The Size Matters

[mrooola]

Hello everybody!

I would like to start a discussion about size of courses. Mainly the size of those courses designed with the intended use for tour play on various levels or at least those where the designer has tour play in mind. Greens are my current personal sort of dilemma, but I'll include other touch points as well for the sake of discussion. 
I've read through various threads where this comes up in one form or another. Be it length of holes, fairway width, green size or perhaps the visual perception of small vs. large.
I do this primarily to figure out what the community actually wants, but also what the community actually needs. This will from my part be both objective and subjective and I hope that your input will be as well. Perhaps I would be better off making numerous threads about each aspect since I fear that the thread could spin off and only addressing one or maybe two of them, but I'll give this a shot so I don't clutter up the forums with my crap too much.

I also know that I might be simplifying things and that the game difficulty level is more up to HB than designers. Here goes.

Greens
So lets start with what currently sets the men apart from the boys, where men would be considered the PRO Tour players and the Boys would be me (average CC player).
Ive read a couple of great threads about Pin placements where I understand that even though its not a rule, the general opinion in the matter is that designers follow the USGA guidelines, but that it is also ok at times to make it a little bit harder. In fact some tournaments here and IRL do place pins tougher and less approachable than the USGA guidelines suggest. Would this assumption be correct?

When it comes to green size its a different ballgame though. I think that my latest course (The Copse @ Malkie Coast (shameless plug)) in general feature greens that are "Normal sized" to the community with one or two exceptions, but are they?
I came across this when trying to look up how average size greens are around the world.

"The USGA obtained voluminous field data when researching its Slope system, which confirmed this principle. They suggest the "average" green be large enough for two-thirds of golfers to hold the putting surface with approach shots for the most enjoyable golf experience. That, with some shameless rounding, translates to these approximate "rules of thumb":



• For Tour-level players - 10 percent width and depth of approach shot length

• For low handicappers - 12.5 percent width and 15 percent depth of approach-shot length

• For high handicappers - 15 percent width and 20 percent depth of approach-shot length."

Using this guideline my greens are actually fairly huge and yes I know there are differences when it comes to approach shots from IRL pro's to TGC pros especially with long irons. Using this principle I started designing a course and went for the high handicapper spectrum and in the WIP thread got a comment on it looking too small. Not saying it isn't, but it did fit the USGA guidelines for a high handicapper although I agree that it looked small. Worth mentioning also is that it fit what would be considered an AVERAGE green. What if a designer do a small green aimed for tour level players. Now that would probably be considered a postage stamp green by the entire community. So I wonder. Is it the normal standard of greens in the game that makes us look at small greens claiming them to be unrealistic, tricked up or what not, or is it the visual relation to perhaps over-sizing bunkers and fairways that makes us think this way? I'm guilty of this as well, but suddenly I have started second guess my own thought on the matter. Is the USGA guidelines even anything worth working with when it comes to green size? I suspect with the scoring we currently see on tour, sizing down greens is not necessarily a bad thing, especially in the width department. Not saying its a solution though. Thoughts?

Fairways
Fairway width has been discussed widely and one of the most rewarding post for me was one of DDawgs PGA average width threads. With the way the game is set up, is using an average of 25-30 yards something designers should strive towards or should they be even more narrow due to the way the swing is set up. I would suggest that a course with consistent 15-20 yard wide fairways should be considered tricked up, but the odd narrow fairway like it is ok. Obviously the length of the holes and hazards also dictates how wide fairways should be and very narrow fairways should be presented with a reasonable option/bailout area, but that is somewhat a different topic. And again, is the way we design fairways a contributor to what we see as large/small greens and/or hazards?

Hazards/Objects
Do designers in general make bunkers and objects (trees, grass, bushes) way to big and does that affect how we see the size of greens and fairways?

Do you have any other views or opinions that might be related?

Feel free to join in. I'm hoping to get at least some discussion going.
Maybe you just want to call me an idiot and thats fine too

GO!

[staypuft39]

Oola, just a couple thoughts from me.
I think for the most part, fairways are pretty well done. From what I have seen, designers seem to err on the side of caution and make them a little too wide, if anything.
If the "we need difficult courses, always" movement gains steam, maybe we'll see some that are getting too small, but not something I've seen yet.

My major internal debate is about greens. I understand small greens, in real life, are a greater test than large greens.
In this game though, I have a harder time coming to that conclusion.
On the firmer and faster courses, if you come in strong at a small green, you can run by the hole and almost assuredly stop within a couple yards in heavy rough around it (barring a large runoff area, which is a good penalty, I think).
That leaves you, probably, an 8-10 yd chip. That's no problem for people in this game.
On the flip side, if you were to have a large, undulating green, that ball rolls out and stays on.
That leaves you, probably, a 30-50 ft putt that could break a couple times.

Basically, I think a great way to push scores a couple strokes higher in this game, is to make a course where holing chips is much harder. Fewer even lies and longer distances.

[reebdoog]

Large greens in this game are a nightmare and are more difficult than the small ones. Granted it's a lazy way of adding difficulty but most of the courses that I've seen criticized for being to hard have big greens that are too firm. You end up running forever and having huge putts. Also the large greens tend to lead to LONG slopes. Long slopes are a killer in this game and need to be ditched by just about every designer. Or maybe save them for a special hole or something. Go ahead and make a slope steep. That's fine...but make it SHORT and steep. If you're going to have HUGE greens then don't put your firmness level too high.

You're much better off keeping the green size smaller, using slopes and hazards to affect the approach shots. Firm and fast is ok but if you're going to do it you better work at it because it's a pain in the behind to make work.

*edit*

Also, don't get too wrapped up in reading all this statistic stuff. Who cares? It's about what plays well and is fun in this game isn't it? I have NEVER gotten out a measuring tool to measure the width of a fairway or green. Not once. If you can figure it out from testing your design then the chances of making a really really great original design aren't all that good. It's not a knock on anyone or how anyone works but if you make a course that is 100% realistic but it's not fun to play or it looks boring...you will probably be one of the few that will enjoy playing it. This game is more about fun and artistry. *shrugs* That's just how it is. Folks can do whatever they like but if you can create an enjoyable course that has few obvious visual flaws...you will have more fun and others will have more fun with your courses.

[mrooola]

Oh I'm sorry if it came out that way that all courses needs to be harder. That's not it. I was only aiming for Tour Courses and perhaps not all tour courses. Fact is that most want the course to be realistic. That's why discussions about fairway width and pin placements gets so much attention along with visual aspects. This thread is as much about what designers might strive for in a tour course as what we perceive as big/small fair/unfair.

I agree with you on the fairways. They are mostly fairly well done and I think most create them in the 20-40 yard range.
I agree also agree with your point on greens, but 100 yard wide greens (exaggerating yes) with a lot of undulation is probably not the answer either. Definetly not saying large greens have no place in the game. They definetly do. Question is do we mark down courses with small greens to fast?
I agree that chipping is too easy from short distances and runoffs might be a good way to go.

[mrooola]

Nov 19, 2015 10:36:14 GMT -5 reebdoog said:

Large greens in this game are a nightmare and are more difficult than the small ones. Granted it's a lazy way of adding difficulty but most of the courses that I've seen criticized for being to hard have big greens that are too firm. You end up running forever and having huge putts. Also the large greens tend to lead to LONG slopes. Long slopes are a killer in this game and need to be ditched by just about every designer. Or maybe save them for a special hole or something. Go ahead and make a slope steep. That's fine...but make it SHORT and steep. If you're going to have HUGE greens then don't put your firmness level too high.

You're much better off keeping the green size smaller, using slopes and hazards to affect the approach shots. Firm and fast is ok but if you're going to do it you better work at it because it's a pain in the behind to make work.

*edit*

Also, don't get too wrapped up in reading all this statistic stuff. Who cares? It's about what plays well and is fun in this game isn't it? I have NEVER gotten out a measuring tool to measure the width of a fairway or green. Not once. If you can figure it out from testing your design then the chances of making a really really great original design aren't all that good. It's not a knock on anyone or how anyone works but if you make a course that is 100% realistic but it's not fun to play or it looks boring...you will probably be one of the few that will enjoy playing it. This game is more about fun and artistry. *shrugs* That's just how it is. Folks can do whatever they like but if you can create an enjoyable course that has few obvious visual flaws...you will have more fun and others will have more fun with your courses.

I agree with what you say about Large greens, but I'd change Large to Huge. Maybe we mean the same thing but Large greens is perfectly fine in my book

About the edit:

Some of us enjoy statistics, some of us don't. I am one of those who do and I know many others do as well. Maybe that ends up less creative and original, but I don't think it does. Why would it?
The bottom line is making a course enjoyable, there is no denying that, but why would one thing be at the cost of something else? There is more than enough room for all types of courses.

My way of designing needs the distance tool. Am I less creative? Maybe, but it seems like I'm doing something right thus far.

[reebdoog]

Not saying you're less creative in any way. Not saying using measuring and stats is bad. I'm simply saying that you can have a course that is statistically great and checks all the design boxes and is still no fun and looks bad.

Use those stats and measuring. By all means. They are not required for people to make killer courses and can get in the way at times. I don't think that the measurements and stats are the most important parts of designing a course for a video game. That's my opinion but I was in no way saying you can't do so doing it your way nor that it was less creative.

[mrooola]

Nov 19, 2015 11:10:11 GMT -5 reebdoog said:

Not saying you're less creative in any way. Not saying using measuring and stats is bad. I'm simply saying that you can have a course that is statistically great and checks all the design boxes and is still no fun and looks bad.

100% True

btw. I wasn't offended or anything. Just wanted to clarify that. English is not my native language so I know I give the wrong impression at times. Especially in writing.

[Deleted]

I'd say it depends on what you are going for.

Realistic Fairways
25-30 yards: Narrow
30-40 yards: Average
40+ yards: Wide

There's no right or wrong though, you could have 18 holes with wide fairways or 18 holes with all narrow fairways. That's the beauty of golf architecture, nothing is wrong. My preference is a mix up of holes. A good rule of thumb is also hole length. The shorter the hole the more narrower a fairway should be. But again, nothing is right or wrong. These figures won't work if you want realistic results to challenge the the best players.

Realistic Results for Fairways (66% - 2/3rds of fairways hit)

10-15 yards: Narrow
15-25 yards: Average
25+ yards: Wide

These are just guestimates for if you'd prefer to get realistic results of 66% of fairways hit in this game. A long par 4? Make it 25 yards wide so there's more chance of hitting the fairway as the challenge in that hole should be the accuracy of the long approach shot. If they miss with a wide fairway they deserve to be unable make the green in two. A short par 4? Make the fairway 10 yards wide so the player is rewarded with hitting a tight fairway with a short iron/wedge approach shot. If they miss, at least they'll have a slight chance of making a recovery shot to the green from the heavy rough. Don't want to punish them too much for such a hard drive.

[scampi00]

As far as fairways go if I want a narrow strip or landing zone, I go 15yds, where as highest I go is 30. I measure my greens at minimum 20x30 and no one has complained yet. However, I'm starting to wonder if I shouldn't start making the fairways wider, purely for aesthetics. I've noticed that some courses just look more appealing because of wide and shining fairways, although they are probably easier.

[reebdoog]

you can make it look wider without making the landing area any larger.

[mcbogga]

Problem is that narrow landing areas in the form of fairway strips make for one dimensional holes. Having to hit a defined small area to access a pin on the next shot is the way to go - but that does not nesecarily mean a narrow fairway.

I think that many designers paint with to broad strokes around the greens. Bunkers and greens are many times too large. Here it's good to use the measuring tools just to get a sense of scale. 15 feet feels close in game - on a real green it's not that close. Same with slopes. Red slopes usually only last for a yard or so.

Unfortunately smaller greens lead to the chipping issue. Here is where the designer needs to be smart and don't just give the player a straightish 6yds chip on every hole.

Another thing is undulations, humps and tilt in fairways that could be used a lot more. Hit a 3w and get a fairly level lie or hit driver but you are then taking a chance by landing in a bumpy section.

Finally set up. Pins are almost universally set to easy/accessible (green slope is often used to defend, but that is only one way to do it and not the best one for no grid or realistic play). Tuck those pins away, but do it in a smart way. Like a right edge placement on a green with a right to left tilt. Put a drop off to the right of the hole and a collection area. Now add a fairway that is fairly wide but has significant right to left tilt in the driver landing area which would leave a 6I in. This 6I would be very difficult to get close. As an option have the 5W/3W landing be flat and to the left but have water that has to be taken on to put the ball in position for a flat lie approach more at an angle to the green.

Just an example - but taking a strategic view as well as or even before the visuals/ascetics is important I think.

Plenty of courses out there that were built on the principle of "because it looks good" and there is more to the art than that. The best courses play like a puzzle. You versus the designer.