|
|
Post by bigned56 on Oct 12, 2016 1:06:58 GMT -5
I remember a few months after season 1 started the masses were complaining about unrealistic scores and how a par felt like a bogey. We then went to firm/fast and most people complained that they couldn't hold greens or had to aim for rough with pin placements that were 2 yards over a hazard. Looks like we'll be going full circle. I say if a course has been designed properly to incorporate both firm and medium then they should be used and not be forced to change them to all medium. Here's one other suggestion: As it seems we are going to be jumping ship almost as soon as TGC2 comes out, why don't we celebrate the best courses from season 1 and 2 and play a couple of those each month from January? Could always swap the ones that were on the PGA onto Euro and vice versa? seems the right way to go |
|
|
|
Post by SMIFFYLFC79 on Oct 12, 2016 1:21:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by tastegw on Oct 12, 2016 1:32:58 GMT -5
For the life of me I never understood why so many people would rather play unrealistic courses where the top scores were still unrealistic versus realistic courses were the top scores were even more unrealistic.
The first half of season one was fun, until things went into a firm and fast mayhem.
Courses designed for medium firmness getting bumped to firm just for the sake of lowering scores was a terrible idea. Taking good courses and turning them into something that would cause anger management class sign ups. Aiming to miss the green on purpose to set up for easy chips/flops, ya that solves the unrealistic aspect!
Lowering scores for the sake of lowering scores with a heavy side effect of "what the @!$#" was pointless.
The problem was never firm greens. It was courses not designed for firm greens. And to avoid pissing anyone off, I'm not going to name any of the many courses used in such manor. Shorter courses mix well with firm greens. Large greens also mix well. Courses that utilize fairway aprons are also good candidates.
Being forced to gamble with the rough on the fly however, is not a good fit. Front to back sloping greens on max firm is the worst idea since Hilary vs Trump was ever dreamed of.
I say no limits, just use proper judgement on what is fair to the players and what is unfair.
Fair is having room to work with, from most angles the fairways offer on approach. Either landing on green and being able to hold or using a fairway apron to bounce and run to the green to hold.
Unfair is having to hit a perfect shot at a strip of rough, upslope, or any small area to bounce and hold the green, with all other shots missing that area would be rejected by either rolling off the backside or never even making it to the putting surface.
One thing that bugs me is the negativity towards tucked pins on medium firm greens. It's like players think it should anyways be easy to get within 5 feet of the cup.
Good judgement always trumps limits, but good judgement is hard to come by these days it seems, so perhaps limits is the best solution
|
|
|
|
Post by dh-nufc on Oct 12, 2016 5:44:36 GMT -5
For the life of me I never understood why so many people would rather play unrealistic courses where the top scores were still unrealistic versus realistic courses were the top scores were even more unrealistic. The first half of season one was fun, until things went into a firm and fast mayhem. Courses designed for medium firmness getting bumped to firm just for the sake of lowering scores was a terrible idea. Taking good courses and turning them into something that would cause anger management class sign ups. Aiming to miss the green on purpose to set up for easy chips/flops, ya that solves the unrealistic aspect! Lowering scores for the sake of lowering scores with a heavy side effect of "what the @!$#" was pointless. The problem was never firm greens. It was courses not designed for firm greens. And to avoid pissing anyone off, I'm not going to name any of the many courses used in such manor. Shorter courses mix well with firm greens. Large greens also mix well. Courses that utilize fairway aprons are also good candidates. Being forced to gamble with the rough on the fly however, is not a good fit. Front to back sloping greens on max firm is the worst idea since Hilary vs Trump was ever dreamed of. I say no limits, just use proper judgement on what is fair to the players and what is unfair. Fair is having room to work with, from most angles the fairways offer on approach. Either landing on green and being able to hold or using a fairway apron to bounce and run to the green to hold. Unfair is having to hit a perfect shot at a strip of rough, upslope, or any small area to bounce and hold the green, with all other shots missing that area would be rejected by either rolling off the backside or never even making it to the putting surface. One thing that bugs me is the negativity towards tucked pins on medium firm greens. It's like players think it should anyways be easy to get within 5 feet of the cup. Good judgement always trumps limits, but good judgement is hard to come by these days it seems, so perhaps limits is the best solution Completely agree with all of that. Courses designed for firm should be firm and courses designed for medium should be medium. Changing just to meet criteria just doesn't work. There are courses which suite both conditions, depending on tee location and pin location. These are the courses we should be looking at scheduling on tour the most, especially if the existing guidelines are relaxed. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2016 6:58:36 GMT -5
Even though Taste and I have had our differences, he is dead on right about all of this. We've taken a system that wasn't broken and broke it. If a course is designed properly for firm greens, it should be allowed. Setting a max number of firm greens in a month is a terrible idea. We're going to end up with the same problem we had originally. Players will become bored with the courses and we'll end up losing them anyway if the game becomes a snooze.
Sorry folks, but we screwed the pooch with this new "set in stone" firm greens policy.
|
|
|
|
Post by mde8965 on Oct 12, 2016 8:10:20 GMT -5
@tastegw - his post gets my vote. Nothing to add or subtract from that
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2016 8:31:13 GMT -5
Up yours SMIFFYLFC79  guess you can join the tumbleweed debate on the PGA Tour in week 7, dh-nufc can join you for liking your comment  I agree with everything tastegw said as well. The easiest solution for me was to initially create a course using firm settings which allows you to easily convert to medium. Swapping to medium opens up more pin locations that might not be available on firm because of the severeness of slopes. |
|
|
|
Post by dh-nufc on Oct 12, 2016 8:35:53 GMT -5
Oh sorry, my finger slipped @chrashbird
|
|
|
|
Post by Giraffe72 on Oct 12, 2016 13:47:07 GMT -5
I just think why set limits? The problem last season was perhaps the firm and fast thing was a bit overdone, but now we seem to have gone in the complete opposite direction. Variety is the key, but surely we can achieve that without setting definite limits on exactly how many rounds of what we can play? The big thing for me is not to firm up a course which wasn't designed for it just to make it tougher, that's when it becomes a bit ridiculous.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2016 23:47:15 GMT -5
With week 1 in the books and the scores being posted for week 2, I think it's clear in looking at the leaderboards that the softer setups have shown two things. 1st, that the top players are still at the top. (As they should be). The 2nd thing is the large number of higher WGR players competing in the top 50. While many are new rookies with higher WGRs from the Web, many are veterans who under these conditions can make many more birdies, and as such, finish higher in the events. I certainly did not get tired of making birdies and eagles, and could actually look at the leaderboard and see I was within a zip code of the leaders and I ended up with a near top 20 finish, something not possible with the firm and fast conditions. I'm good with 25-35% firm and fast.
|
|
|
|
Post by dh-nufc on Oct 18, 2016 1:30:49 GMT -5
With week 1 in the books and the scores being posted for week 2, I think it's clear in looking at the leaderboards that the softer setups have shown two things. 1st, that the top players are still at the top. (As they should be). The 2nd thing is the large number of higher WGR players competing in the top 50. While many are new rookies with higher WGRs from the Web, many are veterans who under these conditions can make many more birdies, and as such, finish higher in the events. I certainly did not get tired of making birdies and eagles, and could actually look at the leaderboard and see I was within a zip code of the leaders and I ended up with a near top 20 finish, something not possible with the firm and fast conditions. I'm good with 25-35% firm and fast. I know that I'll struggle to make enough birdies on these easier courses due to my putting but I also don't want to play courses made firm just to make them difficult. I still say the courses made to be firm with receptive greens are a very fair test and they should be on the tour more than they are allowed to be at the moment. This week's course from Pablo is the perfect example, a course designed for firm, it should of had atleast 1 or 2 firm days. |
|
|
|
Post by AFCTUJacko on Oct 18, 2016 6:12:58 GMT -5
To sum up two pages of debate.....
They were right to tone it down a touch, but there was no need to be this drastic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Giraffe72 on Oct 18, 2016 7:46:16 GMT -5
To sum up two pages of debate.....
They were right to tone it down a touch, but there was no need to be this drastic.
That about covers it! |
|
|
|
Post by unclefester75 on Oct 18, 2016 11:59:03 GMT -5
Even though Taste and I have had our differences, he is dead on right about all of this. We've taken a system that wasn't broken and broke it. If a course is designed properly for firm greens, it should be allowed. Setting a max number of firm greens in a month is a terrible idea. We're going to end up with the same problem we had originally. Players will become bored with the courses and we'll end up losing them anyway if the game becomes a snooze. Sorry folks, but we screwed the pooch with this new "set in stone" firm greens policy. This is a false flag event. I'll bet that the intent of this decision is to "help" players quit early this season so they the admins can prepare for TGC2 coming out |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2016 12:28:03 GMT -5
Agree with tastegw on this one. As a designer that has traditionally used firm greens, you have to build the course around that concept. The problem (to me anyways) has been taking courses not built for firm greens and ramping them up to make the course hard for the sake of being hard. even with firm greens you an give players options, angles, and ways to play a hole that's both fair and fun...but it takes a little forethought and designing your course thinking that you're using firm greens. So...maybe that 235 yard par 3 isn't a good idea....cut it down to 185. Maybe the string of par 4s over 465 yards isn't the way to go either. Maybe the greens shouldn't be 187...it's amazing what kind of movement and control you can induce on firm greens when keeping the speeds around 164. Anyways...just my thoughts as a designer and a scheduler. We never went heavy on the firm greens in CC anyways, but having them off the table limits us in multiple ways. A) there are some firm courses that play right into the wheelhouse for CCPro. NGLA and Cape Kidnappers Firm being a couple of examples. Even being firm they were too easy for Web, just right for CC A-C. B) it's pushing the schedulers into pulling courses for competition from the same pile. Meaning, difficulty is almost a non factor at this point. An example is a course that I had rangered a bit ago. While rangering the discussion was whether or not the course should be CCPro or CCAm. It was deemed almost too easy for CCPro and on the challenging side for CCAm. The course ended up being picked up for PGA. That is in NO WAY a complaint or indictment on Dale...he does a GREAT job with scheduling. It's just where we're at, and now all 4 tours are trying not to step on each other's toes when finding courses. That being said, I do understand the other side of the coin with the "firm/fast" burnout as well. I think Dean said it best when he said some of it should be on us as schedulers to use some common sense while providing some variety. Carry on, fellas. Didn't mean to ramble or really even get involved with the discussion...lol. |
|
