|
Post by sroel908 on Jan 27, 2023 0:13:24 GMT -5
Hello, I received the rejection email for Powder Island Golf Resort about 40 minutes ago and I would love some feedback so I can continue to improve my designs in the future. Thank you! Hi there, I am not a course reviewer, but am a ranger that plays a bunch of courses that make it on to tour here. So hopefully I can provide some feedback from that perspective. Just played Powder Island Golf Resort on PS4, Pin 2, Black tees, the rest of conditions set to defaults. Right off the bat, on the first tee, the palm trees used here all look a bit artificial. Not a huge deal, but most look like the same tree used over and over again. Golf wise, the Hole 1 fairway is way too narrow at the landing zone. It's maybe 15 yards across. The pin here is set on an illegal slope at default speeds. There is yellow throughout the 9 boxes of the grid that surround the cup. This means that these green speeds would have to stay below defaults to make them at all useable in tour play. Hole 2's fairway is awkwardly cut off at about 325 yards away from the back tees. There is a strip of rough maybe a few feet wide between one section of the fairway and the other that's closer to the green. The sections seem like they should just be connected...there's no reason why they aren't. Hole 3 has unintentional blindness off the tee...the fairway bunkers are not visible from the tee, due to sculpting issues. Planting aside, I actually think Hole 4 is not too bad. If you clean up some of the bushes and remove a couple trees, this hole could have an amazing view of the ocean. Hole 5 has some more unintentional blindness off the tee, and some extremely harsh sculpting in the middle of the fairway. There's a 10-plus foot drop cutting right thru the middle of the fairway, about 50 yards short of the green. It should be smoothed out...as it is, it looks and plays strange. The trees right in the line of play on Hole 6, between the tee and green, should be removed. They're not really in play, but clutter up the view from the tee. Hole 7 is fine, and plays pretty well. Hole 8's design is not ideal. The fairway runs out 250 yards away, and runs right into water. You also can't really see the water from the tee. Then, you have to take basically a 90-degree right turn from there to aim at the green. There's also some odd sculpting at the end of the first section of fairway that puts you on an awkward sidehill/downslope that seems designed to run you off the fairway and into the rough. You can build holes that make players keep driver in their bag off the tee, but ones like this feel kind of contrived and a bit out of place. Hole 9 has a split fairway, and bunkers are in the area where the fairway splits. The bunkers cut through multiple surfaces and look kind of strange. Also, the right side of the split fairway is not at all useable; it's maybe 5-10 yards wide and has a huge bunker off the the right of it. And even if you did go right and found the fairway, it only gains you 10 yards of distance. It's reachable in 2 from the left, anyway. The green is an odd shape, and has some strange sloping. Hole 10 has some unintentional blindness due to sculpting when you're in the middle of the fairway. A large mound blocks me from seeing anything as I stand 265 yards from the green on my second shot. This pin, while "legal", is really silly, as it sits on a crown that is just 6-10 feet away in all directions that runs into yellow/orange/red slops that carry any shot that finds them totally off the green. Hole 11 is OK, but the fairway in front of the green doesn't really have any use in the shape that it's in. I get that it mirrors the bunker to make a yin-yang shape, but it's completely non-sensical from a golf perspective. Hole 12 is OK, too. Hole 13 is another 90-degree right dogleg...it makes you to hit hybrid off the tee. Another design that's just kind of forced. Hole 14 has another pretty narrow landing area. It's not too bad, but might be about as tight as you'd want to make your fairways - just for future reference. Hole 15 is another par-3 where the fairway section makes no sense. For some reason, it has a huge bunker in the middle of it, with maybe a yard or so of the fairway on each side. This bunker is actually larger than the green, I think. It looks very odd, essentially having an extremely huge centerline hazard on a par-3. Hole 16's fairway is again too narrow at the landing zone. The green is strange, with the large red slopes between tiers, yet the lowest part of the green slopes toward the red slope near it...basically, there would always be standing water near where the lower section of the green meets the red slope. The land just doesn't move logically there. Hole 17 is another pretty extreme dogleg right...the fairway runs straight into the beach. It's actually neat having the hole play along the beach and the ocean, but there are some surfacing issues here. For example, the light rough and heavy rough near the front left side of the green just kind of start up again straight out of the sand. I like the setting and the views more on Hole 18. The green running into the beach here does look a little strange with how surfaces are interacting with each other. There's a dramatic stop to the putting surface, and a very thick strip of fringe between the green and the sand. Overall, I think there are some good ideas here, and it seems you've got a good initial grasp on the basics of the designer tool. There were some odd strategic decisions that felt forced, and I think planting and sculpting could use a little more attention. But I don't think it's too far off from getting "Approved" status. Keep on working at it, and be sure to watch the CrazyCanuck1985 tutorials, as well as the b101 videos, on YouTube for more pointers.
|
|
|
Post by lessangster on Jan 30, 2023 9:54:00 GMT -5
b101 or one of the other admins, would it be poor someone to go in and change the name on one of my ported courses the original 21 name got caught by the profanity filter again. The course is now called MacArthur Park GC instead of MacArthur Park, LA
|
|
|
Post by Koop on Jan 31, 2023 0:00:36 GMT -5
So, I would like to see about some kind of a re-do on my course submission review... Golden Acres <-----(click link to see my course photos)It seems that there is another course by the same name only it is golden acres..... no capital "G", no capital "A" Here is the first tee box of the golden acres course... Here is a look at the 2nd hole green of the golden acres course...
Maybe this golden acres was reviewed by mistake? My Golden Acres <-----(click link to see my course photos) may not be tour worthy but I believe it deserves a second review. Please use the Golden Acres <-----(click link to see my course photos) that has a capital "G" and a capital "A" Not sure who can do this ( Crazycanuck1985)? But if the other course (golden acres) was used I certainly would understand why my Golden Acres was not approved in less than 2 hours. :-) If I am barking up the wrong tree, kindly point me in the correct direction. Thank you!
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Jan 31, 2023 1:01:06 GMT -5
Hi @koop - just checked and the reviewer did get the right course. Whilst it's close, the Not Approved is pretty much solely down to major sculpting (including bunkers) and sightlines. You want to ensure you're checking that view off the tee and in the fairway so that players see what hazards are actually there. A couple of examples below: Land with fence obscuring fairway: Ditto: View from the fairway: What you can't see (but should) - massive bunker left and the green complex: Hope that helps!
|
|
|
Post by Koop on Jan 31, 2023 9:56:43 GMT -5
Hi @koop - just checked and the reviewer did get the right course. Whilst it's close, the Not Approved is pretty much solely down to major sculpting (including bunkers) and sightlines. You want to ensure you're checking that view off the tee and in the fairway so that players see what hazards are actually there. A couple of examples below: Land with fence obscuring fairway: Ditto: View from the fairway: What you can't see (but should) - massive bunker left and the green complex: Hope that helps! Well, thank you for playing the first 2 holes on my course. I guess a minuscule obstruction is unacceptable and you can say it is miniscule at best. As you can clearly see your landing area and hazards. I'll note that 2nd shots on par 5's need to see everything. I play a course here in my town that has a par 5 where your 3rd shot is blind, can't see the green at all because of elevation. But that is in IRL. Same course has numerous bunkers you can't see from the tee on the 18th hole par 5, again, IRL. As for bunkering, not sure.... I checked all of them and they seemed sculpted well enough, maybe not. As for size.... is there a size minimum? maximum? Or is it subjective to the reviewer? I'll just put this right here...... this is the current CC course up Course Description: 2021 CC-design contest entry. A relatively easy and short par 73 with 5 gettable par 5s and a handful of blind tee shots. Locked Stable takes its name from owner of the Anderson Stables who refused to sell his land to the course developer who was forced to build the course around the farm which is now locked into the course area. I haven't played Locked Stable (Tour) yet, but I will, so I can see what an acceptable blind tee shot looks like and make sure I put it into my description so it makes it legit. LOL Yeah, got a bit salty there. Sorry, not sorry. Thanks again for the second look!
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Jan 31, 2023 10:17:37 GMT -5
Hi @koop - just checked and the reviewer did get the right course. Whilst it's close, the Not Approved is pretty much solely down to major sculpting (including bunkers) and sightlines. You want to ensure you're checking that view off the tee and in the fairway so that players see what hazards are actually there. A couple of examples below: Land with fence obscuring fairway: Ditto: View from the fairway: What you can't see (but should) - massive bunker left and the green complex: Hope that helps! Well, thank you for playing the first 2 holes on my course. I guess a minuscule obstruction is unacceptable and you can say it is miniscule at best. As you can clearly see your landing area and hazards. I'll note that 2nd shots on par 5's need to see everything. I play a course here in my town that has a par 5 where your 3rd shot is blind, can't see the green at all because of elevation. But that is in IRL. Same course has numerous bunkers you can't see from the tee on the 18th hole par 5, again, IRL. As for bunkering, not sure.... I checked all of them and they seemed sculpted well enough, maybe not. As for size.... is there a size minimum? maximum? Or is it subjective to the reviewer? I'll just put this right here...... this is the current CC course up Course Description: 2021 CC-design contest entry. A relatively easy and short par 73 with 5 gettable par 5s and a handful of blind tee shots. Locked Stable takes its name from owner of the Anderson Stables who refused to sell his land to the course developer who was forced to build the course around the farm which is now locked into the course area. I haven't played Locked Stable (Tour) yet, but I will, so I can see what an acceptable blind tee shot looks like and make sure I put it into my description so it makes it legit. LOL Yeah, got a bit salty there. Sorry, not sorry. Thanks again for the second look! I apologise for being nice with my first post and giving up my time to even give it a second look. Two holes is all I needed to see those issues and I could have (as ever) just linked the video in the first post - your course displays all the classic Not Approved issues within those two holes. And yes, Locked Stable uses blindness appropriately (intentionally), whereas yours does not.
|
|
|
Post by mattf27 on Jan 31, 2023 10:25:15 GMT -5
And this, kids, is why we can't have nice things.
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Jan 31, 2023 10:27:04 GMT -5
To be absolutely clear, I didn’t initially review the course, but within two holes, I can see exactly why it’s Not Approved. Up to you whether you accept that feedback or not, but it’s set out very clearly in the OP.
|
|
|
Post by Koop on Jan 31, 2023 10:31:04 GMT -5
Well, thank you for playing the first 2 holes on my course. I guess a minuscule obstruction is unacceptable and you can say it is miniscule at best. As you can clearly see your landing area and hazards. I'll note that 2nd shots on par 5's need to see everything. I play a course here in my town that has a par 5 where your 3rd shot is blind, can't see the green at all because of elevation. But that is in IRL. Same course has numerous bunkers you can't see from the tee on the 18th hole par 5, again, IRL. As for bunkering, not sure.... I checked all of them and they seemed sculpted well enough, maybe not. As for size.... is there a size minimum? maximum? Or is it subjective to the reviewer? I'll just put this right here...... this is the current CC course up Course Description: 2021 CC-design contest entry. A relatively easy and short par 73 with 5 gettable par 5s and a handful of blind tee shots. Locked Stable takes its name from owner of the Anderson Stables who refused to sell his land to the course developer who was forced to build the course around the farm which is now locked into the course area. I haven't played Locked Stable (Tour) yet, but I will, so I can see what an acceptable blind tee shot looks like and make sure I put it into my description so it makes it legit. LOL Yeah, got a bit salty there. Sorry, not sorry. Thanks again for the second look! I apologise for being nice with my first post and giving up my time to even give it a second look. Two holes is all I needed to see those issues and I could have (as ever) just linked the video in the first post - your course displays all the classic Not Approved issues within those two holes. And yes, Locked Stable uses blindness appropriately (intentionally), whereas yours does not. Noted. Your time is valuable and is appreciated. I won't win this argument, I knew that from the start. You defend your review, I defend my course. Thank you again.
|
|
|
Post by Koop on Jan 31, 2023 10:33:58 GMT -5
And this, kids, is why we can't have nice things. Sorry, did I break something?
|
|
|
Post by mattf27 on Jan 31, 2023 10:53:21 GMT -5
And this, kids, is why we can't have nice things. Sorry, did I break something? Outside of your own ego, no. But there are plenty of new designers who are, perhaps justifiably, disappointed that it's difficult to get in-depth/constructive feedback on their courses, but when folks actually take the time to do that, more often then not it just spirals into idiocy. You seem to think this is some sort of argument or debate, when all Ben did is deliver the thing that you specifically asked for. Dealing with temper tantrums isn't something that reviewers sign up for when they volunteer, and we're certainly not going to force them to.
|
|
|
Post by WhatAboutAmeobi on Jan 31, 2023 11:11:20 GMT -5
Basically, there are two types of people who request feedback. Those who want the feedback because they want to use it to learn how to do better next time, and those who want to be told that their work is great. Guess which group is that one that argues the feedback they get.
|
|
|
Post by axelvonfersen on Jan 31, 2023 11:16:28 GMT -5
I apologise for being nice with my first post and giving up my time to even give it a second look. Two holes is all I needed to see those issues and I could have (as ever) just linked the video in the first post - your course displays all the classic Not Approved issues within those two holes. And yes, Locked Stable uses blindness appropriately (intentionally), whereas yours does not. Noted. Your time is valuable and is appreciated. I won't win this argument, I knew that from the start. You defend your review, I defend my course. Thank you again.
Ben didn't review it, I did. There are now multiple reviewers telling you that your course isn't Approved. It's your choice if you want to learn from the feedback given and apply yourself when designing your next course.
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Jan 31, 2023 12:21:27 GMT -5
I apologise for being nice with my first post and giving up my time to even give it a second look. Two holes is all I needed to see those issues and I could have (as ever) just linked the video in the first post - your course displays all the classic Not Approved issues within those two holes. And yes, Locked Stable uses blindness appropriately (intentionally), whereas yours does not. Noted. Your time is valuable and is appreciated. I won't win this argument, I knew that from the start. You defend your review, I defend my course. Thank you again. Sigh. I know I'm wasting my time, but as a teacher, I'm somewhat conditioned to fighting apparent lost causes. It's not my review, so I'm defending nothing. I went in expecting that the reviewer might have got the wrong course and was ready to overturn it (you won't believe that, but it's true). There was an easy 'out' there for us, but the truth is that the course is Not Approved. I tried to explain why with clear screenshots from the holes I played. We use unintentional blindness as an obvious example that everyone should be able to see shows the sculpting is below what we deem acceptable. You can try to claim that par five green is meant to be blind and we're not supposed to see the bunker all you want; it's not true and it's evident to anyone who plays the course. Watch the video I specifically created to stop having these discussions time and again. It's made specifically for people in your position to explain what you need to do to help you to get better. That way, you can get Approved next time and we're all happy. We want nothing more than you to make passable golf courses. Problem is, you won't. It requires effort on your part and an acceptance that you aren't there yet. Far easier to blame reviewers as gatekeeping. And yes, I'm wording this very bluntly. Because I've seen this play out so many times with so many different designers who don't want to accept that it is on them.
|
|
GeneCreemers
Amateur Golfer
I guess this isn't a search bar
Posts: 252
|
Post by GeneCreemers on Jan 31, 2023 13:36:04 GMT -5
|
|