Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2017 18:32:15 GMT -5
Reviving this thread, darnit! We have discussed a lot regarding strategy and decisions/options/interest on this thread; there is a new course by Eric Nesbit, Forgedale Springs Golf Club, that I recommend you play as a good example of that. Lots of options on most shots, with the wrong decision being made resulting in a poor score - the very definition of good course design. Also, excellent firm green complexes - firm done right, imo. Just thought I'd put that out there, as it related to good golf course architecture. Just happened upon this thread and saw this very nice comment. Thank you for the shoutout Greg! This course has been released in TGC2 as Devon Quarry Country Club (there's a reason why, I won't go into that because it's frustrating). LOL Love this thread!
|
|
|
Post by ErixonStone on Jul 9, 2017 18:46:20 GMT -5
I saw a post by csugolfer that I found interesting. I'm sharing it here so that we could discuss "How do we do this?" : I know there's a lot of debate about Tour/Player clubs right now, and about what should be required/allowed to be played in tour events, but I think a lot of people miss the fact that a lot of it is up to us designers to create courses that reward players who can effectively use Tour clubs. It's actually more than just the extra distance - it's more about the combination of longer drives and shorter, more lofted clubs into greens that allow players to spin the ball more. It's a very effective defense to courses, and I think we need to design keeping this is mind. For example, if a Player hits his 280-yard drive, and has a 6-iron into the pin, a well-executed Tour shot will go about 300-305, and has a 9 or 8 iron into the green. A good way to reward this chance taken is to design pin locations that will accept a well-struck 9 or 8 iron from the Tour player, but may require the Player club user to play away from the pin, or execute a much more skilled, high-loft or draw/fade shot. I think we will see courses that create these kind of situations more and more, and the problem will work itself out regardless of the rules we see implemented.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2017 19:00:06 GMT -5
I saw this comment too and I've been thinking about it because I think it's an excellent point. Earlier in this discussion somebody mentioned designing for strategy rather than designing to be penal, and I think that concept applies to this thought process.
My biggest counterpoint to this comment is this: that's a great idea for one or two of the pin sets, but it's highly unlikely to be able to accomplish this philosophy in all 4 pin sets. There just wouldn't be enough places on the green to "reward" the Tour players for their risk, while making the Player club users have to play away from the pin. I don't want to see us start designing really weird shaped greens just so we can tuck 4 pins around corners.
What are your thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by TheDominator273 on Jul 9, 2017 19:38:23 GMT -5
I saw this comment too and I've been thinking about it because I think it's an excellent point. Earlier in this discussion somebody mentioned designing for strategy rather than designing to be penal, and I think that concept applies to this thought process. My biggest counterpoint to this comment is this: that's a great idea for one or two of the pin sets, but it's highly unlikely to be able to accomplish this philosophy in all 4 pin sets. There just wouldn't be enough places on the green to "reward" the Tour players for their risk, while making the Player club users have to play away from the pin. I don't want to see us start designing really weird shaped greens just so we can tuck 4 pins around corners. What are your thoughts? I think you can vary the holes that benefit the Tour club user so hole 5 might benefit Tour Clubs in pin set 1 while hole 6 is accessible by all and then in pin set 2 it's reversed.
|
|
|
Post by ErixonStone on Jul 9, 2017 19:51:26 GMT -5
that's a great idea for one or two of the pin sets, but it's highly unlikely to be able to accomplish this philosophy in all 4 pin sets. There just wouldn't be enough places on the green... I don't think you need to do this for every pin on every hole. If one pin per hole was set up like this, that would be 18 holes over 4 rounds where Tour clubs have a distinct advantage. That's a lot of shots to make up. It might be as simple as having a slope a few yards in front of the pin that kicks the ball sideways. A 9I from someone playing the Tour clubs could carry that slope and stop the ball on the green where a 6I from someone using Player clubs would not be able to. Or maybe someone playing Tour clubs could hit to a flatter area of the fairway that someone using the Player clubs couldn't reach. A 380 yard par 4 is Driver + PW pitch for Tour clubs, while it is Driver + full GW for Player clubs. If the pin is behind a false front, a pitch that doesn't spin is a better play than a full wedge that would spin back. Someone using Player clubs would have to play farther behind the pin and would probably be left a tricky downhill putt while the player using the Tour swing could pitch it and run the ball up the false front. These are the types of designs that are running through my brain.
|
|
|
Post by csugolfer60 on Jul 9, 2017 22:30:56 GMT -5
I'll be publishing my first TGC2 course in a few days, and I'd love you guys to take a look at it. I'm hoping the design caters to this type of thinking, and rewards players who play well with both types of clubs, even though they may have to come up with different shots for each club type.
|
|
reebdoog
TGCT Design Competition Directors
Posts: 2,742
TGCT Name: Brian Jeffords
Tour: CC-Pro
|
Post by reebdoog on Jul 9, 2017 23:51:46 GMT -5
Tucking isn't what he's talking about. Sloping, mounding, runoffs...those all go into determining what sort of shot will best hold,
|
|
|
Post by TreeWood on Jul 11, 2017 13:32:52 GMT -5
I get the logic of wanting to reward those who recognize and execute well using Tour clubs when there's a risk/reward situation. But I think there might need to be a degree of caution here too. The premise holds up well if we're talking about a situation where every player to ever play the course is more or less at the same skill level to begin with. With all else being more or less equal, I think it's valid to offer the Tour clubs player a possible reward.
However, since no course will be exclusively used by those who have a handle on Tour clubs, the proposed philosophy could be overly punitive to the Player clubs user. As an example, if I were using Player clubs simply because I find the Tour clubs too difficult, I wouldn't be too thrilled to see a lot of greens sloping to the back when I've consistently got a mid iron approach shot, knowing that for the Tour clubs players it would be an easy 9i or PW for them.
Maybe a possible solution would be to design and name courses as TOUR/PLAYER/STANDARD, so that it's clear what kind of player the course was intended for. e.g. "My Course GC T/P", or "Example Course CC P/S"
|
|
|
Post by ErixonStone on Jul 11, 2017 15:58:20 GMT -5
TreeWoodA course that is designed only to fit one swing is poorly designed. We shouldn't be looking to punish guys using the Player clubs, but instead, offering some small advantage to players that hit the Tour clubs well. Here's an example: I've got a long par 4 of 479 yards where the fairway is approximately 50 yards wide. There is a bunker that bisects the fairway, but it's a little bit off-center. To the left of it, the fairway is 30 yards wide. To the right, it's only 10 yards wide, and it's 275 yards to carry the bunker. Someone using Player clubs cannot carry the bunker, so he has to hit to the left side of the fairway. He still has a 30-yard wide area to hit to. Or, if he is feeling risky, he can try for the narrow fairway to the right of the bunker. The green is diagonal, running front-right to back-left, making it a much easier approach from the right side. Players on the left side of the fairway have to carry a bunker to get to the pin, while players on the right side can land in the fairway and let the ball run in. Golfers using Player clubs have about 190 to the pin which is a 4I or 5I. Golfers using Tour clubs have about 170 to the pin which is a 6I or 7I. I wouldn't slope this green away from the approach because it's too long, even for a Tour 7I. The green on this hole still has some helpful slopes that make playing out to the right a viable option. There is a small difference - maybe worth a quarter stroke - based on position in the fairway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2017 17:49:32 GMT -5
|
|
reebdoog
TGCT Design Competition Directors
Posts: 2,742
TGCT Name: Brian Jeffords
Tour: CC-Pro
|
Post by reebdoog on Jul 11, 2017 19:49:56 GMT -5
I get the logic of wanting to reward those who recognize and execute well using Tour clubs when there's a risk/reward situation. But I think there might need to be a degree of caution here too. The premise holds up well if we're talking about a situation where every player to ever play the course is more or less at the same skill level to begin with. With all else being more or less equal, I think it's valid to offer the Tour clubs player a possible reward. However, since no course will be exclusively used by those who have a handle on Tour clubs, the proposed philosophy could be overly punitive to the Player clubs user. As an example, if I were using Player clubs simply because I find the Tour clubs too difficult, I wouldn't be too thrilled to see a lot of greens sloping to the back when I've consistently got a mid iron approach shot, knowing that for the Tour clubs players it would be an easy 9i or PW for them. Maybe a possible solution would be to design and name courses as TOUR/PLAYER/STANDARD, so that it's clear what kind of player the course was intended for. e.g. "My Course GC T/P", or "Example Course CC P/S" Why not just use tees to accomplish what they were supposed to? If you want a similar experience as tour but want to use player...play the next tee. *Shrug* If you're talking tournament...that's different and it's up to the player to adjust to the tournament. Not the other way around.
|
|
|
Post by gregfordyce on Jul 16, 2017 4:54:36 GMT -5
Looks good, thanks for the link, am just getting into reading some of it. Here is another great golf course architecture resource: GolfClubAtlas.com
|
|
|
Post by d3souz4 on Jul 18, 2017 11:33:24 GMT -5
I'm making a RCR and I when play testing a hole I found a cool strategy that I tried to use in TCG1 which didn't work out well since toll was limited and everyone hit the same distance. It worked great here though.
With and accurate 275 carry a player can aim to the middle or left of the fairway and land on a hill which kicks down to a collection area and sets up a 40-50 yard approach. A mishit right will kick into some serious bushes off the fairway. A layup will leave a 100 yard blind approach. Gives a great reward for long and accurate, no reward for just accurate and punishes you more the more aggressive and off line you get.
|
|
|
Post by jacobkessler on Jul 26, 2017 7:47:15 GMT -5
Bringing this thread back (maybe)
Why is it that you can google "golf course design ideas" and it comes up with a bunch of miniature golf courses?
|
|
|
Post by westone12 on Jul 26, 2017 7:50:01 GMT -5
Bringing this thread back (maybe) Why is it that you can google "golf course design ideas" and it comes up with a bunch of miniature golf courses? I've been wondering the same thing. On a side note, there is a great book about design by Geoff Shackleford called 'Grounds for Golf' with a lot of good insight. My courses are in no way amazing, but I feel like I have learned a lot from that book.
|
|