|
|
Post by mcbogga on Jun 2, 2015 0:13:25 GMT -5
I'll reply to this thread, even though, it may be dead. I think the firmness of courses is being used wrong, honestly. A lot of the more recent "top notch" courses are being set at the firmness of a links type course, even though, the designs reflect more of a north American style. I think a great number of these courses are designed amazingly and are very creative. Just to firm. I was just watching US open highlights from previous years and don't think that these courses reflect the type of play you need to win a US open. Yes, opens definitely have fast greens. I have no complaints with the speed of any greens on any course, really. My big complaint is not being able to hold a shot on a green. We are forced to run any shot over 190 yards up to the green. I just watched Martin Kaymer fly a driver on to the 3rd hole of Pinehurst and hold it on the green. It's one thing if the green slopes away from your approach shot. Those are understandable shots to run through. If these are links courses, I would be all for landing your ball 20 yards short and letting the firmness help you get on the putting surface. When we are faced with 500 yard par 4s, the pin tucked behind a bunker, and ultra firm surfaces, then I feel like it's become a little bit gimmicky rather than a real test of golf. This is spot on. |
|
|
|
Post by poobley on Jun 2, 2015 7:36:16 GMT -5
The number 1 problem is that there is only 1 setting for each course instead of settings for each hole. Also in my opinion most designers are trying to create courses with 18 perfect holes. They seem to spend much more time on making each hole with a ' WOW ' factor ( ie. water/sand/planting etc ) to look great but then spend no time on playability then wonder why they dont get no plays. It must be hard to watch when you spend hours on a course and then watch people shoot in the 50's but you have to analyse your time spent between course playability and course beauty. Lately the number of courses which have a zero replay value is increasing: Skoda with a Rolls Royce engine or a Rolls Royce with a Skoda engine. What would you pick ? I wouldn't be too bothered if someone hit sub 60 on any of my course(once published). There are some seriously good players out there. would pick a skoda with a RR engine everytime  |
|
|
|
Post by blackaces13 on Jun 2, 2015 10:31:43 GMT -5
The number 1 problem is that there is only 1 setting for each course instead of settings for each hole. No, this is not a problem at all. Designing a course where the firmness and speed of the greens varied from hole to hole would be absurd. |
|
|
|
Post by sirvalkyerie on Jun 2, 2015 14:27:20 GMT -5
You wanna know the biggest problem? The community has to decide whether or not we want realistic courses or TGC courses. Empyreal Hills is the best course I've ever played. It plays like a real course. It's still very difficult but the very best players will find the course "get-able."
Falcon Bay is a b%& and a half. Super sloped greens. Firm greens. Pin placements on ridges. Just a real chore to get through. But I'm sure that as a result it will make things quite a deal harder for the very best players. Do you want real courses that play realistically or do you want courses that play difficult for good TGC golfers. Oakmere and Falcon Bay this week are not examples of realistic courses to me, specifically in regards to the greens and pin placements. In reality most greens are quite easy when you're within 6 feet of the cup. Doesn't mean we still don't all miss those putts but they play relatively simple.
Mounting your pin placements on a ridge on a super firm back sloping green is not a real course but it will make things tough for the game. It's all up to us to decide which we'd prefer
|
|
|
|
Post by Han on Jun 2, 2015 15:34:44 GMT -5
You wanna know the biggest problem? The community has to decide whether or not we want realistic courses or TGC courses. Empyreal Hills is the best course I've ever played. It plays like a real course. It's still very difficult but the very best players will find the course "get-able." Falcon Bay is a b%& and a half. Super sloped greens. Firm greens. Pin placements on ridges. Just a real chore to get through. But I'm sure that as a result it will make things quite a deal harder for the very best players. Do you want real courses that play realistically or do you want courses that play difficult for good TGC golfers. Oakmere and Falcon Bay this week are not examples of realistic courses to me, specifically in regards to the greens and pin placements. In reality most greens are quite easy when you're within 6 feet of the cup. Doesn't mean we still don't all miss those putts but they play relatively simple. Mounting your pin placements on a ridge on a super firm back sloping green is not a real course but it will make things tough for the game. It's all up to us to decide which we'd prefer Not sure I agree with the above statement in relation to Oakmere. For a start both the green firmness and speed is medium, plus there aren't (m)any severe slopes apart from where the green is two-tiered.I can't think of a single pin that is on a ridge either ? I assume you had just had a bad round the other day (as we all do at times) because I saw your comments in the shoutbox and I can honestly say that you are the first person that has said Oakmere is a hard course.... |
|
|
|
Post by pyates on Jun 2, 2015 15:56:34 GMT -5
You wanna know the biggest problem? The community has to decide whether or not we want realistic courses or TGC courses. Empyreal Hills is the best course I've ever played. It plays like a real course. It's still very difficult but the very best players will find the course "get-able." Falcon Bay is a b%& and a half. Super sloped greens. Firm greens. Pin placements on ridges. Just a real chore to get through. But I'm sure that as a result it will make things quite a deal harder for the very best players. Do you want real courses that play realistically or do you want courses that play difficult for good TGC golfers. Oakmere and Falcon Bay this week are not examples of realistic courses to me, specifically in regards to the greens and pin placements. In reality most greens are quite easy when you're within 6 feet of the cup. Doesn't mean we still don't all miss those putts but they play relatively simple. Mounting your pin placements on a ridge on a super firm back sloping green is not a real course but it will make things tough for the game. It's all up to us to decide which we'd prefer Personally I like the idea that for a major it is a lot harder and don't mind if it seems to be almost unfair. Otherwise I think that there needs to be the fun element still. You should know when the ball is on its way down if you hit a good shot. On some of these courses it looks good but then after it lands it can end up pretty much anywhere... Now if that means next time you can aim somewhere else and learn from it then great, that in my book makes it fun, I.e. you can get your own back. If you've played a hole 5 times and you still can't work out where you can possibly land it to get anywhere remotely close or you know you need to luck it on a bounce out of a collar of rough then I think it loses the fun and just brings frustration. In terms of slope I believe it should be possible to lag it close from any direction, even if that has to be perfect. And I don't mind a hole on a steep slope (although not every green)... However if just beyond that steep uphill is a steep downhill it gets a bit silly in my book. We would benefit hugely I believe if the firmness scale had more values to it. To my knowledge it is either soft, medium or firm??? If we want to firm up a course then it normally has to go too far. Firm is great when done well, you really have to read the contours of the green. Too soft and you are just playing maths and testing ability to hit it straight. Designers need to be able to defend their courses without having to go crazy  |
|
|
|
Post by sirvalkyerie on Jun 2, 2015 16:27:58 GMT -5
For me, Oakmere had a lot of really sloped pins. The course played really easy but I felt the green construction and pin placement made the course notably more difficult. Especially because I didn't feel that the course was hard anywhere but the greens. I shot four better rounds on Empyreal than on Oakmere and I didn't hit all that well on either.
I did hit one -3 on Oakmere but I really felt like it was because I had to hit really tough putts consistently. Really tough. Just felt a solid bit above my skill level at Web C.
My other rounds at Oakmere were +6, +9, +7, +7. Empyreal I hit +3, +10, +1, +5, +4.
|
|
|
|
Post by edi_vedder on Jun 2, 2015 19:53:18 GMT -5
Lately the number of courses which have a zero replay value is increasing. Really? I'd argue the converse... |
|
|
|
Post by sirvalkyerie on Jun 2, 2015 19:57:41 GMT -5
Lately the number of courses which have a zero replay value is increasing. Really? I'd argue the converse... Yeah, I'd definitely disagree. Courses are getting better and better. It's just our standards are also getting higher. |
|
