TCRBrad
Amateur Golfer
Midwest Ope-n Champion
Posts: 180
TGCT Name: TCRBrad
Tour: Challenge Circuit
|
Post by TCRBrad on Oct 31, 2019 12:09:05 GMT -5
Look...we all know that Golf Course Architecture can be a wild world of crazy ideas and nods to the great days of yore (shoutout to The Fried Egg), but I feel like the TGC design community is one that combines the ideas of Seth Raynor template holes with the fantasy world of "The Predator" from Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2004
Since there is a wide variety of different course design philosophies (and didn't see a place on here to geek out about this stuff), this is a thread for us/y'all to share thoughts on how YOU think a course should be designed and what makes courses good/fun.
The Good Dr. Al Mackenzie had a few thoughts on what every course should have...but I want to know what YOU think
What sort of features do YOU think makes a TGC course good?
- Do you prefer designing a course that's tough as nails? Or a course that takes your breath away with it's beauty?
- Should par always be 72? Or does it depend on routing?
- Flat greens? Or tiered greens?
- Width and angles? Or precision and risk?
- Do you design courses that are aimed at a Tour event? Local muni's? Resorts?
- Is Sweetens Cove overrat...WHOOPS wrong thread...
Time to let those GCA takes FLY!
|
|
TCRBrad
Amateur Golfer
Midwest Ope-n Champion
Posts: 180
TGCT Name: TCRBrad
Tour: Challenge Circuit
|
Post by TCRBrad on Oct 31, 2019 12:10:02 GMT -5
And for those that are unfamiliar with the good Dr. Al's course design philosophies, here they are!
1. Courses when possible should be arranged in two loops of nine holes.
2. Large portion of good two shot holes, two or three drive and pitch holes and at least four one shot holes.
3. Should be little walking between the greens and the tees and the course should be arranged so that in the first instance there is always a slight walk forwards from the green to the next tee; then the holes are sufficiently elastic to be lengthened in the future if necessary.
4. Greens and fairways should be sufficiently undulating but there should be no hill climbing.
5. Every hole should have a different character.
6. Should be a minimum of blindness for the approach shot.
7. Course should have beautiful surroundings and all artificial features should have so natural an appearance that a stranger is unable to distinguish them from nature itself.
8. Should be a number of heroic carries from tee, but the course should be arranged so that the weaker golfer, with the loss of a stroke, shall always have an alternate route open to him.
9. There should be an infinite variety in the strokes required to play the various holes
10. There should be a complete absence of the annoyance and irritation caused by the necessity of looking for lost balls.
11. The course should be so interesting that even the plus man is constantly stimulated to improve his game in attempting shots he has hitherto been unable to play.
12. Course should be so arranged that the long handicap player, or even the absolute beginner, should be able to enjoy his round in spite of the fact he is piling up a big score.
13. The course should be equally good during winter and summer, the textures of the greens and fairways should be perfect and the approaches should have the same consistency as the greens.
|
|
|
|
Post by gamesdecent on Oct 31, 2019 16:02:08 GMT -5
I don’t think width/angles and precision/risk are mutually exclusive. If anything, the latter is a necessity for the former. Being wide isn’t what makes a hole fun, it’s the strategy and replayability in the number of ways to play the hole that the width itself provides, and the precision to play it the way you intended to, with the less precise you are and/or more risk you take on, the more consequences you face.
I like non-72 pars just for the “different” factor.
Flat greens are boring.
I would argue Sweetens, architecturally speaking, is underrated. Outside of social media golfers, most people have still never even heard of it. Now, in terms of actually going and playing it, I would say it’s overrated if you catch it at the wrong time. Last time I went it took me 6 hours to finish 18 holes and we were standing in open sun most of the time under a thick, wet 95F heat waiting 10 minutes to hit every shot.
Personally, in game, I think the plot should be built first and the course laid on top of it. I don’t think the flat courses drawn on paper translate as well in game because it’s hard to get the interesting terrain features within the areas of play, most of the time the sculpting is an afterthought surrounding the hole, at least in my experience when I’ve tried to build that way.
|
|
TCRBrad
Amateur Golfer
Midwest Ope-n Champion
Posts: 180
TGCT Name: TCRBrad
Tour: Challenge Circuit
|
Post by TCRBrad on Oct 31, 2019 17:36:54 GMT -5
gamesdecent BIG fan of your work with Job on the "back 9" at Sweetens in TGC. Did you guys start by laying out holes and then going back for contouring and sculpting? Or did you guys start by sculpting out the land and routing holes around that? Also would love to get your take on whether or not you intentionally try to make a course "hard" for players or not...
|
|
|
|
Post by gamesdecent on Oct 31, 2019 17:49:26 GMT -5
gamesdecent BIG fan of your work with Job on the "back 9" at Sweetens in TGC. Did you guys start by laying out holes and then going back for contouring and sculpting? Or did you guys start by sculpting out the land and routing holes around that? Also would love to get your take on whether or not you intentionally try to make a course "hard" for players or not... I traced the layout onto a flat plot with a program called GhostIt, then sculpted it up from there. I think it came out a little flatter than it really is because I was going off pictures for most of it. I did a LIDAR version of just the front 9 too. On the back 9, we had the property line laid out, and we had a rough plan we’d come up with for a routing, but most of the sculpting on it was done in game. I’ve only done 2 courses starting from a flat plot and both were because I started by tracing the layout first. I don’t design intentionally hard courses outside of the US Open contest, which was Cypress Dunes. At least not in a “target golf” way where you jump from landing area to landing area while avoiding the hazards. I’m much more a fan of getting difficulty out of interesting (occasionally illegal) greens, runoff areas, side hill lies, elevation changes, and trying to force draws or fades in order to hold greens. That’s more interesting golf in my opinion. |
|
mayday_golf83
TGCT Design Competition Directors
Posts: 2,279 
TGCT Name: Jeremy Mayo
Tour: Elite
|
Post by mayday_golf83 on Oct 31, 2019 18:12:08 GMT -5
Oh boy, way to get me thinking design philosophy on the eve of a contest - Do you prefer designing a course that's tough as nails? Or a course that takes your breath away with it's beauty?
I prefer to make courses that are (hopefully) fun and interesting to play. I've had courses played on everything from CC-Am to PGA, so protecting par isn't necessarily the goal ... rather making the adventure to obtain par (or birdie) enjoyable. As for the second part of the question, I think the casual player is more drawn toward looks but that's because the typical shelf-life of a course in this game is 1-4 plays, depending on what tour or society(ies) pick it up. To me though, a good course is like good cuisine. If given the choice between something that taste great, but doesn't look all that appetizing and something that looks perfect on the plate, but tastes like poo, I'm going to take great taste every time. Now, you give me something that looks great on the plate AND tastes amazing, then that's the height of the artform. - Should par always be 72? Or does it depend on routing?
Completely dependent on the routing. Whatever makes sense. I've done par 70s, 71s and 72s in this game pretty interchangeably. I do agree w/ the good Doctor that there needs to be typically 4-5 (6 if I'm really feeling frisky) par 3s, and a couple of good short 4s. I also enjoy a good 3-shot par 5, but I'd rather take what the land gives me than force my ideas on the land. - Flat greens? Or tiered greens?
Again, somewhat depends on what the land gives me but, in general -- especially in this game -- I like greens with tiers and sectors because it shrinks the margin of success/error for the top guys while not completely shutting the CC-Z types out of the hole. In general, though, I try to avoid a perfectly flat putt whenever possible. let those greens move. - Width and angles? Or precision and risk?
With Petty on this one. Width and angles can provide opportunities for precision and risk if done correctly. To me the heroic and strategic schools of design marry well with one another and are far more interesting than the penal school. I may throw a long, straight, demanding par 4 at you but -- if I do, it likely won't be more than once or twice a round. - Do you design courses that are aimed at a Tour event? Local muni's? Resorts?
I'd say I typically design championship-style courses. Though I did help mattf27 out on a muni-type project ( Trighton Park GC) recently. - Is Sweetens Cove overrat...WHOOPS wrong thread...
If we get a group of TGCT buddies together at some point, I'd love to find out  ... As far as how it plays in game. The greens are straight up psychedelic funk, but it's everything I want from a course in this game. |
|
|
|
Post by csugolfer60 on Oct 31, 2019 18:32:57 GMT -5
Look...we all know that Golf Course Architecture can be a wild world of crazy ideas and nods to the great days of yore (shoutout to The Fried Egg), but I feel like the TGC design community is one that combines the ideas of Seth Raynor template holes with the fantasy world of "The Predator" from Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2004 Since there is a wide variety of different course design philosophies (and didn't see a place on here to geek out about this stuff), this is a thread for us/y'all to share thoughts on how YOU think a course should be designed and what makes courses good/fun. The Good Dr. Al Mackenzie had a few thoughts on what every course should have...but I want to know what YOU think What sort of features do YOU think makes a TGC course good?- Do you prefer designing a course that's tough as nails? Or a course that takes your breath away with it's beauty?
- Should par always be 72? Or does it depend on routing?
- Flat greens? Or tiered greens?
- Width and angles? Or precision and risk?
- Do you design courses that are aimed at a Tour event? Local muni's? Resorts?
- Is Sweetens Cove overrat...WHOOPS wrong thread...Time to let those GCA takes FLY! Yes, No, Yes, Yes, Yes and Not A Chance |
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Nov 1, 2019 2:50:34 GMT -5
Love these sorts of threads: What sort of features do YOU think makes a TGC course good? Decision-making on every shot is number one. Then variety, interesting routing and visuals. Do you prefer designing a course that's tough as nails? Or a course that takes your breath away with it's beauty? I'd like to think I kinda do both, but if it's difficult, it should be natural rather than forced. We play a video game, so beauty is vital. I won't make a course that looks rubbish, but playability will always trump that. I guess the best way to put it is that I'll try to design the best looking course I can, but won't cheat on routing - that's part of the skill in my opinion. Should par always be 72? Or does it depend on routing? Definitely not, but it's a good guideline. My last three have been 71, 69, 72 and the WC course will be 73 most likely. If the land gives you a great par four but you need a three to make it a par 72, you'd be nuts to compromise. Flat greens? Or tiered greens? Flat greens are boring for me. Tiers all the way. Width and angles? Or precision and risk? Both. Width to give options and a clear safe play, but the best line should be guarded pretty well. When you can manage width whilst challenging people not to just point and shoot, you're doing well. Do you design courses that are aimed at a Tour event? Local muni's? Resorts? Not at tour events, no. I play a lot of links golf so I lean towards the rugged, natural look. Hence the love for width, angles, undulations, crazy greens and all those natural features. Is Sweetens Cove overrat...WHOOPS wrong thread... Haven't played it so couldn't say. My guess would be no  |
|
TCRBrad
Amateur Golfer
Midwest Ope-n Champion
Posts: 180
TGCT Name: TCRBrad
Tour: Challenge Circuit
|
Post by TCRBrad on Nov 1, 2019 10:09:27 GMT -5
Yeah I am DEFINITELY going to have to try out Trighton. That place looks pure af mayday_golf83I'll work from the tee shot forward, but I'm noticing that not a lot of people use centerline bunkers or traditionally "straight" fairways in the game. A lot of courses rely on doglegs, large bunkers/waste bunkers, slide slopes and elevation changes to challenge players off the tee... Also, people typically rely on using split fairways to give people options off the tee. While this isn't a bad thing, are people more prone to being (for lack of a better term) "obvious" with where they want players to aim? Or is there just not as much "respect" for courses that challenge players with mounding/humps/bumps a la Sweetens and TBC? No offense to ANYONE in here btw...I'm just legit curious as to why that seems to be a trend with designers |
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Nov 1, 2019 10:58:29 GMT -5
Yeah I am DEFINITELY going to have to try out Trighton. That place looks pure af mayday_golf83 I'll work from the tee shot forward, but I'm noticing that not a lot of people use centerline bunkers or traditionally "straight" fairways in the game. A lot of courses rely on doglegs, large bunkers/waste bunkers, slide slopes and elevation changes to challenge players off the tee... Also, people typically rely on using split fairways to give people options off the tee. While this isn't a bad thing, are people more prone to being (for lack of a better term) "obvious" with where they want players to aim? Or is there just not as much "respect" for courses that challenge players with mounding/humps/bumps a la Sweetens and TBC? No offense to ANYONE in here btw...I'm just legit curious as to why that seems to be a trend with designers No, you'll find a lot of people very good at playing with where people aim. Mounding-wise, give these a play: Ol' Rocky Top, Bandit Ridge, St Cyrus, Shelter Island, to name but a few. Centre line bunkers are pretty standard on certain courses around here, as well. If you look through the resumés of the guys in Pool A (and the odd Pool B guy ) in the World Cup, you'll find tons of very, very good courses. |
|
TCRBrad
Amateur Golfer
Midwest Ope-n Champion
Posts: 180
TGCT Name: TCRBrad
Tour: Challenge Circuit
|
Post by TCRBrad on Nov 1, 2019 11:32:30 GMT -5
b101 I played Shelter and Bandit last night. Both were REALLY enjoyable courses, but both also used more sweeping doglegs and mounding to defend tee shots. Shelter did a better job of placing obstacles/hazards right where I was aiming, but I also got a lot of this (sorry for potato quality):   Why not open up more fairway for players to see off the tee, and then slap a centerline trap in the middle of where players are aiming? In the picture on the left, you now force players to decide whether or not they want the easy line with an uphill approach/waste bunker possibly in play OR play aggressive for a shorter approach but flirt with a small deep bunker that would turn a seemingly easy 4 into an almost guaranteed 5? Picture on the right is a par 5, so a centerline trap/moving the existing bunker and connecting the fairway left means: Players can play right for mega width but trees blocking the second shot, or try and pump driver down the hill and have a chance at the green in 2 with the possibility of hitting into that bunker and taking 3 or even 4 completely out of play. Shelter was a little better with centerline traps, but I still saw a handful of hole looking like this:  Replace the existing bunker with fairway + mounds, and dump a deep bunker in the middle of the fairway and the coastline comes more into play. Do I rip driver down the tiny little patch of fairway left and bring that trap into play? Or do I aim for the fat part of the fairway that's dangerously close to the cliff? Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed playing both these courses and will be revisiting them many many times. I just noticed a trend in how both defended tee shots from grip it and rip it players  This is just my train of thought, hence why I wanted to create a design philosophy thread to geek out and talk about this stuff lol
|
|
TCRBrad
Amateur Golfer
Midwest Ope-n Champion
Posts: 180
TGCT Name: TCRBrad
Tour: Challenge Circuit
|
Post by TCRBrad on Nov 1, 2019 11:42:47 GMT -5
Shoutout to MS Paint, but here's what I mean:  I added one more planting left to guard the corner, but that could also be mounding in rough (probably the way I'd go) With just a little more fairway left of the bunker, people can use that as an option to be aggressive off the tee. If they execute, they cut the corner of the dogleg and have a shorter approach to the green. If they bail out right of the trap, not only does the cliff come into play, but the approach shot is longer. |
|
|
|
Post by nevadaballin on Nov 1, 2019 11:48:45 GMT -5
My philosophy...
#1. Wing it till it feels good. "Rules" are replaced by simple logic.
#2. See #1
#3. #2 is why I retired form creating courses.
|
|
|
|
Post by cephyn on Nov 1, 2019 17:36:04 GMT -5
My philosophy is always - the course should be fun, should provide the player with some risky choices that have rewards, should always be INTERESTING and not boring, and should reflect that this is a video game, so let's do some outlandish stuff that might be hard to do IRL.
- Do you prefer designing a course that's tough as nails? Or a course that takes your breath away with it's beauty?
I aim for challenge if you don't pay attention.
- Should par always be 72? Or does it depend on routing?
Depends on routing and terrain.
- Flat greens? Or tiered greens?
Tiers, mounds, swales, all of it.
- Width and angles? Or precision and risk?
Uhm..yes? All of the above. Depending on the course and such.
- Do you design courses that are aimed at a Tour event? Local muni's? Resorts?
I'd love for my courses to be used on Tour. One has been, and I'm hoping someday Willowisp gets picked up. But I don't know how to specifically design FOR a tour. I don't do RCRs.
- Is Sweetens Cove overrat...WHOOPS wrong thread...
|
|
|
|
Post by rjwils30 on Nov 2, 2019 4:14:27 GMT -5
Few thoughts off the top of my head.
1. Make golf an adventure. Explore the landscape, Create as many different looks and shots as possible yet still make the course cohesive
2. Rules of thumb are boring and make for conventional solutions.
3. Let the ball roll. Make every shot a 3 dimensional experience.
4. Throw a wrench in it. Sometimes we default to making holes smooth and seamless and the golfer is presented with a compositionally pleasing set of holes that might lull a player into a pleasant round but do little to elicit any emotion. Sometimes you need to throw in some nastiness and disjointedness to wake players up.
5. Get the ball to the hole in as few shots as possible. It’s easy to get caught up in the conventions and expectations imposed on golf courses. We get hung up on “fairness” and “shot values” and perhaps embed too much logic and control in our designs. Create courses that present interesting and sometimes confounding situations that harken back to the origins of the game.
6. Create difficulty through ambiguity. Find ways to mess with expected outcomes. Put less importance on execution and more on thinking. Confuse players and create indecision. Create situations that seem impossible but force players to elevate their concentration and quality of play
|
|
... As far as how it plays in game. The greens are straight up psychedelic funk, but it's everything I want from a course in this game. 
