Lifeonaboard
Amateur Golfer
Posts: 250
TGCT Name: Jaron Pauls
|
Post by Lifeonaboard on Nov 2, 2019 5:47:03 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 I agree with this whole heartedly. Testing their ability to recover and deal with the unexpected is also super important. If I may go on a tangent, my winter job is to train very high end snowboard instructors, usually for various exams. And a question I get asked a lot is "will I fail if I fall during exams?" The answer is that it depends on what happens afterwards. A bad snowboarder does not know why they fell in the first place and keeps repeating the same mistakes, a good one will figure out ways of dealing with the problem so that next time they don't fall over and a great one will adapt their technique on the fly so that it is never a problem again. I think this can be applied to golf strategy as well. If a golfer puts a ball in a hazard and asks themselves "what decision did I make that lead to this?" Then they have a chance to improve. If instead they think "that's so unlucky, I got a terrible kick off the side of that mound", then they will be doomed to keep having those problems and never change there strategy. In this particular example even a change that decreases the odds of hitting the side of a mound by say 10% could save 1 or 2 strokes every few rounds. But if we as designers make all of our courses fair and predictable the golfers will never be challenged to reach their full potential.
|
|
|
Post by grovey31 on Nov 3, 2019 6:02:26 GMT -5
It’s been cool seeing people’s responses to this very interesting thread and it’s really cool seeing different perspectives on things. I’ve been giving it some thought before jumping in but here it goes. My goal is to always create as much variety as possible. That is the essence of golf. Changing elevation, tee shot and approach angles, and different looks off of the tee. I’ve not done a great job in the elevation department however so that’s going to be a focus of mine going forward with my newest project.
One of my major focuses is on routing. I’ve read a lot of other posts talking about not imposing a routing on the land which I agree with... in real life. I love doing routings and I love making them as tight as possible so you can see multiple holes at any given time. The idea of seeing holes I’ve already played from different angles and holes I’ve yet to play builds anticipation and excitement. I find it incredibly difficult though to build a plot first and then “find holes” within it that also make for an interesting, tight, and connected routing. It’s almost as if there are too many options to choose from and my minds eye is all over the place. I would love to hear more from others on this specific topic and maybe hear or see how you all do that.
My other philosophy is simple. Break all of the rules. Create back to back 3s and 5s, have 6 drivable par 4s, build greens with endless movement, intersect bunkers into multiple textures, free flowing and undulating teeing areas, imperfectly sculpted bunkers, etc. I love pushing the envelope and trying to create something I’ve not seen before. Jeremy, Rob, Dan and Petty do this so incredibly well and I take a lot of inspiration from them. I try to simply focus on creating something new, exciting, interesting, and cool without thinking “is this going to be acceptable?”.
I saw Alister Mackenzie was quoted in the original thread so I’ll throw something in from him too. I remember reading somewhere that he said that after completing Cypress Point he was worrried everyone was going to like it too much which meant it wasn’t a very good course. I take that to mean he didn’t take enough risks or go outside of the box enough to create differing opinions and feelings amongst the people playing it. This is something I try to keep in mind on all of my designs.
|
|
|
Post by lessthanbread on Nov 4, 2019 0:11:26 GMT -5
I prefer to make my courses on the easier side but increasingly challenging as you change pins. My perfect design would be -14 doable on pin 1 with no wind and even par a good score on pin 4 with high winds.
I really enjoy the artistic side of designing. Designing a course that’s fun/challenging is a high priority and I think I do a decent job of it but what really gets me jazzed up about designing is when I create a great looking view or visual element that make people go wow.
I don’t have any background or exposure to golf course architecture so I don’t look at a plot and say “oh a redan would go well here” or anything like that. I pride myself on variety, balance and risk/reward when designing the actual course. If I lay down a tough long par 4, I like the next hole to be a reachable par 5 or something else where birdie is easier.
I don’t like greens that feel manufactured. The more naturally sloped the better. Makes things interesting.
Basically overall I like to do things that are unique yet still believable. I like to blur the line between fictional and fantasy and also enjoy giving my courses personality with interesting backstories and advertising
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2020 8:56:51 GMT -5
I'm going to revive this threat - since it's where I live and breath when I think of real and fictional course design. What sort of features do YOU think makes a TGC course good?
Let's be honest - when we boot the computer up we don't have to worry about the cost of high green fees because of the insane number of gardens or plantings that would take an army of people to maintain(I'm a golf course superintendent and always have that in mind.) We don't have to buy dozens of golf balls that end up in the water and we don't physically have to climb 50 feet to a tee deck. So the opportunity is there to build something a golf course owner or member would otherwise be cautious about. Keep in mind that because we are in a computer game - some of the challenges likely need to be exaggerated because players will take risks they might not otherwise take in real life. It's a tough balance. Do you prefer designing a course that's tough as nails? Or a course that takes your breath away with it's beauty?
Ahhhh...you've touched on the latest debate I have running through my head as I poked around Sindre's latest course. For me, it comes back to the sport and why we're there. The golf is the paramount consideration, but it's nice to have something to look at. Recently, the caliber of scenery around some courses is so brilliant that I lose focus on the golf game and strategies. I find myself playing each hole just to see the next vista - but am I there to sight-see or play golf. So I'm going with course design trumping beauty. Until recently I would have thought you could have both - but the distracting of something beautiful is real. Tough as nails? Hmmm. I think each course should have the opportunity to be tough AND fair. If you blindly grip it and rip it then I think you should be faced with tough decisions, and be penalized for not catching subtle traits like slope, elevation and shot placement. Rewarding more strategic thinking is very important to me - but I want more than one option for playing any given hole Should par always be 72? Or does it depend on routing?
Sorry I'm not happy-go-lucky and say anything goes. I think they should all be 72. Yes I can picture the eye rolls. I just think that if you have a par 71, then certainly the tweaking of a par 4 into a reachable 5 isn't a big ask, and likely makes the hole more exciting. Yes I know sticking with 72 is rigid - that's just me. I do think however that the old and tired 4 par 3s, 4 par 5s and 10 par 4s NEEDS to go. I'm so tired of playing repetitive boring par 4s just for a change at some excitement brought on by the chance for a hole in one or eagle. So I've committed that ALL of my fictional designs will have 6 of each par. In that mix I also believe there needs to be a healthy mix of short, medium and long versions of each par. A few reachable 4s & 5s spice things up. My recent design (almost done) has this approach and I find that the entire round is high adrenaline and I'm at 18 before I know it. If I take a snowman on a Par 3, I want to know that opportunities exist to wipe that away with some strategic plays. I don't want to play 10 Par 4s and grind my ass off hoping for a birdie here and there. Maybe I'm the 2020 version of the attention deficit golfer. Flat greens? Or tiered greens?
LOL. Both! Me greens are tiered and flat. Find the right tier and you are rewarded with a relatively flat putt. I like subtle slopes on greens, once you overcome the tier. Width and angles? Or precision and risk?
Give me wide with multiple options each time. But I like precision and risk. A golfer that realizes the rolling onto a green is a lower risk shot should be rewarded over the guy that clicks those buttons perfect each time and tried to dive bomb each hole. Just think of Louis Oosthuizen's albatross on Augusta's #2 a few years ago - lucky or brilliant? Do you design courses that are aimed at a Tour event? Local muni's? Resorts?I'm targeting high end private courses with a great atmosphere in the Bar after a well fought round of golf. In the end I'm going for an experience that leaves the golfer wanting to come back for more - not because it's beautiful and the golfer wants to post fancy pictures of his round on instagram. I want folks to feel like they are slowly building a book on the course. They play over and over to figure out how to best play each hole. Those big numbers will come on a hole here and there on my courses, but you will eventually have that aha moment where you figure it out - and are rewarded. The golf experience is paramount. Thanks for the thread. I can relax now and return to my course design...
|
|
|
Post by tpetro on May 24, 2020 11:41:50 GMT -5
1) a thought-provoking, strategic, visually interesting course. not everything has to be a stunner, but the looks should be engaging and should add to the overall strategy (framing, sightlines, etc.).
2) any course can be both (see Cypress Dunes) but unless there's a contest difficulty restriction, don't box yourself in.
3) par is irrelevant. build whatever series of golf holes the land presents you. forcing yourself to build a 72 defeats the purpose of letting the land dictate your course.
4) rigid tiers don't really provide strategic interest. ridges, mounds, "Maxwell rolls", and half-tiers do.
5) golf is a game of angles. without angles and options, you can only really play a course two ways: from the fairway or from the thick stuff. Firestone bad!
6) resort is a tricky word but the idea is to make it just as playable for a senior citizen as for a tour pro. this means ample fairway and accepting the ground game. the course should make any player enjoy his round, and should make the player who plays at 8am walk off 18 and book a 1:15 tee time
|
|
|
Post by hallzballz6908 on May 24, 2020 14:43:14 GMT -5
This thread is going to go viral lol! Wonderful insight gained after reading all the posts! Not that I’m any kind of great designer but I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to join the discussion. So here goes ...
1) This is a difficult thing to quantify. Everyone is different and likes different things. I think that the best TGC courses do an expert job in combining playability, polish, an immersive environment, and overall flow with the plot they’re routed on. The best thing about the designer in this game is that the amount of time one spends perfecting their course is directly transferable to the finished product. You can always tell when the designer has spent countless hours ironing out the look and execution of every minute detail.
2) I think Aesthetics always trump Difficulty. In a game where everyone hits the ball the same distance with every club, difficulty by itself can be hard to achieve without appearing manufactured. My design philosophy is to create something that is beautiful and memorable and let the golfer make their own trouble. Good shots should be rewarded and poor shots punished in accordance with their level of error. The best designers in this game really do a masterful job combining both beauty and difficulty without forcing it.
3) Heck no! Par is only a number and does not in any way reflect on the quality of a course. Many of the courses in TGC are between 70 and 73 simply because that’s one of the requirements that a course must have in order to be approved for tour play. I’d much rather play an expertly crafted par 68 then a mediocre par 72.
4) I feel this question is best answered by means of relativity. If the course is relatively flat overall, it’s greens should reflect that and vice verse for courses with more aggressive slopes. Flat courses may feature greens with more undulation within them but should have little elevation change from any edge to another and whatever change does exist should be subtle. Hilly courses need tiered greens simply due to the fact that without tiers, the severity of the slopes would render them unplayable! Think terrace farming here. Without terraces, the land would be untillable.
5) Definitely width and angles here. Playing a course that forces you to hit dead straight every hole in order to hold a 20 yard wide fairway is boring. Courses that offer options either vertically or horizontally (or both😉) I feel offer a much more interesting experience to the player. With width, the player at least has the option of attempting an heroic, difficult approach despite missing their intended line. If they execute said shot, they still have a chance at birdie. If they fail to execute, they may find themselves in worse trouble then they previously were (sh*t rolls down hill, so to speak). Narrow courses, on the other hand, present the player with the sole option of “hit it here or else”. A small amount of this type of hole can help add to the variety of a course but a long stretch of them can be discouraging.
6) My designs so far have not been geared towards any particular set of players. I design simply for the joy of bringing my fantasy course ideas (total golf nerd here!) to life so others can hopefully enjoy them. I plan on entering this years rookie design contest and may adjust my strategy somewhat based on the criteria for which those courses will be judged. However, my submission for that contest(if I can get in) will still be solely a reflection of my own thoughts and opinions on what makes a great golf course.
PS - Can’t express my gratitude and admiration for the great designers in this game enough! You guys are inspirational!
|
|
|
Post by lessthanbread on May 24, 2020 15:12:55 GMT -5
I liked reading my post on this from last fall. Some of my comments were mildly entertaining. Let me actually answer the direct questions that were posted:
What sort of features do YOU think makes a TGC course good? Fun and unique layout. Using slopes and undulations for strategic play along with angles, width, risk/reward... something that makes me say “damn I wish I would have thought of that”. And a totally immersive environment
- Do you prefer designing a course that's tough as nails? Or a course that takes your breath away with it's beauty? I have yet to figure out how to design a tough course. Don’t really want to. I definitely still enjoy the art side of design with a focus on just making a fun and strategic experience.
- Should par always be 72? Or does it depend on routing? Absolutely does not need to be a 72.
- Flat greens? Or tiered greens? Sort of like my answer above. There should be thought given to green slopes, however, I don’t like greens that look too manufactured.
- Width and angles? Or precision and risk? All four are absolutely vital to a good golf course.
- Do you design courses that are aimed at a Tour event? Local muni's? Resorts? I guess none of the above.. I like designing courses that are much more secluded, like deep in the woods somewhere or on a remote island
|
|
|
Post by mattf27 on May 31, 2020 20:36:02 GMT -5
Bunkers. All the bunkers.
|
|
|
Post by Demonondalinks on Jun 1, 2020 10:38:03 GMT -5
I prefer to build my courses with a lower budget look. A course,if it actually existed the average Joe would be able to afford. I like to make them tree lined and have quite a few parallel holes. Always having the 9th and 18th holes finish with the clubhouse in view. After making quite a few courses through all 3 versions of the game really my last 6 are my best quality (slow learner).
|
|
|
Post by TannerBronson on Jun 1, 2020 10:58:41 GMT -5
Bunkers. All the bunkers.
|
|
|
Post by PicnicGuy / BobalooNOLA on Jul 21, 2020 20:15:40 GMT -5
My philosophy is not to be bound by a philosophy. Goes for life as well as TGC design, outside of "Do no harm".
|
|
|
Post by PicnicGuy / BobalooNOLA on Jul 22, 2020 10:52:43 GMT -5
I try to simply focus on creating something new, exciting, interesting, and cool without thinking “is this going to be acceptable?”. I saw Alister Mackenzie was quoted in the original thread so I’ll throw something in from him too. I remember reading somewhere that he said that after completing Cypress Point he was worrried everyone was going to like it too much which meant it wasn’t a very good course. I take that to mean he didn’t take enough risks or go outside of the box enough to create differing opinions and feelings amongst the people playing it. This is something I try to keep in mind on all of my designs. Good way to go !
What are some of your tracks I can visit for my practice rounds, grovey ??
|
|
|
Post by PicnicGuy / BobalooNOLA on Jul 22, 2020 11:02:02 GMT -5
I prefer to build my courses with a lower budget look. A course,if it actually existed the average Joe would be able to afford. I like to make them tree lined and have quite a few parallel holes. Always having the 9th and 18th holes finish with the clubhouse in view. After making quite a few courses through all 3 versions of the game really my last 6 are my best quality (slow learner). Agreed on all points ! (was going to go with 'great miinds ..')
I went back & imported my old TGC2 ones, and decided it would be far easier to start from scratch than try and 'tidy them up' to my current skill level. Not that my early TGC19 courses are 'bad', but they reveal my lack of knowledge of the tools at my disposal. I think I was 10 courses in before I finally read about the fuzzy brush on page 4, LOL, And the second surface toggling. That's all on me as a builder, but I think the early stuff still has a really solid 'play value' for the golfer.
I had been designing since well before PC games were invented, using grid paper for a dice version of golf as a kid. Then there was the late 80s-early90s Nicklaus PC games. I, too, see a nice piece of picturesque land, and think ... golfing there would be fun !
I think, as I've been jamming to 2112 overture on a backing track, that I should give that "Peart's" course a whirl later on today.
Be well, demon !
|
|
|
Post by Demonondalinks on Jul 22, 2020 11:30:27 GMT -5
I prefer to build my courses with a lower budget look. A course,if it actually existed the average Joe would be able to afford. I like to make them tree lined and have quite a few parallel holes. Always having the 9th and 18th holes finish with the clubhouse in view. After making quite a few courses through all 3 versions of the game really my last 6 are my best quality (slow learner). Agreed on all points ! (was going to go with 'great miinds ..')
I went back & imported my old TGC2 ones, and decided it would be far easier to start from scratch than try and 'tidy them up' to my current skill level. Not that my early TGC19 courses are 'bad', but they reveal my lack of knowledge of the tools at my disposal. I think I was 10 courses in before I finally read about the fuzzy brush on page 4, LOL, And the second surface toggling. That's all on me as a builder, but I think the early stuff still has a really solid 'play value' for the golfer.
I had been designing since well before PC games were invented, using grid paper for a dice version of golf as a kid. Then there was the late 80s-early90s Nicklaus PC games. I, too, see a nice piece of picturesque land, and think ... golfing there would be fun !
I think, as I've been jamming to 2112 overture on a backing track, that I should give that "Peart's" course a whirl later on today.
Be well, demon !
Thanks for trying it. When your on 18th, look between the clubhouse and green and you will see a statue of Neil playing his 70's early 80's drumkit. Well sort of, made with rocks cans and other oddities.
|
|
|
Post by jacobkessler on Jul 22, 2020 23:25:04 GMT -5
- Do you prefer designing a course that's tough as nails? Or a course that takes your breath away with it's beauty? I don’t know about making it super tough, but I do try to make my courses playable first, then add in interesting visual elements. This is why I use rock work so much- rocks can be used as a playing element, but you can also bury them in the ground far away from the fairway and add something nice to look at.
- Should par always be 72? Or does it depend on routing? Absolutely not. I’m not saying that as anything against Par 72s, but one of the great things about golf is the variety you see between courses, and the fact that different courses have different pars is one of the key things in making courses unique, IMO.
- Flat greens? Or tiered greens? Tiered for sure. Even if they aren’t tiered, I like to put contours in- they both create interesting playing strategies and look really nice.
- Width and angles? Or precision and risk? I prefer width and angles, but I feel like a lot more of my holes are more based on precision. I wish I used angles more, but to be honest it’s not necessarily something I naturally think about- I have to force myself to add more angles into my courses
- Do you design courses that are aimed at a Tour event? Local muni's? Resorts? Really depends on what I’m in the mood for. Once my designing career is over, whether that be a year from now or decades later on my death bed, I’d like to have a good variety of courses. I think more of my courses are intended as private clubs than anything else, but I have a fantasy mountainous course already, and I’ve had a concept for a long time of an oceanside resort that I hope to get to soon. Right now, I’m working on a course that’s a blend of a private club and a classic USGA Merion-esque course. All of that said, the style I like the most is classic Midwestern country clubs, like Scioto, Oakmont, or as I previously mentioned, Merion.
Also, I will never ever do a British links course. Bleh.
|
|