses they play regularly.

 

[tallpaul]

^^^^With that said, I did manage to convince myself to give out some zero and .5 ratings about six months ago; and have gone back and downgraded some at that time. Any day on a disc course; of any kind, is better than a day at work.

 

[DiscGolfCraig]

My average rating is 2.5. From what I've noticed; most TRs are right around that...at least the one's I have been paying attention to. Regarding my own ratings; I am sure that a number of the courses I've given 2 or 2.5 ratings to, probably belong .5 or more below that. It's just tough for me to rate courses real low. I come from the days when any course was to be cherished. Having helped install and maintain courses; I also understand the effort involved. Therefore, I have to force myself to give a very low rating to a course that I'm sure guys put blood, sweat and tears into; especially if it's the land/space that made it tough for them to do much better.

Many newer raters simply haven't seen the best of the best and don't have much frame of reference to go by. This is where the HBB comes into play for the most part. I don't think it's intentional; it's just that they like the courses they play regularly.

I've seen plenty of TRs who have average ratings closer to 3.5. Now, there's a couple reasons for that. 1. They've played a lot of courses and only reviewed the better ones they've played, or 2. (and more common from what I've seen), they're inflators. If you give most courses you've played 3.5 - 4, especially out-of-town courses, you're going to make the locals happy, which leads to lots of thumbs up.

The downside, as we've seen, is if you're honest with an out-of-town course, and give it a fair/lower grade, the locals will start a :thmbdown: stampede.

 

[Guurn]

I think the most likely reason is that the courses you are most inclined to play multiple times so your review is worth a crap are not the terrible ones. My average is 2.82 btw.

 

[tallpaul]

I went at least .5 low on my home courses; though I've raised most of them now (they were up, at that level for more than a year); in an effort to combat this mentality and suggest, at least to my locals, where our courses belonged.

Playing courses one travels to, does usually lead to a bit of an over rating. Partially due the fact that you're enjoying a road trip, and because, often, you've picked the best courses in the area to play.

 

[Cgkdisc]

We know TRs select courses to review which would mean the courses they review aren't a random sample. Even if they selected them with a dartboard, it's quite possible there are regional course quality variations where any random sample would have a higher than average or lower than average rating. And who's to say that course ratings should actually produce a normal bell shaped distribution? Because humans are making these courses, are subject to feedback and many have the power to improve them, I would never expect the distribution of all course ratings to produce a bell curve. I would think it would be skewed and shaped more like the profile of a whale swimming toward 5.