Trusted Reviewer - Groupthink

[crashzero]

I think you're oversimplifying quite a bit. I've got pretty good distance, and I'll choose a shorter tighter course over a longer open course the vast majority of the time. Maybe people like wooded courses because they push a wider variety of shots and offer a more varied set of challenges than just throwing far.

I guess it comes down to personal preference but I see a bias towards tight wooded courses on dgcr, some of which I would say are poorly designed with more luck than skill. I enjoy a variety, mostly open distance with some woods mixed in. The tight wooded courses I find mostly boring and repetitive and I will choose longer open courses first.

 

[crashzero]

First, for the part I disagree with you on:
You make no sense in what you say. If most players lack distance, than those with big D are in the minority - right? So, if you are correct that lesser arms like the woods and bigger arms like the open (probably a true-ish over-generalization), then the bias towards thinking more highly of wooded courses would be a logical conclusion.....not a "big misconception".

Also something to consider is that for people who play recreationally (and even most competitive players play recreationally often), woods offer peace, seclusion, solitude, and beauty that are much harder to come by in open tracts of land. This aspect is a big part of many people's reviews/ratings.

I think I can explain this.

Distance is hard to achieve, and therefore less people will throw more than 400ft vs. people who can throw accurate 275ft shots in the woods. I believe most reviewers fall into the 2nd category. Players give higher ratings to courses that fit their skill level. A large high level course will make them angry, they'll rate it lower because they did not play well and their round consists of mostly frustration even though its not the courses fault.

 

[mashnut]

I guess it comes down to personal preference but I see a bias towards tight wooded courses on dgcr, some of which I would say are poorly designed with more luck than skill. I enjoy a variety, mostly open distance with some woods mixed in. The tight wooded courses I find mostly boring and repetitive and I will choose longer open courses first.

I still don't quite understand how you find shaping different lines and finding different punishments for missed lines more repetitive than throwing long shots in the open repeatedly, but that's fine it's a personal preference thing. Your personal preference is different than probably 90% of the reviewers on this site, so for you the reviews probably aren't that helpful, but that doesn't mean they're not helpful for the majority of people.

I think I can explain this.

Distance is hard to achieve, and therefore less people will throw more than 400ft vs. people who can throw accurate 275ft shots in the woods. I believe most reviewers fall into the 2nd category. Players give higher ratings to courses that fit their skill level. A large high level course will make them angry, they'll rate it lower because they did not play well and their round consists of mostly frustration even though its not the courses fault.

It sounds like you throw far, and don't do as well when you get into tighter shots where your distance doesn't help as much. I would argue that throwing long is much easier and much more dependent on physical gifts than learning to consistently shape lines in the woods which is a skill that comes naturally to very few people. If you find that all wooded courses come down to luck for you I can see why that type of course would be frustrating but perhaps you should look at it from a different perspective to see why the majority of players seem to like that kind of challenge.

 

[crashzero]

I still don't quite understand how you find shaping different lines and finding different punishments for missed lines more repetitive than throwing long shots in the open repeatedly, but that's fine it's a personal preference thing. Your personal preference is different than probably 90% of the reviewers on this site, so for you the reviews probably aren't that helpful, but that doesn't mean they're not helpful for the majority of people.



It sounds like you throw far, and don't do as well when you get into tighter shots where your distance doesn't help as much. I would argue that throwing long is much easier and much more dependent on physical gifts than learning to consistently shape lines in the woods which is a skill that comes naturally to very few people. If you find that all wooded courses come down to luck for you I can see why that type of course would be frustrating but perhaps you should look at it from a different perspective to see why the majority of players seem to like that kind of challenge.

I do alright in the woods, but I see a lot more poorly designed wooded courses than poorly designed open courses.

I can hit lines and shape shots, but there are some holes that are just ridiculous and I think people are mixing up 'tough' for 'luck' and calling it high level golf.

To me, the game is distance and accuracy which means long distance drives with shot placement and accurate upshots. Wooded courses do not offer a full range of skill in my opinion. Hitting ridiculous lines all day is no fun and should by no means be considered 'high level golf'.

I don't mind wooded courses, we need them, but they are over-rated.

 

[Dave242]

I think I can explain this.

Distance is hard to achieve, and therefore less people will throw more than 400ft vs. people who can throw accurate 275ft shots in the woods. I believe most reviewers fall into the 2nd category. Players give higher ratings to courses that fit their skill level. A large high level course will make them angry, they'll rate it lower because they did not play well and their round consists of mostly frustration even though its not the courses fault.

I understand what you are saying. In lots of conversations over the years here, I have stated that I am Blue level and throw (only) 360' max, and 300' accurately (goal-post to goal-post, and goal-line to goal-line on a football field). For me then, long courses that have par-3's and multi-throw holes with 400-450' segments are totally boring (easy/safe drive, easy 100-180' upshot, tap-in). No real upside hope of a birdie and only downside frustration for my screw-ups causing any scoring spread. Doesn't make me angry, but it is boring. It is totally my fault and not the courses' that those holes are too long for me.....but the course nonetheless offers me boredom in the scoring department, so my rating for the course is lower.

I think that makes sense to you and is along the lines with what you are saying. But.....me making that point over the years rarely gets acknowledgement/approval from many reviewers. In fact many people argue with me that I should not rate courses lower for that.

If everyone was like me in how they down-graded courses that were over their heads, I would agree with your point. But, a majority of reviewers never dream to think this way. Therefore, I think your assessment of DGCR ratings are incorrect.

On a tangent just for argument's sake, if you think about it, most reviewers here are not accomplished marksmen (nor do they have big D as you point out). So, playing in the woods would be frustrating to them. So, why would they not rate wooded courses lower? Or are you saying that DGCR Reviewers are accurate throwers, but not long long throwers? If so, how do you know that?

 

[crashzero]

On a tangent just for argument's sake, if you think about it, most reviewers here are not accomplished marksmen (nor do they have big D as you point out). So, playing in the woods would be frustrating to them. So, why would they not rate wooded courses lower? Or are you saying that DGCR Reviewers are accurate throwers, but not long long throwers? If so, how do you know that?

Great question, I think I have the answer.

From the new or lesser experienced players perspective, which there are more of, the woods for them offer more chance of confidence boosts in a couple of ways.

You can accidentally park a tough short hole in the woods, but its rare to accidentally throw 500 ft. and park that long hole. You can also keep up with your higher skilled buddies by having some lucky tree kicks while they get a bad bounce into the rough.

This is why I call it a misconception that tight wooded courses are high level. When you have a much larger number of newer/less experienced players, its natural that wooded courses get all the cred. Players may brag about getting a beating in the woods, but not usually on longer courses. It seems there's some kind of false valor among noobs in shooting 20 over par in the woods than at the open longer course.

 

[mashnut]

You're ignoring the fact that most advanced and pro level players (with some notable exceptions like Avery) prefer to have obstacles in play. Also, if you're truly "higher-skilled" that should include the skills to win in the woods. If you can only consistently beat someone with distance and let them get back in the game on the tighter shots I would argue you're not that much higher-skilled than them. I think my biggest issue with your points is that you seem to think the majority of wooded holes come down to luck. I strongly disagree with that, and I wonder if some of that mindset comes from your limited experience with most of your played courses coming in a pretty limited area.

 

[Dave242]

You are assuming that the majority of players are always competing.....with themselves and others. I came onto this site with that same assumption (I review and critique courses from a competitive perspective still). But, I have found that I was wrong in that assumption.

Reviews are from all types (and Ratings have a way of averaging that all out). There are plenty of people here who much prefer the low stress open bomber holes to more technical challenges.

On another tangent, the curious thing to me is that all of the top course designers would disagree with your philosophy.

 

[mashnut]

You are assuming that the majority of players are always competing.....with themselves and others. I came onto this site with that same assumption (I review and critique courses from a competitive perspective still). But, I have found that I was wrong in that assumption.

Reviews are from all types (and Ratings have a way of averaging that all out). There are plenty of people here who much prefer the low stress open bomber holes to more technical challenges.

On another tangent, the curious thing to me is that all of the top course designers would disagree with your philosophy.

I'm assuming this was directed at the post above mine, not at my post. Otherwise I would strongly disagree with your last statement.

 

[Dave242]

Yes - it was directed at crashzero. I cannot type that fast to read your post and type that much out (and proofread my horrible typing skills) in 2 minutes!. It was mainly addressed actually to this statement of his philosophy:

To me, the game is distance and accuracy which means long distance drives with shot placement and accurate upshots. Wooded courses do not offer a full range of skill in my opinion.

He is typical of quite a few TX guys that have stopped by to critique DGCR course critics. Thoughts shaped by a DG upbringing in obstacle-deprived areas.

BTW crash - still waiting for your personal top 20 list (or make it top 10 if you want).

 

[Three Putt]

He is typical of quite a few TX guys that have stopped by to critique DGCR course critics. Thoughts shaped by a DG upbringing in obstacle-deprived areas.

I think you have it, it's that old Texas "how dare you put a tree there to throw around" thing that makes reading reviews of Houck and/or Olse-designed courses so much fun. Some of those TX guys just love the wide-open spaces.

 

[mashnut]

I think you have it, it's that old Texas "how dare you put a tree there to throw around" thing that makes reading reviews of Houck and/or Olse-designed courses so much fun. Some of those TX guys just love the wide-open spaces.

To be fair to Houck, the courses of his I've played that had trees to work with were quite good, I think it's more about the Texas players than the Texas designers. I did think it was funny when I played out there to find that the more open courses were way more crowded than the few that had tighter more technical shots.

 

[Three Putt]

To be fair to Houck, the courses of his I've played that had trees to work with were quite good, I think it's more about the Texas players than the Texas designers. I did think it was funny when I played out there to find that the more open courses were way more crowded than the few that had tighter more technical shots.

That's what I meant. I'd love to live someplace with courses designed by Houck or Olse nearby; they do quality work from what I have seen. Some of those TX guys get on here and flambé those suckers. You have to have some really, really thick skin to design disc golf courses in Texas.

 

[mashnut]

Gotcha, I was reading it the other way like you were saying their more open designs get way overrated (which is also true). Nevermind, I agree with you.

 

[sidewinder22]

To me, the game is distance and accuracy which means long distance drives with shot placement and accurate upshots. Wooded courses do not offer a full range of skill in my opinion. Hitting ridiculous lines all day is no fun and should by no means be considered 'high level golf'.

I don't mind wooded courses, we need them, but they are over-rated.

I don't think you have played any good courses in the woods if you don't think distance and accuracy matter in the woods, although having played a few courses in DWF I can understand your sentiment.

 

[crashzero]

Ill play some more wooded courses and then come back to this sometime, I could be wrong. I have played a few that were good, but most were based on luck. Around here its the opposite, the higher level players seem to get it and they agree with this, its the less experienced players (the vast majority) who don't know any better.

 

[Dave242]

Can you name the good ones and the ones that are luck-based?

 

[BrotherDave]

As far as reviewers, I think we need to see what division they play in, their pdga rating and their avg. distance drives. Most players lack in the distance area, so they will have a bias towards more wooded courses, hence the dgcr trend towards more wooded and tight = better, which is a big misconception.

You should do stand-up.

As far as reviewers, I think we need to see what division they play in, their pdga rating and their avg. distance drives.

I agree whole-heartedly and in fact I really wish timg made some functionality where you could filter and compile course ratings and reviews by favorite reviewer/s. Select a bunch of like-minded reviewers and have their data at your fingertips.

I put my money where my mouth is on agreeing with your point here.....I stick this at the end of every review (at least I used to, but many people seemed annoyed with it thinking I was making the review about me rather than the course....so I do not always include it anymore):

I can't disagree with you guys on this more. Division, rating, average distance and other criteria don't add up to a hill of beans when it comes to ratings/reviews. If anything, big arms/highly skilled players probably make the worst reviewers because the game comes much easier to them and therefore their perspective is much less relatable to the masses. I think that one of the things that makes me a good reviewer is my over-flowing mediocrity. I know what a good course for beginners looks like because I'm not that far removed from one but I can also recognize holes/courses above my skill/rating/arm b/c it ain't rocket science, i.e. "this 380' open hole is a tough birdie for me but for bigger arms this is assuredly easier."

I think it boils down to the phenomena where most of the best coaches in sports were only average to decent players and the superstars like Jordan make lousy coaches/GMs because the game came so easily to them they just did it.

 

[Three Putt]

I can't disagree with you guys on this more. Division, rating, average distance and other criteria don't add up to a hill of beans when it comes to ratings/reviews. If anything, big arms/highly skilled players probably make the worst reviewers because the game comes much easier to them and therefore their perspective is much less relatable to the masses. I think that one of the things that makes me a good reviewer is my over-flowing mediocrity. I know what a good course for beginners looks like because I'm not that far removed from one but I can also recognize holes/courses above my skill/rating/arm b/c it ain't rocket science, i.e. "this 380' open hole is a tough birdie for me but for bigger arms this is assuredly easier."

I think it boils down to the phenomena where most of the best coaches in sports were only average to decent players and the superstars like Jordan make lousy coaches/GMs because the game came so easily to them they just did it.

I remember talking to Justin Bunnell about hole #18 at Jefferson Barracks in the C placement. It's a big 'ol 350'+ turnover around a big 'ol clump of shule. ALL of the Open guys have a 350' turnover drive; for them the hole isn't much at all. It was almost an automatic 2. Once you go down to advanced, you would see a ton of guys miss the line and get knocked down in the shule. You would see a bunch of guys bail on the birdie line and take the safe hyzer route for par. Once you moved down to INT, almost nobody birdied that hole. For 95% of disc golfers, that is a very good golf hole. For the top 5%, it was a gimmie birdie. Justin laughed at the notion that it was a tough finishing hole. To him it was an easy birdie hole at the end.

 

[Dave242]

I understand what you are saying. In lots of conversations over the years here, I have stated that I am Blue level and throw (only) 360' max, and 300' accurately (goal-post to goal-post, and goal-line to goal-line on a football field). For me then, long courses that have par-3's and multi-throw holes with 400-450' segments are totally boring (easy/safe drive, easy 100-180' upshot, tap-in). No real upside hope of a birdie and only downside frustration for my screw-ups causing any scoring spread. Doesn't make me angry, but it is boring. It is totally my fault and not the courses' that those holes are too long for me.....but the course nonetheless offers me boredom in the scoring department, so my rating for the course is lower.

I think that makes sense to you and is along the lines with what you are saying. But.....me making that point over the years rarely gets acknowledgement/approval from many reviewers. In fact many people argue with me that I should not rate courses lower for that.

I can't disagree with you guys on this more. Division, rating, average distance and other criteria don't add up to a hill of beans when it comes to ratings/reviews.

Hey crashzero......... See that? I am a friggin modern day prophet! :clap:

Just messing with you my Brotha