|
Post by b101 on Jul 16, 2020 9:49:25 GMT -5
White River Mnt. Resort, Driftwood Golf Club, The Beaverhead Lake Club - not approved.
None of them have four pinsets and Driftwood actually has the wrong name. Played a few holes of White River and it would have been not approved in any case - trees are encroaching on fairways too much, and there's major sculpting and surfacing issues (i.e. where bunkers sit, not flattening edges of fairways etc). Would suggest watching the Canuck tutorials as a good starting point.
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Jul 16, 2020 9:56:05 GMT -5
Paper Valley Golf Club - not approved
Close, but there's just too much blindness off the tee (holes 3 and 6 were particular offenders). Otherwise fine, although there's still some sculpting and surfacing stuff to tidy up as well.
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Jul 16, 2020 10:00:48 GMT -5
Crowders Mountain CC - not approved Said you were looking for feedback, so: - Burn marks (the brown surface) around all tee boxes - you need to place rough or heavy rough to lose those (it's a weird designer thing...) - Green sizes vary massively - first green is giant and second tiny. Try to have a bit more consistency. - Try to avoid the trees directly in play (e.g. on the left of the first or right to the sides of fairways). Give a bit of space to allow for slight misses. - some harsh sculpting with the cliff edges just below the tees - try to flatten those more gently. - Definitely check out the Canuck tutorials here: www.youtube.com/channel/UCM0QqDSGjKiH6Vxb6b8kHhgIt got better as it went on, so keep going and practising
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Jul 16, 2020 10:04:24 GMT -5
Forgotten Sands GC Tour - not approved
You already have Forgotten. Sands GC - no double submissions, please/
|
|
|
Post by mattf27 on Jul 16, 2020 20:03:18 GMT -5
Curious about my "Long Lake GC" reasons for rejection. Not offended or disagreeing, but guess I oughta learn why before my next submission, right ? I already got a lesson in why it would be hard to maintain IRL on another thread, LOL. No hurries, but thanks. Just heard back from the reviewer, who gave me a couple points he remembered: "All the non par 3 greens were weirdly separated by a rmd style bit of rough. Unsmoothed/rounds edges on greens."
|
|
|
Post by PicnicGuy / BobalooNOLA on Jul 16, 2020 21:36:15 GMT -5
Curious about my "Long Lake GC" reasons for rejection. Not offended or disagreeing, but guess I oughta learn why before my next submission, right ? I already got a lesson in why it would be hard to maintain IRL on another thread, LOL. No hurries, but thanks. Just heard back from the reviewer, who gave me a couple points he remembered: "All the non par 3 greens were weirdly separated by a rmd style bit of rough. Unsmoothed/rounds edges on greens." Thanks for getting back to me. Not sure what 'rmd style bit of rough' means though. You reviewers and your shorthands, LOL.
Ah,well ... it's a fun play, and I hope some folks try it. My TGCT pal laladiesman really loved it, and suggested I submit. Based on the run-of-the-mill stuff we play most weeks, I was pretty sure it would not be chosen. I figured the fairway tree on 7, if nothing else (after all, it's not Harbour Town, LOL).
Luckily I'm not the kind of person to nit-pick, because almost every week on the CC, I can spot a 'flaw' on the course. This week had so many 'same' holes, a couple of pins that were really in quirky places, on greens with some really too-tight-for-real-life double-slopes, And what was up with all the weird colored patches of heavy rough ? That's what I would ask if I reviewed it.
No skin off my back ...as the Blues Brothers say "Whattaya want for nothing ? Rrrrruber biscuit ?"
Planning to submit my next one, Fleming River, and see how many things you can find wrong with it. As long as players like their round, it's all good as "The play's the thing".
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Jul 20, 2020 7:54:44 GMT -5
Copper Canyon - not approved
Where to start? Yardage is wrong, name is wrong, one pinset and there's no description entered. People give up their time to do this voluntarily, please take two minutes to ensure the basic details are correct.
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Jul 20, 2020 7:59:03 GMT -5
Maplebay Golf Club - not approved Lots of nice ideas, but the bunkers need sculpting and the areas away from the fairways/greens (i.e. tee to fairway) need flattening and a bit more planting). As you say in the description, you're a newer designer. I'd highly recommend the Canuck tutorials as a great way to get an idea of what you're looking for - it's how we all did originally. Look forward to seeing more of your work once you've gotten a few of those under your belt! www.youtube.com/c/Crazycanuck1985/featured
|
|
|
Post by mattf27 on Jul 20, 2020 8:41:55 GMT -5
Just heard back from the reviewer, who gave me a couple points he remembered: "All the non par 3 greens were weirdly separated by a rmd style bit of rough. Unsmoothed/rounds edges on greens." Thanks for getting back to me. Not sure what 'rmd style bit of rough' means though. You reviewers and your shorthands, LOL.
Ah,well ... it's a fun play, and I hope some folks try it. My TGCT pal laladiesman really loved it, and suggested I submit. Based on the run-of-the-mill stuff we play most weeks, I was pretty sure it would not be chosen. I figured the fairway tree on 7, if nothing else (after all, it's not Harbour Town, LOL).
Luckily I'm not the kind of person to nit-pick, because almost every week on the CC, I can spot a 'flaw' on the course. This week had so many 'same' holes, a couple of pins that were really in quirky places, on greens with some really too-tight-for-real-life double-slopes, And what was up with all the weird colored patches of heavy rough ? That's what I would ask if I reviewed it.
No skin off my back ...as the Blues Brothers say "Whattaya want for nothing ? Rrrrruber biscuit ?"
Planning to submit my next one, Fleming River, and see how many things you can find wrong with it. As long as players like their round, it's all good as "The play's the thing".
Sorry, for context, RMD is a...lets say eccentric...designer known for creating aprons on holes that come very close to the greens without touching them, and therefore making them kind of pointless.
|
|
|
Post by PicnicGuy / BobalooNOLA on Jul 20, 2020 11:41:52 GMT -5
A couple probably do 'seem' pointless, but I (like to think) an observant player will occasionally choose use that as a buffer to play a more 'run-up' shot. On Long Lake, #12 is planned that way, as it's a very long shot that runs a little down at the end from just back of that bunker. IRL, I've always been prone to run up a low 8 iron more than try an land a full wedge close.
FWIW, I think this week's CC-Am course (East Meadows) barely passes 'by the book' (flat standard shape bunkers with grasses in them, opening holes all very similar, a par 4 hole that restricts the players' club choices, massive clubhouse(s)).
BUT, I like the course a lot, and am happy it's in the rotation. Probably be lucky to break par on it, but that doesn't usually spoil a good course for me. Just saying a lot of designers likely spend hours avoiding those tropes, when they apparently don't matter over feel & playability at times.
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Jul 20, 2020 11:52:37 GMT -5
A couple probably do 'seem' pointless, but I (like to think) an observant player will occasionally choose use that as a buffer to play a more 'run-up' shot. On Long Lake, #12 is planned that way, as it's a very long shot that runs a little down at the end from just back of that bunker. IRL, I've always been prone to run up a low 8 iron more than try an land a full wedge close.
FWIW, I think this week's CC-Am course (East Meadows) barely passes 'by the book' (flat standard shape bunkers with grasses in them, opening holes all very similar, a par 4 hole that restricts the players' club choices, massive clubhouse(s)).
BUT, I like the course a lot, and am happy it's in the rotation. Probably be lucky to break par on it, but that doesn't usually spoil a good course for me. Just saying a lot of designers likely spend hours avoiding those tropes, when they apparently don't matter over feel & playability at times.
Just for reference, this isn't the place for querying courses on Tour. Reviewing is just the first step in the process, then it goes to schedulers and rangers. We also don't compare courses - that'd be all sorts of headache and doesn't really achieve anything. Also, if you are wanting to allow a run up shot, then you REALLY want to use fairway rather than light rough. Rough is utterly unpredictable in a way that fairway isn't. By all means disconnect the green from the fairway, but there should be a reason for doing so (bunkers/elevation change/water/planting etc) and ideally not that many holes.
|
|
|
Post by PicnicGuy / BobalooNOLA on Jul 20, 2020 17:20:07 GMT -5
Thanks, b101. I only used this week's course to illustrate how what I read & hear on "what to do" vids often contrasts with what I experience when playing an approved course,wasn't really meaning to be critical of IT. I actually enjoyed my (miserble because I can't putt) round a bit, can't wait to see the stands filled when I play my tourney rounds. My 'tourney' efforts have been disappointing, IMOHO. Although lalaldiesman liked "Desert City" somehow. I thought "unpredictable" ground (especially on the first time around a course) was a historic & integral part of golf.
I am a musician as well, and 'bending' or even throwing the rules out the window has led to some of the finest music ever made, most enjoyable for the listener. Beatles, Led Zep, Cream, Rush ... a little leeway is the only way to unleash some artists' 'genius'. I admire the effort the team makes for we members, and TBH, I wish I had the discipline to make a decent 'parkland' or 'country club' course. Way more power to folks who craft inspired courses in that format. I imagine the switch to "21" will bring on quite a workload ... kudos in advance ! (I may be a late adopter, price point and all that) As you can tell, I love a good chat ! Stay well in these not-the-best-of-times, sir (or madam, I honestly don't know-but there are VERY few female names on leaderboards, so ...)
|
|
|
Post by tpetro on Jul 21, 2020 15:25:13 GMT -5
El Camaleon G.C. - Not Approved
Poor rendition. bunkers are incorrect and oversimplified, surfaces very janky with unsmoothed splines. Planting/mangroves unrealistic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2020 5:25:46 GMT -5
El Camaleon G.C. - Not Approved Poor rendition. bunkers are incorrect and oversimplified, surfaces very janky with unsmoothed splines. Planting/mangroves unrealistic. These are ridiculous reasons to not approve a course. This course used the same measurements as the real course. I chose to use bunker brushes that closely resembled the real bunkers. This course is much more realistic than the other EL Camaleon Mayakoba course that was approved. My course was not listed as a RCR. I have seen many RCRs approved that have worse problems. This looks more like a personal attack against me rather than a fair review. It also appears by your statement "a poor rendition" that you don't know what the real course looks like. Review this and tell me it's a poor rendition. You can go through hole by hole at the upper right of the page. Maybe one of the more experienced course reviewers can take a look at this and tell me it's a poor rendition after comparing to the link below. course.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/course/course/elcamaleongc/holemap.htm?hole=1&next=overview.htm%231b101 mattf27
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Jul 22, 2020 5:48:48 GMT -5
El Camaleon G.C. - Not Approved Poor rendition. bunkers are incorrect and oversimplified, surfaces very janky with unsmoothed splines. Planting/mangroves unrealistic. These are ridiculous reasons to not approve a course. This course used the same measurements as the real course. I chose to use bunker brushes that closely resembled the real bunkers. This course is much more realistic than the other EL Camaleon Mayakoba course that was approved. My course was not listed as a RCR. I have seen many RCRs approved that have worse problems. This looks more like a personal attack against me rather than a fair review. It also appears by your statement "a poor rendition" that you don't know what the real course looks like. Review this and tell me it's a poor rendition. You can go through hole by hole at the upper right of the page. course.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/course/course/elcamaleongc/holemap.htm?hole=1&next=overview.htm%231I am confused by the bit in red. Is this an RCR or isn't it? Secondly, as mentioned earlier in the thread - we don't compare courses but instead review each course independently. It gets a bit trickier with RCRs - if there's already a great version of Pebble, for example, we would need to ask the question of whether the new one needs to be added. As a general comment on RCRs (haven't played yours), if it is, expect it to be held to high standards - you can take far more liberties with fictional courses, but if it's a real course, people already have a certain expectation, so the level needs to be higher. If not, then choose a different name so it's not confused with one. Like I say though, the bit in red seems muddled to me.
|
|