mayday_golf83
TGCT Design Competition Directors
Posts: 2,279
TGCT Name: Jeremy Mayo
Tour: Elite
|
Post by mayday_golf83 on Dec 5, 2018 7:06:59 GMT -5
I doubt anyone would’ve complained had you left out the OB between holes. Just seemed very unfair on that 15th - the par5 - pin 3? I’m not saying I don’t appreciate the artistic nature just saying that stuff is very frustrating especially when it’s a 5 foot rise if you have to putt. I do not necessarily disagree with this sentiment Mitch, however, I wouldn't use the word "unfair." Extremely challenging? Yes. Punishing for a slight miscalculation in either strategy or execution? Yes. Quite frankly, 15 is a three-shot hole when the pin's back there and the strategy is how to play your first two shots to leave yourself with the most manageable third -- which is either trying to play close enough to have a flop or far enough back for a full wedge. If you try to be a hero, good on you if you pull off the shot, but it's like old football coaches used to say about the forward pass, "Only three things can happen, and two of them are bad." The OB long needs to be there 1) because it's authentic to the course and 2) it takes away the "safe" miss long, as it would likely be a pretty straight-forward up and down from there otherwise. This pin (and to a lesser extent pin 4 on the back shelf on 6) is exactly why I ended up creating a members and a tourney version of this course, as I knew it would cause some consternation. If I'm playing a casual round, or if this were a CC event, I'd be muttering to myself if I saw the pin back there (the members version does not use that hole location and has slightly slower greens). However, it's a recreation of a course with major-championship pedigree and the tourney version is set up in that manner. The tips are longer, the greens closer to the edge and the pins less accessible. And, this isn't even a full field PGA event, it's 50 of the best and hottest players in the game right now. So, do I think it's fair to ask some questions of the game's best I wouldn't ask of the average player? Yes. Also, for some perspective, it's worth nothing that this course was never designed solely for the purpose of PGA use. It was designed to showcase an old MacRaynor classic that the modern game has outgrown a little bit while continuing to educate myself on some classic design principles. Don't get me wrong, I'm honored that Dale decided to use the course, but the tourney version was made first and he came to me asking to use it. It wasn't that he played the members and asked for a tougher version for PGA. I'm not saying you have to agree with what I did, or enjoy playing the course -- nor am I upset that you took that pin to task. However, since you inquired, I'm more than happy to shed some light into the design process and explain why I did what I did and didn't do what I didn't do. Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by CuseHokie on Dec 5, 2018 7:21:52 GMT -5
I doubt anyone would’ve complained had you left out the OB between holes. Just seemed very unfair on that 15th - the par5 - pin 3? I’m not saying I don’t appreciate the artistic nature just saying that stuff is very frustrating especially when it’s a 5 foot rise if you have to putt. I do not necessarily disagree with this sentiment Mitch, however, I wouldn't use the word "unfair." Extremely challenging? Yes. Punishing for a slight miscalculation in either strategy or execution? Yes. Quite frankly, 15 is a three-shot hole when the pin's back there and the strategy is how to play your first two shots to leave yourself with the most manageable third -- which is either trying to play close enough to have a flop or far enough back for a full wedge. If you try to be a hero, good on you if you pull off the shot, but it's like old football coaches used to say about the forward pass, "Only three things can happen, and two of them are bad." The OB long needs to be there 1) because it's authentic to the course and 2) it takes away the "safe" miss long, as it would likely be a pretty straight-forward up and down from there otherwise. This pin (and to a lesser extent pin 4 on the back shelf on 6) is exactly why I ended up creating a members and a tourney version of this course, as I knew it would cause some consternation. If I'm playing a casual round, or if this were a CC event, I'd be muttering to myself if I saw the pin back there (the members version does not use that hole location and has slightly slower greens). However, it's a recreation of a course with major-championship pedigree and the tourney version is set up in that manner. The tips are longer, the greens closer to the edge and the pins less accessible. And, this isn't even a full field PGA event, it's 50 of the best and hottest players in the game right now. So, do I think it's fair to ask some questions of the game's best I wouldn't ask of the average player? Yes. Also, for some perspective, it's worth nothing that this course was never designed solely for the purpose of PGA use. It was designed to showcase an old MacRaynor classic that the modern game has outgrown a little bit while continuing to educate myself on some classic design principles. Don't get me wrong, I'm honored that Dale decided to use the course, but the tourney version was made first and he came to me asking to use it. It wasn't that he played the members and asked for a tougher version for PGA. I'm not saying you have to agree with what I did, or enjoy playing the course -- nor am I upset that you took that pin to task. However, since you inquired, I'm more than happy to shed some light into the design process and explain why I did what I did and didn't do what I didn't do. Cheers! It’s all good. I ended up rolling to the collar and chipped for birdie on that hole but just giving my feedback. Not surprised to hear others couldn’t put up that ridge. Be curious to see the data come in after Thursday to see how folks faired. Other than that hole, the ridge on 2 is probably too severe but you’ll probably tell me that’s to spec so shrug.
|
|
mayday_golf83
TGCT Design Competition Directors
Posts: 2,279
TGCT Name: Jeremy Mayo
Tour: Elite
|
Post by mayday_golf83 on Dec 5, 2018 7:46:55 GMT -5
It’s all good. I ended up rolling to the collar and chipped for birdie on that hole but just giving my feedback. Not surprised to hear others couldn’t put up that ridge. Be curious to see the data come in after Thursday to see how folks faired. Other than that hole, the ridge on 2 is probably too severe but you’ll probably tell me that’s to spec so shrug. LOL, you got it, Mitch, re: the Biarritz swale on 2 🙂. I’m interested in seeing the day-by-day stats on 15 as well. Anecdotally, it’s said that hole plays nearly a stroke more difficult when the pin’s in back. Will be curious as to how that plays out in the virtual sandbox. Didn’t have enough FedEx points to qualify, but after I get my regular tour rounds in, I’m going to try to give this a play just to see how I would have stacked up.
|
|
|
Post by hippystein on Dec 5, 2018 7:52:39 GMT -5
I doubt anyone would’ve complained had you left out the OB between holes. Just seemed very unfair on that 15th - the par5 - pin 3? I’m not saying I don’t appreciate the artistic nature just saying that stuff is very frustrating especially when it’s a 5 foot rise if you have to putt. I do not necessarily disagree with this sentiment Mitch, however, I wouldn't use the word "unfair." Extremely challenging? Yes. Punishing for a slight miscalculation in either strategy or execution? Yes. Quite frankly, 15 is a three-shot hole when the pin's back there and the strategy is how to play your first two shots to leave yourself with the most manageable third -- which is either trying to play close enough to have a flop or far enough back for a full wedge. If you try to be a hero, good on you if you pull off the shot, but it's like old football coaches used to say about the forward pass, "Only three things can happen, and two of them are bad." The OB long needs to be there 1) because it's authentic to the course and 2) it takes away the "safe" miss long, as it would likely be a pretty straight-forward up and down from there otherwise. This pin (and to a lesser extent pin 4 on the back shelf on 6) is exactly why I ended up creating a members and a tourney version of this course, as I knew it would cause some consternation. If I'm playing a casual round, or if this were a CC event, I'd be muttering to myself if I saw the pin back there (the members version does not use that hole location and has slightly slower greens). However, it's a recreation of a course with major-championship pedigree and the tourney version is set up in that manner. The tips are longer, the greens closer to the edge and the pins less accessible. And, this isn't even a full field PGA event, it's 50 of the best and hottest players in the game right now. So, do I think it's fair to ask some questions of the game's best I wouldn't ask of the average player? Yes. Also, for some perspective, it's worth nothing that this course was never designed solely for the purpose of PGA use. It was designed to showcase an old MacRaynor classic that the modern game has outgrown a little bit while continuing to educate myself on some classic design principles. Don't get me wrong, I'm honored that Dale decided to use the course, but the tourney version was made first and he came to me asking to use it. It wasn't that he played the members and asked for a tougher version for PGA. I'm not saying you have to agree with what I did, or enjoy playing the course -- nor am I upset that you took that pin to task. However, since you inquired, I'm more than happy to shed some light into the design process and explain why I did what I did and didn't do what I didn't do. Cheers! Like i said. Course is good and enjoyed the course. But you know yourself from designing and playing as you do. When green speeds are changed they no longer play as intended and i think they ruined r1 n r2 this week buy messing too much as they have done because they know the greens will play @!$#ed? Its spoilt what is a well designed track. But when you hit good approach shots and leave yourself a nice putt and everything if front of you says its breaking 2 cups right to left and it either goes dead straight or plays 6 cups it riles the crap out of me. Also when courses say moderate they never play moderate it all depends on how firm youve designed the course and in my eyes it plays as a percentage down of ur firmness. It also alters green speeds. Even tho fast is 163. On moderate it makes greens play more like 155s and that a funky number for true roll. Ive designed a few courses over the last 2 games and certain green speeds have no accurracy to them what so ever. So i tend to stick to 187, 180, 175, 165, etc they play as true as it gets but in between numbers are always messed up.( i would like to hear your thoughts on green speed change if poss?) I know a lot of designers dont like the default messed with if at all possible if there getting used in societies! Im all for changing speeds if they all play how they should play. No ghost breaks!!! Great job on the track tho cos on the whole it was a great course and difficult but the green change just ruined your hard work playability wise.👍👍
|
|
|
Post by B.Smooth13 on Dec 5, 2018 7:54:50 GMT -5
mayday_golf83 I didn't have issue with the pin on 15 by itself, nor anything about the course, really. My frustration in that moment was with the game not allowing me to putt it hard enough to get up the hill, and our "no chipping on greens inside 100ft" rule preventing me from chipping. So essentially, it was a penalty stroke as I had no physical way to get the ball up the slope (and nearly left it short on the second try!). A practice round would have told me that it was a no-go pin, but practice rounds are few and far between these days. So again, no problem with the pin or green, that's all a function of gameplay constraints and our rules here, both of which are just part of the game, stuff like that happens to players all the time, was just my turn Oh, and I putted twice from the center of the biarritz, too! I refused to hit driver when it was on the back and 2w wasn't enough, and then barely trickled down into it on one of the days when the pin was up front. Managed to 2-putt both by holing 2nd putts somewhere in the 16-20ft range, and those were as good as birdies for me.
|
|
|
Post by B.Smooth13 on Dec 5, 2018 7:57:50 GMT -5
Like i said. Course is good and enjoyed the course. But you know yourself from designing and playing as you do. When green speeds are changed they no longer play as intended and i think they ruined r1 n r2 this week buy messing too much as they have done because they know the greens will play @!$#ed? Its spoilt what is a well designed track. But when you hit good approach shots and leave yourself a nice putt and everything if front of you says its breaking 2 cups right to left and it either goes dead straight or plays 6 cups it riles the crap out of me. Also when courses say moderate they never play moderate it all depends on how firm youve designed the course and in my eyes it plays as a percentage down of ur firmness. It also alters green speeds. Even tho fast is 163. On moderate it makes greens play more like 155s and that a funky number for true roll. Ive designed a few courses over the last 2 games and certain green speeds have no accurracy to them what so ever. So i tend to stick to 187, 180, 175, 165, etc they play as true as it gets but in between numbers are always messed up.( i would like to hear your thoughts on green speed change if poss?) I know a lot of designers dont like the default messed with if at all possible if there getting used in societies! Im all for changing speeds if they all play how they should play. No ghost breaks!!! Great job on the track tho cos on the whole it was a great course and difficult but the green change just ruined your hard work playability wise.👍👍 FWIW, I've never noticed any significant change in how putts break when green speeds are changed from default. Yes, they break more/less than default if they are slower/faster, but IMO they always feel like they play how they should according to whatever the speed is for that day. I think your a putting calculator guy, maybe it throws off some of those numbers somehow? That would be something I'm entirely unsure of since I just putt by what I see and "feel," but I guess I could see how that would be more possible?
|
|
|
Post by hippystein on Dec 5, 2018 8:45:22 GMT -5
I putt using maths as because the beads mean nothing in this game its more accurate on the whole as opposed to jist eyeing it. Id of been better eyeing it in rd1 this week tho. 27 putts!!!!!! My 9 yr old would of had less than that!!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2018 9:14:27 GMT -5
I putt using maths as because the beads mean nothing in this game its more accurate on the whole as opposed to jist eyeing it. Id of been better eyeing it in rd1 this week tho. 27 putts!!!!!! My 9 yr old would of had less than that!!!! I must be a 9 year old because I had 27 putts in Rd 1. Maybe more in R3, but I was missing greens in that round on top of the sketchy putting.
I understand there is a whole maths method to putting. I never bothered to learn it because while I like/enjoy the math part of approach shots and course management, it seems odd to do based off of artificial beads' movement. So I am a feel putter, and am below average at putting for this level but can (as R2 and R4 will show) be streaky hot now and then.
I could probably improve my finishes by going that route, but it would tip to being too technical to enjoy for me, so I'll continue 2-slapping it around greens all year.
Different strokes for different folks and all that jazz...
|
|
|
Post by donkeypuncherben on Dec 5, 2018 9:36:52 GMT -5
I agree with hippystein that I would prefer more rounds at the designed green speeds than 163 or whatever speed we seem to have for most rounds each week.
I also feel-putt like swaeromotion, and like him I am finishing higher in the True Sim events than the PGA events, which tells me that my grid reading methods aren't the best but I think it's more fun and faster that way.
Anyway, seems like something is wrong when you have a hole where even elite putters are better off missing the green to get a flop shot. Maybe a better rule would be that the length of the putt plus inches of elevation is greater than 100 people should be allowed to chip
Luckily I haven't played R3 yet, maybe I am smart enough to remember to intentionally leave it short of the green with my second
Regardless, I am a fan of the course. I think it is a good strategic design as others have pointed out
|
|
|
Post by hippystein on Dec 5, 2018 9:42:00 GMT -5
I understand that bob. I do it second nature mate. I can work the maths out equally as quick as feel player. But like u say horses for courses. I had 27 putts and a crap gir hence -6 in arguably the most favorable round of the week. The beads are like you say artificial and i dont use them at all. You could take them off completely when putting and id putt the same. There a none entity in this game, ppl think they are but they mean jack. The lines do all the work and depending on how well the greens are sculpted determines how smooth the line work is. Unless the speeds are changed then the lines go funky and there are some putts you just cant make due to the lines and itll miss 9/10 times.(not that there was any that bad this week) im just gonna have to start bashing the questionable ones with minimal break! Thats the frustration. More luck than judgement! It always seems to be the easy 5-10 ft putts too that should be nailed on. I havent played next weeks course yet i dont believe so might have to have a butchers and hopefully the schedulers have been kind!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by hippystein on Dec 5, 2018 10:01:06 GMT -5
No body designs a course at 163 ben, Thats the problem if you design the course at 173 and then its set to fast. Its already fast but youve just fubared all the lines on the green. The same as when ppl up a 155 upto a 187 and they dont check for pins in yellow. I know the courses get rangered but i cant see the tour having the man power to ranger all pins and all sets for all tours. Every week, i may be wrong. And vice versa by slowing the greens slightly you reduce the yellow thus making it borderline. Designers design courses a certain way to play a certain way. Believe me i know if i design a course and am playtesting it and its putts like crap ill change it and adjust it till it plays true so everybody gets the same crack. There are some funky ass speeds on this game tho arent the? 182 is a personal favourite. For some reason it plays quicker than a 187 and its just nuts. It runs forever and everrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!
|
|
wmr5277
Amateur Golfer
Posts: 226
TGCT Name: Vitaly Potapenko
Tour: PGA
|
Post by wmr5277 on Dec 5, 2018 10:19:05 GMT -5
Why aren't we just playing very fast greens almost every week? Would help with the long putts severely uphill, etc. Everyone in this tour can putt pretty well. Seems like an easy solution to get higher (aka worse) scores; which most of us want.
|
|
|
Post by CuseHokie on Dec 5, 2018 10:29:04 GMT -5
I agree with hippystein that I would prefer more rounds at the designed green speeds than 163 or whatever speed we seem to have for most rounds each week.
I also feel-putt like swaeromotion, and like him I am finishing higher in the True Sim events than the PGA events, which tells me that my grid reading methods aren't the best but I think it's more fun and faster that way.
Anyway, seems like something is wrong when you have a hole where even elite putters are better off missing the green to get a flop shot. Maybe a better rule would be that the length of the putt plus inches of elevation is greater than 100 people should be allowed to chip
Luckily I haven't played R3 yet, maybe I am smart enough to remember to intentionally leave it short of the green with my second
Regardless, I am a fan of the course. I think it is a good strategic design as others have pointed out I’m a proponent of length plus uphill in inches is greater than 100. However this may mess with folks playing with metric???
|
|
|
Post by donkeypuncherben on Dec 5, 2018 12:51:26 GMT -5
I agree with hippystein that I would prefer more rounds at the designed green speeds than 163 or whatever speed we seem to have for most rounds each week.
I also feel-putt like swaeromotion, and like him I am finishing higher in the True Sim events than the PGA events, which tells me that my grid reading methods aren't the best but I think it's more fun and faster that way.
Anyway, seems like something is wrong when you have a hole where even elite putters are better off missing the green to get a flop shot. Maybe a better rule would be that the length of the putt plus inches of elevation is greater than 100 people should be allowed to chip
Luckily I haven't played R3 yet, maybe I am smart enough to remember to intentionally leave it short of the green with my second
Regardless, I am a fan of the course. I think it is a good strategic design as others have pointed out I’m a proponent of length plus uphill in inches is greater than 100. However this may mess with folks playing with metric???
I would want it the other way too. If there's a 110 foot putt that's 3 feet downhill I say you should putt it. I guess that would be hard to police though.
|
|
mayday_golf83
TGCT Design Competition Directors
Posts: 2,279
TGCT Name: Jeremy Mayo
Tour: Elite
|
Post by mayday_golf83 on Dec 5, 2018 13:26:19 GMT -5
Holy smokes, guys, a lot has gone on since I left for work! Only a chance to skim here while on lunch. As far as green speeds go the “default” for this version of the course is actually faster than the fast (173 vs. 163), which is why fast was I suggested wet be paired with the rainy day. Pretty much the speed was set based on the guidelines Doyley set out just after 19 came out to give the schedulers a little more adjustablity in the tourney setups. Felt like 173 was as fast as I could get them before people started confusing me with Mike Davis of the USGA! Thing is, we all have different things that tweak us a bit while we’re playing (I know I definitely have had my pet peeves with course setup and design choices some tour courses) but, I also respect the effort that goes in from designers, schedulers and rangers, to try to get the best possible courses out there for us to play. At the end of the day, everyone’s playing the same track and whoever handles the quirks the best is likely to be at or near the top of the leaderboard. Do hope to get on tonight to give it a run and will be happy to report back with what I encountered.
|
|