|
Post by joegolferg on Mar 24, 2019 15:19:39 GMT -5
Star ratings are heavily based on how well the person who rated it, played. Ba What you and others are saying is that MOST TGC players are stupid and only rate courses acordingnto how they play? I totally disagree with this. TGC player have a higher IQ then you think they have I have yet to play 4 star course that sucks and I have yet to play a 3.5 Star course that is GREAT. I believe most people are smarter then that. Yes there are great courses being made. The average course Now is good but not great. This has been widely known since day one. People DO rate courses based on their experience rather than the quality of the course.
|
|
|
Post by LKeet6 on Mar 24, 2019 15:34:02 GMT -5
I use the "on tour" category in the course list and am rarely disappointed, to the point where I didn't enjoy it, at least...
I also look in the completed courses thread, and when a few people, especially people who I know know their s**t, are staying it's awesome, that goes on my list...
As others said, you should have a VERY well stacked favourites list by now, just get on there when you're struggling to find one to play!
I don't love every course on tour, but pros irl often don't?! No big deal, still gotta play well to score.
I'm also really enjoying the lidar courses. Some have been quite short and "easy," but they're also realistic and I like the "no frills" nature of them. Just straight up golf.
No matter how hard I look at OP's point, I just can't see a genuine issue here...
|
|
|
Post by grinder12000 on Mar 24, 2019 15:45:42 GMT -5
Shouldn't "experience" play a HUGE part of a course design? Maybe that is the issue - two trains of thought.
One side puts less weight on a persons experience and more on technical issues. Typically, I ASSUME the people rating courses this way are ALSO designers.
The other side say - pure golfers put more relevance on if he or she enjoyed the rounds. Tough courses still get good marks along with easier courses. It's all about experience as you say. THUS - you have designers who disagree with star ratings because peoples experience is not that important.
I bet if you had only golfers as contest judges with no designers you would have an entirely different set of results.
People don't like star ratings because it only tells you if people like or dislike a course. Isn't that EXACTLY what the ratings are for? Aren't we here to enjoy golf? (not that I'm helping I Know I know)
|
|
|
Post by csugolfer60 on Mar 24, 2019 16:25:50 GMT -5
Shouldn't "experience" play a HUGE part of a course design? Maybe that is the issue - two trains of thought. One side puts less weight on a persons experience and more on technical issues. Typically, I ASSUME the people rating courses this way are ALSO designers. The other side say - pure golfers put more relevance on if he or she enjoyed the rounds. Tough courses still get good marks along with easier courses. It's all about experience as you say. THUS - you have designers who disagree with star ratings because peoples experience is not that important. I bet if you had only golfers as contest judges with no designers you would have an entirely different set of results. People don't like star ratings because it only tells you if people like or dislike a course. Isn't that EXACTLY what the ratings are for? Aren't we here to enjoy golf? (not that I'm helping I Know I know) Experience is the ONLY part of golf design. There is absolutely no right or wrong in golf course design. Even so called "technical issues" are not really issues, just personal preferences. Some may be pretty well agreed upon, but they are still completely subjective. They are art, not science. So a player's experience is going to be the only thing they can rate a course on.
That being said, I have never once looked at a star rating for a course I've designed, because they are completely useless to me. I'm designing for a purpose - usually to challenge players at a PGA-Tour level, so most players' experience is going to be bad. They aren't supposed to enjoy playing it - they're supposed to enjoy beating other people on it. So if I get a bunch of people who enjoy casual rounds at my courses, I know I haven't achieved my purpose.
|
|
|
Post by cephyn on Mar 24, 2019 16:34:37 GMT -5
How do I know if I've made an average, good or great course? How do I know not to release just the good ones? How do I get good enough to make a great course without making some average or good ones along the way? I'm not allowed to make anything but great courses now?
Also if we go by star ratings, Driftless Hills is better than Roadrunner Mesa, but I think I've yet to talk to one person who has played both and agrees. But maybe I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Post by joegolferg on Mar 24, 2019 16:35:42 GMT -5
Shouldn't "experience" play a HUGE part of a course design? Maybe that is the issue - two trains of thought. One side puts less weight on a persons experience and more on technical issues. Typically, I ASSUME the people rating courses this way are ALSO designers. The other side say - pure golfers put more relevance on if he or she enjoyed the rounds. Tough courses still get good marks along with easier courses. It's all about experience as you say. THUS - you have designers who disagree with star ratings because peoples experience is not that important. I bet if you had only golfers as contest judges with no designers you would have an entirely different set of results. People don't like star ratings because it only tells you if people like or dislike a course. Isn't that EXACTLY what the ratings are for? Aren't we here to enjoy golf? (not that I'm helping I Know I know) Experience is the ONLY part of golf design. There is absolutely no right or wrong in golf course design. Even so called "technical issues" are not really issues, just personal preferences. Some may be pretty well agreed upon, but they are still completely subjective. They are art, not science. So a player's experience is going to be the only thing they can rate a course on.
That being said, I have never once looked at a star rating for a course I've designed, because they are completely useless to me. I'm designing for a purpose - usually to challenge players at a PGA-Tour level, so most players' experience is going to be bad. They aren't supposed to enjoy playing it - they're supposed to enjoy beating other people on it. So if I get a bunch of people who enjoy casual rounds at my courses, I know I haven't achieved my purpose.
Players who have a good experience on a course usually give a course a good rating. Players who have a bad experience cannot own up to their own faults and usually rate the course not so good. Experience shouldn't play a part in how you rate a course because experiences are always different. You can still have a sh%$ experience but acknowledge how good the course actually is, it's just that that rarely happens in this game. Architecture in general is art, science and execution all rolled into one. In my opinion there are right ways and wrong ways of designing authentic courses. If you want to design wacky fantasy courses, fair enough but I always discount those designs when on subjects like this. I'm only really speaking about highly realistic courses.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2019 17:41:15 GMT -5
Star ratings are heavily based on how well the person who rated it, played. Bad round, poor rating. So many people do this. Just keep your favs list well stocked with your most preffered courses. This is so true for a lot of people but not me. I have a way of rating courses that i like to use and i think it works well for me. For me courses with 3+ stars are really good and do a lot right. 4 stars for me is when i say love a lot of the holes but there may be a couple of things on my mind that cause it not be 5 stars. I just get a sense when a course is 5 stars. I don't know how to explain it properly but when a course feels special to me regardless of score then it gets that rating. I only have 2 out of 34 courses played recently that have this rating. So anything 3+ is really good. This is probably a system a lot of people won't use as i see a lot just 5 star it because it is a really good course. That's just not how i do it You will probably not understand anything i just said because i am not very good with words Edit: I have played courses extremely well but not given them the highest rating. To me, like i said, the course has to feel special to me and sometimes i can get that just from the first tee. It really does make a difference when you can get the 1st hole done well. .....and i only favourite the 5 star courses. This is so my favourites are not clogged. I can always go to my played to find other courses. Only special courses to me get in the favourite section
|
|
|
Post by cephyn on Mar 24, 2019 17:45:35 GMT -5
If I can tell the person worked hard on the course, and there's nothing egregiously lazy, sloppy or slipshod about it - 5 stars. What do I care? Stars aren't some precious resource. I want to encourage people to work in the designer and design courses. Why would I give someone who worked really hard 3 stars? I'll give them critique about what to do better next time, but the star rating is meaningless. 5 stars folks. They're all good courses, Brent.
I just use a thumbs up/thumbs down system, 5 stars or 1 star. That's it. Because it doesn't really matter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2019 17:47:11 GMT -5
Yes, stars are not the number one thing, i agree with that. The more and more people we get in the designer the better because there so many talented people out there. I have played courses with a lower rating and loved them. They mean nothing to me when going to play courses as i will play almost anything.
|
|
|
Post by csugolfer60 on Mar 24, 2019 18:01:43 GMT -5
If I can tell the person worked hard on the course, and there's nothing egregiously lazy, sloppy or slipshod about it - 5 stars. What do I care? Stars aren't some precious resource. I want to encourage people to work in the designer and design courses. Why would I give someone who worked really hard 3 stars? I'll give them critique about what to do better next time, but the star rating is meaningless. 5 stars folks. They're all good courses, Brent. I just use a thumbs up/thumbs down system, 5 stars or 1 star. That's it. Because it doesn't really matter. *golf clap*
|
|
|
Post by zzfr33b1rdzz on Mar 24, 2019 18:03:34 GMT -5
Star ratings are heavily based on how well the person who rated it, played. Ba What you and others are saying is that MOST TGC players are stupid and only rate courses acordingnto how they play? I totally disagree with this. TGC player have a higher IQ then you think they have I have yet to play 4 star course that sucks and I have yet to play a 3.5 Star course that is GREAT. I believe most people are smarter then that. Yes there are great courses being made. The average course Now is good but not great. Problem is the non TGCT people playing the courses..most of which are likely rating based on how they played..don't think there is any way around that unfortunately..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2019 18:09:43 GMT -5
What you and others are saying is that MOST TGC players are stupid and only rate courses acordingnto how they play? I totally disagree with this. TGC player have a higher IQ then you think they have I have yet to play 4 star course that sucks and I have yet to play a 3.5 Star course that is GREAT. I believe most people are smarter then that. Yes there are great courses being made. The average course Now is good but not great. This has been widely known since day one. People DO rate courses based on their experience rather than the quality of the course. I don't know how TPC Oakwind has so few plays on Xbox. It's crazy. What a awesome course. I was just going to post something about how lucky we are as a community to have all these awesome courses. Now with Lidar its only going to get better. Yeah some desingers who don't have Lidar might quit desingeing which sucks but what can you do. Example of what I played today. USE Cabot's Cliff. 4LW Xbox society Musket Ridge TST Austin CC That's a good day of golf girls and boys. Without these amazing desingers this game would be worthless. Sorry but it's true. How many new courses has HB made lately? They don't even post anymore. What a joke. Then to top it off I played Merion Lidar. Never thought I would play that many top tier course on this game when I bought TGC 1.
|
|
|
Post by SkyBlueBen on Mar 25, 2019 2:42:20 GMT -5
I love a RCR and now have 20 pages of “favourites” all RCR’s. How bloody fantastic is that as an addition to your game. For free!! On top of that I play TGCT, RRCC society and do a bit of Rangering which gives me a good look around the work of non RCR designers. The quality of some of the stuff out there is astonishing. It’s easy to pick out the courses worth trying by keeping an eye on the actual reviews (rather than the star system). And on top of that we now have LiDAR!! Remember years ago nearly wetting myself when Access were releasing a single course addition for Links!!
The only sad thing is there are not enough hours in the day to play all the good courses!
|
|
|
Post by grinder12000 on Mar 25, 2019 6:56:32 GMT -5
I want to see tha actual fact behind star ratings. I think the conclusion is BS. Where are the numbers and statistics. Or is this based on a fuzzy facts Every TGC golfer I know disagrees. But I am assuming TGC is the biggest group , I could be wrong. cephyn designs courses that are not meant to be fun which is fine. They are for a very small group of people and he does not care about stars. Which is OK. As he says he will get low ratings ( I assume if the players ONLY rate on experience theory is true) for me every course starts at 3 stars and typically it’s all they get. I have given out maybe 10 5 stars in my life. I don’t care if a designer took a year or 15 minutes. If I enjoy a course, it’s fun, challenging and has many decisions to make it gets a higher rating. Somfar every rating I have seen on a course is pretty right on. 3.5 courses are average and 4+ have all been outstanding if they have a 1000 plays
|
|
beercarthero
Weekend Golfer
Social Golfer
Posts: 149
TGCT Name: Zach Eads
Tour: CC-Pro
|
Post by beercarthero on Mar 25, 2019 8:16:45 GMT -5
"They aren't supposed to enjoy playing it - they're supposed to enjoy beating other people on it. So if I get a bunch of people who enjoy casual rounds at my courses, I know I haven't achieved my purpose."
I enjoy the courses that make me feel like I just climbed a mountain to shoot under par. We try to find courses that are absolutely punishing (but realistic) to play our money games on. A course should make you feel like you just earned that birdie. I am thankful there are designers out there with that mindset. I really enjoy the high quality RCR's as well.
|
|