I've just started a new Google Group where I post information on the courses that I've played and done my personal review of. Most courses have an Excel spreadsheet and a pdf from my Access database. Some older reviews will have only a pdf with more limited information. The Excel sprreadsheets have hole by hole data as well as several difficulty factors. The pdfs are built around Design - Basics - Amenities which I copied from the PDGA Course Evaluation material; there are some similarities and some differences to the PDGA system.

You can join the group at http://groups.google.com/group/DG-Course-Reviews
It's set so that members can't post, so that it doesn't get off topic and I don't have time stop spam or monitor messages, but I'd be willing to change that if I was convinced.

There may be some helpful information on your course or on a course you want to play. I'm not going to going into a long defense of why I'm doing this instead of doing PDGA Course Evaluations. This just fits me better. By way of partial explanation-- my evaluations take less time, I have the data in my own database, and I have other factors that I've added.

One benefit is that my reviews are more consistent because they are based on only one set standards and criteria (mine!). This is also a downside because the reviews reflect my biases and blind spots.

I'd love to know what you think!

Lowe Bibby
Garner, NC

From MTL:

I know there is some courses you don't like simply b/c there is no elevation (like the Meadow in Greenville).



Robert,

Actually elevation variety is only one factor among many in my evaluations. I take many factors into account to come up with my overall rating. It's way too simplistic to say that W. Meadowbrook got a lower rating just because it's mostly flat. For example, Castle Hayne in Wilmington is rated 87.5 and is in 15th place and it's flatter than the Meadow. I will say, though, that CH would rate even higher if it had more elevation changes.

Yes, you have to do the best with the land you've got, but some land is better than others. Hawk Hollow is on a great piece of property as are Mars Hill college and Johnny Sias' course Lucky 8. Those blessed with great property should rate higher.

I hear what you're saying though. That's why Steed in Richlands should be get a little credit. Harold did a great job making the best course that he could with a lackluster piece of property. It's still not a great course but he gets kudos for making the best of the resources available.

Here are the top 50 of 160+ courses that I've evaluated:

<table border="1"><tr><td>Ranking</td><td>CourseName</td><td>State</td><td>City</td><td>LoweRating
</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>Renaissance</td><td>NC</td><td>Charlotte</td><td>99.9
</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Brandywine S.P.</td><td>DE</td><td>Wilmington</td><td>99.4
</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Winthrop U - Gold</td><td>SC</td><td>Rock Hill</td><td>98
</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Seneca Creek S.P.</td><td>MD</td><td>Gaithersburg</td><td>96
</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Lake Russell S.P.</td><td>GA</td><td>Elberton</td><td>95
</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Cedarock</td><td>NC</td><td>Burlington</td><td>94
</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>Mars Hill College</td><td>NC</td><td>Mars Hill</td><td>93.5
</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>La Mirada</td><td>CA</td><td>LA: La Mirada</td><td>92
</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>Walnut Creek</td><td>VA</td><td>Charlottesville</td><td>91.5
</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>Lucky 8</td><td>WV</td><td>Lavalette</td><td>90.1
</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>Circle R: Hill</td><td>TX</td><td>Wimberley</td><td>90
</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>Nockamixon</td><td>PA</td><td>Quakertown</td><td>89.9
</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>Wellspring</td><td>NC</td><td>Burlington</td><td>88.4
</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>Hawk Hollow</td><td>VA</td><td>Spotsylvania</td><td>88
</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>Castle Hayne</td><td>NC</td><td>Wilmington</td><td>87.5
</td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>Circle R: Meadow</td><td>TX</td><td>Wimberley</td><td>87.1
</td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td>Buckhorn</td><td>NC</td><td>New Hill</td><td>86.5
</td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td>Patapsco Valley S.P.</td><td>MD</td><td>Ellicott City</td><td>85.3
</td></tr><tr><td>19</td><td>Valley Springs</td><td>NC</td><td>Durham</td><td>85
</td></tr><tr><td>20</td><td>Johnson Street</td><td>NC</td><td>High Point</td><td>84.9
</td></tr><tr><td>21</td><td>Bluemont</td><td>VA</td><td>Arlington</td><td>84.7
</td></tr><tr><td>22</td><td>Richmond Hill</td><td>NC</td><td>Asheville</td><td>84.5
</td></tr><tr><td>23</td><td>UNC</td><td>NC</td><td>Chapel Hill</td><td>84.3
</td></tr><tr><td>24</td><td>Zebulon</td><td>NC</td><td>Zebulon</td><td>84
</td></tr><tr><td>25</td><td>George Ward</td><td>AL</td><td>Birmingham</td><td>83.9
</td></tr><tr><td>26</td><td>Reedy Creek</td><td>NC</td><td>Charlotte</td><td>83.5
</td></tr><tr><td>27</td><td>Barnett</td><td>FL</td><td>Orlando</td><td>83.1
</td></tr><tr><td>28</td><td>Hornets\' Nest</td><td>NC</td><td>Charlotte</td><td>82.5
</td></tr><tr><td>29</td><td>Hippodrome</td><td>SC</td><td>North Augusta</td><td>82.45
</td></tr><tr><td>30</td><td>Hilton</td><td>NC</td><td>Hickory</td><td>82.4
</td></tr><tr><td>31</td><td>Timmons</td><td>SC</td><td>Greenville</td><td>82.2
</td></tr><tr><td>32</td><td>Warriors Path S.P.</td><td>TN</td><td>Kingsport</td><td>82.1
</td></tr><tr><td>33</td><td>Earlewood</td><td>SC</td><td>Columbia</td><td>81.9
</td></tr><tr><td>34</td><td>Crooked Creek</td><td>SC</td><td>Chapin</td><td>81.7
</td></tr><tr><td>35</td><td>Cedar Hills</td><td>NC</td><td>Raleigh</td><td>81.5
</td></tr><tr><td>36</td><td>Edora</td><td>CO</td><td>Fort Collins</td><td>80.9
</td></tr><tr><td>37</td><td>Riverview</td><td>SC</td><td>North Augusta</td><td>80.7
</td></tr><tr><td>38</td><td>Redan</td><td>GA</td><td>Atlanta (Redan)</td><td>80.6
</td></tr><tr><td>39</td><td>Calvert</td><td>MD</td><td>College Park</td><td>80.4
</td></tr><tr><td>40</td><td>Dorey</td><td>VA</td><td>Richmond</td><td>80.1
</td></tr><tr><td>41</td><td>Patriots Park</td><td>GA</td><td>Augusta (Grovetown)</td><td>79.1
</td></tr><tr><td>42</td><td>Ellison</td><td>NY</td><td>Rochester</td><td>78.8
</td></tr><tr><td>43</td><td>Morley Field</td><td>CA</td><td>San Diego</td><td>78.1
</td></tr><tr><td>44</td><td>The Grange: Darkside (Private)</td><td>VA</td><td>Spotsylvania</td><td>77.7
</td></tr><tr><td>45</td><td>Sugaw Creek</td><td>NC</td><td>Charlotte</td><td>77.6
</td></tr><tr><td>46</td><td>Live Oak</td><td>TX</td><td>San Antonio (Live Oak)</td><td>77.5
</td></tr><tr><td>47</td><td>Yadkin County Park</td><td>NC</td><td>Yadkinville</td><td>77.1
</td></tr><tr><td>48</td><td>Flat Rocks</td><td>OH</td><td>Lancaster</td><td>77
</td></tr><tr><td>49</td><td>Whittier Narrows</td><td>CA</td><td>LA: South El Monte</td><td>76.8
</td></tr><tr><td>50</td><td>Kilborne</td><td>NC</td><td>Charlotte</td><td>76.5
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Let the quibbling begin...

DISCLAIMER: I'm not going to defend these ratings. YMMV. There's no way that I have the time to go into all aspects of every decision, but for more information please join my Google group and read the details for yourself first.

I am shocked at the amount of courses you have ranked higher than Hornest's Nest and Earlewood.

My top 10...

1. Hornet's Nest - Charlotte
2. Walnut Ridge - Des Moines
3. Renny - Charlotte
4. Hawk Hollow - Spotsy
5. Z-Boaz - Ft. Worth
6. Earlewood - Columbia
7. Ewing - Des Moines
8. Lake Olmstead - Augusta
9. Crooked Creek - Chapin
10. Castle Hayne - Wilmington


Honorable Mentions
Riverview N. Augusta
Winthrop Gold - Rock Hill
Boyd Hill - Rock Hill
Barnett Park - Kinston
Glenburnie Park - New Bern

I was reading the discussion on the Worlds thread with much interest. Rating courses is a tough thing to do to be meaningful to more than a small percentage of consumers. The reason for this is we all have our definition of what a "good" course is.

That is why I am not a fan of the course ratings effort as it stands today. The good thing with that effort is that it is gathering a lot of good data that will hopefully be put into a much more suitable form than a number and a little line of chain links.

Here is a crude example (http://www.charlottedgc.com/files/course_selector.xls) of what I propose as a format in which to put all the data that has and will be collected (requires MS Excel). Compliments of Rodney Garner.

The key thing that is of value here is that anyone can rate courses that fit their unique preferences....not Lowe's or Chuck's or Neon's.

If this sort of course is paired with an interactive pictorial map (http://www.charlottedgc.com/sugaw_be_the_disc.htm) (video is nice too), an interested visitor can easily and quickly make an informed choice on where to best spend their slice of time enjoying the game.

From Jack Smalls:


Re: Course Standards [Re: Lowe] #580538 - 08/24/06 03:24 PM
yeah but didnt you have zebulon rated lower than valley springs... ridiculous



Jack,

Have you actually read any of my evaluations in my Google Group? If not, before you say my ratings are ridiculous you might want to be better informed with how I came up with those numbers.

I suspect that you think Zeb is better because it is a harder course and more of a challenge to a player of your caliber. You need to keep in mind that Zeb is a Blue level course and the regular tees at VS are white level. The real question is "how good is a course for the player level that it is designed for?" VS regular tees is better suited to white level players (coincidentally, like me) and Zeb is more of a challenge for higher level players (like you). Using this criteria Ridgecrest, a private course in Black Mountain NC, is great course for Green level players (esp. kids). I'd give anything to have a course that good nearby to take my son to! But it would be so easy for you that you probably wouldn't like it.

But my ratings are based on many factors such as multiple layouts, beauty, amenities, basics such as concrete tees and good signs, design, elevation changes... As I said before VS gets a high rating b/c it has 3 layouts for a wide variety of players ( Red/ White/ Blue).

Using this criteria Ridgecrest, a private course in Black Mountain NC, is great course for Green level players (esp. kids).



I played 4 rounds there (9 hole course)

Shot -9 with an ace, -9 clean, -10 with an ace and -7 clean.

Very simple course, but the point of it is to introduce people to the game, as you stated

Using this criteria Ridgecrest, a private course in Black Mountain NC, is great course for Green level players (esp. kids).



I played 4 rounds there (9 hole course)

Shot -9 with an ace, -9 clean, -10 with an ace and -7 clean.

Very simple course, but the point of it is to introduce people to the game, as you stated



On courses designed for a level different than your playing level it is helpful to know estimated scoring averages for different player levels. At Ridgecrest I have an estimated SSA of 18.5 and an est. Blue Scoring Avg (BSA) of 20.8

You can join the group at http://groups.google.com/group/DG-Course-Reviews
It's set so that members can't post, so that it doesn't get off topic and I don't have time stop spam or monitor messages, but I'd be willing to change that if I was convinced...



This setting has been changed so that members can now post. (Jeff L, thanks for your feedback on this and I welcome your comments. Are you still in the group? I just saw that your email to @enter is bouncing.)

(Jeff L, thanks for your feedback on this and I welcome your comments. Are you still in the group? I just saw that your email to @enter is bouncing.)



Lowe,

I still receive all the e-mails, even though I unsubscribed from Google Groups. How I keep receiving all the course evaluations is a mystery to me, because I'm not a member of the group, and even when I was a member, I had my account set to no mail. I think I may have to send an e-mail to Google Groups to get help with this.

It's nothing personal. Many of the courses you review are those which I've never played and therefore have absolutely no frame of reference. Additionally, similar to the PDGA Course Evaluation program, I'm not fond of the "Dead Poet Society" rating system in which someone places the quality of a course on a scale, and rates it with a number. There are a few aspects of course design that can lend itself to that, but overall I'm not too keen on such mathematical criticism. Though it may attempt to remove bias, I think it has been highly unsuccessful in that regard. I could ask a hundred people the question of whether Jordan Creek is better than Lums Pond, which I'm sure greater than 90% would agree with, yet the latter is ranked much higher than the former in the Course Evaluation program. That's B.S. :(

I just like this picture !!!!!

http://www.cincinnatidiscgolf.com/images/CoursePics/Idlewild/Idlewild15b.jpg

I just like this picture !!!!!



Nice green! Is that Idelwild hole 15?

That's a pretty green. Where is this Idlewild?

That's a pretty green. Where is this Idlewild?



Cincinnati.

Nice grass too.

I've just started a new Google Group where I post information on the courses that I've played and done my personal review of. Most courses have an Excel spreadsheet and a pdf from my Access database. Some older reviews will have only a pdf with more limited information. The Excel sprreadsheets have hole by hole data as well as several difficulty factors. The pdfs are built around Design - Basics - Amenities which I copied from the PDGA Course Evaluation material; there are some similarities and some differences to the PDGA system.

You can join the group at http://groups.google.com/group/DG-Course-Reviews
It's set so that members can't post, so that it doesn't get off topic and I don't have time stop spam or monitor messages, but I'd be willing to change that if I was convinced.

There may be some helpful information on your course or on a course you want to play. I'm not going to going into a long defense of why I'm doing this instead of doing PDGA Course Evaluations. This just fits me better. By way of partial explanation-- my evaluations take less time, I have the data in my own database, and I have other factors that I've added.

One benefit is that my reviews are more consistent because they are based on only one set standards and criteria (mine!). This is also a downside because the reviews reflect my biases and blind spots.

I'd love to know what you think!

Lowe Bibby
Garner, NC



Just a note: From my point of view, I see course design, (and therefore review) divided in two ways. First, as has been mentioned, skill level. Second, and this is just as important to me, competition/recreation. I do not like to play in competions on recreation courses. When I am not competing, but just playing for fun, I like to play on recreation course. The difference, is not skill level per se, as I feel some very difficult courses fall into the recreation catagory. The difference is simply the skill versus random luck and fairness factors. As far as I am concerned , a recreational course can be as flukey, unfair, and lucky as can be. It can still be fun and challenging, if not a true measure of skill over a single or even several tournaments. It's true, that given enough rounds, the luck evens out and the best players will rise to the top as usual. But in the short term, which includes any competition, it is not a fair test of skill. A competion course should strive to minimize any fluke/fairness factor such that the winner was the best, not luckiest, thrower.
Fewel park in Rock Hill is an example of an excellent competion course for low skill level or high score demand. It is extremely fair, and the challenge is to get a ton of birdies. As challenge levels for courses go up, the potential for unfairness goes up with it. When there is no clearly defined fairway, or a flukey landing area, the challenge goes up, but the fairness goes down.

Dave's comment brings up an interesting quandry, should courses actually be designed to be flukey for recreational play or do these courses just result from a designer not knowing what they are doing or perhaps because the designer was prevented from removing sufficient trees by the course owner to have enough fair fairways?

There's no doubt that many players, typically recreational, can like holes that are lucky, for the same reason that people buy lottery tickets. There's less or no pressure to be skillful and it gives lesser skilled players a better chance to beat their better buddies sometimes, especially playing skins. This lucky aspect also seems to correlate with making holes more "fun" at least for some.

I think a challenge for designers is to develop holes that are fun but not flukey so a course appeals to the widest audience. This is sometimes more of an art than a science.

The difference is simply the skill versus random luck and fairness factors. As far as I am concerned , a recreational course can be as flukey, unfair, and lucky as can be. ... But in the short term, which includes any competition, it is not a fair test of skill. A competion course should strive to minimize any fluke/fairness factor such that the winner was the best, not luckiest, thrower.




Dave,

Thanks for your thought provoking comments. As you often do, your insights bring in a different perspective that it really takes time to ponder. Speaking of unfairness and flukiness as a good thing on any type of course, even recreational, really caught me by surprise. Personally, I hate it and I penalize courses for it in my evaluations.

Fairness is one of Harold's core values. Harold, are you lurking out there anywhere? Would you like to comment? (Here's a chance to break out your alliteration!)

Dave, what is your home course right now? What is your favorite recreational course in your area? Would you call La Mirada 1-18 in the everyday setup recreation or competition course? How about Liberty in Cerritos-- is it a recreation course? Except for Green and Red level players you certainly couldn't have a competition there? I'm trying to get a better handle on what makes a "recreation" course? I'm also wracking my brain to think of a flukey/unfiar hole in the LA area that I would call a good hole and I can't come up with any. Oak Grove may have one.

Thanks again for the stimulating ideas!

Dave, what is your home course right now? What is your favorite recreational course in your area? Would you call La Mirada 1-18 in the everyday setup recreation or competition course? How about Liberty in Cerritos-- is it a recreation course? Except for Green and Red level players you certainly couldn't have a competition there? I'm trying to get a better handle on what makes a "recreation" course? I'm also wracking my brain to think of a flukey/unfiar hole in the LA area that I would call a good hole and I can't come up with any. Oak Grove may have one.

Thanks again for the stimulating ideas!



Oak Grove is a classic example of a Recreational course. At least half the holes have randomness/unfairness/fluke. Competitions are held there all the time and it is a very popular course because it is fun. Cerritos, on the other hand is not a rec course. It is a very short comp course because every hole depends on skill. No luck involved. La Mirada is a competition course in any setup. Long Beach is an excellent short to medium range competition course. Whittier, Wrightwood, Huntington Beach are all competition courses. Sylmar is a very challenging recreational course in the long positions, but a passable competition course in the shorter positions. Most of the fluke occurs when the baskets are in the long positions. My classic recreational course is Delaveaga. Delaveaga has long been a favorite course in the area and for many who visit from out of town. It is a very challenging and fun play in a beautiful setting in Santa Cruz. The locals acknowledge the flukeyness and like it that way. On some holes shots can end up at the bottom of canyons or underneath the basket for no reason involving skill at all. Still, it is a great recreational course. If you are looking for examples of great, but flukey holes, look no further.

I don't know if this has been said or not but, IMO, it takes very little experience or expertise to design a very challenging recreational course. It does take some talent to make it fun, safe, track well etc. It also takes no talent to design an easy competion course like Cerritos. The hardest course to design is a challenging competion course that is equally playable by the open, masters, grandmaster men's, and open women's divisions, and is fun also. I expect these divisions to throw over 300 consistently. Because, we rarely start with a blank slate, earth moving equipment, and a nursery full of mature trees, we also have to work with what we are given. In light of this restriction, I think Brian Graham did a phenomenal job designing Lake Ohmstead in Augusta. Good distances, good challenge, good amenability to varyious divisions, and low fluke factor. Hole #4 is the only hole with an appreciable fluke factor as there is no clearly defined fairway, but the short length does mitigate that somewhat. I found Hole #6 to be a bit daunting landing the drive, until I discovered my putter would do it fine.

It also takes no talent to design an easy competion course like Cerritos.



I guess that the only reason that Cerritos doesn't fit Dave's criteria for a Rec course is that there are no flukey holes. But I think that's only because the park is mostly grass with few trees so all of the holes are open by default.

I think that it can take talent to design a short course for Green and Red level players, though. A designer should have an awareness of the PDGA and DGCD parameters for designing a course for a specific skill level. Cerritos is borderline between a Red and Green level course. It's an easy Red or a more difficult Green. I doubt the designer had a specific skill level in mind when he designed the course since these concepts are relatively new, but he may have thought of making a course for "Juniors and beginners". It's possible to design a great Green or Red level course, but it takes some knowledge and some design tools.

A good example of a very good Green level course is the private course at Ridgecrest in Black Mountain NC. Harold did a great job of making a very good course for Green level players -- mostly kids who have never played before. (You just have to watch out for Black bears. If you see any it's best to let them play through.)

From Jack Smalls:


Re: Course Standards [Re: Lowe] #580538 - 08/24/06 03:24 PM
yeah but didnt you have zebulon rated lower than valley springs... ridiculous





I just updated my evaluation of Valley Springs and I stand by my assessment that VS is a better course than Zebulon. The long course (long tees and long baskets) is Gold level and the Regular/White layout is Blue level (but easier than Zeb). Keep in mind that some holes on both courses are par 4s, so difficulty is measured by comparing the appropriate Level Score Avg to Level CR Par. It is NOT a measure of how hard it is to shoot a 3. It's ludicrous to say that Zebulon holes 3 and 9 are par 3s.

IMO, just b/c a course has different layouts doesn't make it better than a course with 1 layout. None of the three layouts at VS are close to Zebulon (and I like VS original cuz it's fair, has elevation and is fun).

But Zebulon is a better course hands down. Everyone is entitled to thier own opinion Lowe, but you are in a major minority of people who rank VS ahead of Zebulon.

But Zebulon is a better course hands down. Everyone is entitled to thier own opinion Lowe, but you are in a major minority of people who rank VS ahead of Zebulon.



MTL,

Can you give any specific reasons why Zeb is better than VS? is it because the holes are longer than those in the VS regular layout?

Zeb has some good holes and some weaker holes.
VS has more elevation changes than Zeb.
You know that IMNSHO having 3 layouts does make a better course than a course with only one layout. Of course, a course with only one layout can be better than any of the 3 in a course with 3.

What do you think?

MTL,

Can you give any specific reasons why Zeb is better than VS? is it because the holes are longer than those in the VS regular layout?



I don't judge a course based on how easy or hard it is. Earlewood is just an awesome course and a better course that Zebulon in my opinion, and Earlewood is much easier than Zebulon.

There is more variety or shots at Zebulon. For instance, here is what I throw at zebulon.
1. Flippy roc - hyzer flip
2. Overstable Shark - little S shot
3. Wraith, Thumber
4. Semi beat roc - anny float
5. Overstable Eagle - S shot
6. Firebird - Sidearm
7. Flippy Orc - thrown flat so it comes out at end
8. Semi Stable Roc
9. Flippy TL, Stable Roc / Avair
10. Straight Flying Wasp
11. Semi Beat Roc
12. OVerstable Eagle
13. Overstable Eagle
14. Straight Orc
15. Straight Orc
16. Wraith, Avair
17. Semi Stable Roc
18. Flippy Orc

Number of Different discs thrown off Tee: 11

Vally Springs Originals
1. Straight Avair
2. Stable Champ Shark
3. Beat avair
4. semi beat roc
5. semi stable roc
6. Stable avair
7. Straight Aviar
8. Beat Avair
9. Semi Stable TL
10. Overstable Eagle
11. Beat Avair
12. BEat Avair
13. Semi Beat Roc
14. Semi Stable Roc
15. Beat Leopard
16. Semi Stable Roc
17.Overstable Eagle
18. Beat Leopard

Number of different discs : 9

While thats not a lot, I garuntee I throw more discs that most people and that most peoples numbers on these two courses is probably the same at zebulon and closer to 6 at VS.

Also, Zebulon has muhc better score seperation. On the longs at VS I shot a 53 in the BVC which was winning open by 4. If I was playing advanced, I would have a 2 stroke lead. If I Was playing INTERMEDIATE, I would have had a one stroke lead. Theres no way that a 1000 + round on a course should do that.


Zeb has some good holes and some weaker holes.



I know you don't like hole 4, which I think is an awesome hole b/c it still requires an accurate tee shot to get a birdie. I don't like one tree on hole 6 and how close the pin is to the water and I think hole 16 is very boring when it comes to score seperation, but everything else is fine. I could see an arguement on hole 13, but with the wind, it's a tricky shot. Also, especially in the open division, a par on this hole scores like a bogey. Pretty rare for a 300 + foot hole.



VS has more elevation changes than Zeb.



I like elevation, but I think VS does a poor job of using it's elevation. The only hole with roll away potentional is hole 2. Also, there are no holes that throw on a hill side. However, holes 7 and 16 are two awesome golf holes, mainly b/c of the elevation.

I've never played Valley Springs, but the fact that you're throwing a Roc or an Aviar off the tee on 12 out of 18 holes makes me think I would like Zebulon better, which I've played and enjoyed very much.

Currently my main method for determining course difficulty is with this formula:
Level Score Average - Level Close Range Par.
Here are the numbers:
Zeb, Blue Level: 58.0 - 57 = 1.0
VS regular tees, Blue Level: 53.3 - 54 = -0.7
VS Long layout, Gold Level: 53.1 - 54 = -0.9
VS Red tees, Red Level: 56.4 - 54 = 2.4

There may be much that needs to be explained here, but I rank course difficulty by course playing level. Courses are ranked by difficulty in this order, from hardest to easiest: Gold (90-100) --> Blue (70-89.99) --> White (40-69.99)--> Red (10-39.99) --> Green (<10)

Since the factor for Zeb is +1.0 it is a more difficult Blue course than VS which is -0.9 so it's an easier Blue course.

I've never claimed that my ratings are THE definitive numbers. It is just my hobby, so it's fine if you disagree.

I wasn't saying that I liked Zeb better simply b/c I don't throw as many Rocs and Avairs there ( I actually prefer throwing a Roc or an Avair to a driver b/c I am much better with one in my hand).

I was saying that the shot selection is much more varried at Zebulon than at VS.

VS is a great little short course, but the overall challenge of Zebulon where a top player can shoot between 44 - 54 at any time is great. At VS, I don't see any top pro ever shooting worse than 48. Most top players are shooting between 45 - 42 at VS where as at Zebulon, there is much wider range of scoring from not just the pro division, but every division.

[quote
There's no doubt that many players, typically recreational, can like holes that are lucky, for the same reason that people buy lottery tickets. There's less or no pressure to be skillful and it gives lesser skilled players a better chance to beat their better buddies sometimes, especially playing skins. This lucky aspect also seems to correlate with making holes more "fun" at least for some.

I think a challenge for designers is to develop holes that are fun but not flukey so a course appeals to the widest audience. This is sometimes more of an art than a science.

[/QUOTE]

I couldn't agree more with this. I have changed my mind over the years about what I consider the most important factors of course design. I used to consider safety first and fairness second, but I think in the grand scheme of things fun should be in front of fairness for most courses as most of the players are recreational. My personal liking puts safety and fairness just ahead of fun, followed by challenging for various skill levels. But, if I had to choose putting in a challenging fair course that wasn't particularly fun, like Whittier Narrows, or a course like Santa Cruz, which is challenging, fun, but very unfair at times, I would put in Santa Cruz. This, for the simple reason that Santa Cruz is going to engender more play. You can test your skills, luck, and patience at the Cruz; a mix of fun and frustration. Or you can have a fairly dry test of skills at Whittier.

I don't think you have to look far for guidance along these lines. Here are the PDGA Basic Course Design Guidelines:

A. Satisfy the design requirements of the people and organizations who approve use of the land and fund the equipment for the course.
B. Design course to be safe for both players and non-players who may pass near or through the course.
C. Design course with the potential for multiple configurations to serve not only beginners but players with advanced skills; consistent with the budget and design needs expressed in Goal A above.
D. Design a well balanced course with a wide range of hole lengths and a good mixture of holes requiring controlled left, right and straight throws.
E. Utilize elevation changes and available foliage as well as possible. Take care to minimize potential damage to foliage and reduce the chances for erosion.

For item A, the public parks rely on the designer to provide input on what type of courses are possible. Regardless whether it's public or private, a fundamental goal should be for a course to be used, especially if it's pay-2-play. What ever ways you can create a high enough fun factor would seem to meet the first goal while still trying to meet the other four as best as possible. That's why I can't ever see designing a brutal course with a gold par over 60 as the only course layout on a site unless the owner has hired me to do just that. I would be compelled to add one or two shorter sets of tees if I were allowed to.

BTW, the easiest 'fun factor' design element available is downhill shots if you have the terrain. I was able to design Granite Ridge at Highbridge with more downhill holes (11) than uphill holes (4) and it's a closed loop with the 18 pin at the height of the #1 tee. The trick is to get a lot of your uphill in fewer longer holes and to have people walk mostly uphill when walking from pin to tee (which they don't notice or object to like they do in a hole). It definitely makes a difference in fun factor on a long course.

It's very difficult to pull this off on ski hill courses that are complete loops. Usually it takes 2 or 3 uphill holes for every downhill hole. That's why preference would be for ski hill courses where you mostly work your way down the hill with several sidehill and uphill shots mixed in. As long as there's decent transport to the top with a shuttle or ski lift, it's no problem. Boyne Mountain, Michigan is one that works that way.

I used to consider safety first and fairness second, but I think in the grand scheme of things fun should be in front of fairness for most courses as most of the players are recreational.



I'm a recreational player. For me fairness fosters fun, but flukiness foments frustration, and frustration foils fun.


(Credits: Consonance partially plagiarized by prominent popular professional promoter and part-time poet Harold Duvall.)

I used to consider safety first and fairness second, but I think in the grand scheme of things fun should be in front of fairness for most courses as most of the players are recreational.



I'm a recreational player. For me fairness fosters fun, but flukiness foments frustration, and frustration foils fun.




That's interesting, because that runs counter to everything I've observed over the last ten years.

I find that highly skilled golfers are the ones that complain the most about flukiness, and some recreational players actually enjoy and prefer it. It's a real thrill for a recreational player to throw a shot and get a fluky break, while the highly skilled golfer gets the fluky bad break. A fluky hole may allow a recreational player to tie or even beat a golfer much more skilled than him on that hole, and even if it's just one hole a round, that may be the highlight of the round for the rec player.

I am in no way defending flukiness in disc golf course design; I'm just saying that I've actually seen that some people like it.

Personally, I've yet to see more than a handful of holes in disc golf that I would define as "fluky" and I've played over 150 courses across the U.S. and Canada. This term usually comes about when players get too aggressive on tight wooded holes, and throw hard and get a severe lateral deflection into deep rough off the fairway. I'm convinced that with proper restraint and course management e.g. throwing a mid-range or putter off the tee, throwing softer, (which can reduce the severity of lateral kicks off a tree) and aiming for fairway placement, there almost isn't such a thing as a fluky hole.

I know Dave would agree with me on the flukiness of multi-window holes since he's been on the soapbox for this issue before. Essentially, a hole with say three of four trees about evenly spaced about 8-10 feet apart across the fairway creates a flukey grid. From a percentage standpoint, there's cumulatively enough airspace for enough shots to get through with two or three 8-10 ft windows. But there may be more luck than skill to actually hit a specific gap. It becomes more random whether one of the trees is hit. Moving from left to right, the route is good, good, good, bad, good, good, good, bad, good, good, good, bad. It's not a problem having multiple routes that are big enough. But the problem is when each route itself is a little too small.

I consider any hole without a well enough defined fairway to be fluky. These are usually fairways with randomly placed trees that keep you from having a route to the basket. These are more common on private courses in NC than on public courses.

For example, I think that Kinston 6, "the Skinny", is borderline fluky. It's just too narrow. I just played the hole again, twice, a couple of weeks ago, and I still didn't like it that much. There is a very narrow route to the basket, though. Throwing a putter about 100 ft. from the tee and hoping you stay in play then dinking another shot 60 ft. to the basket just isn't that fun. And since I'm a weenie armed rec player this is a hole where even better players take 3s and I can stay even with them (if I can keep from taking a 4). I've seen a 2 but even the guy who threw it thought it was a fluke that he would never be able to do again.

I know Dave would agree with me on the flukiness of multi-window holes since he's been on the soapbox for this issue before. Essentially, a hole with say three of four trees about evenly spaced about 8-10 feet apart across the fairway creates a flukey grid. From a percentage standpoint, there's cumulatively enough airspace for enough shots to get through with two or three 8-10 ft windows. But there may be more luck than skill to actually hit a specific gap. It becomes more random whether one of the trees is hit. Moving from left to right, the route is good, good, good, bad, good, good, good, bad, good, good, good, bad. It's not a problem having multiple routes that are big enough. But the problem is when each route itself is a little too small.



It's not the picket fence scenario that is so bad, as much as the pickets. If there were 3 ten foot gaps that were separated by six foot wide trees, I wouldn't have a problem with it provided those gaps were not too far from the tee. It all comes down to skill versus luck. Multiple routes that are separated from each other are fine. Multiple routes that are right next to each other are flukey. A very tight fairway is not flukey. It might be unfair or at least unreasonable though. I see no difference in a 4 foot wide fairway on a 300 ft hole or a 15 ft diameter island green on a 300 ft hole. Both are not flukey, but could easily be considered unreasonable. Both are designs that will spread scores widely and separate skills, but the penalty for a very small error in skill, could end up being unfairly large in score. If there were enough of these type holes on one course, it might be fair, but to have one of these holes potentially determine the outcome of a contest, does not seem fair to me. Tiny mistakes should not produce huge strokes. Operating windows should be large enough to allow small mistakes to still be salvageable. Unless, the entire course is a gauntlet of narrow fairways, island greens, blind doglegs, baskets on ten foot anthills, or in the middle of OB ponds, etc. No one who does not throw perfect shots will get through unscathed.

(All this is not specifically addressed to you Chuck, just thought you might be interested)

I'm a recreational player. For me fairness fosters fun, but flukiness foments frustration, and frustration foils fun.




That's interesting, because that runs counter to everything I've observed over the last ten years.

I find that highly skilled golfers are the ones that complain the most about flukiness, and some recreational players actually enjoy and prefer it. It's a real thrill for a recreational player to throw a shot and get a fluky break, while the highly skilled golfer gets the fluky bad break. A fluky hole may allow a recreational player to tie or even beat a golfer much more skilled than him on that hole, and even if it's just one hole a round, that may be the highlight of the round for the rec player.



I may not be a typical rec player since I'm more serious and analytical about the sport than most. I also don't compete. When I'm playing with someone else I'm playing the course not the person I'm with. Usually I'm not even aware of their overall score because I try not to even think about my own score.

If I throw a poor shot and get a good fluky break I'm glad, but I get no joy when the person I'm with gets a fluky bad break. It was just randomness not skill, so it was nothing I did.

Personally, I've yet to see more than a handful of holes in disc golf that I would define as "fluky" and I've played over 150 courses across the U.S. and Canada.



Fluky holes:

Hole 9 at Nixon in Kennett Square PA. I don't really understand the tee and basket layouts there, but I'm pretty sure I played from the long tee to a Gold basket. Anyway it's left to right shot with a forced layup and it's very difficult to get through the woods and back out. I saw no way to throw from the tee to the basket.

Hole 14 at Sedgley Woods. It's a short right to left hole but I couldn't see any fairway. I tried getting a thumber through it. (Which by the way whacked a tree 30 ft in front of me and then bounced back to end up to the right and behind the tee box for negative distance!)

Oak Grove (Hahamonga) in Pasadena has several "poke-n-pray" holes, but I'd have to check my notes.

Fluky holes:

Hole 9 at Nixon in Kennett Square PA. I don't really understand the tee and basket layouts there, but I'm pretty sure I played from the long tee to a Gold basket. Anyway it's left to right shot with a forced layup and it's very difficult to get through the woods and back out. I saw no way to throw from the tee to the basket.



I'm not familiar enough with that course to know which hole that is. I played it once about ten years ago, returned about five years ago, and played it last year after the course had supposedly been significantly upgraded & maintained, and left disgusted each time.


Hole 14 at Sedgley Woods. It's a short right to left hole but I couldn't see any fairway. I tried getting a thumber through it. (Which by the way whacked a tree 30 ft in front of me and then bounced back to end up to the right and behind the tee box for negative distance!)



There is a very well defined righty hyzer lane here. It's not obvious, but a spike hyzer for a right-hander around the outside will get you near the pin. If you try to throw straight at the basket, then yes, it's fluky, but if you throw that outside right-to-left route, you'll get close to the basket for a putt every single time.


For example, I think that Kinston 6, "the Skinny", is borderline fluky. It's just too narrow. I just played the hole again, twice, a couple of weeks ago, and I still didn't like it that much. There is a very narrow route to the basket, though. Throwing a putter about 100 ft. from the tee and hoping you stay in play then dinking another shot 60 ft. to the basket just isn't that fun. And since I'm a weenie armed rec player this is a hole where even better players take 3s and I can stay even with them (if I can keep from taking a 4). I've seen a 2 but even the guy who threw it thought it was a fluke that he would never be able to do again.



We talked in great length about this hole on the Ratio of fairway width to fairway length (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=529367&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1) thread. I'm in agreement that it's borderline fluky since it's so narrow that no golfer in the world could consistently reach the pin on it, and imprecise shots could get lucky and find their way through. Harold even weighed in with his design philosophy behind it:


The strategy for #6 is to play for a 30-40 foot putt. The hole becomes much more difficult if you play for tap in. It also helps righties to have a sidearm which naturally fades right at the end.



When I played it, I instantly recognized that fairway placement was critical and that going for the pin was foolishly aggressive. I went even more conservative than Harold suggested, and the one and only time I played this hole 3 1/2 years ago, I threw three putter shots of about 50 feet each and was happy to escape with a bogey.

If there were a lot of this in disc golf (where you're basically trying to throw a putter 50-100 feet from the tee) then I would agree that it takes the fun out of it. But as a very rare circumstance, I thought it was kind of neat and a lot of fun.

I see no difference in a 4 foot wide fairway on a 300 ft hole or a 15 ft diameter island green on a 300 ft hole. Both are not flukey, but could easily be considered unreasonable.



I think we're just talking about probabilities here. I believe flukey is something that happens with a low probability, perhaps less than 5% of the time and more likely less than 1%. The 4 ft fairway or small island green examples are more in the realm of coin flips in the neighborhood of 50% probability of hitting a tree or landing on the green.

All I said earlier is that it seems like either 2 out of 3 times (~70%) should be the minimum design expectation for an acceptable result for a shot from a player of the intended skill level (some might believe the percentage should be even higher). Any percentage less than that falls into the realm of coin flipping which is more luck than skill.

At the far end of the scale where 95-100% of players at the intended skill level can hit a shot, if there's something like an "invisible" tree branch protruding into the route that deflects 1 out of 30 "good" shots, that's a low probability element that would be considered flukey and should be removed (from my designer perspective). However, there are many rec players that might like the flukey aspect of that branch.

From MTL:

I know there is some courses you don't like simply b/c there is no elevation (like the Meadow in Greenville).



Robert,

Actually elevation variety is only one factor among many in my evaluations. I take many factors into account to come up with my overall rating. It's way too simplistic to say that W. Meadowbrook got a lower rating just because it's mostly flat. For example, Castle Hayne in Wilmington is rated 87.5 and is in 15th place and it's flatter than the Meadow. I will say, though, that CH would rate even higher if it had more elevation changes.

Yes, you have to do the best with the land you've got, but some land is better than others. Hawk Hollow is on a great piece of property as are Mars Hill college and Johnny Sias' course Lucky 8. Those blessed with great property should rate higher.

I hear what you're saying though. That's why Steed in Richlands should be get a little credit. Harold did a great job making the best course that he could with a lackluster piece of property. It's still not a great course but he gets kudos for making the best of the resources available.

Castle Hayne is not flaTTer than the Meadow, hole 3,4,6,7 and 8 all have way more elevation than anything at The Meadow.

I recently posted my review of Rosedale in Kansas City, KS.

I just posted my evaluation of Oak Meadow in Houston to the google group.

Just added Prairie View in Olathe KS.

I just uploaded my evaluation of Spring Valley.

Just added East Wake Middle School in Knightdale NC.

Added Turkey Lake in Orlando. It's a partial review. Note that it is from 2002, and the course has changed since then, so the review is rather dated.

Added Black Mountain Park in NC. Played Nov 2006. New course redesign. Green level.

Added Higher Ground in Fuquay-Varina NC

Added Kentwood in Raleigh.

Added Whittier Narrows in South El Monte CA

Added the "Lowe Scores" for several So Cal courses:<ul type="square"> San Diego- Morley Field
Pasadena- Oak Grove
Azusa- Northside
Long Beach- El Dorado [/list]

Added revised reviews of WV courses:
<ul type="square"> Hico- Songer Whitewater Lavalette- Lucky 8 Parkersburg- Mountwood Monster [/list]

I'm working on reposting all reviews using only a 1-10 Rating system. Any old reviews I posted with a 1-100 Rating are now out dated, and will eventually be replaced.

I'm working backward alphabetically by state reposting and revising reviews. I've recently added the following VA course reviews:
<ul type="square">
Arlington- Bluemont
Centreville- Bull Run
Charlottesville- Walnut Creek (One of my top 10 favorites!)
Fairfax Station- Burke Lake
Spotsylvania- The Grange
Spotsylvania- Hawk Hollow
Suffolk- Ace Run Ranch
VA Beach- Bayville [/list]

More VA course reviews added:

<ul type="square"> Fredericksburg (Spotsylvania)- Loriella Fredericksburg- Pratt Lorton- Pohick Bay McLean- McLean Central Midland- Crockett Newport News- Newport News Park Richmond- Dorey Richmond- Gillies Creek [/list]

Added the VA course: Loriella in Spotsylvania

Added my reviews of all the TX courses I've played:
<ul type="square"> Austin- Pease Houston (Cypress)- Oak Meadow Live Oak- Live Oak Park New Braunfels- Prince Solm Round Rock- Old Settlers Spring (Houston)- Spring Valley Wimberley- Circle R Meadow & Hill
[/list]

Added my reviews of the TN courses I've played:
<ul type="square"> Kingsport- Warrior's Path Knoxville- Morningside [/list]

I sdded my reviews of the SC courses I've played:
<ul type="square"> Camden- Woodward Chapin- Crooked Creek Charleston- Trophy Lakes Columbia- Earlewood Florence- Mars Bluff (9) Greenville- Timmons Myrtle Beach- Tupelo Bay North Augusta- Hippodrome North Augusta- Riverview Rock Hill- Winthrop Gold 2001 [/list]

Lowe,

Why don't you post your reviews here for all to enjoy?

(A lot of people may not want to create a GoogleGroups account or join a group that doesn't allow members to post...)

Lowe,

Why don't you post your reviews here for all to enjoy?



Jeff,

There's no way to post attachments here, and my reviews have lots of detailed information.


(A lot of people may not want to create a GoogleGroups account or join a group that doesn't allow members to post...)



Members can post now.
Joining a Google Group isn't very hard.

I added my reviews of the PA courses I've played:
<ul type="square"> Kennett Square- Nixon Philadelphia- Sedgley Woods Quakertown- Nockamixon [/list]

I'm looking for a website that would like to host my reviews, so that they can be more easily accessible to more people. If you have any suggestions please email me at

playdiscgolf(at)gmail.com

Lowe Bibby

I added my reviews of OH courses:
<ul type="square"> Athens- Ohio U Chillicothe- Great Seal S.P. [/list]

Added OH- Columbue- Griggs Reservoir

Per Jeff's request I'm adding some of the summary details of my evaluation.

Special Features: The reservoir is nearby, behind a row of bushes and trees, but, sadly, it doesn't come into play.

Favorite Hole(s): 3. Nice grass and trees; 18. A nice par 4, so it's a longer hole.

Toughest Hole(s): 3. It has a White Scoring Average (WSA) of 3.5 for a par 3.

Comments: The course is mostly flat and pretty open with scattered trees. Holes 5-17 have very similar flatness, foliage, length and I took mundane 3s on almost all of them.

Lowe Score: 5

Summary comments on New Quarter in Williamsburg from my review:

There's a nice mix of woods holes and more open crush shots. There are also some nice elevation changes on some holes. Lots of work has been done so all the basics of tee pads and signs were quite good. The course map is the best I've ever seen!

Lowe Score = 8

Added OH courses
<ul type="square"> Columbus- Hoover/Hambrick Dublin- Balgirffen Lancaster- Flat Rocks Reedsville- Forked Run SP [/list]

Added NY course-
Ellison in Rochester

I added more VA courses that I played in April 07:
<ul type="square"> Suffolk- Bennett's Creek. A nice course on pretty land. Virginia Beach - Munden Point Williamsburg- New Quarter [/list]

Looks like Lowe's Course Reviews are now the gold standard in Stanly County, NC. :D

From: http://www.thesnaponline.com/local/local_story_150095055.html


Local course ranks high in state

By Jay Almond, Staff Writer

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - Stanly County is home to one of the top ten rated disc golf courses in the state and on that course is one of the top ten rated tee to pin disc golf holes, according to Lowe Bibby of DG Course Reviews.
The Fox Chase disc course was recently built at Albemarle's Chuck Morehead Park off U.S. 52 on the Northeast Connector. The course has 18 holes and winds through the woods with plenty of elevation change and reasonable challenges.
After playing the course earlier in the month, Lowe awarded the course a nine on a 10 scale and labeled the quality as excellent.
But while some players already know about the hidden gem, others have yet to experience it.
"I recently had the pleasure to play the new Fox Chase disc golf course in Albemarle," Bibby said in a letter to course designer Russell Schwarz of Innova Disc Golf, a disc golf merchandising company.
"I really like the design and it's on a great piece of land.
Overall, from the blue tees there are many challenging shots."
The course will continue to be fine tuned as Albemarle Parks and Recreation Department (AP&amp;R) pushes forward with innovative recreation.
Two raked concrete tee pads on most holes allow for quality play from players of all skill levels.
Enthusiasts will have the opportunity to play where the pros play by this fall, thanks to the Albemarle Disc Golf Association (ADGA), helmed by Charlie Holcomb.
In September Fox Chase will host its first Professional Disc Golf Association (PDGA) tournament, an event likely to draw some of the top disc golfers in the United States converging on the region for the U.S. Nationals at Winthrop University.
Until then, players can hit the course to enjoy a unique layout and a brisk hike through pleasant terrain.
Built in 2006, the new course features tree lined as well as open fairways with a few creeks to play across, and spans a scenic woodland environment.
One area player who knows what Fox Chase has to offer because he's been a part of its development and promotion is Jason Fox.

"I was thrilled when I heard the news about the rating and the encouragement of professionals from all over to come to Stanly County and play," he said.
Turning a stretch of wooded park-land into a natural walking and disc throwing area will likely benefit local merchants and the hospitality industry.
God's Country Outfitters, a local outdoors retailer added disc golf equipment to the sales inventory.
Visitors to the store can learn about the sport and the course and pick up supplies locally.
For normal game play, players use different discs during rounds, much like golfers use different clubs.
However, a single disc can carry a player through a full round if needed.
Some discs are used for drivers for teeing off, while others are more suited as irons and putters, in regards to when they are played.
They are made from various forms of plastic and in several weights and designs.
Drivers are sleeker discs and fly farther than putters, which are generally softer.
The pin is still a pin, but doesn't mark a hole in the ground; it's more of an open cylindrical basket with chains hanging from it to catch accurately thrown discs.
Pins are designed so a disc thrown into the chains falls into a round metal basket, signifying a finished hole.

Looks like Lowe's Course Reviews are now the gold standard in Stanly County, NC. :D



It looks like the folks in Stanly County have good sense. :D

Jeff- how did you find that article so quickly? I did a brief interview with their reporter, but I didn't even know where to find it.

Jeff- how did you find that article so quickly? I did a brief interview with their reporter, but I didn't even know where to find it.



Lowe, it came up in my Google News filter for disc golf. :cool:

I'd like to recommend a good course review site called DG Course Review (what a catchy name!). Find it at DG Course Review (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/) .

I'm going to start posting my reviews there too, as well as at my google group of the same name.

Course Level from the Red tees = White.

Set in a forest that gets lots of rainfall, this is all that I hoped for in a Washington course. The course is not long, but it's fun. Euphoria Factor = Very high! I can't wait to play it again!

Strengths-
To me the forest is absolutely beautiful and serene. I loved the evergreens and the lush large fern undergrowth. There were good elevation changes with lots of up and down shots.
-The course is extremely well marked so it's easy to navigate. There are signs everywhere.
-The tee signs are very good.
-The bag holders will keep your discs dry when there's rain.
-There is an online map and score card (but the course has been redesigned since it was made).

Suggestions for improvement-
-Update the online map and scorecard to match the current design.
-Add the longer Alt lengths to the tee signs.
-Use a system to show whether the baskets are in the regular or the long Alt positions.

Matters of taste-
-Some longer throwers may think the course is too short. As a shorter thrower I enjoyed being able to reach the holes from the red tees.

White level players (875-925 PR) should really like this course!

Lowe Score = 8 out of 10

My evaluation notes with hole by hole details in Excel, and a summary from my database will now be posted at DG Course Review (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/) instead of at my Google group.

I've grudgingly decided that Yahoo Groups are superior to Google Groups, so I've started a new Yahoo group for my course reviews called DG Course Review (http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/DGCourseReviews/ ).
From now on I'll be posting the files with my reviews there and at Disc Golf Course Review, http://www.dgcoursereview.com/. I'll no longer be adding files to the Google group, so I urge all members of that group to switch over to the Yahoo group.

More VA course reviews added:

<ul type="square"> Fredericksburg (Spotsylvania)- Loriella Fredericksburg- Pratt Lorton- Pohick Bay McLean- McLean Central Midland- Crockett Newport News- Newport News Park Richmond- Dorey Richmond- Gillies Creek [/list]



Lowe... i just got a PM from Otto Bufunto and he's [censored]!!! he wants to know why UVA isn't on the list!?! :D

Lowe... i just got a PM from Otto Bufunto and he's [censored]!!! he wants to know why UVA isn't on the list!?! :D



Stack,

I'm flabbergasted! How in the world do you know about Otto Bufunto? Did you go to UVA? I don't get on here that much anymore, so would you pls email me at playdiscgolf @ gmail.com ?

Lowe

Learn more about the legendary Otto Bufunto here (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Board=Players&amp;Number=305941&amp;Searchpag e=0&amp;Main=305904&amp;Search=true&amp;#Post305941) .

(Stack, note the 2005 date.)

LOL... glad you got on to read that!!! yeah... i have a crazy memory like that i guess.