|
Post by bruce on Feb 4, 2020 12:39:10 GMT -5
We have the advantage of playing Real(Lidar) vs created courses, and I'm finding strangely enough the created courses seem to have more appeal vs the Real courses that seem somewhat boring. This may seem like a strange viewpoint, as the real courses are tried and tested, and we know they are good. but I've also noted a lot of the created courses have slightly narrowed fairways, smaller greens, and a few other things that make them more of a challenge. Also the created courses( fantasy just doesn't seem to fit) seem to have a lot more eye candy than the real ones.
Does this seem an unfair view or is there some truth to it ?
|
|
|
Post by mattf27 on Feb 4, 2020 12:42:27 GMT -5
I think that's a pretty widely held opinion around here. Original courses can be completely designed around the game mechanics and the player, don't have to take monetary or maintenance concerns in mind, and don't have to be walkable or playable by bogey golfers. It makes perfect sense those would come out better in game.
|
|
|
Post by ezzinomilonga on Feb 5, 2020 9:49:23 GMT -5
Is an old debate. All it depends by the setup we generally use to play. A real course results almost always too easy (sometimes also too short), playing with loftbox, aim marker and, above all, scout cam. Those real courses well known to be extremely tough IRL, are definitely playable in every condition, in this way. A created course, conversely, can be designed in such a way to be tougher than any real course, then fitting in the best possible way with the setup we use, for example, on the TGCTour, in order to offer a tough, proper challenge. And this cause a real course designed and built in that way would be simply totally unfair. But if you try to play Erin Hills, Pine Valley, the North course at Los Angeles CC, Spyglass Hill, just to make some example, with no loft box and scout cam, you can see how tougher and much more exciting and charming a Real Course can be. And, at the same time, how much almost unplayable, if not a real nightmare, the great majority of the toughest created course would be playing in this way, with no aids. I think the main difference (and the reason why a created course is often preferred bu the payers) is all here. About eye's candies, you know it, imagination beats (almost) always reality
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Feb 5, 2020 12:54:19 GMT -5
Do you really have to have all the eye candy to have a good challenging course, or is it just window dressing? I've played quite a few good courses that didn't have retaining walls, waterfalls, or long scenic bridges, but they still played very well. In the end they were just better laid out and they just worked. Maybe realistic is something that should be emphasized more, but then again that would probably looked upon as boring. personally I'm not a huge fan of green with near hills in them vs subtle breaks. Fairways are the place for hills, especially sidehill lies, asl long as you can reward accuracy.
|
|
|
Post by lessthanbread on Feb 5, 2020 13:27:55 GMT -5
The best designers are the ones who can put together a fantastic course and make it look incredible. Take a look at the winning and high finishing contest designers for the best of the best in terms of play and visual appeal
|
|
|
Post by ezzinomilonga on Feb 5, 2020 22:21:48 GMT -5
Do you really have to have all the eye candy to have a good challenging course, or is it just window dressing? I've played quite a few good courses that didn't have retaining walls, waterfalls, or long scenic bridges, but they still played very well. In the end they were just better laid out and they just worked. Maybe realistic is something that should be emphasized more, but then again that would probably looked upon as boring. personally I'm not a huge fan of green with near hills in them vs subtle breaks. Fairways are the place for hills, especially sidehill lies, asl long as you can reward accuracy. Personally, i agree with all you said. Maybe the only difference is that, while months ago i was absolutely against the created courses (exactly cause the huge majority sounds "too unreal" while i play), now i realized 2 things : 1) created courses can offer, especially to the strongest players, some kind of challenge that real courses, playing with the aids we use on Tour, can't offer almost never. 2) we have the great luck to have some guy with serious, fantastic skills to create fictional BUT realistic courses. Furthermore, on this theme, i discovered there are a bunch of guys so much involved about golf architecture that to create courses is their chance to apply what they learned. Results are often really impressive. I don't know if you ever played it, but i still can't find a created course more entertaining, smart and fairly tough than Raynor Ridge, a course made by JoeGolfer. He realized it following the principles of the Golden Age of golf architecture and results are impressive. This teached to me that "fictional" is not necessarily bad. And now that i'm approaching and studying golf architecture too, for sure i'll try to see if what i learned can allows me to create some entertaining course by myself (together with real courses)..something that, months ago, i could never, never wish. So, in short, now i think simply that there is room for both real and created courses, with no problems at all. I still wish to have more real courses on tour, but if i find a good, realistic and well made created course, i'm happy anyway About the "hills" on greens, i tendentially agree, but it actually depends by the green itself and by the pin position. A green with bold tiers and severe slopes is not necessarily a bad thing. At all. Issues raises if the designer don't know how to make it working properly with the course. About the eye's candy, of course there is no doubt here : i still prefer 10000 of times to play an ugly but smart course that viceversa. BUT the other good things about created courses is that with them, if the designer knows what he's doing, there is no need to choice : we can have both smartness and beauty!
|
|