|
|
Post by Crazycanuck1985 on Feb 19, 2020 15:15:38 GMT -5
I’m ready to throw anyone of these courses directly into the sun at the moment. I throw all my courses into the sun anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Crazycanuck1985 on Feb 19, 2020 15:23:47 GMT -5
I’m ready to throw anyone of these courses directly into the sun at the moment. Valid strategy for winning a TGC2 contest right there Burrowing Owl, Summer Showdown champion with the most offensive routing in TGC history! I'm proud of it. |
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Feb 19, 2020 15:25:15 GMT -5
Valid strategy for winning a TGC2 contest right there Burrowing Owl, Summer Showdown champion with the most offensive routing in TGC history! I'm proud of it. You should be. That routing (and the cheating to try to make all the mountains look the same) is a work of art. |
|
|
|
Post by jwtexan on Feb 19, 2020 15:27:57 GMT -5
Burrowing Owl, Summer Showdown champion with the most offensive routing in TGC history! I'm proud of it. You should be. That routing (and the cheating to try to make all the mountains look the same) is a work of art. All I see is a title   |
|
mayday_golf83
TGCT Design Competition Directors
Posts: 2,279 
TGCT Name: Jeremy Mayo
Tour: Elite
|
Post by mayday_golf83 on Feb 19, 2020 16:15:56 GMT -5
You should be. That routing (and the cheating to try to make all the mountains look the same) is a work of art. All I see is a title Too soon? |
|
|
|
Post by ErixonStone on Feb 19, 2020 19:55:54 GMT -5
Seem to remember him posting a lovely video from Taste back in the day with F you written all over the screen in a playthrough lol. I’m just waiting for someone to come out and be “brutally honest” about the surviving courses 😏 EDIT: I've skipped to the 35:30 mark, with tastegw on the 13th tee. |
|
|
|
Post by ErixonStone on Feb 19, 2020 20:00:17 GMT -5
Tastegw was butthurt after his course was eliminated in the group stages at the hands of the legendary Devon Rotary. So he decided to express his displeasure in the most adult way possible. This was tastegw's review of Pablo's course in that Invicta.
|
|
|
|
Post by pablo on Feb 20, 2020 3:08:49 GMT -5
Yup, taste was the most mature and adult member of this community. Period. BTW I loved that video, it was inmensely fun... The #blamepablo backstory.... It was something that had to happen, it's unavoidable (if that exists), like Terry Grayson looking like a redneck... a matter of time. By that time (end of 2017) I was co-scheduler of PGA and World Tour with Dale, the current scheduler (amazing guy, as most of you already know). It all happened quite early in the season, Dale was busy in the moment, so I was taking care of the biggest part of the scheduling (actually, if you guys remember it was in the 4th season, the rocher tour, so I was scheduling two tours). When the tournament of champions was about to be assigned a course, both Dale and I were looking for a course, and despite scarpacci's kapalua was out, I wasn't sure to use a beta course on tour (right or wrong, meaningless, the fact is that, I didn't want to use a beta) and then Dale decided to use one of my courses (we had agreed earlier in the season that we might use one of our courses on tour all season long). That course, Links del Pinet, was going to be used for the tournament of champions, which was going to be played by the World Tour, which, as all of you are guessing, was composed by the most talented players in the TGC universe (and also by some of the most adult members). Someone saw a wee of yelllow near of one of the pins (outside the 9 grid) and his ball ran away of the hole over that line.... Man, was intense that week - Check OutThe weeks after is when all the #BlamePablo started to rise and nobody did a sh%$ to stop it, so here we are. |
|
reebdoog
TGCT Design Competition Directors
Posts: 2,742
TGCT Name: Brian Jeffords
Tour: CC-Pro
|
Post by reebdoog on Feb 20, 2020 3:22:25 GMT -5
...shutup Pablo. :-P
|
|
|
|
Post by coggin66 on Feb 20, 2020 4:51:57 GMT -5
The biggest "flaw" so to speak in WCoD is that because there are so few judges/contest in the group stage, it lends itself to have an outlier have a greater chance of affecting an outcome. It's luck of the draw and if you happen to draw a judge that does not like your course for whatever reason -- right, wrong or indifferent -- you're almost assured of losing two points, if not three in your group. That's just simple math. ^^^ This ... Having been a contestant in past design contests; a judge in last year's WCOD and a long-time player, designer and society president, I have been watching this year's competition avidly from the sidelines (and using a lot of the brilliant courses in my society). As a "viewer", the highlighted "flaw" is to me the appeal of this competition. Everyone seems in theory to think the consensus course should win but to have that you need to have a bigger pool of judges judging every match. When the competition quality is as good as this year's and only two judges are deciding each match-up, you are going to get subjective odd results that are more likely to stray from the consensus. I love it! IIRC, going back to the start of this competition before it was even an official one, the idea was to mimic the Football (Soccer) World Cup and have a chance of an upset in the group stage where the under-dog pulls off a surprise win or draw against the favourite (or consensus favourite). As the tournament progresses the consensus heavy weights tend to rise to the top, in this case by more and more judges being able to judge each match-up. We have other design competitions where all courses are ranked in order and the consensus determines the end ranking and result. They are more boring to watch and as a "viewer" I've usually lost interest by the time the winner is announced. On a sidenote, I'll also add that some of the results from the Round of 32 should dispel any ideas about the myth of an elite designer clique that wins everything! As an entrant in this year's CCDC, I'm also intrigued as to how the hell MayDay is going to get a judging panel to assess 40+ courses in a timely fashion? |
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Feb 20, 2020 5:17:18 GMT -5
The biggest "flaw" so to speak in WCoD is that because there are so few judges/contest in the group stage, it lends itself to have an outlier have a greater chance of affecting an outcome. It's luck of the draw and if you happen to draw a judge that does not like your course for whatever reason -- right, wrong or indifferent -- you're almost assured of losing two points, if not three in your group. That's just simple math. ^^^ This ... Having been a contestant in past design contests; a judge in last year's WCOD and a long-time player, designer and society president, I have been watching this year's competition avidly from the sidelines (and using a lot of the brilliant courses in my society). As a "viewer", the highlighted "flaw" is to me the appeal of this competition. Everyone seems in theory to think the consensus course should win but to have that you need to have a bigger pool of judges judging every match. When the competition quality is as good as this year's and only two judges are deciding each match-up, you are going to get subjective odd results that are more likely to stray from the consensus. I love it! IIRC, going back to the start of this competition before it was even an official one, the idea was to mimic the Football (Soccer) World Cup and have a chance of an upset in the group stage where the under-dog pulls off a surprise win or draw against the favourite (or consensus favourite). As the tournament progresses the consensus heavy weights tend to rise to the top, in this case by more and more judges being able to judge each match-up. We have other design competitions where all courses are ranked in order and the consensus determines the end ranking and result. They are more boring to watch and as a "viewer" I've usually lost interest by the time the winner is announced. On a sidenote, I'll also add that some of the results from the Round of 32 should dispel any ideas about the myth of an elite designer clique that wins everything! As an entrant in this year's CCDC, I'm also intrigued as to how the hell MayDay is going to get a judging panel to assess 40+ courses in a timely fashion? Great post and good to get a different perspective. Had me nodding along all the way through. |
|
|
|
Post by pablo on Feb 20, 2020 5:36:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Davidius74 on Feb 20, 2020 5:51:50 GMT -5
As an entrant in this year's CCDC, I'm also intrigued as to how the hell MayDay is going to get a judging panel to assess 40+ courses in a timely fashion? Especially with my proposed theory of playing every pin set from every tee with every club set lol |
|
|
|
Post by pingzing on Feb 20, 2020 8:10:02 GMT -5
Theres quite a bit of info below but hope it helps with future contests
Seems to me Course design Judging maybe should go back to previous checklist criteria taken from some current and ex members
My view would be more players over broader field to judge a course, I have seen polls here where members input will indicate on a bar graph/Pie graph etc what they like and dislike, seems to me the more members play the better resulting in a broader variety of input, and in a more accurate and realistic rating of said courses.
A better rating system is really required for a fairer and more acurate rating/score for a course
having just a few members critiqing a course is too limiting resulting in some inacurate resultsas seen in latest WCOD design contest .Some of these WCOD courses were very under rated and low scoring resulted,this had me bemused as well.
This Course Criteria below was taken from members from the past
Hope this helps you guys out
I've experimented with a simple score sheet. Basically I gave every hole a mark out of 5 for hole design (playability, basically) and another mark out of 5 for presentation, which encompasses everything about how the hole looks.
1 - very poor
2 - poor
3 - OK
4 - good
5 - excellent
So at this level I wouldn't expect many 1's and 2's. That have a total of 180 possible points, I then gave a mark out of 10 for suitability (worthy of a tour spot) and another mark out of 10 for my enjoyment of the round. Total of 200 possible points, halve the total score for a percentage.
I thought this basically worked quite well on the run throughs I've given it, and it's nice and simple. I'm happy to go with the flow if you want to use a standardised scoring system, also happy to tweak this one if you think I've not covered something, but otherwise I'll probably be going with it.
Morning folks: Not sure if anyone is interested or not... But back from the old PGA days when judging courses, we utilized the following when judging.... Thought maybe it could be something we could tweak to fit here if interested....Don't have to use it just thought I would throw it out there
1. Visual - does the flyover grab my attention, and is there a good view of the hole from the tee?
2. Playability - does the hole offer some risk and reward, reward good shots and punish bad shots appropriately?
3. Realism - does the shaping and object placement look like a golf hole? Even fantasy courses, when done well, still look like a golf hole.
4. Planting - are the surrounding trees, bushes, rocks well thought out, and realistic?
5. Object placement / extras, cart path - can be a nice touch, but also can take away from a course if overdone or placed carelessly.
Lastly, a couple things that will turn me off of a course.
1. Obvious overuse of standard shapes. meaning just one brush, plop, done. This can be with greens, tees, fairways, or bunkers.
2. Tricked up difficulty. Mostly in pin placements. It can be tricky to build a well designed, challenging golf hole. Anyone can put a pin on a slope, or tucked behind a bunker and call it a tough hole.
I also look for effort put in.
Is the course playable for a beginner?
seeing the green from the tee unless its a par 3 or short par 4, what i look for is, does it look good, does it seem to blend into the background theme ( a few of the courses up for vote do this very well).
playabilty: i agree though will add i look for that something that will make me add it to my faves and want to play it again and again and no, it doesnt have to be easy, just fun to play, and most of these do that.
realism: not a big thing i look for apart from as you say, does that tree have to be there or thats a silly place for a boulder or, these greens are so slopey and fast that they are unplayable.
planting: would also say, did they make good use of the theme and its unique plants/trees etc, as in using a good mix of the trees and not just the same 1 over and over.
what turns me off a course is if its tricked up to a point that i will struggle in winds over 9mph, that the greens are so fast and sloped that it cant hold a ball, that its set up in such a way that reaching par 5's in 2 wont happen and par 4's are just as bad.
For me it has to be fun. Tough, easy or otherwise, will I be coming back to play again
It has to be visually interesting, were there 3 or more cool looking holes
There are no glaring technical flaws in the design, missing textures and humps in from of tee boxes make me want to quit my round.
Realism is something I look for and I see plenty of courses I deem unrealistic that others see as realistic. Where you live and play golf may alter your view.
Something I also look for in relation to this is can I play this without the flyby? Blind tee shots and approaches are common and done right I like them. Not on every hole but every now and then, but I need something to aim at. Be it a tree, bunker, house or water. A huge hump that blocks my view of everything is a real bummer to me.
One thing I've noticed annoys people on the forums is courses difficult to play in high winds and overly protected landing areas.
To me it should be very difficult in high winds. Have you never played a real course that gets very very difficult in sertain winds? I have. I don't see a problem with it. When it comes to overly protected landing areas I ask my self: Can I avoid it by clubbing down and still reach the green? If the answer is yes then its fine. None is forcing you to use the driver.
Its about what type of course you create and/or how you want it to be played.
When winds ramp up on that course well, you simply leave the driver in the bag and start punching 3 irons off the tee. Its not bad designing its playing the weather. Making par is suddenly the new birdie. Its as simple as that.
Yes, the rating system really needs a complete revamp in how people rate courses.
-number of quits vs complete rounds ratio (ratio highly important here, as raw numbers tend not to tell a real story)
-type of course it is (fantasy, local re-creation, tour- re-creation, etc etc)
and lastly, overall rating (not given by the end user, but calculated by some of the above things)
Things that I will knock a rating for?
-poor greens
--greens either not able to hold approach shots, or simply just too fast for the club selection you are forced to use on the approach shots
--flat and bland greens, greens need character, 15+ flat greens in a round....no fun
--poor pin locations, always put on the only mound on the green? not fun, make it challenging, but make it so the challenge is coming off the approach shot.
poor fairways
--fairways cant hold the ball from being too firm and too much roll, no fun in always hitting from the rough when you felt like you had a good shot
--fairway character, please, no strait lines, give it some curves, even if the hole itself is strait.
--lack of challenge, put some bunkers/trees/water hazards in playable locations, but dont block the greens with trees either
if you put all the hazards in "non landing zones", whats the point of them?
overall creativity
--i dont give a rats ass if you spent 1 hour or 1 thousand hours, time spend does not equal a good rating, but if you can come up with some creativity and or originality all while having a fair and fun course, ill bump your score up.
--how well does it look, make the backgrounds look like something you would really want to look at, give some detail. no you dont have to hand place every flower, but give it some character, a little detail goes a long way, but overdone also has the opposite effect
-overall difficulty
--too easy..low score from me
--unrealisticly difficult...low score from me
--difficult but fair......higher score from me
--risk/reward holes?.....higher score
Texture blending
playability, beauty, and general WOW factor
I've never used any sort of scoresheet or checklist when evaluating courses but there are a few factors that help me decide how highly I rate a course. These include:
- Aesthetics
- How tidy is the sculpting, laying of fairways, rough etc.
- How well are additional features such as cart paths, bridges etc used.
- 'Line of sight'. Do you get a good view of the hole when on the tee box or are there lots of blind shots?
- Playability
- Does the course play fair or are there lots of pins that are inaccessible or require a big slice of luck to get close to? This is particularly relevant for course using firm greens.
- Hole design. Are the holes actually fun to play? Is there an opportunity for risk/reward shots? Do you have to make decisions on the tee or can you just blast a driver down every fairway.
- Level of challenge. This will obviously be different depending on the skill level of the player but I like a course that makes it some sort of challenge to make birdies with playing 'unfairly'.
- Originality
- This is becoming more and more difficult with so many courses available but a course that does something I've not seen countless times before, either in terms of the way the course looks or plays, will result in me rating it more highly.
From another member
Morning folks: Not sure if anyone is interested or not... But back from the old PGA days when judging courses, we utilized the following when judging.... Thought maybe it could be something we could tweak to fit here if interested....Don't have to use it just thought I would throw it out there
Designer Balance Checklist
The designer balance checklist was put together using our Course Contest Judging Sheets that we used in the past 4 design contests. These are the items that we as judges look for when determining the quality and design aspects of new courses. We think that this sheet could be of some help to designers allowing them to check and see if their course have these quality design elements.
You can download a copy of this sheet in .rtf format here: Designer Balance Checklist
Design Balance Checklist
Greens:
1. _____ Smooth ?
2. _____ Can they be played in dry condition with ball consistently stopping near the hole?
3. _____ Are they interesting?
4. _____ Do they show variety?
5. _____ Are they the proper size to hold the shot?
6. _____ Would the player have the chance to get the ball to the hole in moist conditions?
7. _____ Is there a good variety of pin locations and are they fair?
8. _____ Are there some raised and/or lowered green sites?
9. _____ Do the greens roll consistently?
10. _____ Are the greens multi-dimensional (i.e. false fronts, holding areas, multi-level)?
Fairways:
1. _____ Are they smooth?
2. _____ Are they interesting?
3. _____ Do they contain good strategic elements?
4. _____ Is there more then one option available on some?
5. _____ Are they wide enough?
6. _____ Are they close enough to the tee box?
7. _____ Is there a buffer texture between the fairways and the rough?
8. _____ Is the surrounding texture fair?
9. _____ Do they hold the ball in dry conditions?
10. _____ Do the texture colors match?
Elevations:
1. _____ Are they somewhat believable?
2. _____ Can they be mowed?
3. _____ Are the playable areas smooth ?
4. _____ Are the non-playable areas sufficiently smoothed?
Bunkers:
1. _____ Do the bunkers look real?
2. _____ Are they of varied shapes?
3. _____ Are they of varied depth?
4. _____ Are they of varied size?
5. _____ Are they interesting?
6. _____ Are they properly sunken?
7. _____ Are they properly smoothed and set?
8. _____ If they have lips, is the texture believable?
9. _____ If they have lips, are the lips sunken?
Objects:
1. _____ Are the objects believable?
2. _____ Are trees and bushes varied in height?
3. _____ Are they placed in a realistic manner?
4. _____ Are bushes proper size (scale)?
5. _____ Are trees and bushes set properly
6. _____ Are misc. objects proper size (i.e.. Ball washers)?
7. _____ Are there tee-markers?
8. _____ Are misc. objects placed properly?
9. _____ Are misc. objects set properly (i.e. does bridge land on both banks, objects not floating above ground)?
10. _____ Does it look uncluttered?
Water:
1. _____ Is it set well?
2. _____ Do the objects surrounding the water fit in (No floating rocks, etc)?
3. _____ Is the water the lowest point around where it sits?
4. _____ Are they reasonably flat from center to edge with no bumps?
Appearance:
1. _____ Is the course pleasing to view?
2. _____ Do the textures look natural together?
3. _____ Is the horizon done well, and does it look natural?
4. _____ Did the designer take advantage of the full land-plot designer?
5. _____ Did non-playing areas receive the same attention to detail?
Layout:
1. _____ Is this an interesting course?
2. _____ Does it have good strategic elements without to many gimmicks? (i.e. forced carries, forced lay-ups, trees blocking shot path)?
3. _____ Does it have a good mix of par 3's 4's and 5's? (Not overloaded with one type)?
Realism:
1. _____ Could this course be built in real life?
2. _____ Do the textures match the surroundings?
3. _____ Does the panorama match the course?
4. _____ Is there proper access to elevated or sunken areas?
5. _____ Is the course free from unbelievable objects?
Design Balance:
1. _____ Does this course have a good variety of length?
2. _____ Doglegs left & right?
3. _____ Straight Holes?
4. _____ Up Hill & Down Hill Holes?
5. _____ Is it free of holes that penalize drives of 250 - 260 yards?
6. _____ Are the tee boxes constructed properly (i.e. ample size)?
7. _____ Are the tee-boxes free of obstructions?
8. _____ Do the tee-boxes allow the player to point at the target?
9. _____ Are most par 3's less than 200 yards?
10. _____ Any Par 5's reachable in two?
|
|
|
|
Post by ddixjr509 on Feb 20, 2020 8:23:30 GMT -5
Ping I dont think the judging CRITERIA is in question here... the rubric (drink) is quite comprehensive. I'd be willing to bet all of the designers have the rubric memorized (i keep a laminated copy on my end table next to my design notebook). Getting ALL of the judges to understand and buy into the criteria seems to be the bigger issue here.
|
|
