Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2019 20:21:43 GMT -5
TGC Tours Design Contest Judging Rubric
Volunteer judges for each TGC Tours design contest will be asked to evaluate courses in the following qualitative areas and subjectively measure their efficacy in the submitted design. Each area should be graded as Excellent (outstanding), Very Good (well above average), Good (above average), Fair (average or slightly below average), or Poor (well below average), with brief comments provided for each. A designer should be able to understand why they received a particular grade after reading the judges' comments. The questions listed below do not need to be answered explicitly for each course, but are rather meant to guide judges’ evaluation of each area and the course as a whole.
Playability & Shot Values (the most important category)
-Were there stretches where you felt like you played on auto pilot without being mentally engaged?
-Did the course offer you opportunity to play different shots and styles or did it dictate the proper play throughout?
-Did the design of the greens and their surrounds lend interest to short game play and putting?
-Did the placement and appearance of the hazards enhance the interest of the holes?
Technical Execution
-Were there areas of unnatural sculpting that “took you out of your round?”
-Were textures placed in a thoughtful manner with regard to landscape and design or do they seem forced at times?
-Do textures and elevations work together to enhance immersion?
-Are things simply sloppy and done without care?
-Did you have to search for problems or did they present themselves in the normal course of play and exploration?
-Were there any technical surprises that made you say "How did they do that?"
Aesthetics & Environment
-Do the course and its surrounds feel cohesive and unified in their presentation?
-Is the vision of the designer clearly expressed in the style, planting and atmosphere of the course?
-Are the surroundings and atmosphere forced or repetitive in a way that distracts?
-Is there "stuff" for the sake of "stuff"?
Routing, Flow, Cohesion, Variety of Holes
-Does the routing make sense? Does the course flow well? Do all the holes feel like they belong on the same course? On the other hand, does the designer reuse the same feature too many times on the course?
-Were there any holes that pulled you out of the flow? Which ones?
-Does the variety seem to arise naturally in the course or does it feel forced?
Overall things to consider
-Is this a course you would point out to someone in a private message as one they must play?
-Even if the course is wonderful there will be opportunities that were missed on some holes.
-Were there opportunities for a better hole you noticed that made you a little sad?
-Is the designer’s creativity expressed in a way that adds to the playing experience or is it forced or shoehorned into the course?
-What questions would you ask the designer if you were to play through the course with them?
-How memorable was your round? Do you want to play the course again right now on another pinset?
-When you reflect on your round do you remember the general feel of the round or only specific holes?
-Are the holes and shots you remember based on the view/aesthetic or on the hole's layout/playability?
-If you played the course again RIGHT NOW do you have specific holes/shots that you want to try to play/execute differently?
-If you would play the course the same way... why would you replay it?
After considering the above categories, the course receives a holistic score of 1-50. This score is not necessarily an average of the scores in all of the above categories, but rather should reflect the judge’s overall assessment of the course’s quality (nevertheless, a course that, for example, receives “Excellent” in every category but does not receive a score above 40 could raise eyebrows). Overall scores should be assigned according to the following criteria, broadly defined.
40-50: Excellent--truly outstanding; superior in nearly all categories; drop what you are doing and play this course now. If you only play one round, you're still missing out.
30-40: Very good--A course most of us would favorite and play again. Easily good enough to be on tour. Maybe comes up a bit short in one or two categories, keeping it from being truly outstanding.
20-30: Good--Above average in most categories. Some may enjoy it and others not so much.
10-20: Fair--Would likely be approved to the TGCT database, but still plenty of room for improvement
0-10: Poor--Serious flaws in multiple categories; would probably be rejected if submitted to the database.
Volunteer judges for each TGC Tours design contest will be asked to evaluate courses in the following qualitative areas and subjectively measure their efficacy in the submitted design. Each area should be graded as Excellent (outstanding), Very Good (well above average), Good (above average), Fair (average or slightly below average), or Poor (well below average), with brief comments provided for each. A designer should be able to understand why they received a particular grade after reading the judges' comments. The questions listed below do not need to be answered explicitly for each course, but are rather meant to guide judges’ evaluation of each area and the course as a whole.
Playability & Shot Values (the most important category)
-Were there stretches where you felt like you played on auto pilot without being mentally engaged?
-Did the course offer you opportunity to play different shots and styles or did it dictate the proper play throughout?
-Did the design of the greens and their surrounds lend interest to short game play and putting?
-Did the placement and appearance of the hazards enhance the interest of the holes?
Technical Execution
-Were there areas of unnatural sculpting that “took you out of your round?”
-Were textures placed in a thoughtful manner with regard to landscape and design or do they seem forced at times?
-Do textures and elevations work together to enhance immersion?
-Are things simply sloppy and done without care?
-Did you have to search for problems or did they present themselves in the normal course of play and exploration?
-Were there any technical surprises that made you say "How did they do that?"
Aesthetics & Environment
-Do the course and its surrounds feel cohesive and unified in their presentation?
-Is the vision of the designer clearly expressed in the style, planting and atmosphere of the course?
-Are the surroundings and atmosphere forced or repetitive in a way that distracts?
-Is there "stuff" for the sake of "stuff"?
Routing, Flow, Cohesion, Variety of Holes
-Does the routing make sense? Does the course flow well? Do all the holes feel like they belong on the same course? On the other hand, does the designer reuse the same feature too many times on the course?
-Were there any holes that pulled you out of the flow? Which ones?
-Does the variety seem to arise naturally in the course or does it feel forced?
Overall things to consider
-Is this a course you would point out to someone in a private message as one they must play?
-Even if the course is wonderful there will be opportunities that were missed on some holes.
-Were there opportunities for a better hole you noticed that made you a little sad?
-Is the designer’s creativity expressed in a way that adds to the playing experience or is it forced or shoehorned into the course?
-What questions would you ask the designer if you were to play through the course with them?
-How memorable was your round? Do you want to play the course again right now on another pinset?
-When you reflect on your round do you remember the general feel of the round or only specific holes?
-Are the holes and shots you remember based on the view/aesthetic or on the hole's layout/playability?
-If you played the course again RIGHT NOW do you have specific holes/shots that you want to try to play/execute differently?
-If you would play the course the same way... why would you replay it?
After considering the above categories, the course receives a holistic score of 1-50. This score is not necessarily an average of the scores in all of the above categories, but rather should reflect the judge’s overall assessment of the course’s quality (nevertheless, a course that, for example, receives “Excellent” in every category but does not receive a score above 40 could raise eyebrows). Overall scores should be assigned according to the following criteria, broadly defined.
40-50: Excellent--truly outstanding; superior in nearly all categories; drop what you are doing and play this course now. If you only play one round, you're still missing out.
30-40: Very good--A course most of us would favorite and play again. Easily good enough to be on tour. Maybe comes up a bit short in one or two categories, keeping it from being truly outstanding.
20-30: Good--Above average in most categories. Some may enjoy it and others not so much.
10-20: Fair--Would likely be approved to the TGCT database, but still plenty of room for improvement
0-10: Poor--Serious flaws in multiple categories; would probably be rejected if submitted to the database.