|
Post by fightindiamond on Jul 24, 2021 7:39:04 GMT -5
Is it ok to have green speed set at 4.5 in the green settings sections which when playing turns out to about 101? the pins are all good at that speed but if you speed it to medium then they become a little crazy....so i guess i am asking should i redesign green to be more playable faster and still slow them down to my desired default setting just able to be adjusted and still played?
|
|
|
Post by sroel908 on Jul 24, 2021 9:40:12 GMT -5
A green speed of 101 is really, really, really slow. I wouldn't set speeds to anything less than the default speed, which I think is 144? But in all honesty, I'd do what you asked at the end of your post - rework your greens so that faster speeds are playable and adjust from there.
|
|
|
Post by tpcsouthnine on Jul 24, 2021 12:41:55 GMT -5
Yeah, 101 is really, really slow. If you assume that the max TGC green speeds of 187 are running around 14 on the stimp, then 101 would be running around 7.5. That’s pretty slow by contemporary standards. And if the greens are out of control at anything faster than that, then you’ve probably got some pretty wild greens with serious slope. To build something closer the norm you’d need to tone those slopes down.
However, variety’s the spice of life and I don’t see any reason you couldn’t make interesting greens that play well at that speed. People played golf on greens slower than that for most of the time the game’s been around. Putting well on slow greens can test different skills than putting well on fast greens.
All that said, I should come clean about my own background on this. Am I big proponent of slow greens and I think the current fast (12-14 stimp) green speeds are bad for golf for a couple different reasons: 1) They require greens with less slope. The pga tour won’t place holes on slopes greater than 2%. That means that all 5 foot putts are played inside the hole. We miss out on this putts that dive across the cup. And on older golf courses this means pinnacle areas are pretty limited. 2) The faster the greens, the more resource-intensive they are to maintain. This likely means a bigger environmental impact, and it definitely means a greater greenskeeping budget. All of that gets passed on to the consumer and makes the game less accessible.
|
|
|
Post by sroel908 on Jul 24, 2021 13:05:43 GMT -5
Yeah, 101 is really, really slow. If you assume that the max TGC green speeds of 187 are running around 14 on the stimp, then 101 would be running around 7.5. That’s pretty slow by contemporary standards. And if the greens are out of control at anything faster than that, then you’ve probably got some pretty wild greens with serious slope. To build something closer the norm you’d need to tone those slopes down. However, variety’s the spice of life and I don’t see any reason you couldn’t make interesting greens that play well at that speed. People played golf on greens slower than that for most of the time the game’s been around. Putting well on slow greens can test different skills than putting well on fast greens. All that said, I should come clean about my own background on this. Am I big proponent of slow greens and I think the current fast (12-14 stimp) green speeds are bad for golf for a couple different reasons: 1) They require greens with less slope. The pga tour won’t place holes on slopes greater than 2%. That means that all 5 foot putts are played inside the hole. We miss out on this putts that dive across the cup. And on older golf courses this means pinnacle areas are pretty limited. 2) The faster the greens, the more resource-intensive they are to maintain. This likely means a bigger environmental impact, and it definitely means a greater greenskeeping budget. All of that gets passed on to the consumer and makes the game less accessible. Fair points...I guess the OP's goal is important here, too. If fightindiamond is looking to create a course that they love and can have fun playing, and that course has greens that are 101 speeds, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. However, if they are designing to get the course onto the database for TGC Tours, and are submitting it to reviewers for consideration to get on tour, green speeds of 101 will not likely be considered at all, especially if any increase to that speed makes the greens a little crazy. Since video game golf is so different from real life, it's hard to compare greenskeeping in reality to green speeds used in PGA 2K21. It takes $0 to maintain a golf course in a video game.
|
|
|
Post by tpcsouthnine on Jul 24, 2021 13:47:01 GMT -5
Good points, and I appreciate the back and forth on this topic. I think it’s an interesting one.
If the OP’s goal is to create a course that will get approved or tour worthy, then 101 greens are probably a tough path to take. This would be pretty far outside of the norm, and most people would be turned off by greens at that speed, even if they play well.
I would push back on the $0 maintenance budget argument though. While it’s true that we don’t have to worry about maintenance for the courses we create in game, I’d argue that what we create on this game shows what we value in a golf course. There’s something of an Augusta effect here. ANGC’s a great piece of architecture, but what does the average golfer take away from watching the Masters? The super lush, super green, super expensive conditioning. With this line of thinking, for a course to be good, it has to have these features. That leads to escalating prices on the local courses these golfers actually play.
Along the same lines, when all the courses you enjoy playing on a video game have lightning fast greens and other expensive features, you associate those features with good golf.
There’s an opportunity here to show that golf can be engaging and even better with less expensive maintenance practices.
A couple of my favorite quotes on the subject that I’ve shamelessly stolen from JeffWarne’s GCA signature line: "Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak "Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey
|
|
|
Post by sroel908 on Jul 24, 2021 14:19:46 GMT -5
I do understand what you're saying - and I play on muni courses all the time that don't have blistering green speeds but are still quite enjoyable and playable and don't cost an arm and a leg to play.
But this is a virtual representation of the sport where everything is essentially pristine and perfect. There are no "grounds under repair" or standing water from a rain storm, or aerated greens or anything like that. Heck, the in-game rain does not have any effect on play at all when you turn it on!
Your golfer avatar is basically a professional player, able to hit every single type of shot with relative ease using some of the most advanced golf clubs on the market that most mid- to high-handicappers could only dream of affording or actually being able to use because their skill level is not good enough. This is a fantasy world. Why would anyone expect anything but perfect golf courses in a game where the sport is being represented as the ideal form of it?
Just because I play a virtual course in PGA 2K21 that has 187 greens, or because I watch The Masters on TV, doesn't mean I'm expecting to only play courses with the maintenance level of Augusta or a fake track in a video game every time I book a tee time. There has to be some understanding and common sense that virtual golf courses and real ones are not close to the same thing, just as there has to be an understanding that your local muni course and Augusta National aren't the same thing, either.
Anyway, as far as using 101 greens on a course submitted for TGCT consideration, I'd assume it would be instantly Not Approved. Those speeds are not useable in tourney play whatsoever, and if the course gets even more wild as such low speeds would be turned up, it would not really be even playable at all. That said, I am not a reviewer, but I do ranger courses that get to Tour Worthy status. And I don't think I've ever rangered a course that had a default green speed of anything less than 150 or so.
|
|
|
Post by cd06 on Jul 24, 2021 14:24:14 GMT -5
So I have a few ranges for which I choose my green speed.
130 to 139 (only in very rare cases where the greens are meant to be truly wild) 152 to 161 165 to 176 179 to 185
Really my choice will depend on the difficulty I'm aiming for.
EDIT: In most cases, anything between 152 and 185 will work. Would advise against 162, 163 or 164 greens as that's too close to a default setting (163)
|
|
|
Post by tpcsouthnine on Jul 24, 2021 16:04:41 GMT -5
Thanks @cd06 for posting those ranges. I expect those line up well with the majority opinion on this subject and will be valuable for the OP.
And thanks again @sroel908 for diving into this discussion. You’ve got a lot more experience in this community than I do, and your work as a ranger helps make TGCTours the great place that it is. So it means a lot that you would take the time to discuss this.
I worry that we’re talking past each other a bit here, so I’ll try to simplify my argument and make it a bit a clearer. I think we’re missing each other on the matter of an “ideal” golf course. You ask, “Why would anyone expect anything but perfect golf courses in a game where the sport is being represented as the ideal form of it?”
I’m not arguing that we should make imperfect golf courses on the game or that virtual golfers should play on less than ideal courses. Instead, I’m arguing that the ideal golf course doesn’t necessarily have greens that run at 12-14 on the stimp (which I’d estimate is around 160-187 in game). That is, the ideal course could have greens that run at 7.5-10 on the stimp (maybe 101-135 ish in game).
Premises:
1) The quality of the golf course is not correlated to the speed of the greens.
2) Greens at different speeds allow for more varied slopes that test golfers in different ways. (Consider the different tests that ANGC, Kiawah, Torrey and Royal St George’s and their varied green complexes presented this year)
3) TGCTours aims to test virtual golfers on a variety of good courses.
Conclusion: TGCTours should play on courses with a wider variety of green speeds.
I expect both premise 1 and the conclusion are minority positions. But I also believe they’re worth advocating for.
|
|
|
Post by fightindiamond on Jul 24, 2021 18:44:18 GMT -5
Thanks everyone for the feedback...I truly appreciate. I find it hard to believe that if a course was created that was beautiful and didn't have any major issues except for the green speed that it would be instantly disapproved because slow greens are just a different challenge to everyone...but I do agree that making them more playable at higher speeds makes sense because that means you can use your course more. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by sroel908 on Jul 24, 2021 23:19:49 GMT -5
Thanks everyone for the feedback...I truly appreciate. I find it hard to believe that if a course was created that was beautiful and didn't have any major issues except for the green speed that it would be instantly disapproved because slow greens are just a different challenge to everyone...but I do agree that making them more playable at higher speeds makes sense because that means you can use your course more. Thanks Totally understand. In this case, however, it's strictly how the course works for tour play. Perhaps your course would get approved, which is a good thing, and would be put in the database. But it would likely not get any consideration as Tour Worthy, just due to the fact that green speeds of 101 are just way too slow for consideration in an event. Again, I am not a reviewer or scheduler for the tours. I am just going off the fact that none of the courses I've sever seen as a ranger have had greens speeds set that low before. As was said before, 152 or so is about as low as it gets for Tour courses.
|
|
|
Post by sroel908 on Jul 24, 2021 23:32:46 GMT -5
Thanks @cd06 for posting those ranges. I expect those line up well with the majority opinion on this subject and will be valuable for the OP. And thanks again @sroel908 for diving into this discussion. You’ve got a lot more experience in this community than I do, and your work as a ranger helps make TGCTours the great place that it is. So it means a lot that you would take the time to discuss this. I worry that we’re talking past each other a bit here, so I’ll try to simplify my argument and make it a bit a clearer. I think we’re missing each other on the matter of an “ideal” golf course. You ask, “Why would anyone expect anything but perfect golf courses in a game where the sport is being represented as the ideal form of it?” I’m not arguing that we should make imperfect golf courses on the game or that virtual golfers should play on less than ideal courses. Instead, I’m arguing that the ideal golf course doesn’t necessarily have greens that run at 12-14 on the stimp (which I’d estimate is around 160-187 in game). That is, the ideal course could have greens that run at 7.5-10 on the stimp (maybe 101-135 ish in game). Premises: 1) The quality of the golf course is not correlated to the speed of the greens. 2) Greens at different speeds allow for more varied slopes that test golfers in different ways. (Consider the different tests that ANGC, Kiawah, Torrey and Royal St George’s and their varied green complexes presented this year) 3) TGCTours aims to test virtual golfers on a variety of good courses. Conclusion: TGCTours should play on courses with a wider variety of green speeds. I expect both premise 1 and the conclusion are minority positions. But I also believe they’re worth advocating for. Yeah, for sure! I am happy to discuss! And I do think that having many different green speeds sounds great and I wish a variety of speeds could be used more. But I do think, unfortunately, the slower green speeds seem not to translate all that well in terms of completive play in the game. When I played rounds in career mode, most of those courses default speeds are set to really low numbers. The ball seems to travel differently on those greens - the ball comes off the putter's face with different pace on slower greens than on faster ones for some reason. For example, I just fired up the Detroit Golf Club in game, and played the default greens, which are Slow - 114. For some reason, despite the speeds being slower, the ball fires off the putter face faster. This seems to hold true on all courses with slow green speeds. For whatever reason, slow green speeds just seem to be "off".
|
|
|
Post by BaconJunkie1 on Jul 29, 2021 18:18:45 GMT -5
EDIT: In most cases, anything between 152 and 185 will work. Would advise against 162, 163 or 164 greens as that's too close to a default setting (163) Thanks for the info on this subject you all, great stuff for us new designers wanting to make great courses. @cd06 (or anyone else too), out of curiosity, why stay away from the default setting of 163? Another thing ... I checked the settings on the two courses I'm currently working on and don't remember changing them but one was 162 and the other 119 ... If I changed them then I'm pleading old age as the cause and throwing myself on the mercy of the court.
|
|
|
Post by sroel908 on Jul 29, 2021 18:41:55 GMT -5
EDIT: In most cases, anything between 152 and 185 will work. Would advise against 162, 163 or 164 greens as that's too close to a default setting (163) Thanks for the info on this subject you all, great stuff for us new designers wanting to make great courses. @cd06 (or anyone else too), out of curiosity, why stay away from the default setting of 163? Another thing ... I checked the settings on the two courses I'm currently working on and don't remember changing them but one was 162 and the other 119 ... If I changed them then I'm pleading old age as the cause and throwing myself on the mercy of the court. If the green speed stays at default, it might indicate that the designer didn't adjust the settings at all. To me, it's not a huge deal, but it's just a potential indication that all the course conditions were left at default levels and none of the firmness or speeds were even looked at. I'm not sure about the second part...
|
|
|
Post by BaconJunkie1 on Jul 29, 2021 18:58:06 GMT -5
Thanks for good info and I see your point. I've been searching and reading threads from front to back on getting courses approved and/or deemed Tour Worthy. I was in quality control for a large satellite service provider and there's only one way to do things IMO.
|
|
|
Post by ErixonStone on Jul 29, 2021 21:23:09 GMT -5
The reason to avoid certain speeds like "163" is that, when setting up a round or an event, there are six choices:
Very Slow: 101 ft Slow: 119 ft Moderate: 144 ft Fast: 163 ft Very Fast: 187 ft Default: whatever green speed the designer set when the course was published.
When setting up a tournament, admins prefer to vary the green speeds a little bit - but not too much because some green speeds may make the greens unplayable. So, the tournament is usually set up using only two of the custom settings.
If you publish the course with green speeds of, say, 175 ft, then the tournament admins can set the green speeds to Fast, Default, and Very Fast, and have three different green speeds that week that don't vary too wildly. If you publish at 163, that really limits the range that tournament admins can use. 187-ft-speeds might be too fast.
So that's the reason it's often suggested to publish and playtest your course at a green speed that is somewhere in between two of the five discrete options. So, 175 is good because it's halfway between 163 and 187. 153 is good because it's halfway between 144 and 163.
Also note that players generally complain a lot about greens slower than 144 feet. I, personally, don't mind encountering Slow greens every now and then, but if you publish at 110 and players have to play 4 rounds at 101-119, you're going to get complaints.
|
|