|
|
Post by nocturnal on Mar 29, 2015 20:34:40 GMT -5
The WD% is probably a good indicator of how well tgctours and it's staff select tours and how much this process is transparent and inclusive. It can also be a good indicator of how well, tgctours engages with the community overall. Kind of like a report card if you look at or derive an acceptable WD% that accounts for the occasional acceptable circumstance. Secondly the high WD's might be a signal to really take a hard look at the way tgctours selects it's courses I do think the powers that be should always remain receptive and open to questions, comments, concerns, and suggestions. That being said, I think they have done a great job so far with selecting courses. I think the top tours have played a few courses that produced scoring that was too low and would have been better choices for the Champions or Web and vice versa but we're all new to this. With all due respect, I do think that there should be diversity in the difficulty and course settings of the courses that we play though, and while boycotting (WD) courses that do not appeal to us may be proactive, it is not imho in the spirit of good sportsmanship and does a disservice to the administration, the creators of these courses, and TGCTours in general. Not here to argue though.  just my viewpoint on the subject. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2015 23:13:51 GMT -5
you do have one option, at the end of every tournament, you are allowed to rate the tournament. If the course was fair, then it deserves a fair rating based on its play-ability and its design layout. if it just straight out is tricked out to be unrealistically hard with severely sloped green pin locations, firmness and speed, narrow firm fairways, long carries over water, excessive blind shots ... etc... then rate it poorly.
But not because you played poorly and missed your birdie putts ...
|
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Mar 30, 2015 8:55:04 GMT -5
I think its pretty obvious why there were a lot of WD's. It was the course. As I stated in other threads, its a great course, which was ruined with postage size crowned greens. Second it wasn't even rated, so what was it doing on any Tournament ? As far as course selections go, TGC have done a great job, at least until this one slipped in.
With a little more work, and I stated what that works is in another thread, this could be a great little course. Maybe those that find courses too difficult to WD, I'm not sure.
I will say I did terrible on my first two rounds and was practicing for the next course when I found out I had to finish the final two rounds at Shawnee Creek. I did better, but still finished dead last or next to it. Did I enjoy the rounds ? Not particularly. But I did finish my rounds.
If your going to pick courses for tourneys, at least pick ones that have been reviewed by somebody, better yet someone from TGCTours. I really enjoy reading the reviews, and it helps point me towards the better courses. Hats off to the time and effort put in by the staff of TGCTours, but this course just shouldn't have made it in.
|
|
|
|
Post by mcbogga on Mar 30, 2015 9:41:08 GMT -5
I think its pretty obvious why there were a lot of WD's. It was the course. As I stated in other threads, its a great course, which was ruined with postage size crowned greens. Second it wasn't even rated, so what was it doing on any Tournament ? As far as course selections go, TGC have done a great job, at least until this one slipped in. With a little more work, and I stated what that works is in another thread, this could be a great little course. Maybe those that find courses too difficult to WD, I'm not sure. I will say I did terrible on my first two rounds and was practicing for the next course when I found out I had to finish the final two rounds at Shawnee Creek. I did better, but still finished dead last or next to it. Did I enjoy the rounds ? Not particularly. But I did finish my rounds. If your going to pick courses for tourneys, at least pick ones that have been reviewed by somebody, better yet someone from TGCTours. I really enjoy reading the reviews, and it helps point me towards the better courses. Hats off to the time and effort put in by the staff of TGCTours, but this course just shouldn't have made it in. Kudos for finishing - WDs are just bad and should be punished. But I disagree on the course evaluation even if I think that your analysis of the WDs is correct. This is a tour level course. It does not go the "long and firm" route to get there which makes it interesting. With a bit of thought and a decent short game it is very manageable. To create any challenge in a short course greens need to be small and with lots of slope. Requiring precise landings when players have wedges in is fine. These greens on a 7500yds course would be ridiculous - but in the case of Shawnee the balance is there. Personally I loved shooting a couple under par in my test round after reading all the comments on this course. Seems to me people want to fire at the pin with so so execution and get away with it - and are so used to that being the case they never bothered developing a short game. That is just not tour level play to me. I do agree that maybe courses of Shawnees caliber should be reserved for the top tier tours. |
|
|
|
Post by NCFCRulz on Mar 30, 2015 10:16:53 GMT -5
I think its pretty obvious why there were a lot of WD's. It was the course. As I stated in other threads, its a great course, which was ruined with postage size crowned greens. Second it wasn't even rated, so what was it doing on any Tournament ? As far as course selections go, TGC have done a great job, at least until this one slipped in. With a little more work, and I stated what that works is in another thread, this could be a great little course. Maybe those that find courses too difficult to WD, I'm not sure. I will say I did terrible on my first two rounds and was practicing for the next course when I found out I had to finish the final two rounds at Shawnee Creek. I did better, but still finished dead last or next to it. Did I enjoy the rounds ? Not particularly. But I did finish my rounds. If your going to pick courses for tourneys, at least pick ones that have been reviewed by somebody, better yet someone from TGCTours. I really enjoy reading the reviews, and it helps point me towards the better courses. Hats off to the time and effort put in by the staff of TGCTours, but this course just shouldn't have made it in. The course wasn't rated because it was an adapted version of the original for the tour. Do you honestly think they would pick a tour without going over it with a fine toothcomb? It's a cracking course and weeds out those who can and those who.can't find suitable landing areas on the greens. Too many people just want to hammer it at the pin and then whinge when it all goes Pete tong. |
|
|
|
Post by theclv24 on Mar 30, 2015 10:47:34 GMT -5
WD's are pretty awful, but I can kind of see a scenario for them playing out. I know it's in the rearview mirror now, but one thing that I think is sorely missed is the original idea for mandatory missed events. As an example, I skipped the Arnold Palmer 2 weeks back, my first missed event of the year, and dropped 17 spots in the WGC. I know we are working with a small sample size, but that's a major drop for skipping one event, and something we don't see in real life. If you are trying to make a major or WGC, or potentially the playoffs later in the year, you basically have no choice but to play every single event. I knew with my life being occupied by March Madness that weekend there was no way I was going to finish that event, so I didn't enter and paid the price.
Hopefully as time goes on this works itself out with a greater sample size, but it seems like there is a lot of pressure to simply enter every event. Most people probably enter the event 2 weeks ahead of time without really knowing if they can/want to play that event, because they don't want to get locked out of it. Unfortunately, I don't really have any real solutions to offer, but I did want to offer what I think is a potential cause for the WD's.
|
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Mar 30, 2015 11:30:06 GMT -5
Whats even better or worse depending on how you look at it, is I practiced the course as I do with every course we play, and that was with 3 - 5 mph winds, and hit every green per regs. Matter of fact I had it within feet of the pin, only to watch it roll off. If the pros ever saw any courses like this they would laugh and walk away.
Maybe we're looking for ways to narrow the field? It sure worked well this time. Or possibly a test to make sure this should have been for top tier golfers, and not Web tour?
I'll admit I was shooting my second shots for the green, I thought that was the point. I even tried the shoot next to the green and chip on method, only to watch those roll off as well.So in my case it sure weeded out anyplace to land, but I took care of that too and just hit it into the water instead.
All I know is, If anyone at least on the Web tour sees another course like this, they probably won't even bother playing it other than to see it wasn't worth playing in the first place. But then again that should cut down on the number of WD's
Yep this one is tried and tested and ready for the PGA tour !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2015 12:49:00 GMT -5
As this was my first tourney on the web.com, I posted early on after playing a practice round that I thought the Shawnee greens were the hardest I'd ever played in the game on a course that was supposed to be tour quality. I hated it, and a very large number was awaiting on nearly every hole. I have no doubt that many of the WDs teed it up, had large numbers and quit. I found the course extremely challenging from a concentration level, but it is surely one I would never play again. I think you'll see those players liking the course this week. Wide fairways and plenty of birdie chances.
|
|
|
|
Post by mnguy12000 on Mar 30, 2015 14:45:43 GMT -5
As this was my first tourney on the web.com, I posted early on after playing a practice round that I thought the Shawnee greens were the hardest I'd ever played in the game on a course that was supposed to be tour quality. I hated it, and a very large number was awaiting on nearly every hole. I have no doubt that many of the WDs teed it up, had large numbers and quit. I found the course extremely challenging from a concentration level, but it is surely one I would never play again. I think you'll see those players liking the course this week. Wide fairways and plenty of birdie chances. I think the problem last week was the greens were too small. that course with greens a little larger may have still had the scores it had, but people wouldn't be as pissed about "just" missed shots always ending up off the green. add green around a little larger and you'll see people still saying well i have a 35 foot or 40 footer for birdie. where as it was "now I have to pitch/flop/chip up a 3 foot hill to a gree the starts sloping away at the hole". Much different out come I would believe in how this course would have been received. |
|
|
|
Post by mcbogga on Mar 30, 2015 18:17:21 GMT -5
But I think the consensus is that chips within 10yds are actually easier than the same putt....
Shawnee is a classic "don't short side yourself" kind of course as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by nocturnal on Mar 30, 2015 19:19:42 GMT -5
But I think the consensus is that chips within 10yds are actually easier than the same putt.... Shawnee is a classic "don't short side yourself" kind of course as well. My putting kinda stinks so I'm able to short chip with more success than putting. Also after a few rounds I realized what I was dealing with. Not as much a mathematical number crunching approach but, In my mind, was sort of like a puzzle....and I am definitely a puzzle guy. |
|
just my viewpoint on the subject.
