• Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
    It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)

Most Holes Played in 24 Hours

Maybe Tim should consider changing the categorization from "Practice Area" to a catch-all "Specialty Course", so that folks who want to (like me) can go play them, and try to write helpful reviews, so folks who MIGHT be interested, can decide for themselves. The category might include practice areas, putting courses, tiki courses, mini golf courses, etc., where you shouldn't come looking for a "traditional" experience.

Folks who want to consider only more traditional courses in their browsing (or in search of holes-in-a-day records) can just leave that box unchecked.

Right now, readers can't even thumb up a helpful practice area review.

Thanks for the add and the helpful review, Dwayne. Makes me want to come up and play both Rolling Hills options, actually.
 
In this thread, it's been brought up that these attempts are consistently progressing toward shorter, more compact courses... and at what point is the line to be drawn? It's acknowleged that the course must be permanent, and I believe there are certain other factors that have to be met for it to qualify as a record.

What if you had a permanent, 18 hole course, where the longest hole was 43 ft, and the entire course measures 545 ft?
I just listed such a course.
It's legitimate course, designed for a specific purpose that has nothing to do with pushing this particular bar even higher.

The slope just got slipperier...

My first thought is Nooooooo!!! But after thinking about it, I wonder if it would be worth a road trip to try and get my 1st ace. At this point, no ace is too short for me.:eek::mad:
 
Calling this practice area a course is like calling a miniature golf course a ball golf course.

I'm completely disgusted by each and every one of you who can't see that Bogey No More has no standards, no shame, and no pride by labeling this a real course.
 
Maybe Tim should consider changing the categorization from "Practice Area" to a catch-all "Specialty Course", so that folks who want to (like me) can go play them, and try to write helpful reviews, so folks who MIGHT be interested, can decide for themselves. The category might include practice areas, putting courses, tiki courses, mini golf courses, etc., where you shouldn't come looking for a "traditional" experience.

Or, why not have each of those sub-categories be a box? Maybe I want to look for only a putting course. Another day I might want a practice area. Another day I might want a miniature disc golf course.
 
Maybe Tim should consider changing the categorization from "Practice Area" to a catch-all "Specialty Course", so that folks who want to (like me) can go play them, and try to write helpful reviews, so folks who MIGHT be interested, can decide for themselves. The category might include practice areas, putting courses, tiki courses, mini golf courses, etc.
Or just give these specialty courses their own category, as some practice areas just have baskets with no specific hole routes.

As for the most holes played record, I've honestly lost interest in it because the biggest effort in breaking it anymore seems to be about finding the shortest course. Perhaps we need to turn our attention to most distance covered in 24 hours.
 
Last edited:
I agree it's not a "regular course". How are mini- courses listed?

Sysiphus's suggestion of having a special/non-standard category makes sense to me. I recall seeing a seeing a listing for Shadow of the Hawk mini course in western NY while planning that trip... seems to be lumped in with all the standard courses.

If there are enough of these oddball courses, maybe Tim will consider it worthwhile.

I think my review is quite clear about what this course is... as well as what it isn't. I listed it because people planning to hit this area deserve to know it exists, and what it's about.
 
If Tim sets up a non-standard category, maybe the background color of the course page should be different, to make it immediately obvious something's different about that course. AT the same time, it should be linked to any other courses onsite, as people passing through may want to know what else is in the park as they plan a trip.
 
So if we look at the world record progression, at what point do we not consider that courses that we played on courses anymore? The current list can be found here: https://sites.google.com/site/dgresources2/Home/records

Each of those courses, plus the one that BNM has listed, have designated tee areas, which is different I would say than a typical practice area like this one: https://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=8175 which is just two baskets 150' apart with no tee off area at all. I am not sure if what you said is in jest, Mike, but bashing someone's character because he entered a course that is permanently installed makes you come off as super arrogant.
 
Changing the course that BNM to a practice area would put that course in the same category as this one: https://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=7039

They are obviously completely different and I do not agree they should be categorized the same as a "practice area". Maybe there should be a catch all for "special courses" but that could be super subjective without really defined rules.
 
So you're saying it instead deserves to be in the same category as Selah, Flip City, Idlewild, etc.?

Does your typical small town 9 hole course deserve to be in the same category as those mentioned courses anymore than the one BNM mentioned? I do not think so. But I believe that any course that has permanently installed baskets, designated tee areas should be considered a course.

Anything else besides that should be a practice area.
 
I don't mind being considered arrogant when it comes to this issue. Someone must step up and have some sort of standards when it comes to the definition of a course. To repeat, calling a 545 foot total length putting area a course is like saying Bubba's Putt Putt Course is in the same category as Augusta National.

It's clearly an area to practice putting and that's all it is or will ever be. That's why it belongs under the already created by Tim category of practice area.
 
I will ask again, where would you draw the line for average hole length to constitute the difference from practice area to a course. You said that this one clocking in at ~30' per hole is a practice hole. So how high would you go? Mike Sale's course, and the current world record, is 85' on average, is that a course? My course that I broke it on is 110' average, is that a course? It's all very subjective, but I wanted to get your thoughts on it.
 
Does your typical small town 9 hole course deserve to be in the same category as those mentioned courses anymore than the one BNM mentioned?.

Yes. And that's why those mediocre courses are lowly rated. No matter how much a pitch-n-putt course achieves its goal, it's still a poor course and gets rated as such.
 
From the Design Standards of the PDGA:

LENGTH: Most courses should have at least one configuration for beginners and casual recreational players that rarely averages more than 250 feet per Par 3 hole (75 meters). This works out to a maximum of 4500 ft (1350m) for an 18-hole Par 54 course or 2250 feet (675m) for a 9-hole Par 27 course. The shortest length range is 3600-4300 feet (1080-1290m) for a land constrained 18-hole Par 3 public course. No hole should effectively be shorter than about 100 feet (30m) even on courses for beginners.


Mr. Miller, the PDGA draws the line this way. 3600 feet minimum for 18 holes; or using the no hole less than 100 feet, then 1800 feet total would have to be the absolute minimum for 18.

I think that's where I'd draw the line. 100 feet minimum per hole. Hey, someone used actual data!
 
Top