|
|
Post by sroel908 on Jun 20, 2023 20:13:33 GMT -5
Hey all! Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask but what are the differences between approved and tour worthy? Could courses approved be eventually reviewed as tour worthy or is it that decided by the reviewer when it is play tested the first time? How to achieve, design wise, that tour worthy label? Just wondering about the process not questioning you guys at all. I appreciate all the hard work you guys put into TGC and this board it doesn’t go unnoticed! Thank you for any help you can provide! All the Best, Waldo Approved, Not Approved, or Tour Worthy statuses are given at review stage. Only Tour Worthy courses make it on tour, as expected. Here's a good explanation, even though it's from 2K21: |
|
waldo
Weekend Golfer
Posts: 83
|
Post by waldo on Jun 21, 2023 19:20:21 GMT -5
Hey all!
Requesting feedback on my course “Sag Harbor Field Club,USA”. I really appreciate it getting approved, but I’m just trying to learn why it fell short of tour worthy. My first course submitted, “Hallstatt Club, Austria”, actually got tour worthy but I honestly feel like it feel short of that label after learning more about the label itself. The course was more fantasy style and had a number of issues (the course was 95% downhill haha). So my goal with Sag Harbor was to produce a more playable, realistic course that would hopefully get on tour. I’m just reaching out to see if anyone can help me and tell me how I feel short and how I can improve in the future.
Thank you to all you guys who do the reviews. I hope I don’t come across as “questioning”, but I’m just trying to see how I can do better. Any feedback would be much appreciated, again thank you for all your guys hard work!
All the Best,
Waldo
|
|
|
|
Post by metatropic on Jul 3, 2023 14:35:40 GMT -5
Reichenbach Dunes - not approved I hate to reject this one because visually, it's great. But there's lots wrong with the golf - requiring inch perfect shots repeatedly (e.g. pin 1 on the 10th, which needs a 180 yard approach to find a tiny flat portion of an island green, the 4th tee shot working around a super tight angled fairway that offers no bailout, the 15th and 18th tee shots (15 pictured) being either trivial or impossible depending on wind etc), really harsh sculpting (5th fairway, 13th fairway (pictured). There's also some planting in the fairways (a tree on 9, I think, and grass on the 1st, 16th and a few others) IMO, this is very close, but I think you could easily create Tour Worthy courses with a few nudges in the right direction. Hoping this is one of those.   Got this rejection from b101 16 months ago. Feedback like this is really helpful. Ben’s prediction was right, 5 of my last 6 have been Tour Worthy, and Ben just reviewed my course in WCOD…and highlighted that there is still a lot for me to learn! |
|
|
|
Post by sroel908 on Jul 3, 2023 15:31:46 GMT -5
Hey all! Requesting feedback on my course “Sag Harbor Field Club,USA”. I really appreciate it getting approved, but I’m just trying to learn why it fell short of tour worthy. My first course submitted, “Hallstatt Club, Austria”, actually got tour worthy but I honestly feel like it feel short of that label after learning more about the label itself. The course was more fantasy style and had a number of issues (the course was 95% downhill haha). So my goal with Sag Harbor was to produce a more playable, realistic course that would hopefully get on tour. I’m just reaching out to see if anyone can help me and tell me how I feel short and how I can improve in the future. Thank you to all you guys who do the reviews. I hope I don’t come across as “questioning”, but I’m just trying to see how I can do better. Any feedback would be much appreciated, again thank you for all your guys hard work! All the Best, Waldo Just played "Sag Harbor Field Club,USA" on PS4...black tees, pin 3, default conditions. Small thing, but the tall grass planting to the right of and behind the Hole 4 green is a bit lacking. It's just one type of grass that's been multi-planted. Again, not a huge deal, but it looks a bit sparse and missing more grasses to cover that area. Extremely deep fairway bunkers are not visible from the tee on Hole 5. The bunkers around this green are very deep, too. The fairway bunkers on Hole 6 are flat with very little lips, but the greenside bunker is 11 feet below the putting surface. Hole 7 has another very deep bunker in front of the green, and the green itself has a massive false front that will usher any shot hit into it into that deep trap. It just feels overly penal to see a player hit a shot onto the green some 20 feet from the front of it, only for these large red slopes to send that ball into sand. Hole 8's routing is a bit odd...I think I am hitting straight down Hole 1's fairway for most of it? Also, the greenside bunker here is again super deep. I hit into it to check it out, and was just 16 yards from the hole but 10 feet below the cup. Another small thing, but Hole 9 has stairs for the small bunker near it, but it's nowhere near as deep as others have been on this course. False front is dramatically sculpted. I chipped from just off the green to the left, and the ball rolled 12 yards away off of the false front. Bunker shape in front of Hole 10's green is a bit strange...hasn't been any like this on the course before. This green also has a huge, aggressive false front. It's a par-5, and there's no chance of running a ball onto the green here. These big false fronts have become a bit repetitive, too. Most holes have greens with them. The sculpting behind the Hole 12 green is kind of strange...it looks a bit unnatural, and the light rough going up the steep incline of it does not look like it could be maintained in real life the way it is in the game. It also casts a kind of weird shadow. And this surfacing/sculpting in front of the green looks odd, too, and there's tall grass planted in the light rough...  The bunker to the left of the Hole 15 green is very, very aggressively sculpted and too deep:  Odd sculpting and surfacing when looking back toward the Hole 15 tee box when on the green:  The pub to the right of Hole 17's tee is floating. Sculpting in the fairway on this hole also caused unintentional blindness, preventing me from seeing the green when I was 172 yards away, 16 feet above the hole, and in the middle of the fairway:  Hole 18's green had another doozy of a false front. Totally worthy of approval for sure...it's a perfectly functional golf course. However, I feel like this one's a ways away from Tour Worthy (standard disclaimer...I am not a reviewer, but am a ranger and play all the courses that get picked for tour play). Here are some things that I think hold this one back: - Sculpting is too dramatic and inconsistent all over the course, especially around bunkers and on greens. - Too many greens feature the exact same aggressive style of false front. - The course itself feels like it has an identity crisis...there are geometric bunkers/greens, and then there aren't. There are replica holes (the 16th at Sleepy Hollow and the Road Hole at St Andrews are copied here, almost verbatim - except you hit over a church, not a hotel on the Road Hole copy), and then there are template holes (a Redan, a cape, etc.), and then some very quirky unique holes. It's a bit all over the place and didn't all fit together for me. - Planting is also inconsistent...there are dense plantings in some places, then some bare, multi-planted grasses in others...some which encroach on playable surfaces. It's a decent track, and was fun to play a round on this one time, but for TGCT use, courses need to be useable over 4 rounds and on different settings. This course is likely unable to support an increase green speeds, as there are bold red slopes already at 141 default speeds. The false fronts especially would make faster greens a nightmare in most cases. So then schedulers would be left with only dropping speeds down to moderate, slow, or very slow, and this course is already very easy as is. Slower greens would make it even more gettable and it wouldn't really work to offer much challenge. I think that's probably one main reason this one was Approved and not Tour Worthy, aside from the things listed above. Hope this all helps, and know this is all in the spirit of constructive criticism! Good luck on future designs! |
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Jul 3, 2023 15:49:55 GMT -5
The Sag Harbor review was mine. Honestly, I liked lots of the ideas but the execution isn't there - the stuff Sroel points out is spot on and he's a hero (as ever) for this in-depth feedback. I really have to bite my tongue (metaphorically) with these requests as I get a lot of them. We have a policy where reviewers don't give feedback on Approved courses that don't make Tour Worthy. Reason being that we'd be inundated and often, it's hard enough just to keep on top of the queue. Much as I occasionally do want to chime in, that's the reason I don't. But when guys like Steve offer their take, it's really useful. Additionally, Wayne (whataboutameobi) often streams these courses and will be good for explaining this sort of thing. Hope that helps - yours isn't the only request I've received in the past week alone. I'd also suggest this thread and this video (both stickied in Tips and Tricks): tgctours.proboards.com/thread/28218/tips-tour-worthy-courses-canucktgctours.proboards.com/thread/33512/improve-guide |
|
waldo
Weekend Golfer
Posts: 83
|
Post by waldo on Jul 3, 2023 19:41:13 GMT -5
Thank you, I really appreciate the time you both took to respond.
Sroel, thank you so much for taking the time to play and give me your thoughts on the course. The time to type everything out is very much appreciated. I’ll work on improving my sculpting(especially with my bunkering), and try to slow down my aggressive slopes. I tried a lot of different and new stuff with this design and I agree the identity got lost. Thank you again for your hard work!
B101, thank you for your review and taking the time to reply. I apologize I didn’t know about the policy about not responding to these type of requests so I thank you for even responding to my post. Your input is highly weighted and I thank you for all your videos and playthroughs that I’ve been using to hopefully improve. Hopefully some day I’ll build a course worthy of tour approval again!
All the best,
Waldo
|
|
|
|
Post by 2609stevell on Jul 10, 2023 16:16:06 GMT -5
Hello, just hoping for a bit of feedback on Kadlu Basin GC which was not accepted, would love to know the areas on which I need to improve, which I guess may be many, but any specifics that could be shared would be most appreciated. Regards, Stephen
|
|
|
|
Post by HoneyBadgerHacker on Jul 10, 2023 17:12:57 GMT -5
Hello, just hoping for a bit of feedback on Kadlu Basin GC which was not accepted, would love to know the areas on which I need to improve, which I guess may be many, but any specifics that could be shared would be most appreciated. Regards, Stephen Hi Stephen- Several areas that need improving are sculpting your bunkers, surfacing (mainly transitions to green), and having objects way to close to playing surfaces. I would use the remove trees brush to delete autogen trees that around about 10-15 yards or so from fairways. Watch Ben's video a couple posts up from this one for a little more insight. |
|
|
|
Post by 2609stevell on Jul 10, 2023 20:16:41 GMT -5
Great, thank you for your time. Regards
|
|
|
|
Post by beauhaygood on Jul 12, 2023 13:43:15 GMT -5
Hi. I was wondering why my course EP's Landing wasn't accepted. I'd really to like to improve my designing and know what aspects I need to work on to get a TGC approval. Thanks for your time and reviewing my submission, I appreciate it!
|
|
|
|
Post by sroel908 on Jul 12, 2023 13:51:25 GMT -5
Hi. I was wondering why my course EP's Landing wasn't accepted. I'd really to like to improve my designing and know what aspects I need to work on to get a TGC approval. Thanks for your time and reviewing my submission, I appreciate it! I just watched ApexHound play your course on YouTube. It looks super creative and fun as a fantasy track. However, this kind of course would not really work for tour play. There are rocks and other objects really, really close to playable areas (fairways and greens). Hole 4 is forcing you to hit over a boat to a fairway you cannot see from the tee. The extremely wide mow lines look kind of strange. There are lots of really dramatic elevation changes. Again, the creativity is really cool from what I have seen. But this is not the kind of course that TGCT uses for play on really any level. |
|
|
|
Post by beauhaygood on Jul 12, 2023 14:03:18 GMT -5
Okay, thanks for the quick response. I'll have to tone down the fantasy stuff way down for a build soon, I'd love to get an approved course one day. Thanks again. Just looked up and saw you designed Driftless Glen, that was a fun course this week!
|
|
|
|
Post by sroel908 on Jul 12, 2023 14:09:50 GMT -5
Okay, thanks for the quick response. I'll have to tone down the fantasy stuff way down for a build soon, I'd love to get an approved course one day. Thanks again. Just looked up and saw you designed Driftless Glen, that was a fun course this week! Thank you! Full disclosure, I am not a reviewer for TGCT, but do ranger courses used for tour play here. The fantasy course vibe is awesome, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with building cool courses like you did with this one. But when it comes to courses designed with any kind of TGCT play in mind, it will need to fit more into a "realistic" setting and follow these basic guidelines: tgctours.proboards.com/thread/27553/tgctours-course-database-guidelines-updated |
|
|
|
Post by axelvonfersen on Jul 12, 2023 14:15:46 GMT -5
Hi. I was wondering why my course EP's Landing wasn't accepted. I'd really to like to improve my designing and know what aspects I need to work on to get a TGC approval. Thanks for your time and reviewing my submission, I appreciate it!
Hi,
I was the reviewer, and I'm echoing sroels statements. Build a "normal", "boring" golf course next time and I'm sure it'll pan out for you.
|
|
|
|
Post by rickmanchester on Jul 18, 2023 10:23:18 GMT -5
Hi. Mont Chervac Golf Club is now open but was rejected. I would really appreciate some constructive feedback if possible. Thanks
|
|
