|
Post by scampi00 on Dec 4, 2015 10:58:41 GMT -5
For what it's worth, I've never rejected a course on rough surrounding a bunker alone. Usually when I see this, the designer hasn't planned a waste area or used heavy rough/long grass in the back for intimidation. They've simply planted a bunker and moved on. I usually see this happen with auto-gen courses. For me it's another sign that there wasn't much thought put into the course from a visual perspective.
|
|
|
Post by Crazycanuck1985 on Dec 4, 2015 11:43:29 GMT -5
As a reviewer I want to share my thoughts in this thread about the course database. Please correct me or add to my thought process as you see fit. I think the TGC tours course database from my understanding was first created to fill a void left from pocket scout. It is intended as a place to go find good playable courses and not necessarily tournament specific courses. The staff of TGC tours uses this course database to look for tournament courses but the main intent is for the community to have a good place to easily located well made courses. It seems that some courses submitted are judged based on if they could host a tour event and not if they are good playable courses. I also know that we have two approval options (approved and tour worthy) and these can sometimes IMO be useless as it is all subjective from the reviewer. I wish there was only approved and then the tournament committees would deem them usable for a tournament after they are in the database. When I review a course my main concern is it a course I would enjoy playing multiple times whether or not it is a good fit for tournaments does not matter at this point. If it is a course that I don't even want to finish then it probably shouldn't be approved. If it is autogen with no work put in I reject it and my biggest pet peeve is humps in front of tee boxes that block the shot. If the designer did not take the time to QA the tee shots then the rest of the course is probably suffering as well. Burnt looking textures around the fairways and greens is another factor on my list for rejection but can easily be resolved and if the course is good but this I recommend fixing this and resubmitting. I say all this to boil it down to a simple criteria for me is the course good enough to make me want to play it multiple times. We do know that this process is very subjective, keep doing what you guys are doing. Having the "tour worthy" option, is a a way for us to separate the good from the great courses. We know that some reviewers may mark courses as approved, while others mark it as tour worth and vice versa...that's OK. Ultimately, it comes down to the course selection committee. Not all "tour worthy" courses are going to end up on tour...and some "approved" courses might. Marking them as tour worthy just helps the committee narrow down some of the better courses, but they go off book and dip into the approved courses as well. I'm listening to any and all ideas you may have in regards to improving the system, but I still think this method is working alright for now.
|
|
|
Post by drivert on Dec 4, 2015 13:16:46 GMT -5
I agree canuck it is working pretty good I just wanted to express this in case any of the new reviewers were thinking any course not tournament ready should not be approved. The main idea here is a database of good playable courses for the community.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2015 17:38:29 GMT -5
The Good: Bunker surrounded with same type cut of rough. Doesn't need to be Heavy rough, but the logic behind heavy vs. light rough, is that gives one final chance to slow the ball down before rolling into the bunker. The border doesn't need to be consistant all the way around the bunker ... again, it depends how "Fair" you wish making it on the golfer ... the more of a heavy rough border around the trap, the less chance a ball will roll into it. Making the ball going into a bunker on the fly, the main penalty. The Bad:Two type of ground cover "Dissecting" or, dividing a bunker it half. Just not very cosmetic and poor design habit. Generally frowned upon, and not usually found on the better designed courses. The Ugly:Just that, ugly ... Autogen'd bunker with pinstripe light rough .... or, a bunker placed in the middle of the fairway or, close to the edge of a fairway. Subjective, but in most top designed courses, you will not see this type of bunker style. ![](https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-L3ZbIKQzrDo/VmIQoPJObVI/AAAAAAAACtc/pVkoxJVNfL8/w900-h502-no/Image2.jpg) Thank Gawd I'm not a reviewer anymore ... I have enough people who hate me already .... LOL
|
|
|
Post by bassman70 on Dec 4, 2015 19:29:17 GMT -5
I think I'm very fair about the approval of a course...at least I hope I am. I think courses with a few cosmetic errors should not be overlooked. The things that really make me not want to approve a course are things like auto generated fairways, large mounds in front of tee boxes, and SOME of the HUGE plants that just look very unrealistic. I don't think any plant or flower should ever create a blind shot because it's so large. Uneven tee boxes are kind of a pet peeve also. But I think I approve most courses I review. I think as reviewers we just don't want to let ANY course through, because then we lose our credibility in reviewing and selecting quality courses. It's a tugh job and we can't please everyone, but I think as a whole we do a fair job.
|
|
|
Post by mcbogga on Dec 4, 2015 21:55:49 GMT -5
The Good: Bunker surrounded with same type cut of rough. Doesn't need to be Heavy rough, but the logic behind heavy vs. light rough, is that gives one final chance to slow the ball down before rolling into the bunker. The border doesn't need to be consistant all the way around the bunker ... again, it depends how "Fair" you wish making it on the golfer ... the more of a heavy rough border around the trap, the less chance a ball will roll into it. Making the ball going into a bunker on the fly, the main penalty. The Bad:Two type of ground cover "Dissecting" or, dividing a bunker it half. Just not very cosmetic and poor design habit. Generally frowned upon, and not usually found on the better designed courses. The Ugly:Just that, ugly ... Autogen'd bunker with pinstripe light rough .... or, a bunker placed in the middle of the fairway or, close to the edge of a fairway. Subjective, but in most top designed courses, you will not see this type of bunker style. ![](https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-L3ZbIKQzrDo/VmIQoPJObVI/AAAAAAAACtc/pVkoxJVNfL8/w900-h502-no/Image2.jpg) Thank Gawd I'm not a reviewer anymore ... I have enough people who hate me already .... LOL I think "the ugly" would be OK with some sculpting on the edge. "The Bad" can be fixed by letting the heavy rough blend into the edge of the bunker better. Then mechanics-wise heavy rough is much worse than rolling into a bunker. I find myself yelling at the ball to get in bunkers when I miss as it's only a problem if it flies in or is really deep.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2015 22:05:16 GMT -5
Forgive me for my ignorance but what is wrong with fairway leading into bunkers? This happens in real life yes? Especially on links courses no? Brings the bunkers into play more doesn't it?
|
|
|
Post by mcbogga on Dec 4, 2015 23:58:30 GMT -5
I think it's fine - but it looks ugly when it's done to look like the mower ran over the bunker. With some attention to it it's great and can be used to make the effective bunker area much bigger with slopes leading into it. For tour set ups looks should not dictate features that makes it easier, imho.
|
|
|
Post by boomboom on Dec 5, 2015 9:04:46 GMT -5
Forgive me for my ignorance but what is wrong with fairway leading into bunkers? This happens in real life yes? Especially on links courses no? Brings the bunkers into play more doesn't it? Not a problem, just use the terrain red tool, drop it down well below water level and use it to increase the band around the bunker. The thin little strip just looks bad, easy tell the bunker was just plunked down with no concern or attention given to it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2015 14:02:33 GMT -5
It's all subjective. It's just a matter of how well you pull it off.
Those were just a really quick example. And I personally could make all 3 work and look great.
With a little time spent, sculpture and planting.
Problem is, we see many of the bunkering looking like the bad, and the ugly.
And again, as I stated, you just won't find them on the better designed courses.
And you sure won't find many on TGCT.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2015 15:47:20 GMT -5
Darn it! Am I too late to get into this thread to call DDawg a ruthless bastage? ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2015 15:47:49 GMT -5
And for the record, I took that tip from DD a while ago and my courses have looked a lot better with the "good" bunkering.
|
|
|
Post by coruler2 on Dec 14, 2015 11:59:13 GMT -5
The Links at LonghorneMountain:
The course had a lot of promise in the creativity department, but it was lacking serious polish. Found these issues over and over and thus had to not approve: * Uniform planting (size, shape, no rotations) * Overlapping textures of bunkers, rough. Wavy ribbonededges * Lack of smoothing of ground, rough, edges, bunkers. * Holes on plot border with stark contrast of course v. outside plot (i.e. back of 4th green)
A few more hours of smoothing and care could easily turn into an approved course.
|
|
|
Post by mrohde4 on Dec 20, 2015 14:37:30 GMT -5
Question. Has anybody designed a rendition of Erin Hills (U.S. Open 2017)? I know sometimes real courses get published under aliases so was just curious. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by pablo on Dec 21, 2015 11:11:03 GMT -5
Bonnie Star golf club - Not Approved
By no means this is a bad golf course. There are a few details that detract from the interest to play it. The bunkers are for the most part unsculpted, and some of the greens seem autogenerated. I was going to approve the course, but then I saw something that, despite not being really important, IMO can't be overseen. The 12th green has a few grasses planted straight on it, in the right side. Obviously that's a simple mislead, and if it's solved the course could be easily approved.
|
|