Opinion: Pay to Play is Not a Con

[Pevio]

Time and time again, I see pay to play courses receiving flak in the cons section due to them being pay to play. Sometimes someone says, "It's a great course, I'm probably willing to pay $10 to play it." Other times, they say, "It's a mediocre course, no way should it cost $10 to play."

I think this is garbage. I'm not here to start the debate again over whether courses should cost money, but I don't think it should be listed as a con in course reviews. The fact that you have to pay to play is technically nothing new. Your time to get to the course, gas money, public transit fees, etc., cost and can vary from region to region, and thus course to course. Therefore, the course is basically completely separate from the cost to play the course, so I don't think they should be included in the cons section. If you want to discuss this in your reviews, I say put it in Other Thoughts where you can discuss whether the price is worth it, just like you can discuss other things that are related to the course but aren't actually part of it.

By this logic, a course that costs $1,000,000 to play could be given 5 stars, but I don't think that's a problem. After all, a course that good deserves it, even it nobody will ever play it. If such a course was free but was in an inaccessible part of Alaska and only playable three months every year, it would basically be the same issue: inconvenient/difficult to play, but still really good.

 

[enragedmullet]

For me p2p can be a con when the course is nothing special. That doesn't count bagging a course for the first time. For example, the Mobile, AL region has several courses, including one designed by Houck. None of them are p2p (except Chickasabogue, but that's a $1 entry fee to the park, not the course). If one of the middling courses in the area charged $5 whereas I could play a nicer (for whatever reason) course for free, I'm picking the free one all day.

That said, free courses can attract a subset of players that may not be the most desirable. I mean people who litter, are obnoxiously loud, don't follow etiquette, etc. So in that respect, the p2p aspect could be considered a pro, though it may come off as snobby to some.

 

[Surge5]

Definitely true. Especially on those courses that are privately owned (Blue Ribbon Pines, Wilderness, etc.) that NEED money to afford the upkeep. Most of the time you get what you pay for since the owners/parks department put that money back into the course.

If you're willing to pay the money, then it's not a big enough con to be listed in cons. It is helpful to list it in Other Thoughts since the price have changed, but it's not a con.

Now, are there ball golf courses charging ridiculous amounts? Yes. But... if you're willing to pay it, that's on you, not the course.

#MakeDgcrReviewsGreatAgain

 

[DavidSauls]

Just like everything else reviewers list as cons, P2P will matter to some readers, not to others. I may not care that a course has bad signage or mixed basket types; you may not care that the sound of highway traffic is omnipresent. P2P may not matter when you're traveling or playing a course once a month, but if you're an every-day player, it might be significant.

I've no problem with listing P2P as a con. I've a little problem with complaining about it, but just listing it -- for those readers who will care -- seems fair to me.

 

[biscoe]

It is a Pro imo.

 

[Rastnav]

IDK, don't some people list "missing your line brings a strong risk of losing a disc" as a con? They might list "many interesting and challenging shots over water" in the pro section. Same with "few challenging holes or interesting lines" and "perfect for a beginner".

It's just a listing of a common consideration for why someone might choose not to play there. It's also good information to highlight as important, especially as someone might show up without the cash in their pocket if they don't know.

 

[autocrosscrx]

If I were reviewing a course, I'd list pay to play as a con. However, I might list things like upkeep and low foot traffic and a more educated and respectful fellow disc golfer out on course as a plus.

 

[ElementZ]

I have no problem with it at all if it's a private property and needs the money for upkeep, as Surge wrote. My issue is when "public" courses on city parks require a permit to play, which is the case in Madison.

 

[glassila]

While everyone agrees that things like litter, poor signage, thorns, poison ivy, bad tee pads are cons not everyone would agree about P2P.
If I play a P2P course that is not well maintained then I would list it as a con. If the course is well maintained then I wouldn't.

 

[Horsman]

I have no problem with it at all if it's a private property and needs the money for upkeep, as Surge wrote. My issue is when "public" courses on city parks require a permit to play, which is the case in Madison.

My issue in Milwaukee is that P2P doesnt keep the foot traffic down. All the courses have been packed everyday after work to the point where there are groups of 20+ on some holes. Its getting nuts out there.

 

[ru4por]

I don't think anyone, should have the hubris, to think they should be able to tell others, how to think (or write a review). Reviews are opinions. Why should they all fit into the kp school of thought?

 

[Tyler V]

This is coming up a lot in the St. Louis area now that a newer course is starting to become available to play, but will be $25 a round. Other than one other course in the area that isn't open to the public anymore, it's the only course in the St. Louis region that I know of that's P2P.

I haven't played the course yet and probably won't get to it for a bit, but if a private owner wants to charge people to play their course, I don't see anything wrong with that. Especially at a course like the new one in the area, Eagles Crossing, where it sounds like the owner dropped significant money on the design and construction. $25 sounds like a lot, and will keep it from being in my regular play short list, but it sounds like the amount is right if the owner wants to recoup money.

I haven't reviewed a P2P course yet, but I feel like it would be an "other thoughts" aspect for me. I could also see putting some aspects of P2P in both Pros and Cons, not necessarily because I personally feel that way but because others will.

 

[brentjacobs]

Just like everything else reviewers list as cons, P2P will matter to some readers, not to others…

This.

It is a Pro imo.

And also this.

I pretty much always list it in both sections. I love paying to play as it results in more well kept course, IME, 95%+ of the time. Generally in my Con listing I note how cheap disc golfers are.

I often list Cons that aren't Cons for me and I don't deduct anything from the numerical rating. Just putting the info out there.

Gatekeeping info in reviews or opinions about courses is a bigger problem in my eyes. I see it a decent bit on this site. This is supposed to be a database of course reviews and limiting the narrative in the database is against what I believe we should be doing as community.

 

[BuiltTooLong]

My issue in Milwaukee is that P2P doesnt keep the foot traffic down. All the courses have been packed everyday after work to the point where there are groups of 20+ on some holes. Its getting nuts out there.

I have no problem with it at all if it's a private property and needs the money for upkeep, as Surge wrote. My issue is when "public" courses on city parks require a permit to play, which is the case in Madison.

The Disc Golf scene in Madison is such a double-edged sword its maddening. Both the number of and quality of courses is terrific, yet even though it's a P2P there are literally 8 people on every single teepad and likely more waiting.

Throw in the fact that all the main courses close down for several months in the winter and I think I prefer just having my 1 secluded course, rather than the plethora of them 90 min north.

 

[chevis]

i have put it in the con section with the caveat 'you get what you pay for'... maybe it does belong in other thoughts, but on a great course it can be hard come up with anything to put in the cons.

 

[BillFleming]

Time and time again, I see pay to play courses receiving flak in the cons section due to them being pay to play. Sometimes someone says, "It's a great course, I'm probably willing to pay $10 to play it." Other times, they say, "It's a mediocre course, no way should it cost $10 to play.".

There's two different issues (IMO).

1. posting Pay to Play as a con. Period.
That's not a fair rating. Courses cost money to create and maintain - some courses are paid by volunteers or local parks/communities and can stay free, but not all.

2. Posting the cost comparison to the playing value as a con.
This is beneficial when the cost is compared to the course. It is opinionated, but most ratings are opinionated. But if I'm going to pay to play, I like to know if it is worth the cost.

The issue with rating a course based on cost is that lots of courses are free. That sets the bar high for a pay to play course. There are fantastic courses that are free...so if you commonly play a fantastic free course and then play one for $10 - you are going to compare the "playing value" to that fantastic free course. Did the $10 give you that much better of an experience over the free course? And like it or not, raters will rate courses compared to the one they play the most (their "home" course) - have a fantastic, well-maintained, free "home" course; then you would expect a $10 course to be even better.

 

[reezyF]

The issue with rating a course based on cost is that lots of courses are free.

Per the info on this site 7 out of the top 20 courses worldwide are free to play. If I can play Idelwild or Harmony Bends for free then I want there to be a good reason I'm ponying up cash for your course.

Furthermore, 1$ to get into to the park to play shmeh Trophy Club DGC vs 80 bucks to play awesome Bucksnort are both cons in my opinion. Such a con that I'd avoid the course? no. Do I like paying moneys? also no.

I got into disc golf as a cheap college student and although i can afford the fees now, i dont have to like it. and if i dont like it, then thats a con.

 

[autocrosscrx]

1. posting Pay to Play as a con. Period.
That's not a fair rating. Courses cost money to create and maintain - some courses are paid by volunteers or local parks/communities and can stay free, but not all.

Why isn't it fair?

We all have a finite amount of money and it isn't necessarily easy to get more. Many of us were drawn to disc golf because it is both accessible and cheap to get into and free to play. Many of us appreciate the freedom to play however we want, play the holes we want, quit when we want and so forth because it comes with absolutely no obligation.

 

[BillFleming]

Why isn't it fair?

We all have a finite amount of money and it isn't necessarily easy to get more. Many of us were drawn to disc golf because it is both accessible and cheap to get into and free to play. Many of us appreciate the freedom to play however we want, play the holes we want, quit when we want and so forth because it comes with absolutely no obligation.

I agree that most don't want to pay to play. Fair enough. But a course should be rated on its 'Return on Investment'. $10 for a course? Fair. BUT, did I get an ROI that made it worth my $10? That's what the course should be rated on.

My home course is a free course. That is my 'baseline' which all other courses are compared against. I played Morley Disc Golf Course in San Diego. It cost me $5, but was it worth $5 compared to my home course? No. But I wouldn't say the cost was a con, just because there was a cost.....I would say the cost was a con, because when compared to my baseline, my experience wasn't worth the $5.

So, using a fee as the only reason for a con....I don't think that's fair. Using a fee as a con because you don't feel you got the value for the cost - that is very fair.

 

[Ryan P.]

I have no problem with it at all if it's a private property and needs the money for upkeep, as Surge wrote. My issue is when "public" courses on city parks require a permit to play, which is the case in Madison.

It depends on the Park. There's a great course in Roanoke, VA that is in a public park. However, the park is basically only used for DG and requires a ton of mowing for the DG course (I'd guess close to 25 acres). It's $3, which is perfectly reasonable in my mind.

That's kind of where I settle. If it's a well-maintained course that asks me to pay a reasonable amount of money so it can be maintained and/or the owner can make money, great. If they're asking me to pay $100 every time I play it, and it has a 2.5 rating, nope.