Courses Not Accepted to TGC Tours - watch video in OP first

[therealj014]

Jun 10, 2024 12:02:43 GMT -5 axelvonfersen said:

Jun 10, 2024 11:34:48 GMT -5 therealj014 said:

Hey,
So if I previously published a course, is there a way to make changes and publish it again? The reason is because I feel like I gradually keep getting better at this and have previously published courses but they’re not great and have obvious issues that can be edited.

You could always publish it, but we don't accept re-submitted courses.

Build a new one and submit that instead.

I would like a better response please

[therealj014]

Jun 10, 2024 20:47:19 GMT -5 therealj014 said:

Jun 10, 2024 12:02:43 GMT -5 axelvonfersen said:

You could always publish it, but we don't accept re-submitted courses.

Build a new one and submit that instead.

I would like a better response please

The reason is, I’m not requesting that. I’m not trying to get accepted. I’m just trying to publish it as a separate course without lying that it’s a resubmission. Know what I’m sayin

[HoneyBadgerHacker]

Jun 10, 2024 20:49:49 GMT -5 therealj014 said:

Jun 10, 2024 20:47:19 GMT -5 therealj014 said:

I would like a better response please

The reason is, I’m not requesting that. I’m not trying to get accepted. I’m just trying to publish it as a separate course without lying that it’s a resubmission. Know what I’m sayin

If you are trying not to get it accepted then, by all means publish it but please do not resubmit it.

[trailducker]

Jun 10, 2024 20:47:19 GMT -5 therealj014 said:

Jun 10, 2024 12:02:43 GMT -5 axelvonfersen said:

You could always publish it, but we don't accept re-submitted courses.

Build a new one and submit that instead.

I would like a better response please

No

[albinobluesheep]

Jun 10, 2024 11:34:48 GMT -5 therealj014 said:

Hey,
So if I previously published a course, is there a way to make changes and publish it again? The reason is because I feel like I gradually keep getting better at this and have previously published courses but they’re not great and have obvious issues that can be edited.

Reading this as literally as I can...

yes, you can "make changes" to a course you published in 2k23.

In the designer tab, you can go to "my published courses", or what ever it says, it should list all the courses you have published, and if you click on one of them, it will let you download a copy of the course file to open in the designer, and do whatever you want with.

When you publish that new course, your formerly published course will still be there the way you originally published it.

There's no way to un-publish a course, make changes, and re-publish.

You can publish that course and any variations of it to your hearts content on PGATour2k23.

However, it's TGCTours policy that you can not re-submit that course to the TGCTours Course list to be "approved". This is to stop people constantly making small tweaks to try to get one course closer and closer to "approved" or "tour worthy".

It's better to just start from scratch and take what you learned previously to your next design.

[picanto]

Hi, just looking to find out why The sanctuary course was not accepted into TGC, thanks

[bauer1993]

Just curious as I'd like to publish a new course soon, and I've never had a tour worthy, am I doing something wrong in my previous courses for them to not get Tour worthy? My best fictional course is Lion's Mouth Links, it was very popular, extremely detailed, is very realistic etc... just wondering if I did something wrong that excluded it, so I can make sure I don't make the same error again? Ive seen a ton of courses get Tour worthy that I know are of lesser quality than my own (ie I've played them, had my societies play them and gotten feedback, etc.)

Appreciate any input, thanks!

[fargo]

Jun 12, 2024 22:09:50 GMT -5 bauer1993 said:

Just curious as I'd like to publish a new course soon, and I've never had a tour worthy, am I doing something wrong in my previous courses for them to not get Tour worthy? My best fictional course is Lion's Mouth Links, it was very popular, extremely detailed, is very realistic etc... just wondering if I did something wrong that excluded it, so I can make sure I don't make the same error again? Ive seen a ton of courses get Tour worthy that I know are of lesser quality than my own (ie I've played them, had my societies play them and gotten feedback, etc.)

Appreciate any input, thanks!

I put together a quick video of the first 5 holes at Lion's Mouth Links, I think it's pretty clear why this would not be a tour worthy course (in fact it's not particularly close to be frank) - surfacing, sculpting and blindness issues which are all explained very clearly in the video on the first post of this thread.

Please note I'm not a reviewer or anyone who has anything to d with these decisions at all, I'm just some bloke who's made a handful of tour worthy courses and I ranger courses that are being considered for tour use from time to time. 

[bauer1993]

This is extremely helpful and I really appreciate it. The blindness concerns I think should already be lessened in my in progress design, but I will try to address them better going forward.

The bunker transition to fairway issue I thought was interesting -- is there certain preferences/disdains that reviewers have in that area? I find for realism that if I separate bunkers with rough, that the ball always ends up getting hung up in the edges (which is less fun too). Was it more about the angle the bunker hit the fairway at.. if it had been more parallel rather than jutting into, would it be better?

Jun 13, 2024 9:12:25 GMT -5 fargo said:

Jun 12, 2024 22:09:50 GMT -5 bauer1993 said:

Just curious as I'd like to publish a new course soon, and I've never had a tour worthy, am I doing something wrong in my previous courses for them to not get Tour worthy? My best fictional course is Lion's Mouth Links, it was very popular, extremely detailed, is very realistic etc... just wondering if I did something wrong that excluded it, so I can make sure I don't make the same error again? Ive seen a ton of courses get Tour worthy that I know are of lesser quality than my own (ie I've played them, had my societies play them and gotten feedback, etc.)

Appreciate any input, thanks!

I put together a quick video of the first 5 holes at Lion's Mouth Links, I think it's pretty clear why this would not be a tour worthy course (in fact it's not particularly close to be frank) - surfacing, sculpting and blindness issues which are all explained very clearly in the video on the first post of this thread.

Please note I'm not a reviewer or anyone who has anything to d with these decisions at all, I'm just some bloke who's made a handful of tour worthy courses and I ranger courses that are being considered for tour use from time to time. 

[albinobluesheep]

Jun 13, 2024 10:03:36 GMT -5 bauer1993 said:

The bunker transition to fairway issue I thought was interesting -- is there certain preferences/disdains that reviewers have in that area? I find for realism that if I separate bunkers with rough, that the ball always ends up getting hung up in the edges (which is less fun too). Was it more about the angle the bunker hit the fairway at.. if it had been more parallel rather than jutting into, would it be better?

I'm also just a guy, not a reviewer, but just having the darker grass run straight into the bunker perpendicular to the spline results in a look that either the bunker was and afterthought, or the fairway was, even if it wasn't.

I try to think about how the greens keepers would need to mow it, which can mean some tedious spline work to cut it close to the bunkers.
the surface that runs right up to the bunkers is light rough, unless the ball was going to just barely stop in the bunker, the light rough isn't going to slow it down that much.

If you want the fairway to be right up to the bunker, then have it more gradually connect with the bunker spine, like the greens keeper has to turn the mower so as not to drive the mower into bunker.

[bauer1993]

Appreciate the help -- makes a lot more sense now. At Lions Mouth i did myself no favours in this regard since there is actually light rough there to soften some edges, but its the same colour as the fairway so i agree, the look is definitely off!

Jun 13, 2024 12:24:33 GMT -5 albinobluesheep said:

Jun 13, 2024 10:03:36 GMT -5 bauer1993 said:

The bunker transition to fairway issue I thought was interesting -- is there certain preferences/disdains that reviewers have in that area? I find for realism that if I separate bunkers with rough, that the ball always ends up getting hung up in the edges (which is less fun too). Was it more about the angle the bunker hit the fairway at.. if it had been more parallel rather than jutting into, would it be better?

I'm also just a guy, not a reviewer, but just having the darker grass run straight into the bunker perpendicular to the spline results in a look that either the bunker was and afterthought, or the fairway was, even if it wasn't.

I try to think about how the greens keepers would need to mow it, which can mean some tedious spline work to cut it close to the bunkers.
the surface that runs right up to the bunkers is light rough, unless the ball was going to just barely stop in the bunker, the light rough isn't going to slow it down that much.

If you want the fairway to be right up to the bunker, then have it more gradually connect with the bunker spine, like the greens keeper has to turn the mower so as not to drive the mower into bunker.

[bauer1993]

Okay I watched the videos in full again, still have some questions on unintentional blindness -- more situational then anything in terms of what is marginally acceptable vs what is a deal breaker for tour worthy.

Would any of the following be deal breakers for Tour Worthy eligibility:

1. A fairway where if you drive down the Preferred side, the green and greenside bunkers are not blind, but a drive down the bad side of the fairway leaves the approach blind (think 18 at Eastward Ho)

2. A hole where the fairway encourages a lay up (ie a short par 4 with a wide landing area at 280) but driving it down close to the green leaves a short but blind pitch (given the closeness to an elevated green). The green and the bunkering is fully visible from the tee.

3. A medium length par 5 with a stream crossing in front of the green that is only visible from within 200 yards or so. The stream is really only blind because it's so tiny and far away, you could see it with a range finder for example.

4. Last one.. A tree lined fairway where there are no hazards, but only the first 250 yards are visible (including significant fairway) .. are the trees enough to guide the tee shot if let's say the 280-300 yd landing zone is in a slight valley?

I'm finding this very interesting and helpful, and maybe it's helping others, who knows. Thanks all!

[fargo]

Jun 13, 2024 22:44:48 GMT -5 bauer1993 said:

Okay I watched the videos in full again, still have some questions on unintentional blindness -- more situational then anything in terms of what is marginally acceptable vs what is a deal breaker for tour worthy.

Would any of the following be deal breakers for Tour Worthy eligibility:

1. A fairway where if you drive down the Preferred side, the green and greenside bunkers are not blind, but a drive down the bad side of the fairway leaves the approach blind (think 18 at Eastward Ho)

2. A hole where the fairway encourages a lay up (ie a short par 4 with a wide landing area at 280) but driving it down close to the green leaves a short but blind pitch (given the closeness to an elevated green). The green and the bunkering is fully visible from the tee.

3. A medium length par 5 with a stream crossing in front of the green that is only visible from within 200 yards or so. The stream is really only blind because it's so tiny and far away, you could see it with a range finder for example.

4. Last one.. A tree lined fairway where there are no hazards, but only the first 250 yards are visible (including significant fairway) .. are the trees enough to guide the tee shot if let's say the 280-300 yd landing zone is in a slight valley?

I'm finding this very interesting and helpful, and maybe it's helping others, who knows. Thanks all!

I don't think any of those would be deal breakers. I think the main concept to keep in mind is that unintentional blindness is the problem, not blindness in general. When real people design and play real golf courses they do so from a normal standing position on the ground. So bunkers are placed and shaped to present the course to the player standing on the tee and walking the hole. This doesn't mean that every bunker and every hazard needs to be visible from ever vantage point, just that the holes and the course should present in a similar way to how it might in real life.

Just as some real life examples - your point 1 is a feature of the Levan template. Point 4 - consider hole 10 at Augusta - there's not much fairway visible but the playing corridor is defined by the tree line. Point 2 and 3 are more limitations with presenting a course on a screen as opposed to real life so are fine (even if a creek in the distance isn't visible in the designer it would be nice though to have some indication that it's there, some planting maybe).

[odogg37]

Hello all, 

I submitted Black River Prairie today and with quick turnaround it was denied. I am thankful for the quick review but I am a bit puzzled on why it didn't make the cut. My last course was accepted and I used a lot of the same parameters for this course so I was surprised that it was a quick no. As always, I appreciate the feedback.  Cheers! 

[sroel908]

Jun 17, 2024 22:34:25 GMT -5 odogg37 said:

Hello all, 

I submitted Black River Prairie today and with quick turnaround it was denied. I am thankful for the quick review but I am a bit puzzled on why it didn't make the cut. My last course was accepted and I used a lot of the same parameters for this course so I was surprised that it was a quick no. As always, I appreciate the feedback.  Cheers! 

Not a reviewer, but I do ranger and schedule for TGCT.

Played a round here, black tees, Pin 2, default conditions.

Hole 1 - the fairway bunker is a bit detached from the fairway and is basically never in play. Default green speeds are set to 155, which is the same as default Fast speeds, limiting flexibility for use on tour.

Hole 2 - fairway bunker on the left is not visible off the tee. The fairway starts just 80 yards away from the back tee. A tree on the right side of the fairway about 195 from the green is floating. This par-5 really has no strategy, as it's just find fairway, get up near the green, collect birdie.

Hole 3 - fairway shape on this par-3 is very random. 

Hole 4 - drivable-4 with a green that has a stark false back to it an runs into heavy rough. Still, there's really no danger, and you'll go for the green every time.

Hole 5 - This is a really short par-5. I hit a 366 yard drive and had just 188 into the green on my second. Was on in two with 8-iron. There was also fairway sculpting that kept me from seeing the green on my approach, leading to some unintentional blindness.

Hole 6 - not too bad, but some shadows across the green could become problematic in higher winds.

Hole 7 - odd sloping on the right side of the fairway at driver distance, and a stray bit of tall grass near the fairway bunker over there, too. More sculpting that creates unintentional blindness from the fairway.

Hole 8 - odd design on this one. Blind tee shot on a 350-yard par-4, and the hole defaults you to a 4-iron off the tee. Bunkers are in the landing zone, even when taking the iron off the tee, and you cannot see them at all. Went ahead and hit a massive hook around the trees with driver, and was pretty easily able to get one within 40 yards of the hole. Just a quirky hole that doesn't really work.

Hole 9 - the bunker here looks like one massive stock shape, and really isn't in play. Looks odd to me. Green looks and feels super tiny, especially next to the huge sand trap. 

Hole 10 - more bunkers that aren't visible off the tee. Pin here is really not useable at all. It's barely 2 grid squares on the putting surface, and there's yellow, orange, and even red in the 9-box grid that surrounds the cup.

Hole 11 - the green here is almost dead flat.

Hole 12 - this is a 275-yard par-3, but the green is way, way too small for a hole of that length. More bunkers that can't be seen from the tee box, even on a one-shot hole. Green slopes fight each other a bit...it runs front to back, then back to front. There's yellow in the 9 boxes around the cup.

Hole 13 - conversely, the green here for a 350-yard par-4 is much bigger than the one found on Hole 12.

Hole 14 - this one's OK

Hole 15 - kind of strange design again. Another 350-ish par-4, which seems to be how most par-4s are on this course. Fairway on either side of the bunker in the middle is basically unusable because it's too narrow. There's no good option here. Hit my tee ball to the fairway on the right, and it never had a shot at staying on the short grass. Pin is located on a very sloped neon green/yellow area which is just barely OK.

Hole 16 - driver is taken out of your hands on this 449-yard par-4, because the fairway ends at 300 yards from the tee. 

Hole 17 - you cannot see the bunker to the right of the fairway, nor can you see the pond 310 yards away from the tee, on this very short (475 yards) par-5. Still, I cut the corner with a 322 yard drive, and had just 170 into the green - which is totally hidden from view from here due to sculpting. Stuck a PW to 2 feet for a kick-in eagle.

Hole 18 - same blind bunker issue again, and this is another drivable-4. Shadows cover the green, making it hard to see. 

Lots of issues with blind hazards off the tee. The course is also extremely easy, with minimal movement on the greens and extremely flat terrain. I shot a 14-under 58 with not having to think a whole lot about what shots to hit.

Also, there are issues of illegal pins, as Hole 10's pin was not at all useable as is...it's too close to the edge of the green and has orange and red within 3-5 feet of the cup.

I could see potential with some ideas here, but the course was really lacking in design variety. Lots of par-4s of similar distance, par-5s that could be reached with ease, and par-3s that were kind of all over the place. A couple of the par-3s were OK, but then there was the 275-yard par-3 12th Hole that had a green that was basically impossible to hit.

I think that this one's not really close to approval, to be honest, as a couple of the issues are pretty much things covered in the video posted in the original post of this thread. I do hope this feedback helps, and I know it might sound harsh. I will say there is a foundation here that can be built on, for sure.

Good luck on your future designs!