Consistencies:
...Greens blended in w/ fairway too much, couldn't see the greens and shapes due to similar color. Really pulled away from views of approach shots
...The green/fairway delineation was difficult to see. You had to zoom all the way in on a few holes to see where the green started.
...Did feel a little bland in regards to planting but had excellent use of rocks around ponds/ocean.
...Everything just looks the same...it's so........plain.
...Missing the Fun Factor. Each hole seems the same. No "Wow look at this hole" thoughts during my round.
Inconsistencies:
...The closing hole looks like a closing hole.
...Not a fan of Par3 finishing holes
...and really like the choices for the fairway, light rough and rough.
...Didn't like the light rough color band
...The color palette is harsh looking to me.
...I start here and love the look off the first tee.
...The opening hole looks rather non-descript.
...you're presented with some challenging and thought provoking golf
... If I had to pick a couple things people may find as negatives here, I guess the challenge
(by the same judge that liked the challenge..)Stand Alone:
...Bottoms of bunkers had some lumps (unnatural piles instead of flat or gradient off defined slopes)
...Why are all pins in the middle of the green? I don't remember playing any front pins, and only a few back pins.
...Hole12 the Right FW is too far from the tee, even downwind would be hard to reach. So what's the point of it? Trying to fool us?
...Although the course was technically as good as one can be from a perfection point of view. It was a bit boring for me.
...Whale in the background of 17 and 18, but the water is still shallow and rocky here, doubt it would swim in that water
...The greens have more fringe than a gathering of female porn stars.
...Hole 3: The waypoint for the drive is really bad. It's obvious the designer wanted to force people into a short tee shot but a full drive is wide open....but you have to pan far to the right. Just bad design.
...Hole 5: The tee shot looks like the approach shot for hole 4.
...the second shot on hole 1 where it looks like you have to hit it over a fence to get to the green.
...There's nothing special here. It's a decent course but there's nothing that would make me want to play it again.
I thought id tackle some of these if that is ok:
this was done intentionally, but its not as defined as you make it seem. it was lower lighting so the shadows gave off the effect of the undulations being larger than they were. the reason the bigger bunkers looked like this is just that, they are bigger bunkers, wind moves sand, nothing unnatural about that at all. Many larger bunkers throughout the world in windy areas (like near the beach) have this effect.
I would refer you to the course conditions: FIRM. I would have gotten more flack if i did have more front pins here than if i did not. that still goes without saying, this is just one pinset, other pinsets will have a couple front pins as the greens were designed to take them. Its not too difficult to see where the multi pinning would be on this course, the greens are very fair with lots of flattish areas around them between the breaks.
Think outside the box buddy, a course is not defined by one tee box. you just happened to be hitting from the tips. that section of fairway opens up with the other tee boxes. it really sucks this was listed as a con. adding elements to the course that only come into play under different tee'ing areas and then listed as a con is frustrating to be honest.
perhaps try out "whacky fun golf" its far from perfection and definitely not boring. on a more serious note, not everyone is going to enjoy the same things, thats understandable. I would be willing to bet if the course was easier this would not be an issue.
whale was actually just a joke for oola
not even sure if i should comment here.
this right here,...and i hate to say it. but that is just poor judging. waypoint was set to the far left center of the fairway for 2 reasons, 1 was to show the hole in the flyover without the trees getting into the way of view, and 2 was to let the golfer decide how much he/she wanted to cut off with the driver. no golfer worth a grain of salt in this game always hits to where the waypoint is without checking out the hole first either by flyover, zooming in or using the overhead cam.
another and the most frustrating con listed.to each their own. different shape greens with different lighting, different break patterns. the only thing that is the same is the pond, yes its the same pond.
the wall is about 2-3 feet tall, and you should be yards from it if you are on the fairway even at its closest point. it does not come into play unless you are just too far left. the wall was to protect golfers from that cliff behind it. consider it a stationary hazard, like trees.
this was by design, i knew some would not like it, and some would. a few reasons for the decision: firm conditions + fringe bounce = more frustrating, wanted to force the golfer to pay attention, and it looks rather clean imo.
that was really beyond my control after setting my priorities with planting. plant meter near 85%, going higher and you risk not being able to publish. i had plans for more rock work, grass patches etc, but limits limits limits.
two judges come to that conclusion, and i dont understand how or why. firstly, courses are suppose to flow well hole to hole, so a common theme does come into play on good courses. there are doglegs left, doglegs right, short vs long holes, par 3 under 100 yards, all shapes [greens, bunkers, fairways] (...other than oval/round bunkers and some teeboxes) were hand drawn so that they are 100% unique to this course on a hole by hole basis. the vegetation was very consistent i agree, but thats just how it should be in any particular area
---------
the only real technical fault this course had was not even mentioned by the judges. a small patch of light rough that looks like a divot in the middle of fairway on hole 7.
so the color palette, bland look, lack of planting really done yall in, you would rather play courses with actual technical issues that effect gameplay in a negative way, as long as the course "looks" good to the eye.
I get it, not everyone likes the same things, but please do keep in mind, that not all parts of the world are lush green wonderlands. we have different themes for a reason, how damn boring would the game be if all we had was the rural theme? not all courses need to look the same, not all courses need retaining walls, lakes, rivers, giant clubhouses, medium firmness, fast greens, plants everywhere, meaningless fluff at every angle, its just unrealistic to expect that.
some of the best courses in the world are set in isolated areas, and for good reasons.
anyhoot, thanks for your time, greatly appreciated.