Having never been in a design contest I know I probably don't really warrant an opinion but as someone looking on from the outside I would say that when designing a course for a contest you have 2 options.
Option 1 is to follow pretty much what B101 has said above in that you look at what the judges have scored highly in the past and look at designing something that meets those criteria as that is likely to do well in the next competition. Whether or not this is considered to 'make you a better designer' I think is a moot point as all you become is someone capable of making a course that meets certain criteria to win a competition. You are effectively designing a course to a pre-defined 'template'
Option 2 is to design your own course how you want to and not follow what has gone before. This is unlikely to win you a competition to begin with but if you develop your own style and people come around to it and start to appreciate and enjoy it then you will, in time, begin to set a new trend in the template I mentioned in Option 1 and that will then lead to you winning competitions.
Those are the 2 main options you have but you have to accept that, short term, only really following option 1 are you likely to win, as proven in this comp and many others.
Andy
Definitely disagree that you wouldn't warrant an opinion, but I think you've misinterpreted what I wrote. My point is how to learn from golf architecture in-game - you get people giving opinions and dissecting a hole in a way you just don't anywhere else. I would challenge you to find me a hole on Marlette that matches up with another from a different contest. This isn't following a template of how to win a contest (those don't exist - see Necedah Pines, Bandit Ridge, Shelter Island, The Mantis, Cypress Dunes or any of the other amazing courses that didn't win), but it certainly is making a good course or becoming a better designer.
I think the flipside to this question is 'will doing things at random without ever studying what it should look like mean I'll win a contest?' 99.9% of the time, no. Odds are, you'll make some pretty basic errors because experience does count. Now, once you understand the rules, of course you can break them to do things differently. With that in mind, I'm going to list the risks that I took (or rules I broke) with Marlette, which I was aware of and definitely didn't fall into standard TGC design. Interested to see how many people picked up on all of them:
- Elevated level of difficulty
- 3 par fives in first eight holes
- Stretches of short holes in a row (10-12) and stretches of long holes (13-16)
- Finishing on a driveable four
- Burnt out rough
- No light rough
- No global plants anywhere for a natural feel
- Repeatedly pinched landing areas
- Lots of green runoffs
- Building right up to the edge of the plot and managing to hide that (not necessarily a decision, but certainly wouldn't fit a winning template)
- Very limited planting strategy (pretty much just two trees, two grasses, two bushes and two rocks all over the place)
And if the answer to 'making a course that meets certain criteria to win a competition' means fulfilling the below, then I'm ok with that... Those criteria were pretty clearly stated at the beginning and any good golf course anywhere in the world will do these things well:
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?
