The courses we play - "Resortification"

[rod81simo]

Feb 25, 2015 18:33:35 GMT -5 nevadaballin said:

Feb 22, 2015 19:26:48 GMT -5 MAJORHIGH said:

Yeah, there is a bit of "Silver Platter" syndrome going around. Too much emphasis on lighting and planting than core golf.

I have to agree. When "can you mow that?" becomes part of the considerations for a tour course, then it's gotten away from core golf. Routing, bunker placement (not picasso bunker designs), firmness and green speed fitting layout, etc should always be ahead of aesthetics. 

And by the way, yes they can mow anything. I took this pic the other day at a local course where I was hitting a bucket. 

[img src="i1295.photobucket.com/albums/b639/jimmy_sheridan1/Mobile%20Uploads/2015-02/20150219_165510_zpsnr1edf0c.jpg" src="http://s1295.photobucket.com/user/jimmy_sheridan1/media/Mobile%20Uploads/2015-02/20150219_165510_zpsnr1edf0c.jpg.html]" alt="" style="max-width:100%;"]
View Attachment

If the local muni course can mow those hills - and they do obviously - then the ability of a landscaper to mow anything in the year 2015 should never come into question.

sorry if I come across as blunt but I am unaware of why anyone would start with planting and aesthetics first. This is the last thing that should be done in the design process and therefore if people choose not to go all out with the planting and aesthetics then that's there prerogative and I take no real bias on this area when rating a course. For me it's playability and the challenge of said round. To me if a course seems like the focus was on planting and so forth or it seems that way then obviously it's a bad design choice on the creators part but I don't feel that people set out to just put a few nice lakes and tree placement and then think how can I put a hole in here somehow. I do however feel nothing beats the complete package and only a select few nail the lot

[rod81simo]

Nevada this was not directed at you either. Yours was just the last post and one I ties into. I am like you in the way some suggestions are made on things like where rough is placed and so forth and how it could be mowed or whatever. It's a game peeps and TBH most courses that are created could not be maintained in RL. We have to create some tricky aspects to our design to challenge the players who play them.

[Deleted]

As a relatively new designer if I am designing what I would consider a tougher course I rarely use light rough anymore. As some of my submissions this way have at least been TGCT approved then maybe there is a chance of them making it onto one of the tours. I don't really aim to build master championship courses (PGA/European) just yet as I am just starting to get my sea legs when it comes to more difficult designs without using too much trickery. I have never been one to shy away from severe slopes on some of my greens. Try hole #8 on "Olde Bonnie Brae (Sunday)" and you will see what I mean. The entire green isn't severely sloped I just like to create tiers especially on large links style greens which in effect creates more than one green. I do try and make them so you would not have to chip on the green. Sometimes you may have to 2 putt to reach tier 3 but that is just the way it is, you hit the edge of the slope or create a bit too much back-spin and you know your in trouble. I'm taking it the original OP is directed more to the PGA and Europen tours where I try and design more for Web.com or Champions tours in mind. One thing is for sure, I almost always add beautifying plantation last.

[mcbogga]

No light rough is a good method to "tour proof a course" missing fairways should have consequences.

Lot's of good discussion in this thread guys!

[joegolferg]

Mar 1, 2015 0:10:41 GMT -5 mcbogga said:

No light rough is a good method to "tour proof a course" missing fairways should have consequences.

Lot's of good discussion in this thread guys!

Agreed mate, I have started using a tiny cut of light rough on my courses just for the fairway to blend better, but most times you miss it ends up in the heavy stuff

[nevadaballin]

Mar 1, 2015 0:10:41 GMT -5 mcbogga said:

No light rough is a good method to "tour proof a course" missing fairways should have consequences.

Lot's of good discussion in this thread guys!

I don't see any issue with having the light rough interfering with a course being tour worthy or not. If the light rough is a culprit with people getting better scores then I think the course routing and fairway layout needs to be revisited.

[mcbogga]

TDs for tour events around the world might not agree. Usually both cuts gets deeper and fairways pinched when the tour boys and girls come to play.

But it's not ON or OFF of course. Have to make sense with routing etc, etc... As you say.

Heavy rough being a good way does not mean that light rough is bad.

An example. In a short par 4 with a wedge or 9I into the green I think having narrow fairway and heavy rough makes sense as shorter shots from light rough is almost as hitting from fairway so the effect is just that it acts as a safety net for bad drives.

On a 480yds par 4 having that same narrow fairway and then heavy rough may be a bit penal and too much "US open"

But as a method I think heavy rough is being under-utilized and the decisions around light/heavy rough in general seems to be dictated more by aesthetics rather than playability or challenge.

[nevadaballin]

Mar 1, 2015 21:02:51 GMT -5 mcbogga said:

TDs for tour events around the world might not agree. Usually both cuts gets deeper and fairways pinched when the tour boys and girls come to play.

But it's not ON or OFF of course. Have to make sense with routing etc, etc... As you say.

Heavy rough being a good way does not mean that light rough is bad.

An example. In a short par 4 with a wedge or 9I into the green I think having narrow fairway and heavy rough makes sense as shorter shots from light rough is almost as hitting from fairway so the effect is just that it acts as a safety net for bad drives.

On a 480yds par 4 having that same narrow fairway and then heavy rough may be a bit penal and too much "US open"

But as a method I think heavy rough is being under-utilized and the decisions around light/heavy rough in general seems to be dictated more by aesthetics rather than playability or challenge.

Understood. I remember last year, the redo of Pinehurst #2 had no light rough. It was fairway to heavy rough. 

It would be cool if we could determine how light or heavy the rough is, maybe a density setting?

[mcbogga]

That would be awesome! And a very manageable way to make a "tour set up" for a course.

You are touching a very good point. A way in the GNCD to contract the rough etc would also make it easier for designers to put out a "tour" version of their course.

I hope it does not come across as if I am racking down on the "resort" courses here, because I am not. Also fully understand the complexities that goes into course section and Job is doing great with what he has to work with. But I do think the silly scoring needs to be addressed somehow.

[drivert]

I think most players seem to want a challenge because I have been building two versions of my courses. An easy pin thursday and a tough pin sunday. The sunday courses seem to get the most plays and the higher ratings. I will admit that my courses are not crazy tough other than Bent Tree Lodge but I strive to make them realistic. But the tough courses always seem to get lower official reviews. Its definitely a fine line that I havent figured out yet on how to get a high rating and provide a tougher challenge.

[mcbogga]

I'm not sure it can be done. Same in real life - the real championship layouts are really not that enjoyable for the mid/high handicapper since they demand shots that are not in their bag.

[nevadaballin]

Mar 1, 2015 21:58:08 GMT -5 mcbogga said:

I'm not sure it can be done. Same in real life - the real championship layouts are really not that enjoyable for the mid/high handicapper since they demand shots that are not in their bag.

But if we're talking about simulating a pro tour and the courses used in it, then the mid/high handicapper should struggle until they become better players imo. 

[Pubknight]

Feb 23, 2015 12:20:36 GMT -5 xusemagru said:

This issue has been around for a long long time with this game. Harder courses that require thinking generally do not get as good of marks/reviews as courses that are easier.

I don't know if that's entirely true.
It may be, but there are some really hard courses that require thinking that get extremely good marks.
So if people don't like those sorts of courses... why do they like some harder courses that require thinking, but not others?

It's easy for designers to say that they made the course too difficult/requiring too much thought as a rationalization for why its not getting good marks/plays.  And there could be some truth to that.
But it also could be a bit of a cop-out.

Sometimes what a designer thinks is too difficult/clever 'for the masses' is just bad.

I have a group of friends, we all play on the euro tour.
And we play a lot of courses together, always trying out the new releases.
We played a lot, if not all, of the par 3 entries.

I watched one of Canuck's twitch broadcasts, walking through some entries.
There was one entry they were gushing over (I didn't see the whole thing, I'm sure they gushed over a few).
This one, however, happened to be an entry that 6 of us played at the same time and, to a person, categorized as junk.
It was pretty.  We could appreciate the time and effort that went into it.
But junk from a golf perspective.

But the designer community tends to get a little circle-jerk action going at times, overly praising each other.
And while I respect anyone taking the time to produce courses for others to enjoy... some of them aren't very good.
But no one seems willing to tell a 'name' designer when something they have done isn't great.
So it becomes the Emperors New Clothes.

Then, the course gets played because of word of mouth, it hits the right lists, etc.
But, it's not a good course.
So it gets low marks.

It's easy for a designer to say "oh, I made it too hard. oh, they don't understand it's complexity".
When sometimes the reality can be pretty simple: 150 foot elevation drops on a par 3 are just stupid. Four of them in one nine hole course is just four times as stupid.
It's not clever. It's not hard. It's overdone and it's gotten old.  

Sorry... bit of a rant there.
I just think the 'hard/difficult courses get lower marks" is an easy argument... and may over simplify it.

Here's a philosophical question:
If people generally agree the Magnolia National courses are amongst the best in the game.
Why don't people make more courses like them?
Fast greens, with the sort of breaks you can't just ram a putt at, or it's gone.
Layouts that require shotmaking: to get there, I have to be on this side of the fairway... if I'm on the wrong side of the fairway, I can't get to where I need to be; I need to land on this part of the green to get to that part of the green... since if I land right on that part of the green, I can't hold it.

Those courses seemed to get pretty good marks as I recall.

Want to make a tournament course that is major worthy?
Ask the top 20 players in the TGC world golf rankings what their least favourite shots/ toughest shots are.
And build a course that makes them have to play those shots.

[Crazycanuck1985]

Mar 1, 2015 22:59:01 GMT -5 Pubknight said:

Feb 23, 2015 12:20:36 GMT -5 xusemagru said:

This issue has been around for a long long time with this game. Harder courses that require thinking generally do not get as good of marks/reviews as courses that are easier.

I don't know if that's entirely true.
It may be, but there are some really hard courses that require thinking that get extremely good marks.
So if people don't like those sorts of courses... why do they like some harder courses that require thinking, but not others?

It's easy for designers to say that they made the course too difficult/requiring too much thought as a rationalization for why its not getting good marks/plays.  And there could be some truth to that.
But it also could be a bit of a cop-out.

Sometimes what a designer thinks is too difficult/clever 'for the masses' is just bad.

I have a group of friends, we all play on the euro tour.
And we play a lot of courses together, always trying out the new releases.
We played a lot, if not all, of the par 3 entries.

I watched one of Canuck's twitch broadcasts, walking through some entries.
There was one entry they were gushing over (I didn't see the whole thing, I'm sure they gushed over a few).
This one, however, happened to be an entry that 6 of us played at the same time and, to a person, categorized as junk.
It was pretty.  We could appreciate the time and effort that went into it.
But junk from a golf perspective.

But the designer community tends to get a little circle-jerk action going at times, overly praising each other.
And while I respect anyone taking the time to produce courses for others to enjoy... some of them aren't very good.
But no one seems willing to tell a 'name' designer when something they have done isn't great.
So it becomes the Emperors New Clothes.

Then, the course gets played because of word of mouth, it hits the right lists, etc.
But, it's not a good course.
So it gets low marks.

It's easy for a designer to say "oh, I made it too hard. oh, they don't understand it's complexity".
When sometimes the reality can be pretty simple: 150 foot elevation drops on a par 3 are just stupid. Four of them in one nine hole course is just four times as stupid.
It's not clever. It's not hard. It's overdone and it's gotten old.  

Sorry... bit of a rant there.
I just think the 'hard/difficult courses get lower marks" is an easy argument... and may over simplify it.

Here's a philosophical question:
If people generally agree the Magnolia National courses are amongst the best in the game.
Why don't people make more courses like them?
Fast greens, with the sort of breaks you can't just ram a putt at, or it's gone.
Layouts that require shotmaking: to get there, I have to be on this side of the fairway... if I'm on the wrong side of the fairway, I can't get to where I need to be; I need to land on this part of the green to get to that part of the green... since if I land right on that part of the green, I can't hold it.

Those courses seemed to get pretty good marks as I recall.

Want to make a tournament course that is major worthy?
Ask the top 20 players in the TGC world golf rankings what their least favourite shots/ toughest shots are.
And build a course that makes them have to play those shots.

Very interesting discussion here guys. As the head reviewer on TGCTours, I thought I would offer my two cents. Designing is tough...trying to make a fun, challenging, non-"tricked up" (TGC buzzword) course that also looks fantastic is a tall order. To me, only two courses have managed to this: Magnolia National and the Challenge Club.



I'm getting a sense that some people think we are only are giving the "celebrity" designers high ratings and reviews have turned into a beauty contest. This isn't the case, guys. We have a small army of users that are looking at your courses and taking everything into account. Reviewing is difficult too. Different people like different things. Some may prefer a prettier, easy course, while others want a tough challenge that may not have all the polish. I tend to like pretty courses, but if it's all looks and no substance, it will get a lower mark.
Also, as much as I love some of tastegw's courses, I have rated a couple of his new ones a bit lower than he would probably have liked, so I'm not afraid to do that if need be


Play-ability is always #1 for me, but the looks and character are important too. I didn't get a high end PC to play courses that look like they are in a big meadow in the middle of nowhere.



I'm going to say this again when it comes to ratings....the nice thing about the review process is, if you don't agree with an initial rating on a course, you can have a say! Use the User review section! Give feedback! Mine and the rest of the TGC course approvers ratings count just as much as yours (eg. If I give a course a 4.5 and you go on and give it a 3.5, the rating then becomes a 4). We have this great tool to help designers and give constructive feedback but no one except for me and 5-10 other people out of the 1500 members on the site use it!
That's ridiculous! We are all playing new courses all the time. It can't be that difficult to pop onto the site and leave a quick rating/review now and then, can it?


I'll try not to "gush" as much on my reviews Pubknight . With those Par 3 videos, we are only commenting on things we like about each course so it seems like we are "gushing".

[nevadaballin]

Mar 2, 2015 1:55:42 GMT -5 Crazycanuck1985 said:

Mar 1, 2015 22:59:01 GMT -5 Pubknight said:

I don't know if that's entirely true.
It may be, but there are some really hard courses that require thinking that get extremely good marks.
So if people don't like those sorts of courses... why do they like some harder courses that require thinking, but not others?

It's easy for designers to say that they made the course too difficult/requiring too much thought as a rationalization for why its not getting good marks/plays.  And there could be some truth to that.
But it also could be a bit of a cop-out.

Sometimes what a designer thinks is too difficult/clever 'for the masses' is just bad.

I have a group of friends, we all play on the euro tour.
And we play a lot of courses together, always trying out the new releases.
We played a lot, if not all, of the par 3 entries.

I watched one of Canuck's twitch broadcasts, walking through some entries.
There was one entry they were gushing over (I didn't see the whole thing, I'm sure they gushed over a few).
This one, however, happened to be an entry that 6 of us played at the same time and, to a person, categorized as junk.
It was pretty.  We could appreciate the time and effort that went into it.
But junk from a golf perspective.

But the designer community tends to get a little circle-jerk action going at times, overly praising each other.
And while I respect anyone taking the time to produce courses for others to enjoy... some of them aren't very good.
But no one seems willing to tell a 'name' designer when something they have done isn't great.
So it becomes the Emperors New Clothes.

Then, the course gets played because of word of mouth, it hits the right lists, etc.
But, it's not a good course.
So it gets low marks.

It's easy for a designer to say "oh, I made it too hard. oh, they don't understand it's complexity".
When sometimes the reality can be pretty simple: 150 foot elevation drops on a par 3 are just stupid. Four of them in one nine hole course is just four times as stupid.
It's not clever. It's not hard. It's overdone and it's gotten old.  

Sorry... bit of a rant there.
I just think the 'hard/difficult courses get lower marks" is an easy argument... and may over simplify it.

Here's a philosophical question:
If people generally agree the Magnolia National courses are amongst the best in the game.
Why don't people make more courses like them?
Fast greens, with the sort of breaks you can't just ram a putt at, or it's gone.
Layouts that require shotmaking: to get there, I have to be on this side of the fairway... if I'm on the wrong side of the fairway, I can't get to where I need to be; I need to land on this part of the green to get to that part of the green... since if I land right on that part of the green, I can't hold it.

Those courses seemed to get pretty good marks as I recall.

Want to make a tournament course that is major worthy?
Ask the top 20 players in the TGC world golf rankings what their least favourite shots/ toughest shots are.
And build a course that makes them have to play those shots.

Very interesting discussion here guys. As the head reviewer on TGCTours, I thought I would offer my two cents. Designing is tough...trying to make a fun, challenging, non-"tricked up" (TGC buzzword) course that also looks fantastic is a tall order. To me, only two courses have managed to this: Magnolia National and the Challenge Club.



I'm getting a sense that some people think we are only are giving the "celebrity" designers high ratings and reviews have turned into a beauty contest. This isn't the case, guys. We have a small army of users that are looking at your courses and taking everything into account. Reviewing is difficult too. Different people like different things. Some may prefer a prettier, easy course, while others want a tough challenge that may not have all the polish. I tend to like pretty courses, but if it's all looks and no substance, it will get a lower mark.
Also, as much as I love some of tastegw's courses, I have rated a couple of his new ones a bit lower than he would probably have liked, so I'm not afraid to do that if need be


Play-ability is always #1 for me, but the looks and character are important too. I didn't get a high end PC to play courses that look like they are in a big meadow in the middle of nowhere.



I'm going to say this again when it comes to ratings....the nice thing about the review process is, if you don't agree with an initial rating on a course, you can have a say! Use the User review section! Give feedback! Mine and the rest of the TGC course approvers ratings count just as much as yours (eg. If I give a course a 4.5 and you go on and give it a 3.5, the rating then becomes a 4). We have this great tool to help designers and give constructive feedback but no one except for me and 5-10 other people out of the 1500 members on the site use it!
That's ridiculous! We are all playing new courses all the time. It can't be that difficult to pop onto the site and leave a quick rating/review now and then, can it?


I'll try not to "gush" as much on my reviews Pubknight . With those Par 3 videos, we are only commenting on things we like about each course so it seems like we are "gushing".

I think (hope) most people realize that the course approval process is a long and tedious task. With tens of thousands of courses in the wild and more everyday, it's impossible for anyone or any small group of people to get through them all.  All we can do is bring it to the league's attention that we have a new course out there and hopefully it gets a look and some plays. If it ends up on tour, then even better.

My issue was the way my course was reviewed. But I'd rather have that conversation with you personally in private and not in an open forum where things could get taken out of context by others who are not involved But some of your comments had merit and I took them into the course I'm building now. Although i have to admit, I enjoy making fun of the "can i mow it" line - please don't take it to heart, it's just some humor now

We understand that you have gone through an extreme number of course reviews and I know for a fact you do it with the best of intentions. Keep doing what you are doing and someday we'll have a discussion privately about that one review of my course (PGC at Alamosa Springs).