|
|
Post by cally on Jun 10, 2015 21:17:52 GMT -5
The Hills at Orchard Creek - Not Accepted
This course shows good layout but execution needs to be enhanced.
There a number of tee boxes with bumps and hills in front of them
There were a number of untextured areas bordering fairways and greens
The bunkers were all flat, and some were higher in the middle than around the perimeter, this could be by design but coupled with the other areas that need improvement I doubt it
|
|
|
|
Post by cally on Jun 10, 2015 22:42:04 GMT -5
Hazelmere Sands Golf Club - Not Approved
This course is so very close that it took 4 of us to debate it. in the end we had a few observations that need to be addressed in order to be approved.
1. The water should not be OB (which is stroke and distance)
2. There were quite a few blind shots off the Tee
3. There were a few spots with untextured surfaces
4. The choke points at 260 to 300 yards off the tee appeared tricked up
5. There fairways had quite a few locations were the ball funneled into the bunkers
If you fix these items this course should be approved since the layout was very nice
|
|
|
|
Post by splittailace on Jun 12, 2015 19:19:11 GMT -5
Any feedback as to why would be greatly appreciated thanks I reviewed this course and i dont remember rejecting it. I will replay this course and review again by Sunday night. Please look on Sunday/Monday for an updated status on your entry. If if it is not approved I will give you feedback. |
|
|
|
Post by coruler2 on Jun 14, 2015 23:15:10 GMT -5
September Hills- Not approved
- Autogen layout
- Flat with huge fairways and large round greens
- Trees/planting same size and no rotations.
- No uniqueness and too bland.
|
|
|
|
Post by coruler2 on Jun 14, 2015 23:39:40 GMT -5
Alameda Hills - Not approved
- Tiny tiny greens for a very long course
- Very linear without definition
- Water unnatural- puddles, shapes, etc. Auto-gen rocks everywhere
- Not very playable
- Planting minimal, and when done- no rotations, size changes.
|
|
|
|
Post by pursuantmoth76 on Jun 15, 2015 13:03:54 GMT -5
Baber Island CC - Not Approved
This course was mainly an autogen layout, and had elements that were quite unpolished. I came across many situations where, in a high wind, you would have never been able to reach the strip of landing area. Also, there were many blind tee shots, large bunkers in the middle of the fairway with no ring of rough around them, and many other things that lead this course to not be approved. The highlight of the course, however, was the greens, which had a perfect amount of slope in them to be challenging but not unfair.
|
|
|
|
Post by pursuantmoth76 on Jun 15, 2015 13:14:18 GMT -5
Archon Marina and Country Club - Not Approved
This course was not very polished, and was rough around the edges. It had no rough outline around the bunkers, and had too much elevation change (83 ft over 140 yards) on some shots. A few nice touches were added to the course, such as cart paths and bathrooms, and were executed well, just the course was not polished enough to be approved.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shawn O'Brian on Jun 16, 2015 14:58:18 GMT -5
I'm starting to not understand why my courses are being rejected. I review myself and my last 2 which I spent 10 times the amount of time on where rejected, while the second one I ever did passed. I can tell you that there is no comparison between those 2 and that one. These were so much better it is not even funny yet they were failed. In fact on the last one, I pretty much used every tool in the book and based off of the courses we have been passing so I'm a little confused as to why the are not getting approved.
|
|
|
|
Post by theduke21 on Jun 16, 2015 15:02:46 GMT -5
I'm starting to not understand why my courses are being rejected. I review myself and my last 2 which I spent 10 times the amount of time on where rejected, while the second one I ever did passed. I can tell you that there is no comparison between those 2 and that one. These were so much better it is not even funny yet they were failed. In fact on the last one, I pretty much used every tool in the book and based off of the courses we have been passing so I'm a little confused as to why the are not getting approved. I'm about to check out your course Shawn. I'll let you know what I think. |
|
|
|
Post by coruler2 on Jun 16, 2015 17:18:52 GMT -5
Cherry Hills-
- Strange mix of super wide and then narrow fairways.
- Almost everything is auto-gen shapes and planting.
- Smoothing needs to be used in many places
- No attention to detail around the course. - 7th hole has 1 tee box in fairway, another 1/2 way between fairway and rough, other all the way in the rough. Pinch off to sharp point, auto-gen rock field. Stopped round here. |
|
|
|
Post by pursuantmoth76 on Jun 16, 2015 17:42:38 GMT -5
Ocean Pacific Resort & CC - Not Approved
This course was an autogenerated course, very little attention to detail. There were too many blind shots, narrow fairways, flat bunkers, no planting whatsoever, and nothing that makes it worthy of getting into the "approved" category.
|
|
|
|
Post by theduke21 on Jun 16, 2015 18:29:29 GMT -5
Murzak Gap - Not approved
This course had some interesting features to it, but it unfortunately had too many faults for me to approve it. The huge bunkering surrounding all fairways was interesting, but the sloping and terrain of it was too severe to look realistic or even possible. There were no places to walk and hundreds of yards of bunkering to get through. The greens were extremely large and also had way too much sloping and unrealistic terrain for a green. The fairway/rough combination that was there was auto generated around the greens. The back 9 randomly switched to use of planting instead of bunkering which I thought was a quick change and out of place. Way too many tee shots were blind looking at that planting. There are some cool ideas here, but they need some polishing to be approval worthy.
|
|
|
|
Post by theduke21 on Jun 16, 2015 18:49:38 GMT -5
I'm starting to not understand why my courses are being rejected. I review myself and my last 2 which I spent 10 times the amount of time on where rejected, while the second one I ever did passed. I can tell you that there is no comparison between those 2 and that one. These were so much better it is not even funny yet they were failed. In fact on the last one, I pretty much used every tool in the book and based off of the courses we have been passing so I'm a little confused as to why the are not getting approved. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to agree with the non-approval of your course, and I really only needed to play four holes to determine that. Here's why: The terrain sculpting looks very unnatural and you can tell what sharp shaped were used to raise it out of the ground. It needs to flow more. Right away on the 1st, you see the fairway raised way up a massive slope that just wouldn't work. That continued on the next few holes as fairway and rough were cut up huge slopes that were at least 20 feet in the air on a sharp line. On the 1st hole, there's a tiny little pond of water sitting in rough that's disconnected from the pond behind the hole. The rough and heavy rough look auto generated. The fairways may be too. The 2nd hole has huge fairway bunkers in the middle of the fairway that every single ball will go into if it's hit within probably 10 yards of them. Try to stay away from fairway sloping hard into bunkers, especially if it's in the middle of the fairway. The rough cut to the right of the green 20 yards in the air definitely needs to be taken out. At least make sharp slopes not have grass on them. The 3rd hole sloped like 50 feet up in the air right where a drive would go and every ball rolls down. It's just not logical to have fairway cut on something that severe. The 4th hole is when I quit. You can't really hit the green on the hole I don't think. The ghost balls I saw barely landed over the water about 20 yards short of the green and still hit that massive fairway slope and rolled through the green and hit rocks that were actually on the green. I did the same thing except my ball missed the rocks and hit the retaining wall and then I was stuck behind rocks with water behind me and had no way to get out really except for hitting little chips to my left until I got away from them. Try to keep the course more realistic and polish things up to what you could maybe see on a real course. It's fine to have it be a little fantasy-like, but this was too much and it had some glaring faults that can't be accepted onto TGC. |
|
|
|
Post by pursuantmoth76 on Jun 17, 2015 11:17:47 GMT -5
Elk Heights Golf and C.C. - Not Approved
This course did show a lot of potential, and there were a lot of elements that were great, like the planting around the clubhouse area. However, the course lacked polish. There were many blind tee shots, autogenerated surfaces, and bunkers with unnatural contours. This designer has a lot of potential, just the execution of this course lacked in too many areas to be considered approved.
|
|
|
|
Post by bricrozier on Jun 23, 2015 23:02:12 GMT -5
September Hills- Not approved - Autogen layout - Flat with huge fairways and large round greens - Trees/planting same size and no rotations. - No uniqueness and too bland. I wanted to ask for a little more explanation as this is my course. First off, I realize everyone is entitled to their opinion and I appreciate what everyone involved with TGC and TGC Tours is doing. I'm just trying to get better at The Golf Club - both as a player (I'm lucky to break par on easy courses most days) and course designer. I was trying to make September Hills look like Augusta National but utilizing the autumn theme. I can assure you this course was not AutoGen unless you mean that comment in a different way than I currently understand it. I spent approximately 30 hours on the original course and then about 15-20 more when the original was also not approved. Also: The course isn't flat, however if you only played the first 3 holes I can see why you may have considered it that way as there are no substantial elevation changes on those holes. The 4th hole features a drop of 36 feet from tee to green, while #5 has a 45-foot drop on the tee shot to a fairway with water on both the left and right sides. Holes #6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 18 also have drops of at least 20 feet either from tee to green or from tee to fairway. The second shot at #16 is a rise of 30 feet, while the third shot at #17 can be a rise of 20 feet if you are in the bottom of the valley short of the green. I don't think the course is exceptionally hilly by any stretch, but I also certainly wouldn't call it flat. The course was designed to have large fairways and greens - both in the attempt to replicate the feel of Augusta and because the course is very long at over 7,500 yards. I wanted the course to still be playable if the winds get over 10 MPH. I feel my only error with the greens was at the 8th hole, as I made that green a little too large. The only greens that I feel are close to "round" are at 3, 5 and 13... Does the course have faults? Sure. As previously stated, I feel that I made a mistake with the 8th green. The bunkering needs a little work, and there are two holes that I probably need to make 20 or 25 yards shorter in order to get them to play as they truly were meant to play. The point made about the trees is correct, but honestly I have never seen anything about how to change tree size or rotation so I don't know how to fix that unless someone can tell me how to do it. Finally, I wonder what exactly made this course bland? I want to make clear that this course, even in my eyes, isn't anywhere close to the Top 5 or 10 or 20 or 30 designed using TGC... However, I think it is a good course that's worth another look. "Bland" would be one of the last words I would use to describe holes such as #1, 4, 8, 9, 12, 16 and 18. However, again this is only my two cents and I appreciate everyone at TGC Tours for what you're doing to make this game even more fun and rewarding to play. Thanks for taking the time to look at my course. |
|
