reebdoog
TGCT Design Competition Directors
Posts: 2,742 
TGCT Name: Brian Jeffords
Tour: CC-Pro
|
Post by reebdoog on Apr 20, 2015 15:56:03 GMT -5
Copied from THIS THREAD over on the official forums With the request for more difficult courses from some of the higher end tours as well as the current US Open competition and the general feeling that the game can be a bit easy at times for the better players the GREENS have become a point of contention. This poll is simply for folks to share their opinions on the method(s) they feel are most enjoyable for "protecting" the hole. I know this is a touchy subject and that people's opinions will differ. Hey, that's life. Just be nice and we can all share our ideas and thoughts. My opinion on the matter has changed a bit. I actually enjoy playing with firmer settings and fast greens now. I wasn't sure I would like too but it means that the approach shots have to be planned out more. You can't just dial in the yardage to the hole...you have a lot more to consider. Yes, if you miss you'll be penalized...but I'm ok with that. I'm also totally fine with large contours on greens as long as it doesn't make the approach impossible. If I have anything from a 7 iron to a lob wedge in my hands then having some serious undulation is ok with me. I'm also fine with red lines on a green as long as they MAKE SENSE. My US Open course has red lines on a number of the greens...but if I'm careful with my lag putting I'm generally not going to run way down a hill. If I do it was my own fault for not being careful with my putter. I guess you could say from my point of view as long as the contours aren't unrealistic in their placement I'm fine with big breaks. Also I'm ok with the greens being firm and fast as long as I have a spot on the green I can safely land. It doesn't need to be next to the hole. If my safe play is 15 yards to the right...so be it. I have a long birdie chance. *shrug* Give it a vote. What do you like best? |
|
|
|
Post by csugolfer60 on Apr 20, 2015 16:40:05 GMT -5
All of the above?
1.) I prefer fast greens (with slope) because I think it should be a priority to not only hit the ball close, but also to keep the ball below the hole. Leaving a downhill putt should (IMO) make the player cautious about putting aggressively, and therefore introduce more strategy into approach shots.
Ever since I learned that green grid lines means the ball will stop naturally, while yellow or red will not, it has made it much more interesting designing greens.
2.) I prefer medium to medium firm. I like the feel of natural spin and bounce, and it seems that is the most like the ball reacting to hitting natural earth.
3.) Green size is really a decision for the designer. You can have an easy hole with a pin in the center of a postage stamp green, or a tough hole with a pin tucked to the edge of a huge green.
TBH, it's really the combination of all of these - pin location, green size, contour, speed and firmness. If you can amp up at least 3 of those, a course can become difficult in a hurry.
|
|
|
|
Post by pursuantmoth76 on Apr 20, 2015 17:24:51 GMT -5
I prefer large contours on the greens where you have the option to use the contours the get the ball closer to the pin. Many of the great courses in real life have plateaus and hollows everywhere on their greens. I think medium settings with the contours would work well in rewarding good shots and penalizing bad ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brighttail on Apr 20, 2015 18:05:16 GMT -5
I prefer large greens that offer many options with FAST FAST FAST speed for putting.
|
|
|
|
Post by edi_vedder on Apr 20, 2015 18:36:00 GMT -5
I prefer large contours on the greens where you have the option to use the contours the get the ball closer to the pin. Many of the great courses in real life have plateaus and hollows everywhere on their greens. I think medium settings with the contours would work well in rewarding good shots and penalizing bad ones. I very much agree with the above. It's not the only option to make greens challenging and fun to play at the same time, but to me it is the most interesting and realistic way of doing it. |
|
|
|
Post by mcbogga on Apr 20, 2015 21:52:59 GMT -5
Will cross-post the below wall of text as well. Giving away a free round at Tobo for anyone who gets through it (double penalty)...
-------------------------
Great thread. This may be a long one. So many things to adress here....
First - greens. I do enjoy the longer run outs as well as it adds difficulty and variance to the game and takes out some of the "dial in" aspect. Greens need to be accomodating though. At the end of the day it's all about balance. Make large concrete ones and people complain. Go the Logan route with softer smaller greens and people complain. End of the day, people will complain. To me one of the key issues with the game is that putting is ridiculously overpowered compared to real life, and this forces designers to build in artificial defences. Approach shots are a bit better than tour pro level, but on med firm/fast greens not so much. The issue is that while the best putters in the world sinks less than half their 10 footers, in game that is basically a tap in unless the pin is on a ski slope...
For green design - I think that some of the "advice" or "rules" being put out are not helping. All this "no red / yellow", "slopes are bad", "no run offs" talk is in no way design rules or even the norm. The only design rule is to not frustrate the players more than they can take... Also I don't think there is anything wrong with having to land ball short and run it up onto green. It happens IRL as well on longer approaches.
One advice to the designer is to look at the actual elevation numbers and think about if it makes sense. For example a decently fast green slope may be dropping 10inches over 30 feet. Is that a lot? No it's not and I think people are over-reacting about these slopes in game. Same with a tier being 20 inches high. Standard fare and nothing you get riled up about IRL.... I was surprised making Tobo how much yellow and red came out of making the slopes match the real course. And I've played real courses with plenty more slope than that. However - most of us in real life play green speeds short of center on the speed dial - while in game most courses probably run 11-13 on the stimp. If anything I would say the avarage course in TGC is to fast and too flat.
There are a couple of design best practices that are being frequently overlooked and are not stated enough I think.
- Most real life greens slope back to front (0.5-1.5deg) in order to hold low spin approach shots. Pretty much any green laid should start with this type of slope to later be modified. I see a lot of greens that are either flat or running away from the line of play. That is fine, of course, but in real life they are not the norm but the exception. Having this back to front slope accompishes two things. First it allows for balls to stop which means more manageable roll outs and allows the designer to use a smaller green or longer approach. Secondly it introduces break on putts to either side of the hole which adds a bit of challenge. Basing greens on this back to front slope will make course more playable and realistic. Once in place the rule is there to be broken, of course. I believe Bison Run employs this beautifully which made it very playable even with firm/fast conditions.
- Green size is usually adjusted for the approach shot. Short approach - small and undulating green with defences in front, long approach - larger green with a run up to be able to get a long iron or wood on. Again, rule is there to be broken, but the norm is the above. See a lot of courses that are not logical in respect to this in game.
Next - Course balance. A great design is usually balanced. This means it tests a large part of a players game. The "difficult" trend lately has had produced some monster long courses. Unfortunately these courses have many holes that play the same. Drive, long iron with run out, putt. Rinse and repeat. To me, more balance is better. A couple of these long holes are fine, but then some mid irons, couple short par 4s with tucked pins (and I mean tucked...) to test every club and shot in the bag plays much more interresting. The difficulty can be dictated by landing area, green size, slope and pin placement. Variation is good. I personally like having mid iron approaches into firm greens as that gives a nice balanced run out.
Then - Tour vs. average Joe which is a discussion over at HB. I just don't see the need for any conflict here. Lets look at the real world again. There are basically four types of golf courses:
- Low budget public courses. Usually quite flat, smallish greens, slow, easy. No way these will host any serious competion.
- Resort courses. Bigger budget courses that are built for recrational golf. Wide fairways, inviting green complexes. Come with back tees, but cant host anything outside of lower level amateur competions / qualifiers as they get humiliated by top class players.
- Resort courses with ambition. Usually built by a famous designer. Has more teeth but also tee set ups that allow for scoring. These courses hosts real tournament golf, also PGA tour level.
- Championship courses. Courses either built to host championship golf or have evolved to do so. These are the mythical courses. Olympic Club, Bethpage Black, Merion, Carnoustie, Royal Birkdale, Chambers Hills, Augusta etc. etc. Here no doubt the average joe/jane will get chewed up, spit out and then chewed up again as the course is not built for him/her. Front tees are an afterthought and the Championship tees is where it's at. Par is a good score on any given hole. Once you get to play one of these, you understand the difference... These courses are cruel and just laugh at the concept of "fairness". These are the courses that really lets you know if you have game or not.
The game needs all of these types. Some designers are better at building one or the other. Hope I'm not offending anyone here but I think Biggins is the king of the Resort courses, Canuck and Fickett come to mind as the ambitious resort designers and Jefford (Swindon) and Logan (numerous masterpieces) know how to make a championship course but can do ambitious resort or resort as well.
We were low on more tour style courses and set ups and the trend was to make resort courses - now we are getting some more challengeing ones. It's getting more balanced. I really like the concept of slightly reworking a course to make it a more tour style course.
Set up is key, and two versions should hopefully be the standard going forward. With two set of tees, some adjustment to fairway width and rough, different pin placements, firmness and speeds it should be possible to have a course play 6-8 shots easier/harder per round and to be enjoyable for all. This is a huge challenge to the designer however, and a sign of greatness when pulled off. Building with both sets of players in mind is greatly more difficult than just making a difficult or easy course. Championship courses cannot and should not be built with the average player in mind.
Having a gradual firmness setting would make it so much easier to get a course playing exactly how the designer wants it for sure. As it is now this limitation restricts a lot of pin placements and dictates green size and/or reasonable approach lenght for a given green set up.
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Post by Knock25Out on Apr 21, 2015 0:44:19 GMT -5
As long as the course is suited for the conditions and the speed and firmness have a reasonable correlation than i will most likely enjoy it. I prefer subtle breaks and mounding to the giant ski slopes on some courses. I dont mind tiers, as long as it isnt insanely punishing to miss. Shouldnt be able to sink the putt but should be able to keep it near-ish the hole.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pubknight on Apr 21, 2015 7:46:57 GMT -5
There are multiple configurations that work.
Lunenberg, I thought, was a tournament venue that had the best overall mix so far:
- greens weren't so soft that you could throw darts, but soft enough to hold a green and give yourself a putt at it
- putts actually had real breaks, and multiple breaks. Three putts were a real possibility if you got too aggressive.
Augusta is another excellent example of firmness/speed/break that is challenging and fair.
If you go massive contours on smaller greens, you can't go too to fast on the speeds.
Likewise, large firm fast greens, but kinda flat aren't tough enough.
Zithobeni was a good example of that... good speed and firmness, but just not quite enough breaks on the greens.
It's a real fine balance.
HB needs to give more 'gradient' types of settings to really let guys dial in what they want to achieve.
|
|
|
|
Post by justamush on Apr 21, 2015 7:55:03 GMT -5
All of the above? 1.) I prefer fast greens (with slope) because I think it should be a priority to not only hit the ball close, but also to keep the ball below the hole. Leaving a downhill putt should (IMO) make the player cautious about putting aggressively, and therefore introduce more strategy into approach shots. TBH, it's really the combination of all of these - pin location, green size, contour, speed and firmness. If you can amp up at least 3 of those, a course can become difficult in a hurry. I agree with this 100%. I don't mind severe slopes on greens because of this. If you are too aggressive with your putt from above the hole it should run far past the hole. I've done that many times in real life I don't don't even play on fast greens. So medium-firm landing and fast greens is my preference. If you do firm and fast, then the greens need to be big enough to hold shots and leave long putts. |
|
