Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2016 10:13:23 GMT -5
Just curious how you look at courses.
Are you more interested in the courses that are "pretty" or more interested in the courses that give you more of a challenge as a player but aren't necessarily filled with "extras"?
I know the highest rated courses have both, but I'm curious what you prefer if you would just have time for a quick round. Pretty or challenging (if you have to pick one)?
(Edit to clarify based on reebdoog's comment: by playability I don't mean ignores the basics (bisected bunkers with different rough, no smoothing of edges, etc.) I mean tons of flowers, etc. The "extras" that don't impact play.)
|
|
|
Post by Audentior on Mar 29, 2016 10:18:09 GMT -5
A course that looks pretty will make me definitely play to the end. A course that is challenging will make me play again.
|
|
reebdoog
TGCT Design Competition Directors
Posts: 2,742
TGCT Name: Brian Jeffords
Tour: CC-Pro
|
Post by reebdoog on Mar 29, 2016 10:26:18 GMT -5
If a course is NOT attractive I won't finish it. I mean, it doesn't have to be super awesome but if it's got ugly bits and visual issues or if it's just totally ignored the surroundings entirely? Not into it.
I love seeing the progression lately. I've seen folks go WAY overboard with planting thinking that's what you need to look good, then we moved to heavy planting of brush with just a pop of color here and there, now I feel like we've entered a time when everyone is looking for a cleaner look with just bits and pieces of planting surrounding a more open design. It's fun to watch.
|
|
|
Post by smurfblade88 on Mar 29, 2016 10:30:14 GMT -5
For me, i love courses tat play well 1st and foremost...the difficulty doesn matter so much but i do love a tough course tat plays well like Lytham or Cuyahoga.
Some designers make lovely lookin courses but they arnt tat enjoyable and dont play well IMO. And some others are vica versa. Striking a balance between Looking well and playing well is rare and an exceptional feat IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2016 10:34:26 GMT -5
I couldn't care less about eye candy, when I'm playing all I do is scout cam where I want to land and thats it, never look around to see what else has been planted.
I'd rather play The Legacy than be a botonist......unless all those slopes and bunkers are considered as eye candy? lol
|
|
reebdoog
TGCT Design Competition Directors
Posts: 2,742
TGCT Name: Brian Jeffords
Tour: CC-Pro
|
Post by reebdoog on Mar 29, 2016 10:44:48 GMT -5
I don't think he's talkinga bout " eye candy" as much as just overall beauty.
Golf is a visual experience just as much as it is a challenge. Imagine playing the pebble beach holes but in a junk yard. Same experience? Nope. That's how I took it anyway.
|
|
|
Post by ErixonStone on Mar 29, 2016 11:34:02 GMT -5
Playability is more important to a point, and then the course's appearance takes over. For me, the appearance of a course speaks to some extent of the creator's attention to detail, and that probably extends to how well the course plays.
A neglected environment definitely detracts from the experience, and that's the criticism of Irving's courses. For example, I've played Mia Memorial a few times. The first time I played it, I thought it was a horrible course, but at least it ran ultra smoothly for me. I've played it twice since and found the hole designs to be more than adequate. I find myself thinking, "I wish Irving spent more time making this look nice, cuz this course could be pretty good."
There are so many quality courses that are also beautiful to look at. Courses that are solid, but unspectacular, aren't going to get plays because there's an equally-as-good, but nicer looking course just around the corner.
|
|
|
Post by mrooola on Mar 29, 2016 11:37:16 GMT -5
I think aesthetics is more important overall, but that does not mean that either is unimportant. Like Elz41 said. I'd play all 18 holes on a beautiful course, but i'd play a good challenge more than once. Just as Reebdoog say however I would not play the full 18 on a good challenge that looks like crap. For me the question stated in the subject and the question stated in the OP don't correlate really. A pretty course does not need eye candy. Maybe its the same for many, but for me lighting, routing of holes and sculpting has more to do with beauty than flowers, boats, rock formations, train tracks, retaining walls or... well you get the picture. Take University Links for example. Beautiful course that plays well. Very good challenge. That course has everything. The Train tracks really made it stand out and it was the first of its kind. Would the course be any worse without it? Not really. It added a wow factor, but its stands on its own with or without what I see as the Eye candy. Its not the best course in the game so don't be too flattered pyates Best course is Tye Dunes... Ohh wait... I can get totally annoyed with courses that has sooooo much time spent on all these extras, but leave little attention to the course itself. Be it overall looks or playability. Those are the courses where a designer spends 100s of hours on details and 10 hours on the course. Don't get me wrong here. I admire those designers for their effort and I often get impressed by what they create, but it offer very little to me as a player. Maybe its the fact that I lack the imagination they possess, but its how I feel. A beautiful course that isn't a big challenge can be just as enjoyable as a good challenge. I can go around without a care and shoot low scores and just enjoy myself. Look at the view and admire the settings a designer creates. 18 good looking tee shots does not have to be any less of a feat than designing the toughest course on earth. The difficulty for me is more what separates the best courses among each other. I think ones opinion on this differs on what you want from the game though. I want to enjoy playing a golf game and have some competition along the way. If you are super competitive I guess the view of a course change. Then you want to separate yourself from the rest in a stern test. Nothing wrong with that. As usual when a subject arise that I love debating comes up I ramble. That's my opinion on the matter at the moment at least. Toodles!
|
|
|
Post by adamhill413 on Mar 29, 2016 12:27:56 GMT -5
Such a simple question, but not such a simple answer as, like most things, I have thought of many angles without really thinking about which one to take. I think the most important element is balance: there are some courses that are as pretty as Pamela Anderson, but have [unplayable] undulations like... well... Pamela Anderson. There are some courses that look like Jeremy's Clarkson (not a spelling error), but had a lot of effort put in and play superbly. So the balance here is a course that has had a lot of effort put in to make it play greatly, and to make it outstanding on the eyes, right? Yes and no.
Beauty isn't really something that is designed, but more of something that is happened across. If I see a point on the plot from where the vista will be outstanding, I will route the course to pass it if possible. Planting can be done in a really painstaking and anal (head out of the gutter, now) manner, or can be just slapped down any old way and can achieve the same effect. A lot of the time, throwing the plants down and seeing which way they land can produce the best effects. However team that with an awful course and you're right back on the starting blocks. The appearance is the first impression a course gives so that is certainly important, but a player's score needs to something they will want to come back to beat.
To summarise: Come for the looks, return for the record books.
|
|
|
Post by Terry Grayson on Mar 29, 2016 13:03:25 GMT -5
Ive designed golf courses since the PGA2000 days, and always thought like this:
Tee area: Needs to look good Landing area: Needs to look good but not so easy the golfer can just grip it and rip it.. Greensites: need to look good but play very good also...
Now let me explain!
My personal thoughts and my thoughts alone are: When I open a course, normally 9 out of 10 times I will know from the opening tee shot whether or not I will like the course. An inviting look definitely gets me interested first and foremost. I want to stand there before teeing off and see what the designer is offering up! Look at setmypath, Canuck, Taste,reebdog, and many others designers courses, they catch your eye from the moment the course loads. To me they are saying hey bud, look at this, and there is plenty more awaiting you ahead... I love a beautiful course... However I want it to be playable as well....
the landing zone after the tee shot needs some attention as well... I have seen way too often that not that folks in this game don't care much for a fairway they deem is not wide enough... I personally don't care for a course that has a bunker or two out there awaiting my tee shot and there is no way in hell Im going to hit it unless I shank it... What I mean is If you place bunkers out there to catch an errant shot yet provide me with a 30-40 yard fairway , no way in hades am going to hit it... Makes it way to easy... I like it a bit narrower and something that is going to make me plan my tee shot... Not so narrow that you have to thread a needle to make the shot... Basically strategically placed bunkering, not just thrown down somewhere 260-280 yards out there... On the flip side, don't care much for a thousand bunkers being thrown all over the fairway at 270 either and you have to be surgical just to hit a piece of fairway..ha ha...Kinda contradicted myself a bit on this one I guess.. lol Greensites: I guess I am old school a bit... I love green sites with false fronts, back to front slopes, front to back slopes, multi-tiered greens, etc.. I want undulations all over the greens, that makes me look ahead of time where I want to place the ball...One that I plan on hitting a club or two less that I need and have it run up using the terrain to get closer... I love greens like that.... I understand the argument of yellow/red lines but unless they are so unnatural that is causes a hole to be unplayable I welcome those.... What I don't like is being penalized for making a great shot then having a five foot putt on the side of the hill, that is you miss it, there is no way you are staying on the green or it rolls 30 feet away... totally unrealistic and unnecessary ... By all means put your gigantic slope near the pin, but give the golfer an actual chance to make the putt by tempering down the speed/firmness or at least smoothing the green around the pin a tad.... There have been some amazing courses I have played that pins like this absolutely ruin the course for me.... Its hard to achieve the toughness/balance of a course, but this could be avoided with a little thought and playtesting..
A pet peeve of mine and its always been this way is un-level tee boxes.... and also no attention being paid to the unplayable areas of the course... Ive played some very good courses and I mean some great courses that the designer really puts great attention to the actual course but then just behind their tree line there has been absolutely nothing done, just blank canvas as far as you can see... Don't like that.... throw a few trees or something back there to break up the nothingness ....
Point to all that rambling is I guess: I love a beautiful course yet one that is playable that makes me think when playing it.... A couple recent ones that immeditaley come to mind are Idanha and Magillacuddy.... Absolutely beautiful courses, pleasing to the eye, and very playable.... Of course I guess they could be extremely easy for some folks, but too hard for others, but they fit my style play and the way I love to see a course designed.....
Good topic.... Sorry for rambling, and heck I don't know if I actually answered the original question or not ha ha
Terry
|
|
|
Post by pyates on Mar 29, 2016 16:33:23 GMT -5
Good debate, I agree with the general consensus that a balance is needed. You can probably reach 7or8/10 with a course that only plays well but maybe 9/10 for one that is visually stunning. As some have said though, that must include the golf course elements. I played a course not so long ago that was full to the brim with excellent off course work but it was massively overdone and detracted massively from the course. The course area didn't integrate with the detail work and left me thinking the course had been neglected. It probably wasn't a bad layout but I found it hard to play seeing that a fraction of the time appeared to be spent on the course. On the flip side I played one with almost no frills. There was some good detail work applied to the course but nothing off the course. It at least allowed me to focus on the course which I thoroughly enjoyed. It could easily be overlooked as a course but I did recommend it to one of the selectors as it played very well. It was from a relative unknown and was virtually a first effort, it is this kind of designer I think can go a long way. Cheers for the shout out mrooola, I'm very proud of those courses. I try to find something unique to make the course stand out, but I try to not let it overshadow the golf. biggins was always the king of this if you ask me... Need that guy back on! By the way, have to thank Terry for reminding me of my PGA 2000 course Tye Dunes which inspired me to create a new course of that name. Can't get that old game running on my win 8 PC... Need to try it again
|
|
|
Post by Terry Grayson on Mar 29, 2016 16:47:10 GMT -5
Ahhh pyates the old glory days of PGA2000 ... Loved that old game ! Many great years with those folks and the old Copyrightclub! golfsimclubhouse.com still houses the install and every course ever released I believe ! Still some of the old heads still play via Kali nightly ...
I thought Pga had the best mechanics of any game I've played on the golf side but TGC to me is right there if not better ... I hope I one day get to the level I was there Playing wise but I'm so inconsistent here ! Much like my real game one day decent the next spraying it all over the place ha ha ha
|
|
|
Post by pyates on Mar 29, 2016 16:49:21 GMT -5
This might be going a bit off topic, but one thing I'd like to add... this isn't the case for all, but many of the top designers are up there in terms of how well they can play. Just as important as immersing yourself in the designer is getting out there, seeing what others have created and working to become a top player. You can be a top designer without being able to play for toffee, but it takes a very good strategic awareness to create a top course, being a top player helps you identify that in others courses. Failing that watch ghost balls from top players on yours or others courses. I'm short, experience will help you find that balance IMO
|
|
|
Post by pyates on Mar 29, 2016 16:51:13 GMT -5
Ahhh pyates the old glory days of PGA2000 ... Loved that old game ! Many great years with those folks and the old Copyrightclub! golfsimclubhouse.com still houses the install and every course ever released I believe ! Still some of the old heads still play via Kali nightly ... I thought Pga had the best mechanics of any game I've played on the golf side but TGC to me is right there if not better ... I hope I one day get to the level I was there Playing wise but I'm so inconsistent here ! Much like my real game one day decent the next spraying it all over the place ha ha ha Yeah thanks so much for pointing me there several months back. Downloaded my course files but no luck running it. I'll give it another shot... Failing that any tips getting it running?
|
|
|
Post by Terry Grayson on Mar 30, 2016 7:14:55 GMT -5
There is a utilities section on the main page and a technical section in the forums If I remember correctly that points to ways to make it work on windows 7 or 8 if I remember correctly... I got it loaded on windows 7 about a year ago...Seemed like I had to download a couple of OCX files and that corrected it... Give that a try if you want to load it again
|
|