|
Post by cally on Nov 15, 2015 23:34:07 GMT -5
Majestic Royale (Clearing Skies) NOT APPROVED. This is clearly an auto generated course, with minor modifications. There are too many nice courses out there with a lot of effort put in put this in the same category NOT APPROVED.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2015 0:29:02 GMT -5
Majestic Royale (Clearing Skies) NOT APPROVED. This is clearly an auto generated course, with minor modifications. There are too many nice courses out there with a lot of effort put in put this in the same category NOT APPROVED. This course was in no way auto generated. Not really even sure where you get that idea from as there is no light rough around most of the fairways and the fairways are obviously not auto-generated if you look closely at their structure. I put a lot of effort into this course and on PC even though it has a small sample base has a 7.9 or something grade. Are you sure you played the right course? I think you might want to get a second opinion. You don't like it fine. You find some of the green elements or layout or slopes a problem fine, but don't summarily dismiss the course using auto-generation as an excuse. I built this course from scratch and did not use any auto-generated elements at all so you are completely wrong about that. TGCT doesn't want to approve it fine but give good thoughtful and honest feedback please. SC
|
|
|
Post by edi_vedder on Nov 16, 2015 21:01:39 GMT -5
Hey Michael,
thanks for submitting your course to the TGCT-database.
First of all, I've not played your course yet. But from the pictures I've seen so far (and also from Pablo's feedback I've just read), I tend to know where the reviewer's thoughts about auto-generation come from. Whatever it is, I'll try to make sure internally to get a second (and/or maybe third) opinion on it.
We'll try do get it done as soon as possible!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2015 21:31:40 GMT -5
Hey Michael, thanks for submitting your course to the TGCT-database. First of all, I've not played your course yet. But from the pictures I've seen so far (and also from Pablo's feedback I've just read), I tend to know where the reviewer's thoughts about auto-generation come from. Whatever it is, I'll try to make sure internally to get a second (and/or maybe third) opinion on it. We'll try do get it done as soon as possible! Thanks for doing that. Funny thing, you played one of my other courses, Golden Pond Resort or Golden Pond Resort (Member Tees) [both approved] and thought it was auto gen as well. I seem to have a knack for starting from scratch and creating fairway layouts that some people think are auto gen. I tend to use more traditional old style fairway layouts with straighter edges and lines than most. I don't mind being rejected because TGCT has different standards than mine, but I can assure you nothing I've created with the exception of my first couple of courses (not listed here or anywhere) are built from bare plots of land and everything is hand laid. Honestly, I'm not sure if the course is up to standards or not but was more concerned with the incorrect perception and criticism. If the course is not approved I would prefer it be rejected for the right reasons and if feedback is going to be provided it should be based on the flaws of the design not the assumption of auto-gen with little effort. There is no rush and I'll be happy with whatever decision is made. SC
|
|
|
Post by scampi00 on Nov 16, 2015 22:19:30 GMT -5
Majestic Royale (Clearing Skies)
Hi Michael,
I took some time to give a second opinion on your course. Unfortunately, I would keep it in the not approved section, which is a shame because there has been some work put into it and you can tell. Here are my notes and reasons for not approving.
-A consistent problem through the course is the lack of the same cut of rough surrounding the holes. I don't really follow the tour, but I have been told consistently by many designers here that the same cut needs to border the bunkers. I point to the bunker in the back of #2 and the bunker on the left side of the green on #3. It's a shame too, because some of these bunker complexes are different and interesting such as the diamond ones on...(#7?) and these shapes can still be accomplished with the same rough circling them.
-Additionally bunkers were inconsistent with their depth. The left side bunker on the fairway on #3 is a good example here.
-I think Pablo already mentioned it to you, but I'll repeat, the course would look better with a wider band of rough in-between bunker and fairway. it doesn't have to be too much bigger, but it would be more appealing. Probably easier to maintain for the grounds crew too.
This is a close one, but I would have to reject based on the reasons above. Please keep designing, if not for us but for your own enjoyment.
- As a final note, I did want to tell you that I don't believe I've ever seen anything quite like the rock formation you had on the back of #8 there. That was truly stunning sculpting and creativity and gave me an idea for future courses. You should be commended for that, it looked great. Lots of time and energy went into that.
Cheers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2015 1:53:56 GMT -5
Majestic Royale (Clearing Skies) Hi Michael, I took some time to give a second opinion on your course. Unfortunately, I would keep it in the not approved section, which is a shame because there has been some work put into it and you can tell. Here are my notes and reasons for not approving. -A consistent problem through the course is the lack of the same cut of rough surrounding the holes. I don't really follow the tour, but I have been told consistently by many designers here that the same cut needs to border the bunkers. I point to the bunker in the back of #2 and the bunker on the left side of the green on #3. It's a shame too, because some of these bunker complexes are different and interesting such as the diamond ones on...(#7?) and these shapes can still be accomplished with the same rough circling them. -Additionally bunkers were inconsistent with their depth. The left side bunker on the fairway on #3 is a good example here. -I think Pablo already mentioned it to you, but I'll repeat, the course would look better with a wider band of rough in-between bunker and fairway. it doesn't have to be too much bigger, but it would be more appealing. Probably easier to maintain for the grounds crew too. This is a close one, but I would have to reject based on the reasons above. Please keep designing, if not for us but for your own enjoyment. - As a final note, I did want to tell you that I don't believe I've ever seen anything quite like the rock formation you had on the back of #8 there. That was truly stunning sculpting and creativity and gave me an idea for future courses. You should be commended for that, it looked great. Lots of time and energy went into that. Cheers. No worries. We haven't heard the last of Majestic Royale. I'm actually working on the improvements and had actually started those before I submitted this version. Part of the reason to submit it in this form was to try and get some TGCT feedback on how to improve it. I'm adding in first cut along the fairways and will make sure the same cut surrounds the bunkers. The same cut around bunkers must be a standard that was added during my hiatus from TGCT Quick question. Do the bunkers have to have heavy rough around them or can they be surrounded by light rough and if they are surrounded by light rough do they have to have greater bands of rough than the creator provides when laying a bunker along or into the fairway edge? Seems like a pretty fine line to be rejected on and would like to give myself a chance going forward. If I am going to submit courses to TGCT I'll have to follow the standards obviously but even though it is uncommon some bunkers in real life have different cuts around there edges and the bands of rough between the bunker and the either the green or fairway can be quite small. An example: thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/fairway-golf-course-24469396.jpg Don't worry I doubt I'll ever stop designing, most of my favorite courses are my own, even with their flaws. Thank you for taking the time to play it and provide valuable feedback on how to improve the design. Yes, that rock fall was a bear to create, but it was so much fun doing it and #8 "River Card" is one of my favorite holes on the course. The falls are part of the reason I ran out of objects near the end. Thank you for the encouragement and recognition of probably my favorite part of the course. Thank you for your time, SC
|
|
|
Post by scampi00 on Nov 24, 2015 9:24:31 GMT -5
Clondalkin Village G.C.
A few notes on this course and reason for not approving.
-Please flatten hills in front of tee boxes. Area immediately in front of tee boxes should be flat to provide a great view off the tee and avoid those with worm burning drives hitting off these hills. -Bunkers need to be deepened. Take the soft circle brush, lower 6-12 inches and trace the inside of the bunker. Then take the soft brush again and trace the actual border of the bunker to soften the edges. -Bunkers need to be surrounded by the same cut of rough. -Either rough or deep rough needs to surround the fairway at all time and not wave in and out. On the first hole fairway, the rough completely disappears on the right hands side to give way to deep rough. A band of light rough needs to surround the fairway all the way around, or deep rough all the way around without light rough. - Course looks autogenerated with some touchups. Take Fairway/Rough/Deep Rough/ Green sliders down 0 so that they completely disappear, than place your own fairways/greens etc.
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by scampi00 on Dec 3, 2015 22:27:22 GMT -5
Las Bardenas
This course has not been approved for the following reasons.
-Bunkers should have the same cut of rough going all the way around them. (The ones on #4 are a good example)
-Bunkers need deepened and then smoothed around the outside of the bunkers afterwards.
-There are some trees in the middle of the fairway on #2, which I have seen on courses before, however I would add a band of rough around them.
-Course looks autogenerated with wavy bands of rough sometimes disappearing from the fairway. Use the Fairway/Green/Rough sliders and move them all to 0, then place your own textures down.
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by scampi00 on Dec 3, 2015 22:39:56 GMT -5
Copper Mountain
This was actually a really fun course, but I've decided not to approve it for the following reasons.
-Elevation changes are well done, but a little extreme and in some cases unreasonable. Many greens slope off the side of a mountain.
-Bunkers need to be surrounded by the same cut of rough.
-Bunkers also need deepened and smoothed around the edges afterwards.
-Course looks autogenerated in parts with some bands of wavy rough disappearing completely around the fairway.
-Some hills in front of the tee box, obstructing view of the fairway.
|
|
|
Post by scampi00 on Dec 3, 2015 22:58:47 GMT -5
Indians Gorge G.C.
I have decided not to approve this course for the following reasons, even though some thought and effort have been put into this course.
-Course seems to have some autogenerated elements to it, with bands of rough disappearing completely around the fairway. -Bunkers need to be sculpted and then smoothed around the edges afterwards. -Bunkers need to be surrounded by the same cut of rough.
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by nickweis on Dec 4, 2015 6:06:44 GMT -5
Hey guys, I'm not sure if this is the right place for this question, but where does the "bunkers need to be surrounded by the same cut of rough" comment come from? This isn't the case in real golf. Many courses have more natural, taller grass the back edges, or fairway right up to the close edge to bring the bunker more into play.
|
|
|
Post by mcbogga on Dec 4, 2015 7:21:23 GMT -5
Hey guys, I'm not sure if this is the right place for this question, but where does the "bunkers need to be surrounded by the same cut of rough" comment come from? This isn't the case in real golf. Many courses have more natural, taller grass the back edges, or fairway right up to the close edge to bring the bunker more into play. Agreed - if it looks ok it is ok.
|
|
|
Post by scampi00 on Dec 4, 2015 8:25:11 GMT -5
Hey guys, I'm not sure if this is the right place for this question, but where does the "bunkers need to be surrounded by the same cut of rough" comment come from? This isn't the case in real golf. Many courses have more natural, taller grass the back edges, or fairway right up to the close edge to bring the bunker more into play. Agreed - if it looks ok it is ok. Interesting. I was told this on multiple courses when I first started submitting. I just started echoing it to others. I can change this going forward, no biggie.
|
|
reebdoog
TGCT Design Competition Directors
Posts: 2,742
TGCT Name: Brian Jeffords
Tour: CC-Pro
|
Post by reebdoog on Dec 4, 2015 10:23:21 GMT -5
yeah, the bunker thing isn't a hard and fast rule by any means. Several of Biggin's courses don't follow this. I have a couple with light rough in front then transitioning to heavy or natural rough in the back. As long as it's done well.
|
|
|
Post by drivert on Dec 4, 2015 10:41:38 GMT -5
As a reviewer I want to share my thoughts in this thread about the course database. Please correct me or add to my thought process as you see fit. I think the TGC tours course database from my understanding was first created to fill a void left from pocket scout. It is intended as a place to go find good playable courses and not necessarily tournament specific courses. The staff of TGC tours uses this course database to look for tournament courses but the main intent is for the community to have a good place to easily located well made courses.
It seems that some courses submitted are judged based on if they could host a tour event and not if they are good playable courses. I also know that we have two approval options (approved and tour worthy) and these can sometimes IMO be useless as it is all subjective from the reviewer. I wish there was only approved and then the tournament committees would deem them usable for a tournament after they are in the database.
When I review a course my main concern is it a course I would enjoy playing multiple times whether or not it is a good fit for tournaments does not matter at this point. If it is a course that I don't even want to finish then it probably shouldn't be approved. If it is autogen with no work put in I reject it and my biggest pet peeve is humps in front of tee boxes that block the shot. If the designer did not take the time to QA the tee shots then the rest of the course is probably suffering as well. Burnt looking textures around the fairways and greens is another factor on my list for rejection but can easily be resolved and if the course is good but this I recommend fixing this and resubmitting.
I say all this to boil it down to a simple criteria for me is the course good enough to make me want to play it multiple times.
|
|