Is it Time to limit "how many times" ...

[DDawg]

Sept 29, 2019 19:11:59 GMT -5 hmammoth said:

The thing is, last season had more designers getting their first tour course than ever before, across all tours. It has increased each year over the past few years. A lot of that is down to newer designers watching tutorials and the fantastic job more established designers do with streaming course design sessions as well as answering questions on those streams. Schedulers do keep a eye out for newer designers but we are not going to turn down a course from a established designer if we think it deserves a tour spot. Look at the list of designers on the web for last season and you will see a lot of different names. We have been through all this before, there is a clique, only friends courses get on tour, it’s all bullshit, every course had a equal chance of getting selected, not all courses will because of the share number of courses. Putting a limit on the number of courses a designer can have on tour would be detrimental to the tours themselves, tour spots are earned and if the course is good enough, no matter the designer, it deserves its slot.

While some of what you say may be true, with the amount of courses on the TGCT list, also with the amount of new courses being submitted each week, there are a lot of designers deserving to have a course played ...

I am not referring to mine.  I have had courses on tour, in the past.  I have plenty of so-called "Tour Worthy" courses on the list.   

I also said or mentioned anything about the "C"  word, or favoritism.  I merely stated that in the appearance of the spreadsheet ... There are areas, in which more opportunities could be open for others.  If there were some limits set.

Yet, a few of you seem to take offence to this, as I have other motives. 
I assure you, that is not the case.  I don't need TGCT for plays of any of my courses, they do well enough on their own.  

I only submit my courses for the benefit of TGCT having the option to use them.

I didn't submit any course during TGC 2, I had many reasons.  I still created and they did quite well.

I am now at that point again.  I think I ran my course ... figuratively ... I will lurk still and see if things improve or change ... maybe if HB releases a new version of the game.  And a newer atmosphere in TGCT erupts, and transforms into a more civilized place again ... 

As for now ...

This is my last post on this topic ... Sorry once again, that somehow my suggestion seemed to OFFEND a few of you.

That was not ever intended.

[Deleted]

Me wanting to respond to TGCT needing a new atmosphere...




I think 99% of the people here mean well, right?

[boffo]

Sept 29, 2019 20:09:33 GMT -5 VctryLnSprts said:

Me wanting to respond to TGCT needing a new atmosphere...




I think 99% of the people here mean well, right?

I'm pretty sure that all of us who have been around since the TGC1 days now what the real problem is here.  We have nowhere near enough wagtunes adding to the atmosphere.

[reebdoog]

I can help with that!


The most amazing music you've never heard!

[reebdoog]

Also...yep...this thread is exactly what I figured. Carry on indeed.

[Deleted]

[Deleted]

LOL, Reeb and I were posting at the same time. Thought I was being clever and he beat me to it. Haha!

[Oscar C]

Who is that dummy?

And what is that thing with the hat on?

[ezzinomilonga]

My first thought reading this thread has been "stay out of this, no matter what", but for me all the posts I read here are telling something true. Some much more..some a bit less.
Is sure that schedulers are doing their beat with a very hard work..is sure that I don't believe there're preference of any kind for some designer by default (it would be stupid, not unfair. Just stupid. For dozen of reasons, starting by the idea that a designer, even the best designer, can't make mistakes would be senseless. Or that every course he creates will be necessarily good for the tour). And is also clear that designers are the most important part of this game and everything.
And is silly to talk about tastes, so I'll try to avoid.

So, just to talk about facts, when I worked on my first list..using all the course accepted on TGCT, at the 3 of July (when I renounced cause it was impossible to work on it, being alone) I listed more or less 1500 courses.
If you look that list, if you check how many courses are underplayed..they are the huge majority. A shameful majority. And this happens not for a desire to be unfair, but simply cause we have too many courses. So..even good courses MUST stay out from the tour mathematically. Nothing to do about it.
I played a lot of those courses. There are..probably not hundreds of masterpieces..but there are at least dozen of courses that is sad are never been considered for the tour seriously.

I have also to admit that sometimes I see, used on tour, courses that I really, really can't understand exactly why deserves a spot considering exactly how many better courses we have on every point of view and never used..but you could argue is personal taste, so nevermind.

But, for example..exactly cause we have so few (relatively) spots on tour, why we should ever to use a course two times in two different tours with 2-3 weeks of difference? Is senseless for me. Like Blackflag for example. Has been used on Euro Tour (or Korn Freaks, I don't remember now) and I see it will be used next week on cc. Why? Is a good course, really..but not so freaking good to deserve two spots. Absolutely. It just steals a place to some course that will be never used. Sorry, but this is what I think.

Furthermore..i don't know what are really the personal criteria used by every scheduler to pick a course, but sometimes it seems that a nice looking course is prized even if (technically speaking..i mean just about architecture of the course) that is not a course so good at all.
I can be wrong, but this is my feeling playing some course. It happens quite often. I understand that the eye needs to be pleased, but the priority should be always the playability and the enjoyment playing a course.
After all, everything here is not about art galleries..is about golf.
And my idea can be really unpopular (and I don't care) but I prefer 100 times on 100 to play a course not so good looking but really funny to play in which every hole seems to have an idea and a proper challenge to offer.. Than a masterpiece of design but not so interesting to play..or simply too tough cause the challenge is not fair enough at some point, for some reason.

About this point, as a CC player another thing I noticed is that sometimes schedulers changes the conditions on 4 days, in such a way that goes even against what the same designers suggest, just to have tougher course. I see why..and I could agree, but sometimes a course is near to be unplayable, depending on settings. And I'm talking being a not so bad player, it seems. But I think that what is playable for me can be a nightmare for other players. Especially in CC, that is full of Sunday players. But to make a course tougher artificially, it can work properly only if, before, you play those conditions dozen and dozen of times. On every pin. And I don't think someone can ever have the time to play 50 times a course just to properly check it.

As a side, totally secondary note, just two things :
1) i understand why it happens, but I still find a bit sad that only new courses are taken in count to be used on tour. Great courses we have are forgotten just for this reason. And old courses never used on tour will never have a chance, in this way.

2) I really wish to see that one of the criteria to use a course on the tour should be the crowds. Not all the tournament stuff, i mean just the crowds. Really guys..i'm on tour by April in CC and I played maybe 6 courses with the crowds. Maybe. Is just sad. I don't care if someone don't like itm probably lot of Pro IRL should prefer to play without people around, but they plays on tour so is supposed to be crowds. Here should be the same. Is not about personal tastes..is about the fact that is exactly the noise of the crowds that gives the feeling to play a different round of golf than usual. It creates not only atmosphere, but it puts also pressure. Crowds it should be mandatory on a course, to be tour worthy.

What I mean, definitely..is that things are pretty good now..but everything can always be improved..and probably a policy a bit more tight about what is needed to be considered tour worthy, considered how many course we have every day..probably could be the right moment to be implemented.
A course to be used on the tour should be not always nice looking. Should be freaking good to play. Always. And is useless to declare 700 courses or more any year "tour worthy" if we can use less than 300 courses per season. Just this.

[Deleted]

Sept 29, 2019 20:36:21 GMT -5 Oscar C said:

Who is that dummy?

And what is that thing with the hat on?

LMAO!!!

[toddfather]

I shouldn’t even chime in here but due to the fact that for every 1 compliment to the schedulers, there is about 20+ complaints, I feel I must.
I’ve only been scheduling for Euro this season. What I can tell you is that it’s a lot of work. I signed up for it, so I’m not looking for pity but there is a lot of time and effort put in. At the end of the day, when I pick a course, my only concern is putting a good course on tour that everyone will enjoy. I understand that’s not realistic, as there are always some that don’t like the course, but I/we do the best we can. There is no buddy system of any kind. If newer designers put out a course that fits, hell ya I’ll put it on. But to think we only have 5-10 guys we choose from is a worn out argument.
Think what you will though

[TheDominator273]

[paulus]

I can't comment on the quality of the courses not getting plays - but simply knowing how human psychology work - there will almost certainly be a subtle preference for previous known good designers and those who have been long standing members of the group - it's natural.

Clique forming is known to happen in all social environment and is generally considered to have bad outcomes in both businesses and activity groups - which is why they often take pro-active steps to break them or avoid them forming.

So, yep, I think the OP probably has a valid point for discussion here.

[Deleted]

[paulus]

Appreciate you helping to prove my point Eric 👍

In-group members will often seek to diminish/ridicule the opinion/input from outsiders...