As promised, here is a much longer post where I want to address some of the judges' comments and explain my rationale behind a few of the choices I made. Apologies in advance for the word vomit that is about to ensue. I'll say my piece and then move on from this course to whatever I choose to design next.
In spite of how shocked I initially was at earning no points, there's very little that the judges said that I outright disagreed with (with one exception, as you might have guessed...). I tried very hard to step outside the box for this course (only a few runoff areas, narrower fairways, slow & steeply pitched greens, trees & a creek, etc.), and I think there are definitely some missteps along the way, most of which the judges picked up on. The most common refrain was that there weren't enough options off the tee, which I tend to agree with. With the exception of hole 2, I don't think there are any tee shots completely devoid of strategy, but it is rather subtle in spots. Reeb made me smile when he called the course "Camber Creek," because that captured a crucial element of the design: my use of slope to create interest through uneven stances. As an example, my favorite tee shot is on the short par-5 3rd hole -- the fairway is wide and bunkerless, but playing toward the flatter left side will make for a significantly easier approach than the right side, which slopes quite severely. Additionally, 10 and 16 offer the same sort of option (i.e., playing toward the creek will give you a flatter stance for the approach), but I think the best execution of the concept was on #3. That said, I still believe there is a lot of room for improvement in my tee shot strategy, and it will be a primary focus of mine moving forward.
catcherman22 , in what sense were there "multiple holes that looked and played the same"? If you mean that most holes boiled down to hitting a certain side of the fairway (usually playing toward a bunker or the creek) and then leaving the ball below the hole for an uphill putt, then that seems fair. However, I think there was decent variety in uphill, downhill, and sidehill holes, in addition to dogleg-left and dogleg-right holes. I don't think there are two holes that look particularly alike when considering those factors, although I'll admit that I'm biased. I'm pretty surprised to see that some guys thought the creek was "over featured," to be honest. It was intended to be the centerpiece of the course (and rightly so, considering how much effort was put into it, imo). When I was coming up with the routing, I took great pains to try to maximize the playable area of the course that abutted the creek and to take full advantage of the idea behind the course. I also think there's a decent mix of shots that play over the creek and play alongside it, as well as shots where the creek is on the left versus on the right.
Judge 1 in the Saxondale matchup, I concur with just about everything you had to say. One small thing: I'm curious where you think the sculpting could be improved. If you just mean in comparison to Saxondale, then I'd say that's a fair assessment: he took a much bolder approach and pulled it off nearly to perfection. That said, I'm satisfied with the look on my course -- I was trying to make a course with a lot of elevation change (~150 feet) look smooth and deceptively flat. I heard a couple people comment on hole 10 in particular that it didn't look like it was 70+ feet downhill, which is exactly what I was trying to achieve.
Judge 1 in the Overbrook matchup, I appreciate your acknowledgement of the subtle strategic qualities. I'd like to know what elements of the bunkers were lacking. I'll concede that I overused U- and W-shaped bunkers, but I'm quite happy with how they were sculpted and the overall execution. I assume the repeated hole designs are in reference to the "hit one side of the fairway and leave an uphill putt" style that I described above. I don't totally agree, but I can understand where you're coming from.
Judge 2 in the Overbrook matchup, the comment that it felt like a real course brought a smile to my face, so thanks for that. I disagree, of course, that it doesn't have a "wow factor," but I suppose that was the problem in putting so much effort into a finished product that looks rather simple to make (and really should be, if HB had given us the ability to tilt water bodies).
Judge 1 in the Starlight matchup, I don't agree that a lot is lost because of the slow green speed. I took a risk there, for sure, well aware that they wouldn't suit everyone. However, I'm personally pleased with how they turned out: I feel they're unique, and they harken back to the "Golden Age" of courses before most clubs flattened their greens in the pursuit of double-digit Stimpmeter ratings. I think the distribution of holes on the creek was pretty good. I tried to build to a crescendo on the back nine, so you'll find more holes near the water there. There's a taste of the creek on 5, then it comes back in play on 9 and 10. After that, it's a factor on 13 & 14, 16, and 18, so there are four holes on the back where it doesn't come into play, and I'm content with the spacing of those holes. I appreciate the nice things you had to say about the course and the respectful manner in which you voiced your critiques.
Judge 2 in the Starlight matchup, nice assessment. As I said above, the fairway side of the course could indeed use some improvement. That will be the main thing I carry with me as I shift focus to a new design.
And finally, Judge 2 in the Saxondale matchup, there's a lot to cover here. I obviously don't think the course is simplistic and boring, but perhaps it was too subtle in its strategy, especially off the tee. It's not meant to be a terribly difficult course, but it demands focus and precise shotmaking on the approach to leave the player an uphill putt, which is the key to scoring well here. Well spotted on the similarity of hole lengths -- that was one of those things I realized about halfway through making the course (when it was too late to fix in any meaningful way) and hoped no one would notice. I was initially confused when you listed those numbers, though; then I looked at the scorecard and realized they were the white tee yardages, which I honestly did not expect anyone to play on a course where the tips aren't even 7000 yards. However, the problem affects both tees, so seriously, kudos for picking up on that. In my defense, most of those holes play rather significantly uphill or downhill, so the scorecard yardage doesn't tell the whole story there. The absence of a par 4 in the 300s yardage-wise is a serious deficiency, though.
As stated above, the fairways rely quite a bit on slope and camber to add interest to the course, so I don't think they're flat at all. Smooth, maybe, but there are few flat spots out there. There are two holes with centerline bunkers, which were certainly meant to call for a strategy adjustment, but it seems that my vision didn't translate there. On #7, playing right of the bunker is slightly riskier in terms of fairway width, but it cuts some distance off the hole and provides a better angle, particularly to pins 1 and 2. The left side is easier to hit, and it allows for a better angle into pin 3, cut behind a mound in the "lion's mouth" of the green, and pin 4, in the back-right corner. Hole 12 changed somewhat from start to finish in the interest of a slightly better routing, which weakened the strategy value of the hole, though I think it stands on its own well enough as a connector hole. Taking the right side is narrower and shortens the hole, but it typically leaves a blind approach (which isn't a huge consideration in video game scout-cam land) and a worse angle into a green that runs away from you. Going left is longer, of course, but it opens up the view and leaves a shot where the green slopes more right-to-left than away, which can be helpful.
You can certainly "hit it and hit it again" on this course, although you likely won't score as well as you can if you don't at least pay attention to the green slopes and leave yourself below the hole as often as possible. It can be easy to short-side yourself and make bogey if you start to lose focus, despite the molasses green speeds. I really did try to bring my best to this contest, and your implication that my effort was lacking made me rather angry. In hindsight, I may have been too reliant on my cool creek to separate myself from the pack, but I can proudly stand behind most aspects of this course, in spite of its performance in the contest. As you noted, I was a late publish, but the only thing I ran out of time (and plant meter) to do was grass planting on the outskirts of the course, which wouldn't have made much of a difference it seems. The last sentence of your post was unnecessary, but it didn't really bother me, though I thank the guys who stood up for me there. For better or worse, my course naming scheme makes it very hard for me to hide, and it opens me up to jokes like that. I've heard them all enough times to ignore it at this point. I do hope you take Mayo's advice to heart and try to show more compassion in any judging comments you might produce in the future, but I thank you and the rest of the judges for volunteering your time to this contest.
That just about wraps it up for me. Thanks again to all the volunteers in this contest. I don't really expect any responses from these particular judges, but I look forward to reading the unabridged comments in the near future. Congrats again to Dan and Wes. I don't mean to steal the spotlight from those guys and their incredible courses; I just wanted to get some of these things out there and move on to the next one. Cheers, everyone.
