|
Post by b101 on Apr 1, 2021 11:11:19 GMT -5
I stumbled across this article on Fried Egg earlier and I thought I'd share as, not only is it a great read, but I think it sums up perfectly where I am with my designing right now and thought it might make for interesting discussion. thefriedegg.com/sunday-brunch-big-golf-and-small-golf/--- In a nutshell, I'd say I definitely do both, but lean far more toward big golf. Sketching holes as a way to teach myself strategy is certainly at the heart of that and whilst I've tried to move away from it a bit more, it's a very helpful crutch when I'm stuck for an idea. I think it's also easier to do 'big golf' in game because you can sculpt the plot so easily to what you desire. South Yarra is by a mile my most 'big golf' course and whilst I think I made it look natural, it's anything but - it's a great example of mentally designing strategy and coming up with a course that will test all the shots (and met every aim I had with it), but I still feel it's slightly lacking in that randomness that gives real charm. Conversely, Maurelle Point is my least-played course, yet one I'm equally proud of as it is pure 'small golf' - I barely sculpted things and found golf holes that existed naturally. It's got fair and unfair bounces, as well as creative solutions and holes that I never would have come up with had I planned everything out beforehand. Is it a 'better' course than Yarra? I'd argue not - but I think it certainly has more soul. Since then, I'm trying to do more of a hybrid approach and quite like the results so far. Personally, I feel a good designer will have a higher floor with the big golf approach, but perhaps a lower ceiling as you might miss opportunities for something truly special. So, which type do you lean towards and why?
|
|
|
Post by trailducker on Apr 1, 2021 12:07:27 GMT -5
I stumbled across this article on Fried Egg earlier and I thought I'd share as, not only is it a great read, but I think it sums up perfectly where I am with my designing right now and thought it might make for interesting discussion. thefriedegg.com/sunday-brunch-big-golf-and-small-golf/--- In a nutshell, I'd say I definitely do both, but lean far more toward big golf. Sketching holes as a way to teach myself strategy is certainly at the heart of that and whilst I've tried to move away from it a bit more, it's a very helpful crutch when I'm stuck for an idea. I think it's also easier to do 'big golf' in game because you can sculpt the plot so easily to what you desire. South Yarra is by a mile my most 'big golf' course and whilst I think I made it look natural, it's anything but - it's a great example of mentally designing strategy and coming up with a course that will test all the shots (and met every aim I had with it), but I still feel it's slightly lacking in that randomness that gives real charm. Conversely, Maurelle Point is my least-played course, yet one I'm equally proud of as it is pure 'small golf' - I barely sculpted things and found golf holes that existed naturally. It's got fair and unfair bounces, as well as creative solutions and holes that I never would have come up with had I planned everything out beforehand. Is it a 'better' course than Yarra? I'd argue not - but I think it certainly has more soul. Since then, I'm trying to do more of a hybrid approach and quite like the results so far. Personally, I feel a good designer will have a higher floor with the big golf approach, but perhaps a lower ceiling as you might miss opportunities for something truly special. So, which type do you lean towards and why? I read that article as well, very interesting. In my three publishes they’ve been all big golf. I like you lean on sketching everything. Honestly I think it’s the best way to learn the program for newer designers because you’re forcing the land to do something you intend so you really learn the tools. Both my Facebook competition course and National Treasure are all sketched and the plot worked to my ideas as well. And I think they both are big steps up from me in the hole design and playability department but I’ll let those more knowledge decide when I publish those. There is a course I started and got about 75% through before the competition courses that I sketched the routing but not the holes that’s sort of a hybrid. Now this is a lower/flatter plot so not much movement and each hole had a “theme” to it so again it dips more to big golf but it was the first I didn’t sketch individual holes out before I got in the designer and tried to come up with them on the plot. Some holes came easy but some were frustratingly not. It’s just a different style of working then I know and I struggled at times with it. I do have a concept for a course in a real life location I have in my head for a future plot where I think I will make the location and then totally find the holes in the plot and try that route. We’ll see how I like that workflow.
|
|
|
Post by shotstone on Apr 1, 2021 12:19:08 GMT -5
I'm curious Ben...
How feasible do you think it would be to run a contest where all contestants were given the same exact plot (probably a plot someone specifically built out or maybe a Lidar plot converted to a game plot - no idea technically what that looks like)...?
I've actually been kicking something like this around in my head, and I'm reading some interesting literature on Trent Jones Sr VS minimalism of say Doak or C&C. In game its so simple to just build a routing and envision how you expect it to play and then force your plot into that vision. But what happens when designers can't just take the land and raise it 100'? What happens when macro sculpting becomes secondary or tertiary to micro... Rather than raise the land 25' for a view, now we have to craft something organic...
I'm not sure how exactly the rules would work, or even how you'd regulate it... But it would be interesting to see say 35 courses all built out of the same exact starting plot. Just like real-world designers have a preordained canvas, what happens when the major land movements are pulled out of game (for one contest and only temporarily 🤣)?
The book True Links makes the argument that minimalism is a hallmark of the true links course (and that many designers today are trying to mimic that). The layout, routing, etc all defined predominantly by the existing contours of the land,this being a primary reason more the 2/3rds were in existence before 1900.
I've said a lot for someone opining while only glancing at the article. Off to read it more in-depth now. 😬
|
|
mayday_golf83
TGCT Design Competition Directors
Posts: 2,279
TGCT Name: Jeremy Mayo
Tour: Elite
|
Post by mayday_golf83 on Apr 1, 2021 12:21:09 GMT -5
I'm curious Ben... How feasible do you think it would be to run a contest where all contestants were given the same exact plot (probably a plot someone specifically built out or maybe a Lidar plot converted to a game plot - no idea technically what that looks like)...? I've actually been kicking something like this around in my head, and I'm reading some interesting literature on Trent Jones Sr VS minimalism of say Doak or C&C. In game its so simple to just build a routing and envision how you expect it to play and then force your plot into that vision. But what happens when designers can't just take the land and raise it 100'? What happens when macro sculpting becomes secondary or tertiary to micro... Rather than raise the land 25' for a view, now we have to craft something organic... I'm not sure how exactly the rules would work, or even how you'd regulate it... But it would be interesting to see say 35 courses all built out of the same exact starting plot. Just like real-world designers have a preordained canvas, what happens when the major land movements are pulled out of game (for one contest and only temporarily 🤣)? The book True Links makes the argument that minimalism is a hallmark of the true links course (and that many designers today are trying to mimic that). The layout, routing, etc all defined predominantly by the existing contours of the land,this being a primary reason more the 2/3rds were in existence before 1900. I've said a lot for someone opining while only glancing at the article. Off to read it more in-depth now. 😬 The only drawback to this is that it would be PC only due to the ability to share files, but this type of contest has always been something that intrigues me.
|
|
|
Post by shotstone on Apr 1, 2021 12:25:25 GMT -5
The only drawback to this is that it would be PC only due to the ability to share files, but this type of contest has always been something that intrigues me. True... That is a major drawback...😕
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Apr 1, 2021 12:30:36 GMT -5
Yep, considered it and it's actually something I'm interested in running as an extra, potentially over this summer. I wouldn't make it a contest, as I think this'd be more of a 'see what you can do' rather than having people actively try to beat one another - we have enough of that already and whilst it very much has its place, I'd view this as something different. As Jeremy says, it's automatically a limited field, but it could be a cool thing to run similar to the Backyard Design contest Dan ran last year. I think the closest we've come has been the plot swaps of Pastimes, Montellago and Santa Ynez between myself, gamesdecent and PithyDoctorG and those produced some cool courses from a fun plot.
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Apr 1, 2021 12:31:49 GMT -5
I do have a concept for a course in a real life location I have in my head for a future plot where I think I will make the location and then totally find the holes in the plot and try that route. We’ll see how I like that workflow. Do it. It'll make you so much better and things like this where you step out of your comfort zone are huge to development IMO.
|
|
|
Post by shotstone on Apr 1, 2021 12:48:55 GMT -5
Yep, considered it and it's actually something I'm interested in running as an extra, potentially over this summer. I wouldn't make it a contest, as I think this'd be more of a 'see what you can do' rather than having people actively try to beat one another - we have enough of that already and whilst it very much has its place, I'd view this as something different. As Jeremy says, it's automatically a limited field, but it could be a cool thing to run similar to the Backyard Design contest Dan ran last year. I think the closest we've come has been the plot swaps of Pastimes, Montellago and Santa Ynez between myself, gamesdecent and PithyDoctorG and those produced some cool courses from a fun plot. If this is something that comes to fruition, I'd really like to be a part of it. I agree, contest might be over the top, but I like the "see what you could do" idea. I'd have to think about the guidance (as opposed to rules - per se) - What are planting limitations? Is it a plant meter limit? Maybe planting doesn't matter and it's just a blank sculpted plot of land? Land movement, what is and isn't "allowed"? Nothing > 10' allowed (that's a lot especially if the brush is large)? Green sculpting seems reasonable, few if any courses just lay turf and mow it saying "here's the green" I'd think it's generally too complex for a contest, but limiting it to just the "here's the land, go forth and conquer" approach solves a lot of those questions or unknowns. Back to the original question at hand, I do think almost all courses published fall into the big golf category. I think it was Andre in one of his beginner tutorials where he recommended load and autogen plot and begin finding the routing through the trees. Even his closing to the series was exactly that - find a hole and build it out. Still a lot of land movement for visuals, etc, but in concept close to the discussion here.
|
|
|
Post by PithyDoctorG on Apr 1, 2021 13:23:57 GMT -5
It's an interesting concept. I usually borrow from both to varying degrees. Saxondale was likely my "biggest" golf course, where I had preconceived ideas for each hole and the greens were very much pre-planned. Something like St. Cyrus is more typical of my approach, though, where I find holes on the plot. However, I'll often have a few hole concepts in mind as I'm coming up with a routing that I'll look to "work in" at various points if it makes sense with the land. For example, I was pretty sure that Bragg Highlands was going to have holes inspired by holes 8, 14, 17 and 18 at Crystal Downs, and these show up as holes 9, 15, 17, and 18 on the course I published.
Another thing I do that may be a bit different from others is that I usually do a lot of environment building around my routing (to provide interesting backdrops using land that has no golf played on it), which is obviously unrealistic but fits in more with the "big" school.
|
|
|
Post by tpcsouthnine on Apr 2, 2021 21:18:31 GMT -5
I enjoyed this Fried Egg piece and was happy to see it get traction here. As someone new to the designer and new to this game, I’ve been happy to find this community of like-minded folks interested in golf course architecture. The design tool in this game is a pretty nice way to play armchair architect — to experiment in an art form that very, very few get a chance to try.
The “small golf” angle brings up something I’ve been wondering about. Where do all the quirky courses live? The TGC Tours database captures so many great, thoughtful courses, but it seems like these courses skew towards championship tests —usually 7200 +/- 500 yards and par 71 +/- 1 with reasonable sized greens at reasonably quick speeds.* These courses are great, and given the competitive nature of the video game, it makes sense that courses would skew in this direction. However, it seems like the other side of the spectrum (quirky, small courses) is underrepresented. Beyond particular design contests with specific rules, where do folks share these creations?
*Assuming the maxed out 187 speed greens are about 14 on the stimp meter, that would put the pretty-darn-slow-by-tour-standards 144 greens at just under 11. That’s really freaking fast, and requires a pretty sizable maintenance budget for your local “small golf” course.
|
|
|
Post by Q on Apr 2, 2021 23:42:54 GMT -5
So, which type do you lean towards and why? This may be where I went wrong with Te Amo, I attempted too "big" of a golf course with it and ended up with a weird mishmash of styles. I felt like my first two courses really succeeded in being a lot smaller golf courses. My method of designing a course was a lot more like how described plot swaps (my plot being completely done before I designed the holes) but I didn't do that on this one. Hmmm, a lot to think about
|
|
|
Post by rjwils30 on Apr 3, 2021 0:35:30 GMT -5
I enjoyed this Fried Egg piece and was happy to see it get traction here. As someone new to the designer and new to this game, I’ve been happy to find this community of like-minded folks interested in golf course architecture. The design tool in this game is a pretty nice way to play armchair architect — to experiment in an art form that very, very few get a chance to try. The “small golf” angle brings up something I’ve been wondering about. Where do all the quirky courses live? The TGC Tours database captures so many great, thoughtful courses, but it seems like these courses skew towards championship tests —usually 7200 +/- 500 yards and par 71 +/- 1 with reasonable sized greens at reasonably quick speeds.* These courses are great, and given the competitive nature of the video game, it makes sense that courses would skew in this direction. However, it seems like the other side of the spectrum (quirky, small courses) is underrepresented. Beyond particular design contests with specific rules, where do folks share these creations? *Assuming the maxed out 187 speed greens are about 14 on the stimp meter, that would put the pretty-darn-slow-by-tour-standards 144 greens at just under 11. That’s really freaking fast, and requires a pretty sizable maintenance budget for your local “small golf” course. I would check anything by Digital Bunny if you are looking for small golf. His most recent one, Sussex Downs, is very good.
|
|
|
Post by hallzballz6908 on Apr 3, 2021 0:45:14 GMT -5
I feel like I tend to lean more towards small golf mainly due to the fact that that’s how I learned the game and what I grew up playing. We didn’t have a course or driving range in my hometown so my golf team buddies and I would often grab our wedges and head down to the little league fields and proceed to contrive our own “courses” by playing to various land marks (foul pole, dugout, scoreboard, etc.). Some wonderful memories there lol it’s making me smile now as I reminisce 😊. When I decided upon graduation of high school to pursue a career in professional golf management, the world of “big golf” became much more accessible to me.
As a kid, my friends and I would often pine for the perfectly manicured conditions of the courses we watched the pros play on TV. However, when I finally got the opportunity to play some higher budget tracks, I couldn’t help but find myself longing for the rough length fairways and impossibly small and firm greens of my youth. It’s really like playing a completely different game when you step onto a “big golf” track. Even though there are options present, I always felt that there was a specific shot that I needed to hit thus making it feel somewhat similar to target golf.
The “small golf” tracks of my youth, though not “great” courses by any means, still hold most of my fondest golf memories. Not necessarily due to the holes themselves, but more due to some of the amazing and/or hilarious shots my friends and I hit over the years. (One particularly hilarious one that comes to mind is when one of my friends skyed his tee shot and struck flush an overhanging tree branch causing the ball to ricochet violently downward and plug into the tee box 3 yards in front of where he struck it from. We laughed at that for 10 minutes straight 😂! So hard I almost pissed my pants!) On more “well designed” tracks, many of those memories would never have happened!
To answer the question about the proliferation of “big golf” courses in the game, I feel that most of us are used to playing the majority of our rounds on lower budget courses IRL and we all yearn to have a crack at playing “nicer” courses. I also think that the quirkiness that makes many of the “small golf” courses fun is very difficult to replicate in game. Everyone is pretty much long enough to overpower shorter courses and longer courses would most likely be received as being “beginner-esque” by majority of players. There is also no real way to replicate “bad ground” type lies (tree roots, scruffy ground, swampy areas, grassed-over bunkers, etc.). It could probably never happen in a golf video game, but it would be interesting if HB/2k sports could create a way for us designers to replicate those kinds of conditions. Something else to consider here is the lack of real world logistical elements of golf course management and upkeep (insert Jerry reference here 😝) that we don’t have to take into account in virtual design. Without the real world hassles of irrigation, drainage, pace of play, and other issues, virtual designers are limited by only two things: the physics of the game engine and their own imaginations. Why not build that perfect 7600 yard (but totally playable) fantasy golf track that you’ve always dreamed of?
I had an idea a while ago to create a “country-style” muni type track using fairways as greens, light rough as fairways, and heavy rough as heavy rough (obviously). I haven’t broken ground on it yet but if and when I do (and it’s playable, of course!), I think it might actually be fun to try to replicate the feel of playing low-budget golf in game. Anyway, fun topic for discussion here. Look forward to reading some other members thoughts on this 👍🏻😁!
|
|
|
Post by rjwils30 on Apr 3, 2021 1:19:29 GMT -5
St. Andrews would seem to be a small golf kind of course in concept. Most of what’s there is a cumulation of elements that have evolved over time, some of which were introduced when players were still playing with hickory shafts. The features are unintentional in a way as they weren’t designed for the modern game yet they still confound modern players. Hole strategies were likely not imposed from above but rather discovered by the golfers over time. Changing as the game changed. Perhaps this type of small golf is easy to achieve when you are blessed with a beautiful sandy site with all sorts of natural landforms and micro contours; the character of the land does most of the work. Perhaps it’s the lack of inherent natural features that force designers to Engineer and over design holes more. Strategy can be overlaid into a featureless site as a substitute for character. In this game it’s even more true as we are often starting with a blank canvas of heavy rough and don’t have limitations placed on us. This is one of the reasons I’ve really enjoyed the last two plot swaps I’ve worked on (hoi an and Taliesin) If you get a good routing on an interesting piece of land you really don’t need to over design or over think things. Not saying I don’t overthink/overdesign things but I find myself easing off more and just letting the land do most of the work. Just look at most classic courses from the golden age. Most holes are really quite simple. The success of the course Is more a function of the holes as a collection rather than the strategic merits of each hole.
As far as the article goes there is something inconsistent about it that I can’t put my finger on. It seems like his main contention is that big golf is over designed and small golf is not and that he lumps Tom doak et al. Into the big golf group. There might be some of their courses that fall into that category but in theory they are big proponents of letting the site dictate the design first and foremost. Especially with his early courses like High Point. If you play pacific dunes there is definitely a sense that the holes were not over designed. He knew when to add drama and also new when to back off and let the land standout. It’s a course that is actually pretty restrained. It just has really dramatic land. In fact I wouldn’t say it’s a course that is overly contrived with strategy either. Most of the holes are just interesting uses of the land. I suppose I don’t really see the distinction he’s trying to make if scale is not a factor.
|
|
|
Post by tpcsouthnine on Apr 3, 2021 7:39:36 GMT -5
This is such a fun topic. Thanks for keeping the conversation going. You bring up a good point rjwils30 about the unclear distinction between small and big golf. I struggled with that distinction, too. I reread the article and here’s my best shot at it. Big golf 1) reflects the vision and philosophy of an architect. Shots both on and off the line of charm give many options that the architect has considered carefully. And developers of big golf courses 2) are economically ambitious. Budgets are high, which allows architects the tools, landscape and time to realize their vision, to put their design philosophy into practice on the piece of land. It’s foil, small golf 1) does not reflect the vision or philosophy of an architect: “ the architect’s philosophy is neither hidden, as in the game of hide-and-seek, or displayed. Philosophy is secondary to landscape.” Instead of providing “options,” small golf provides “possibilities.” Possibilities are more random and left to nature both before and after construction. (Criss mentions a ball bouncing through a tire track, so I’d imagine “nature” is covering a pretty broad range of non-golf-course-maintenance forces, some of which may be man-made.) 2) Small golf is economically unambitious, so architects don’t have the tools, time or landscape to fully realize a vision. Doak falls into the big golf category because his courses represent his golf vision, and they’re economically ambitious. He may not have moved much land at Pacific Dunes, but he had phenomenal golf land to begin with, and he had the time necessary to realize his vision for that land. Near the end of the essay, Criss points to the Feed the Ball podcast: “ Derek Duncan has spoken about his wish for a new minimalism—a design approach that ties golf to modern life and land rather than conforming it to modernity (maximalism) or imitating an anti-modernity (“minimalism”).” Many Doak projects would seem to fall into this anti-modernity category — Pac Dunes, Tara Iti, Barnbougle, etc. These are phenomenal courses on fantastic pieces of land, but they don’t tie golf into modern life. Instead, they’re about as far removed from modern life as possible and require long journeys and fairly substantial economic means to experience them. I think this gets really interesting when you start thinking about specific examples. Your point about St Andrew’s was a really good one. That has to be small golf. It was built less by one architect than by the natural landscape and many people over a long period of time. What else falls in this category? Does Winter Park? It fits into the landscape of modern life, but (having never played it) it strikes me as the clear vision of talented architects creating options.
|
|