Results comments thread - PLEASE POST ANY COMMENTS HERE-

[welikeitroughnc]

I’d be more than happy to stream your course tomorrow Andre and show you where it fell short. Looked amazing but it was skin deep unfortunately....

[coruler2]

I don't understand how 'not gaining points' is different than 'not losing points'. It's been mentioned several times that someone didn't lose points for X or Y, but just didn't gain points. If someone GAINS points and I don't in a category, then I'm LOSING points relative to that person.

[reebdoog]

May 21, 2018 21:35:29 GMT -5 coruler2 said:

I don't understand how 'not gaining points' is different than 'not losing points'. It's been mentioned several times that someone didn't lose points for X or Y, but just didn't gain points. If someone GAINS points and I don't in a category, then I'm LOSING points relative to that person.

this is true...

[SAM]

   Always another contest round the corner... love 'em & thanks to all who were involved in The National Treasure.

[culallen]

May 21, 2018 19:48:09 GMT -5 @griff said:

May 21, 2018 18:04:59 GMT -5 Crazycanuck1985 said:

Thanks to Griff and the judges for another competitive contest. All the competitors appreciate your time and effort. With that said, I do have a couple things I want to say in regards to this contest and the current state of the design community in general as I've been watching in the shadows for the past few months.

This may come off as be being bitter for finishing in the bottom half of this contest...I was definitely disappointed and surprised with the result, but I hold no hard feelings, but I'm not going to hold back here.

I feel that as these contests become more and more complex and technical (I'll touch on that later), judges need to find some sort of common ground and make it crystal clear to competitors exactly what they are looking for and how points are deducted or lost. This is like me as a teacher giving a project without any rubric or criteria. Students are confused and communication is unclear.

Based on some of the comments, the judging was all over the place. Some judges had paragraphs of feedback, others had one sentence (which wasn't feedback at all IMO). Judges seemed to focus on very different (and utterly ridiculous in some cases) aspects of a golf course so it wasn't clear what was being looked for. The fact that some courses were within a quarter point of each other? I mean, that takes splitting hairs to a whole new level.

It was my original thought that as this course was centered around a "National Treasure" theme, the look and immersive-ness would be a huge part of the contest. As you guys know, I'm more of a visual designer than a technical one, which drew me to compete. Based on the judges comments so far, it didn't seem to matter for much.

This contest was EXTREMELY technical. To the point of it being laughable. Puddles on greens? Course routing? Squiggly lines between rough and heavy rough? C'mon virtual Pete Dye. It's a video game, why does it matter? I'll admit that my course should have been dinged for routing as I put a few too many holes in one direction, but other courses were unfairly penalized I felt. And they way some of these comments were written? Some were quite harsh and reeked of elite-ism.

Which leads me to my final point. I feel as though the design community has grown a ton with TGC2, which is fantastic, but all these technical minor details, really bog things down and take the fun out of these design contests (at least for me). This was a big reason I stopped my critiques. I didn't want to start pushing my ideas as how things should be done. I feel things need to be simplified, and at the end of the day, you design for yourself, not to please a few people. As we move towards TGC2019 and from the looks of things, it's going to bring in alot of new designers. I think we need to be helpful, encouraging, and supportive, instead of giving them a big list of what not to do.

I think we really just need to get back to the FUN. Is it fun to play? Then it's probably a pretty good course. I know there still are quite a few of you that love these types of technical contests, but organizers and judges need to be much more clear on exactly what they want. At the end of the day, the judging is subjective.. and when it's subjective, I say keep it simple. Like Elz and my Par 3 contests. We had a few things we looked for but it came down to what course did we like the best all-around.

Keep it simple, keep it fun, and most importantly, design for yourself. But again, this is just my opinion

That being said, this contest produced a level of design I haven't seen before and based on the pictures (I've only played a few of them), I feel the judges got the top 4 right. Great work!

OK, Flame away.

Now that I've had a chance to eat and actually sit down...  Let me preface this by saying I actually had your course ranked higher than what the final standings show.

A ) All of the scoring metrics were posted: "Scoring is being done on a 50 point scale in 5 different categories with certain categories being weighted more than others: Playability/Shot Values, Aesthetics/Ambiance, Country, Technical/Cleanliness, and Creativity. We currently have 24 entries, so the awarded points will be as follows". The country was indeed a metric in its own category. The contest was weighted towards playability...and it is EVERY SINGLE TIME. 

B ) As to the "squiggly line comment: There have multiple streams and videos posted of how to avoid it. You probably spend more time figuring out where to place lamp posts on a particular hole than it takes to lay heavy rough without leaving squiggly lines. It's a CONTEST. In a vacuum if your course is equally good as one you're up against and you have squiggly lines and they don't...you lose. That means they took the extra 10 seconds to avoid it instead of running their heavy rough brush over light rough. I don't really know what else to explain here or why you're even questioning it. It's a CONTEST. Well done is well done...clean and well done beats well done.


C ) As to the "elitism": I see this being said more and more and it's starting to piss me off. #1. It's a CONTEST. If you enter a contest not knowing your course is going to be judged against and relative to all of the other courses in said contests, then I don't know what to tell you. #2. Did you watch any of the streams? If so then you know that I started EVERY SINGLE STREAM by saying " 99% of everything I will say here is nothing more than my opinion.  I am not implying that what the designer has done is bad, I'm just offering up a first looks critique as a fellow designer and sharing what my eyes see. Nothing more. If there are technical things that will cost the designer points I will point them out. otherwise, it's just my opinion." guys heard that day in and day out through the duration. Nobody is telling a designer they HAVE to design a certain way. Nobody is even implying it. What has been offered up is reasons why certain courses excelled and others didn't in the judge's eyes.

D ) Judging all over the place: I would seriously recommend you volunteer for one of the upcoming contests so you get a taste of this first hand. I promise it will change the way you view this. You have 5 different perspectives with five different styles with five different techniques with five different personalities scoring these courses. Yes, you're going to get differing opinions and some judges will score differently based on what the INDIVIDUAL feels is a priority. All I can do is set the scoresheet and metrics...I have zero control over how an individual judge interprets that. 


E ) Judging part 2: In the end it becomes subjective and there's no way of getting around it. Put 100 golfers in a room and ask which is the best course between Oakmont, Augusta, and Pebble Beach. You will get many different answers,  and even many different opinions as to why even within similar groups. 

F ) Judging part 3: I have mentioned this a couple of times already, but, hell..let's make it one more. You didn't always lose points for something in the "negative" category. That should often times be interpreted as "just didn't gain points here." Like the puddles on the green crap...that was one judge pointing it out as an architectural situation. It was actually not or an extremely little part of his scoring metric. It was just something he was pointing out in passing. As for the "virtual Pete Dye" comment...well, he actually does this for a living, so yeahhh...there's that. 

G ) Judge's comments posted by me: You don't see everything the judges say. I edit them as i see fit and post what is relative. there is no need for the peanut gallery to see every comment or debate that runs through the thread. The abbreviated comments that you seem to disdain were done at my leisure and judgement. If you or anybody else has an issue with that then PM me and we can hash it out there.

I ) Burrowing Owl actually lost because of routing, you were given the notes, you did the same exact thing. Keep doing the same sh%$ over and over expecting different results...

J ) Once again...this was a contest. If you want to design for fun with zero judgement then don't enter. You've won one of these and didn't seem to have a single negative comment on some of the stupid ass judges comments on that one...wayyyyy more than this one. I'm not sure how it hurts the community to have a contest...actually posted as a contest...you know, where some people will finish higher than others, then it be elitist because of....?

H ) Helpfulness: yeah...what was I thinking about new people coming in. All of the streaming I do showing people how to do sh%$...answering questions...making videos...encouraging them in their threads...wtf was I thinking? Seriously ridiculous comment to make in a contest thread. Carry that big turd somewhere else, man. You're better than that and know better than that. It's a effing CONTEST.

I have plenty more, but, unfortunately, we have a show to do. 


I don't get it, Andre. You've been around too long for this doodoo. 

[mrvinegar206]

I've seen a bunch of people making jokes or even scoffing at the idea of the "puddles on the greens" point in reviews. I am not angry, I am here to explain what I mean by that. Trust me, this isn't some BS thing. Your greens will feel more realistic if you understand the concept.

First of all, because I know not everyone knows this principle, the penalty for them was minuscule in the scheme of things. 2 or fewer was no penalty. 3-5 were .5 of a point off. 6 or more were 1 point off total. For a couple courses, that .5 or point might have made a difference, but probably not. There are other issues I'd focus on first. Corozal and Iceland were both courses in this contest that didn't get a penalty for it.

What I meant by "puddles on the greens" is not just the obvious "if it rains, you have a problem." All greens in the world, except some very old links courses that don't have irrigation, are watered. Just because a course is in the desert, doesn't mean you can get away with this. Every night, the greens get watered by sprinkler or mother nature. Every night, water that doesn't get soaked into the ground will bead off. You do get mini-streams going. You ask any golf architect, planning for drainage is THE hardest part of the design process. You can't just build any green you want. There can not be a bowl on your green that doesn't have an exit for water. A "bowl" on a green is three sided.

So why do are these mini-rivers that happen during irrigation a problem? If they collect in one spot, you have a BIG problem. Within a few months of this constant cycle of watering at night, sun during the day, you will develop either a disease, a fungus, or a moss growth in that spot. Your grass density will dwindle away with each time you mow the grass green height. Fairway height is tall enough for it not to be as big a problem. Their roots and blade length severely decrease the chances of that happening. Green height grass is a different story. We all play golf. You know how short the blades are. I'll tell you the roots don't go super deep either. No golfer wants to play a course where your bowls are disease, fungus, or moss-filled. This is why greens always have a minimum of one place for water to slope off. The old "back-to-front" designs took the easy way out by doing what they are called by having it slope off the front. You can have as many points that slope off as you like so long as long as if I randomly picked one point of the green, the water has somewhere to go off. Some of the BIG greens in the world, I can think of one at Bandon and one at St. Andrews, that have a drain in the middle of the green where the water would puddle in a bowl. The greens are so big in these cases that you likely never encounter them. Please do not use this as an excuse to do it. Just try to always follow the principle.

It's hard, I know. I've found a couple bowls on greens I've published that I missed while designing. It's easier to pick up on in real life; however, you should try it. mayday_golf83 has thanked me a couple times for mentioning them in my notes because it is worth mentioning. Trust me, your greens will feel more realistic. And trust me that, sure you can't have some of the crazier green contouring you could have, you can still do crazy or creative things on greens. Trinity Forest was just on TV to prove that to you (though that combo 3/11 green there probably has a drain in the middle).

Hope this clarifies any confusion. If anyone wants explanations on other things, let me know. I'd be happy to explain. Any of the the judges would be willing to do it if they have the time. Try to take things from this contest and continue to learn and grow. Keep moving forward. Good luck in the next contest!

EDIT: I see golfclubatlas.com/ updated their homepage picture with a perfect example of different types of bowls that both show what I'm trying to say. The 15th green in the back is a traditional bowl with it feeding off towards the photographer and the 18th green sloping off the front, picture right

EDIT #2: Coming from Tom Doak himself, here are "the basics to focus on"
"Drainage
Building blocks (length of shots, width)
Visibility
Strategy
Short game interest"

Yes. He put drainage FIRST on that list. Trust me that if you ask any golf architect, planning for drainage is the hardest part of the design process. Also, the other stuff on that list is stuff you will hear @griff talk about on every course he reviews.

[jacobkessler]

That actually makes a lot more sense now that it’s explained... I guess something you could do is go into the water plane mode and test around to confirm there is a way off everywhere. To me, it’s a video game, and while I do think some of the nit-picky stuff is important, I personally don’t consider this as one of them. But it’s nice to get a kind of inside look from someone who’s in the field... thanks  

(oh and if you do choose it as your full-time career IRL, come to Ohio and build. It would be seriously cool to play a course designed by someone I met in an online golf game haha... but I digress)

[mayday_golf83]

mrvinegar206 is correct in saying that I appreciated him mention green drainage in his notes. Personally, I didn't deduct for drainage issues, but believe me when I say I noticed a lot of the same stuff when playing and it's something I'm very cognizant of when I'm designing my greens. I get that this is a video game and dead spots won't magically appear on our greens one month after publish, but it's one of those little things that adds a touch of realism to your course and greens and helps to make it "feel" like a real course.

As for the feedback: I'll go ahead and out myself -- the long-winded paragraphs in the judges' comments came from me. My approach was if you, as the designer, sunk hundreds of hours into your course (which was quite evident across the board in this competition), the least I could do was give a thoughtful, honest report having just spent 3-plus hours analyzing your course, playing every pin set and pouring over every detail. I tried to highlight both the biggest positives and the biggest negatives I found and, if I could think of ideas of how I could improve the course or certain holes, I tried to share those as well. As a designer, it's your prerogative to agree or disagree with what I thought, but just take it for what it is -- constructive criticism and not a personal attack.

I'll be the first to admit I'm not God's gift to course architecture, and there were a few people in this comp who have forgotten more in the designer than I've learned, but I don't care if you designed 1 course or 100, there's a benefit to having your work reviewed by your peers. If we can learn from one another, that makes the whole design community stronger.

It was stated previously how subjective this all is and no matter how much we try to objectify things, judging is an extremely subjective process. I feel our judging panel was well-balanced in that regard. For me, the most objective categories were technical and playability. Even then, within that objectivity, there were some ball/strike calls that had to be made. 

I will add, if you have the opportunity to judge, please do so. It wasn't an easy process. All told, I probably sunk in somewhere between 90-100 hours between playing the courses, writing reviews, sharing thoughts in the war room and commenting during After Dark. But, I can tell you without question, those were 90-100 hours very well spent. I played a ton of great courses and, hopefully, learned a thing or two in the process. While I never could argue with the end results and courses I lost to in past comps, I struggled quantifying the things that needed to be done to help take my designs to the next level. Those traits become a lot more tangible when you're looking through someone else's work. Now it's on me, as a designer, to take what I've learned and apply that to future my future projects.

I'll leave you with some final thoughts, and it kind of jives with the tiers in the results that began to show as my scores rolled in:

- staypuft39 reebdoog mattf27 scarpacci. Very well done and congrats on your top 4 finishes. All of you produced contest-winning courses and it was a shame we could only choose 1. All 4 are instant classics and were joys to play on a number of levels. You raised the bar for all of us in the competition. Well done.

- The majority of the rest of the field was bunched very closely together and all it took was a little swing here or there to go from top 10 to outside the top 15. 

- To the noobs in this comp: ddixjr509 @roytgc GrumpyOldMan - Don't be discouraged with how you finished. I commend you for jumping headfirst into a pool of sharks, but hopefully you learned a lot in this contest. Your courses lacked some of the refinement of the others but, frankly, I expect that from newer designers. Lord knows my first publishes were not nearly as buttoned up as my latest. That refinement comes with more time in the designer, more feedback like you got here and more studying the work of other designers. All three of you had some good thoughts in looks and/or playability, it just a matter of giving those thoughts some more love and polish next time around. Keep at it, and I'm sure you'll be nipping at the heels of some of the design vets before you know it. 

Thanks again to @griff for putting on this contest, and allowing me to be on the judging panel. Also thanks to all of the contestants for putting yourselves out there and delivering some damn fine courses.

[B.Smooth13]

There's my excuse

[kvand]

I saw the results thread, but only saw 5-24. Who's was top 4?

[jacobkessler]

May 22, 2018 8:20:20 GMT -5 kvand said:

I saw the results thread, but only saw 5-24. Who's was top 4?

4. Scarpacci
3. mattf27
2. reebdoog
1. staypuft39

[kvand]

May 22, 2018 8:23:14 GMT -5 jacobkessler said:

May 22, 2018 8:20:20 GMT -5 kvand said:

I saw the results thread, but only saw 5-24. Who's was top 4?

4. Scarpacci
3. mattf27
2. reebdoog
1. staypuft39

thanks. I'll find the courses that are from each designer.

Oh and Congrats.... and thanks to everyone who participated. I have enjoyed all of the courses I played from this contest. Hope I can be half as good some day with designing courses.

[scarpacci]

Amazingly deep contest and I feel proud to be in the top 4. Big thank you to the judges for all their hard work.


Congrats staypuft39 on the well deserved win!

[Terry Grayson]

Outstanding design competition with as Scarp said an amazingly deep crew of designers..

We are the winners (The community) as we get to play all this beautiful tracks

Great work everyone and congratulations Mr Puft....

Outstanding courses

[golferdude1994]

Matt, staypuft39 very well done my friend! You are a hell of a designer!