|
Post by rjwils30 on Mar 22, 2017 21:05:26 GMT -5
Great point. There are so many variables in real life that it makes designing any stategic element to a hole kind of moot. Tom Doak often says he designs holes to have interesting recovery shots as for most players strategic placement of the ball is more or less a fluke and so he always try's to provide ways in which the golfer can attack a hole from any side of a fairway whether there is a bank onto the green or a mound to kick the ball off etc..This approach is perhaps less strategic and more about creativity and fun for the average player. I fully.agree with this approach and I think it works best when the angles are not readily apparent, speaking to the quote above. Rather than contorting a narrow fairway to achieve angles I think it's more interesting to provide a wider fairway with a preferred angle of attack into a green or pin. This creates a more ambiguous but varied strategy that brings more choice into the game for the golfer. As discussed above this works best with firm conditions in IRL and video game golf. Definitely, this is my belief/approach also, very well put both of you (and Big Jack Another interesting thing that comes into play is the shape of the individuals ball flight. In TGC it is identical for all golfers but IRL I've seen folk play with sometimes big natural draws and fades and both high and low ball flights. This can affect the best place to be on the fairway, providing a wide landing area definitely opens up varied strategies. What I mean by this is a hole that feeds in from the right (i.e. protected on the front left side) offers the straight hitter the best angle from the right side of the fairway, but for someone with a strong draw they might be able to make better use of the middle/left side and naturally feed into the hole from there. This is what I love so much about the sport, no 2 courses, or even 2 holes are the same, and no 2 golfers have the same array of shots available to them. You can be a very good golfer playing on the same course every day of the year and no 2 rounds would be the same. You will always have holes you could have played better, shots you missed or misjudged. Keeps you coming back
|
|
|
Post by rjwils30 on Mar 26, 2017 18:09:36 GMT -5
Regarding TGC design I was wondering what part of design do you enjoy the most? Ie: routing, strategic design, planting, bunkers, greens, clubhouse surrounds etc....
I typically enjoy the routing and bunker design. The planting can also be fun as it often really adds another level to the look of the hole.
|
|
|
Post by jacobkessler on Mar 26, 2017 18:41:53 GMT -5
Regarding TGC design I was wondering what part of design do you enjoy the most? Ie: routing, strategic design, planting, bunkers, greens, clubhouse surrounds etc.... I typically enjoy the routing and bunker design. The planting can also be fun as it often really adds another level to the look of the hole. I like designing in general lol... My favorite part has got to be sculpting in general.
|
|
|
Post by TreeWood on Mar 26, 2017 21:06:10 GMT -5
Not so sure that I have a favourte aspect. When designing using existing topography, I very much enjoy looking to "decode" what I see, and arrange a suitable series of holes that more or less work with the hand that you've been dealt. In some respects, laying out 18 holes over existing topography is kinda like solving a Sudoku puzzle.
On the other hand, I do have to say that I enjoy sculpting now much more than when I first began using GNCD. While I'm hardly "accomplished" with it, I can generally get the look I'm aiming for with FAR less time/effort than was initially required. So, I guess you could say I appreciate the progress I've made toward being able to make the sculpting tool do more or less what I want it to do.
Planting: ... it's the main thing that catches my eye when playing a course, and is generally (but not always) my own personal gauge of how much work was put into a course. That said, I find planting tedious as hell. And because I struggle mightily at making my vegetation look like it grew there thanks to the randomness of nature, it's the one aspect of course design that I admire so much in others' work, and absolutely hate in my own...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2017 18:33:04 GMT -5
for me ... I enjoy the blank canvas approach. The only thing I allow to auto generate is the grass/brush/vegetation ...
everything else is a flat plot that I build up from. I do not autogen trees or, any other part of autogen features. I attempt to use very seldom the click and forget supplied terrain, bunkers or fairway brushes ... I may use that technique a bit more for initial bunker placement, and sometimes forget to touch them up later in a build. everything esle is manually placed.
I just like playing in the "gawd" mode of creation.
And Dawg said, let there be a mountain ... and the plot was filled with mountains ... and Dawg saw the mountains, and they were good, so ended the first day ... LOL ...
|
|
|
Post by gregfordyce on Mar 31, 2017 6:47:15 GMT -5
I really like that "God" approach also, most of the time - the 100% total control over every creative aspect. Flat plot of land - and go from there. Everything the golfer sees and experiences from that point on is put there by the designer. That really satisfies the artistic side of me. BUT - the golfer in me loves links golf and golf courses that are part of the land, not imposed upon it I prefer courses where every hole looks like they were there all along, and the designer just stumbled across it on a nature hike lol. "Finding" holes in an existing plot of land is very cool also. However, with the GNCD, the latter approach seems to be a lot harder to do to find holes and use existing terrain/contours, at least to make the final course look really "natural." At least it is to me, although Lord knows I am not uber-proficient with the designer. So sometimes I try one or the other approach, or a combination of the two, which usually results in not getting the look and feel I want. Frustrating. Since this thread has been discussing links golf, natural terrain vs. imposed, strategy/choices, etc, I had that in mind when I designed my latest course, Durnwick Golf Club. Almost every hole requires thought off the tee, and paying attention to your ground game. Not just where a ball lands, but HOW it will react when it does land. I modelled many of the fairway contours on existing ones I've seen in various links courses all over. Ironically, several of the responses received on it have been negative about that very aspect - the "bumpy" landing areas on the fairways. To me that is more a critique of the golfer than the golf course - if you just smack it out there and don't pay attention to the contours of the fairway where the ball will hit, and don't think ahead to how the ball is going to bounce/roll, then that is your fault, not the designer. I.e. - the essence of the ground game. Anyway - Durnwick was my latest attempt to "find" holes in their natural setting and use the "natural terrain/contours" provided by nature vs. completely imposing my vision on a plot of land. I'll be going back to the other method next - completely imposing my will on the land.
|
|
|
Post by rjwils30 on Mar 31, 2017 8:36:14 GMT -5
I haven't had a chance to play Durnwick yet but would love to given your description of it. I sure hope you don't go back to just making smooth courses. Unfortunately there is a bit of a misconception that a "quality" course needs to be perfectly smooth. For some types of parkland or resort style courses this might be the approach but for links golf it's all about the humps and bumps. It's good to bring people out of their comfort zone it's what makes golf interesting. It's just unfortunate that some players seem to prefer to be comforted by perfectly smooth inoffensive golf holes. A friend of mine made a trip down to Bandon dunes a few years back and played pacific dunes following my recommendation. He hated it. He said he couldn't find his game and scrambled around the course the whole day. I went with him the next time and he went in with a different expectation and loved it. The thing is he was used to playing soft parkland courses that were judged by how good their maintenance practices were not by the quality and variety of golf holes. And for most courses that's all they have as they don't have remarkable sites. The first time around he saw any brownish hard pan fairways and greens to be a flaw, the second time round he saw them as being more enriching to the experience of playing the course. For him it was just about adjusting his expectation of what a course could be. Unfortunately with so many courses published most courses only get played once by a player and so much of the thought and intricacy you put into the design is overlooked. In the end it's always fun to play our own courses for what they are but yes it is nice when other people like them as well. I always struggle with this aspect when I'm designing. I want to design crazy greens but know it's off -putting to a lot of people. I try to tone them down a bit but not completely. I really like that "God" approach also, most of the time - the 100% total control over every creative aspect. Flat plot of land - and go from there. Everything the golfer sees and experiences from that point on is put there by the designer. That really satisfies the artistic side of me. BUT - the golfer in me loves links golf and golf courses that are part of the land, not imposed upon it I prefer courses where every hole looks like they were there all along, and the designer just stumbled across it on a nature hike lol. "Finding" holes in an existing plot of land is very cool also. However, with the GNCD, the latter approach seems to be a lot harder to do to find holes and use existing terrain/contours, at least to make the final course look really "natural." At least it is to me, although Lord knows I am not uber-proficient with the designer. So sometimes I try one or the other approach, or a combination of the two, which usually results in not getting the look and feel I want. Frustrating. Since this thread has been discussing links golf, natural terrain vs. imposed, strategy/choices, etc, I had that in mind when I designed my latest course, Durnwick Golf Club. Almost every hole requires thought off the tee, and paying attention to your ground game. Not just where a ball lands, but HOW it will react when it does land. I modelled many of the fairway contours on existing ones I've seen in various links courses all over. Ironically, several of the responses received on it have been negative about that very aspect - the "bumpy" landing areas on the fairways. To me that is more a critique of the golfer than the golf course - if you just smack it out there and don't pay attention to the contours of the fairway where the ball will hit, and don't think ahead to how the ball is going to bounce/roll, then that is your fault, not the designer. I.e. - the essence of the ground game. Anyway - Durnwick was my latest attempt to "find" holes in their natural setting and use the "natural terrain/contours" provided by nature vs. completely imposing my vision on a plot of land. I'll be going back to the other method next - completely imposing my will on the land.
|
|
|
Post by gregfordyce on Mar 31, 2017 21:47:23 GMT -5
Another one you MUST play is Turu Wero (Firm or Medium). New Zealand links course, created by Reeb and Staypuft for the HB Colab contest. WOW. Really captures the feeling of New Zealand! They said they modelled it after Tara Iti by Tom Doak, if that gives you any idea Fantastic links course.
|
|
|
Post by TreeWood on Mar 31, 2017 23:24:25 GMT -5
Dammit, Fordyce.... my queue of "must plays" is already long, and now I read this^ ? Ok, you had me at Doak.....Turu Wero added to the list -- are ya happy now?
|
|
|
Post by rjwils30 on Apr 1, 2017 0:55:03 GMT -5
Looks amazing! I'm on it. Another one you MUST play is Turu Wero (Firm or Medium). New Zealand links course, created by Reeb and Staypuft for the HB Colab contest. WOW. Really captures the feeling of New Zealand! They said they modelled it after Tara Iti by Tom Doak, if that gives you any idea Fantastic links course.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2017 11:38:03 GMT -5
That is why you design your plot to "look" like it belongs to be part of "Nature"
Realistic Fantasy.
|
|
|
Post by gregfordyce on Apr 5, 2017 17:34:17 GMT -5
Not normally a huge fan of desert courses, but had to post this awesome pic of the 19th (yes, 19th....) at Stone Eagle by Tom Doak. I can't figure out why he called it Stone Eagle, though......
|
|
|
Post by rjwils30 on Apr 10, 2017 9:52:41 GMT -5
Just curious what your favourite hole that you have designed for TGC?
For me, great holes have the greatest distribution of scores. The 17th at Ollie Links is probably the hole with the greatest range. An innocuous shortish par 3 on the scorecard but a real killer. its not overly strategic but in high winds judging a high shot to a narrow slightly canted green(ie 12th at Augusta) is a very tough shot. I like how the hole doesn't need a water hazard but rather relies on steep banks around the green to deflect even the slightest miss judgment. The resulting chips are tricky even for the good players. To add to this the green is steeply pitched that makes no put certain. No other hole that I've designed makes me feel as uneasy on the tee but it makes from some great drama at a critical point in the round.
|
|
|
Post by gregfordyce on Apr 10, 2017 15:24:04 GMT -5
Just curious what your favourite hole that you have designed for TGC? For me, great holes have the greatest distribution of scores. The 17th at Ollie Links is probably the hole with the greatest range. An innocuous shortish par 3 on the scorecard but a real killer. its not overly strategic but in high winds judging a high shot to a narrow slightly canted green(ie 12th at Augusta) is a very tough shot. I like how the hole doesn't need a water hazard but rather relies on steep banks around the green to deflect even the slightest miss judgment. The resulting chips are tricky even for the good players. To add to this the green is steeply pitched that makes no put certain. No other hole that I've designed makes me feel as uneasy on the tee but it makes from some great drama at a critical point in the round. Great question. For myself, probably the 13th on Durnwick, for the challenge of reading the roll of the narrow landing area of the fairway off the tee; or else the 14th (par 3) or 16th (short par 4) on Saguaro Bravo, where a precisely-aimed teeshot to the front of the green needs to be made to roll correctly down to the hole on the back.
|
|
mayday_golf83
TGCT Design Competition Directors
Posts: 2,279
TGCT Name: Jeremy Mayo
Tour: Elite
|
Post by mayday_golf83 on Apr 10, 2017 20:36:06 GMT -5
Just curious what your favourite hole that you have designed for TGC? That is a great question and I'm having a hard time coming up with one so ... Par 5: 18th hole, East Course at Noelle Valley -- Brings everything from 3 to 7 into play depending on how brave you want to be. Cut the corner over the bunkers off the tee and like be left with a long iron in for the 2nd, but there isn't much room in front of the green ahead of the water hazard, especially if you lay back off the tee. Exciting closing hole. Par 4: 10th hole, Seenbayer Park G.C. -- Makes you really think off the tee. The low-stress way to play it is 3/5 wood to the top of the ridge, but leaves you long iron a relatively shallow green fronted by a bunker. A big hook around the corner w/ driver opens the angle and makes the second shot significantly shorter but, if you don't turn it over enough, you're stymied behind a pair a trees that guard the right side of the fairway and likely chipping out. Par 3: 8th hole, Laurel Run Golf Club - Water guarding hole short and left w/a bunker short left and two long right. Not a lot of bailout room but gives you the ability to use the slopes to run ball down toward the left hole locations.
|
|