|
|
Post by tastegw on Oct 15, 2016 22:02:59 GMT -5
For knockout brackets, some sort of seeding could be applied to make things more fair in terms of brackets.
Perhaps total course plays (can be found in your profile) could determine seeding. This would prevent top designers from squaring off vs each other early. Setmypath vs pyates was heartbreaking to watch as both courses deserved to move on while much lesser courses actually did.
|
|
|
|
Post by scampi00 on Oct 16, 2016 19:25:19 GMT -5
I loved the Apprentice style concept that Taste had with (X) designers and a different challenge and elimination each week.
The problem as I understand it was that not enough PC players were interested.
I think we could still do this style but tweak it. It would just require alot of publishing. Each designer every week would have to submit under the same title (Ex. Scampi: App Contest Week 1)
I personally would love to see a "rookie/amateur" contest where we have seasoned designers introduce that week's topic, submit a video demonstrating that topic, and then join in the judging for that week.
Examples
One week for a Par 3, 4, 5.
Reachable Par 4, Par 5 under 520 yds (reachable in 2 but still provides a challenge) Par 4 with fairway bunker, A hole with a large elevation change, a hole with multiple landing areas off the tee, etc.
The constant publishing would be a pain but I'd love to see this format.
|
|
|
|
Post by Griz891 on Oct 16, 2016 21:38:54 GMT -5
Gotta admire you course design groupies....LOL. I'd never have the patience to get into one of these or the desire. Takes me months to get a course done because I'll start losing interest in them for periods of time. More power to you guys and I'm glad so many have the time and patience. It's great for the community and gives a lot of players great courses to play on.  |
|
|
|
Post by Moe Slorkman on Oct 20, 2016 19:04:12 GMT -5
I'd say groups of 4 and 2 advance to knock outs is a good plan. Personally I only entered 1 comp and was disgusted when I was knocked out but I got some love so all was good again. Then some geordie scheduled it so it worked out.
#nevergiveup
#thisguyalwayslovesyou
#Irishheart
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2016 15:48:59 GMT -5
PYates and I had a similar conversation many moons ago when i was considering a "world cup" format. The thought would be to have 4 designers per group, and then each have a head to head judging against each other course round robin style. 3 points for a win, 1 point for a tie (with a series of tiebreakers in place to be determined), and the top 2 from each group advancing to a knockout stage. To set the groups designers would be divided into 2 groups: vets and non-vets (to be determined by number of courses released and plays/rankings on said courses). The 2 groupings would then go into a "hat" where they will then be drawn until the field is set. 2 vets and 2 non-vets will be in each group.
I would also be leaning to letting designers using previously started courses, just nothing that has been published to this point.
Does this sound remotely interesting or is it a waste of time?
|
|
|
|
Post by Clint Kelso on Oct 23, 2016 16:01:52 GMT -5
PYates and I had a similar conversation many moons ago when i was considering a "world cup" format. The thought would be to have 4 designers per group, and then each have a head to head judging against each other course round robin style. 3 points for a win, 1 point for a tie (with a series of tiebreakers in place to be determined), and the top 2 from each group advancing to a knockout stage. To set the groups designers would be divided into 2 groups: vets and non-vets (to be determined by number of courses released and plays/rankings on said courses). The 2 groupings would then go into a "hat" where they will then be drawn until the field is set. 2 vets and 2 non-vets will be in each group. I would also be leaning to letting designers using previously started courses, just nothing that has been published to this point. Does this sound remotely interesting or is it a waste of time? Sounds awesome. But wouldnt putting 2 vets and 2 non vets in the same group almost guarantee the 2 vets advancing to knockouts. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2016 17:30:39 GMT -5
PYates and I had a similar conversation many moons ago when i was considering a "world cup" format. The thought would be to have 4 designers per group, and then each have a head to head judging against each other course round robin style. 3 points for a win, 1 point for a tie (with a series of tiebreakers in place to be determined), and the top 2 from each group advancing to a knockout stage. To set the groups designers would be divided into 2 groups: vets and non-vets (to be determined by number of courses released and plays/rankings on said courses). The 2 groupings would then go into a "hat" where they will then be drawn until the field is set. 2 vets and 2 non-vets will be in each group. I would also be leaning to letting designers using previously started courses, just nothing that has been published to this point. Does this sound remotely interesting or is it a waste of time? Sounds awesome. But wouldnt putting 2 vets and 2 non vets in the same group almost guarantee the 2 vets advancing to knockouts. Not necessarily, no. In every competition I have seen there have been "non-vets" take down known names in the design community. Where "vets" have the most significant advantage is that they know their way around the GNCD. It in no way means that they have a better idea for a course, they just have more knowledge in how to pull their concepts off. It's also in the frame of mind: do "non-vets" have a better chance if the courses are just ranked top to bottom (the more traditional way of judging)? I'm not sure there is a format where people are going to see eye to eye on it being an exact perfect level playing field. Even if it were a "rookie" design contest there are some "rookies" that have significantly more time in the GNCD that others. It's just my own twisted opinion, but I'm not sure why some are so hesitant to get in the ring with the big boys. I'm not considered to be one of the "vets" around here, but I'm certainly not afraid tangle with some of those vets in a competition either. |
|
|
|
Post by pyates on Oct 23, 2016 18:07:13 GMT -5
Sounds awesome. But wouldnt putting 2 vets and 2 non vets in the same group almost guarantee the 2 vets advancing to knockouts. Not necessarily, no. In every competition I have seen there have been "non-vets" take down known names in the design community. Where "vets" have the most significant advantage is that they know their way around the GNCD. It in no way means that they have a better idea for a course, they just have more knowledge in how to pull their concepts off. It's also in the frame of mind: do "non-vets" have a better chance if the courses are just ranked top to bottom (the more traditional way of judging)? I'm not sure there is a format where people are going to see eye to eye on it being an exact perfect level playing field. Even if it were a "rookie" design contest there are some "rookies" that have significantly more time in the GNCD that others. It's just my own twisted opinion, but I'm not sure why some are so hesitant to get in the ring with the big boys. I'm not considered to be one of the "vets" around here, but I'm certainly not afraid tangle with some of those vets in a competition either. Yeah Griff won the Web.com contest coming in as a contest rookie, it most certainly can be done. I really don't think that the 'rookies' have anything to fear from the 'vets', you just have to be prepared when you enter a contest to not do very well in it, even if you make a great course (that goes for both rookies and vets). At this stage in the game, I think getting as many people involved as possible is the way to go. If you have just 'rookies' the danger is that the contest doesn't attract enough attention (I'll always support a design contest, but just my opinion). And if you get eliminated to a 'vet' but you give them a good fight then no shame in my book. Contests have proved to be a great way to get the design community together, so whatever happens I think people should not take it too seriously, enjoy the experience and the exposure for your courses and use it as a way to improve your skills. |
|
|
|
Post by titaneddie on Oct 23, 2016 23:38:26 GMT -5
I'm with Mr. Yates. It's not about "winning" or "losing" it's just an excuse to try and make a great course. Put me against whoever. Just gives me more incentive to try harder. Either way I'll have fun with the banter and all the critique that goes with somthing like this.
Bring it Griff!
|
|
|
|
Post by Clint Kelso on Oct 24, 2016 7:14:10 GMT -5
I'm with Mr. Yates. It's not about "winning" or "losing" it's just an excuse to try and make a great course. Put me against whoever. Just gives me more incentive to try harder. Either way I'll have fun with the banter and all the critique that goes with somthing like this. Bring it Griff! agreed. I'm ready and down. I only just released my first 9 holes. But I'm ready to get back in there. I enjoy it. Love the designing |
|
)
