Movement in top 10

[Mando]

I'm from Louisiana, have played 450+ courses, and have a 975 player rating. I don't really review courses because I don't really care

That seems to be the prevailing trend...

 

[Martin Dewgarita]

Reading the reviews it sure seems like the homers gave inflated ratings. Sorry but I could not give a course with natural tee pads a 5 star rating (particularly when one review said there were roots making a trip hazard on at least a few of them). Lots of "played 3 courses reviewed 2" reviewers giving this course a 5. I'll take this rating with a grain of salt until Martin Dewgarita plays it and says it a 5.
The photos look nice and I sure its a solid course but just because it is the best course these reviewers have played does not make it one of the best around.

I've rated courses with natural teepads a 5 :/ in fact many of my favorite courses have poor teepads (at least when I played them, I understand that they are improving for many of these courses) and minimal amenities - I'm looking at BOP, Ozark Mt complex, Sugaree, Holler (RIP), Blackjack, and many more awesome homegrown private courses that appeal to me. Thanks for the shoutout, and someday maybe I'll make it back to LA to check this place out..

 

[Martin Dewgarita]

I also really liked Flanacher..

 

[whitefedora]

Not to shift topic entirely, but I'm curious if Fairfield will stay in the top 25 as number 25 when the board updates or if it will just barely get kicked off. Time will tell, but speculation will speak first.

 

[Aim For The Chains]

Opinions on Flanacher are as varied as any course I've ever seen. It is so difficult and punishing off the fairway that typically only open (and other advanced) players like it. Others often find it to be miserable. Also, you have to have an appreciation for the type of scenery it offers. It doesn't jump out to everyone aesthetically, although some find it very beautiful. Also, while it has several great holes, it also has a few poor holes, leaving a bad taste in some people's mouths.

Nothing wrong with natural challenging DG. I love a good ass kicking honestly and most people who review here are worried about the fluff.

Garbage cans?! Um... Take you're **** with you. Teepads? Well yeah but we play on ice and snow here half the year so.... Amenities? Nice but im playing DG first and foremost. Park DG is cool and works but there is nothing like hitting that perfect "good" dg line!

 

[whitefedora]

Yeah, I can agree a bit here, but not entirely. Nice teepads make a really big difference. At minimum a level place to tee off. I've played plenty of courses that have giant roots and dips in the natural teepad. That's pretty annoying on a 400'+ hole. 200'? Meh, that's not nearly as big of a deal. You can tee off from a standstill. So I guess I'm saying it depends on the course.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Some reviewers have course design as more important, others expect the amenities like tee pads and baskets to be top notch. Others are influenced by fun factor which ranges from brutalizing you being good or not brutalizing you being good. For some, variety of terrain is all important. The interesting question is should a course have all of these things to get a 5 or is being tops in one of these categories and adequate in others enough for a legit 5?

 

[whitefedora]

An interesting question and one that every reviewer will answer differently. I don't do a ton of reviews, but I try to get myself to do them from time to time. Especially on courses that have few or I think deserve a drastically different rating. We really just need more reviewers and as I type that I realize it's been awhile since my last review. I'll probably write a few from my last bagging trip in MI.

 

[PMantle]

The interesting question is should a course have all of these things to get a 5 or is being tops in one of these categories and adequate in others enough for a legit 5?

Yup.

I'm still waiting to play a 5.

 

[cox3]

I agree. I haven't played a course yet that I would give a 5/5. I don't think disc golf course design has really gotten to that point yet. There would have to be an impeccable level of landscape, course design, and infrastructure in combination to reach that 5/5 for me. I've played a lot of courses with 2 of those aspects but not all 3. I would probably only give about my top 1% a 4.5 and my top 5-10% a 4.0. To me, most courses that I play are 2.5-3.5 (I typically avoid ones that I know will be below average). There is nothing wrong with being good (3.0) or very good (3.5). Those ratings are compliments. The problem is that most on this site take those ratings as an insult because it is below the overall course rating. I find the overall average course rating on this website to be about 0.75 points too high in general. I say this because the overall average course rating should be 2.5 (average) with an equal number of courses below and above that (standard bell curve). I don't think that's the case though. I think the average course on here is about 3.25 (just from my browsing the website for way too much time). So then, the problem arises because courses are being judged on a scale where the true average is already inflated from the rating that is supposed to be "average".

 

[HeavyCritters]

Yup.

I'm still waiting to play a 5.

Come play Rollin Ridge.

Selah Lakeside was fun this past weekend, but it's probably not in the top 5 best courses I've played.

 

[Aim For The Chains]

Some reviewers have course design as more important, others expect the amenities like tee pads and baskets to be top notch. Others are influenced by fun factor which ranges from brutalizing you being good or not brutalizing you being good. For some, variety of terrain is all important. The interesting question is should a course have all of these things to get a 5 or is being tops in one of these categories and adequate in others enough for a legit 5?

IMO thats why i think a 5 disc 9 hole course is possible but have yet to play one. [would love to help design the best 9 holer so holler atchabooooiiiiii] We need to be reviewing courses within their design requirements/restrictions IMO which comes down to overall replay value vs anything else.

Bc a designer is restricted to XYZ land and baskets does not make it a "bad" course nor does unlimited room and resources make for a great course. I have played many a DGCR rated 3-3.5's and had a blast. If i lived locally vs a one time stop i totally understand how ABC course could be viewed as good or better vs XYZ. You really need to play a lot of different types of courses to get a really good feeling and we are very lucky here in MN to pretty much have it all.

Im still a fan of the 10 disc system to help split hairs vs the 5. I feel like a 10/10 is much more heavy weighted vs a 4.5/5 in any persons view. 1-10 scale is much more user friendly

 

[PMantle]

Come play Rollin Ridge.

Selah Lakeside was fun this past weekend, but it's probably not in the top 5 best courses I've played.

It's funny. That was my 3rd trip to Selah. I now have Creekside slightly edging out Lakeside overall even though my favorite couple of holes are on Lakeside. OTOH, Creekside 18 with that wind, and the peninsula being OB, is just dumb.

 

[Cgkdisc]

What the DGCR ratings really seem to represent is how much the group of players reviewing a course think you should play it. A 5.0 means it should be on your bucket list even if it's not perfect in every way. A 3.0 means you should expect a typical public course experience which might just be 9 holes. Less than 3 usually means there's some intrinsic flaw affecting playability which could be a variety of things. A 4.0 means a real solid job on average was done in all categories being evaluated and the terrain has decent variety. Does that seem about right?

 

[DiscGolfCraig]

I find the overall average course rating on this website to be about 0.75 points too high in general. I say this because the overall average course rating should be 2.5 (average) with an equal number of courses below and above that (standard bell curve). I don't think that's the case though. I think the average course on here is about 3.25..

So you're calling me the perfect reviewer? My average rating is 2.49 for 234 reviews, and counting.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

Opinions on Flanacher are as varied as any course I've ever seen. It is so difficult and punishing off the fairway that typically only open (and other advanced) players like it. Others often find it to be miserable. Also, you have to have an appreciation for the type of scenery it offers. It doesn't jump out to everyone aesthetically, although some find it very beautiful. Also, while it has several great holes, it also has a few poor holes, leaving a bad taste in some people's mouths.

A nicely subtle way of saying that if you don't like it you suck at disc golf? You must be a course homer from Baton Rouge. See how that works?

Flanacher is a decent course, but it has a lot of negatives including the poor maintenance, and some truly silly hole designs.

What I find to be the most silly is any opinion about what should or should not be in the top 10. Have whatever opinion you want about a course, but an opinion about what should or should not have a high ranking is an opinion about what others should think about a course. This isn't a college football power poll. These courses aren't going to compete with each other to settle the rankings. Claiming that only the swine will ever think that x course is good or bad is just a poor reflection on you. It's even worse if you have never played the course as is the case with Lake Claiborne and some of the other posters in this thread.

 

[Orioles_Lefty]

I say this because the overall average course rating should be 2.5 (average) with an equal number of courses below and above that (standard bell curve). I don't think that's the case though. I think the average course on here is about 3.25 (just from my browsing the website for way too much time). So then, the problem arises because courses are being judged on a scale where the true average is already inflated from the rating that is supposed to be "average".

The standard bell curve would assume we have established, agreed-upon criteria for all star levels, that people are applying the criteria correctly, and that everyone has agreed that the end goal, above all else, is to reach a mathmatical mean for all reviews in total. What happens when all the courses get rated, and the number is off? Do you go searching for the course or courses that need to be post hoc adjusted to fit the math?

Or, imagined differently, do all the movie reviews for all the movies in a given year fit the math?

 

[Mando]

Some decent points, but really, no one cares.

 

[Aim For The Chains]

What the DGCR ratings really seem to represent is how much the group of players reviewing a course think you should play it. A 5.0 means it should be on your bucket list even if it's not perfect in every way. A 3.0 means you should expect a typical public course experience which might just be 9 holes. Less than 3 usually means there's some intrinsic flaw affecting playability which could be a variety of things. A 4.0 means a real solid job on average was done in all categories being evaluated and the terrain has decent variety. Does that seem about right?

Yes and no which i guess is the biggest problem. I have enjoyed many lesser rated courses and hated some hyped ones based on DGCR reviews alone..

 

[Cgkdisc]

It doesn't mean you'll agree, just how much they think you should play it.