Real courses are blah

[Brandywine]

The beauty of Links is that one does not have to strictly adhere to the original design when replicating a real course. Revisions can be made to augment the design for computer play, which I don't see as a problem. I'm sure we've all experienced real courses that play way to easily, and fictional courses that are absurdly over the top. Whether a course is fictional or real, the bottom line should be the enjoyment of the game and what the individual derives from it.

[FOOOOORE!]

Unfortunately, real courses in Links usually play far too easily compared with playing it in person. That's just how it is, and sometimes designers will tweak it a little, making the fairways a bit narrower or longer, just to make it "not blah". There are exceptions. I've been playing Oakland Hills for a while now, and that course will give you all you can handle. Banff Springs, on the other hand, is a laugher, but at least the scenery is great.

[Kunkleman]

Over the years there have been a few courses that have been so "tricked up" that they were wiped off the HD. But for the most part, "variety is the spice of life". It would be boring to play difficult courses all the time, as it would be easy courses all the time. Each course has it's own features to enjoy. That's my humble opinion.

[Still Linksing]

I put up a list of 75 great fictional courses imo. 25 real ones.
I'd be interested to see any list that would knock out those 75 fictional courses especially any real course that would knock out a fictional in the top 40.

I don't care if a course is real or fictional. I don't categorize my courses this way and I have no idea if I'm playing a real or fictional unless it's a really well known course. When I did my course ratings, I based them only on how good they are to enjoy in Links 2003. The list I posted are the results.

[Ian Wells]

....,

I don't care if a course is real or fictional. I don't categorize my courses this way and I have no idea if I'm playing a real or fictional unless it's a really well known course. When I did my course ratings, I based them only on how good they are to enjoy in Links 2003. The list I posted are the results.

This is, I believe, what the vast majority of players would agree with, after all we play Links for enjoyment. At least at the beginning of the round!

I don't have the imagination to create a fictional course that would fit your requirements - how could you not have Sweetlake GC in your list . Seriously I do not have the ability to build a course from my imagination. No creativity.

I have only built three courses in APCD; Sweetlake GC, Wade Hampton GC and Peachtree GC. Sweetlake GC was my introduction to APCD and the other two courses I chose because I thought they were interesting and both were in the top 100 USA course list by Golf Digest. At no time did I consider their playability in Links. Perhaps I should look to change my selection criteria?

Presently I am attempting to do justice to Pasatiempo GC which I am sure will meet your criteria of a "blah course". Opened in 1929 and measuring only 6495 yards it may even be your first "blah blah course".

As always you generate interesting discussion items.
Thank you.
Ian

[Still Linksing]

....,

I don't care if a course is real or fictional. I don't categorize my courses this way and I have no idea if I'm playing a real or fictional unless it's a really well known course. When I did my course ratings, I based them only on how good they are to enjoy in Links 2003. The list I posted are the results.

This is, I believe, what the vast majority of players would agree with, after all we play Links for enjoyment. At least at the beginning of the round!

I don't have the imagination to create a fictional course that would fit your requirements - how could you not have Sweetlake GC in your list . Seriously I do not have the ability to build a course from my imagination. No creativity.

I have only built three courses in APCD; Sweetlake GC, Wade Hampton GC and Peachtree GC. Sweetlake GC was my introduction to APCD and the other two courses I chose because I thought they were interesting and both were in the top 100 USA course list by Golf Digest. At no time did I consider their playability in Links. Perhaps I should look to change my selection criteria?

Presently I am attempting to do justice to Pasatiempo GC which I am sure will meet your criteria of a "blah course". Opened in 1929 and measuring only 6495 yards it may even be your first "blah blah course".

As always you generate interesting discussion items.
Thank you.
Ian

Thanks for the comments Ian. I think you are one who understands I often add things like the "blah" to create a little interest, wake people up and bring attention.

You are certainly not someone to create "blah" courses. Your reasoning for creating real is quite a fair argument but imo you don't give yourself enough credit either. You could also create a blend of real and fictional. I intend to do this when I release a course, it will come! lol
I always felt this is an excellent approach to create a really dynamic course for Links. You start off with a good real course base structure. You then modify and add to make it both visually pleasing and challenging in the game.

There are a massive amount of really great courses created by yourself and others. The simple truth is you can't fit over 100 courses into a 100 course list.
The criteria by selecting courses on an overall basis does mean there is not one particular element which may exclude a course. Wagga Wagga for me is one of the easiest courses I play. I really don't like it for this reason but everything else about it still puts it in the top 100.
There are a number of courses which may knock it out of the top 100 eventually but I can't judge until I have played many rounds on some of those other courses. It's obviously not possible to play every Links course 4 times or more. I played a round on anything which looked potentially decent. If after the round it showed real promise, it was played 4 times. I did in the end play many, many rounds to get to the final list and felt every course was given a fair assessment.

Of course it's just a list by one person as are all the other lists and everyone's opinions vary. I don't expect everyone to agree with it but if any newcomers do come along to Links 2003, there is a place and recent list for them to start with their course downloading.

Looking forward to Pasatiempo GC!

[Ian Wells]

....,
I look forward to you releasing your course as it will give me, and fellow linksters, an insight into your philosophies. It may even provide the "road map" to what future APCD renditions should be?
I am interested in understanding how you think "You could also create a blend of real and fictional."?
It is relatively easy to manipulate an existing course so that the layout is similar, but the lengths are changed. (Something that the real courses can't do). But is this enough?
Based on my limited experience with APCD, once you start changing elevations, the ongoing ramifications become a much more complicated problem.
Or perhaps this is because of my lack of imagination? Let's face it the golf course designers that we now consider great did not lack imagination!

I have often thought about building a course based on the "18 greatest holes, the 18 best holes, the 18 most difficult holes, the 18 most beautiful holes", because that sounds perfect. Who wouldn't want to play them. But I have yet to think of a way of integrating them all in one course and it being seamless. Again lack of imagination?

Hopefully your course may help with all of these, but it is much more important that above all, you enjoy building your course.

Good luck,
Ian

[Still Linksing]

....,
I look forward to you releasing your course as it will give me, and fellow linksters, an insight into your philosophies. It may even provide the "road map" to what future APCD renditions should be?
I am interested in understanding how you think "You could also create a blend of real and fictional."?
It is relatively easy to manipulate an existing course so that the layout is similar, but the lengths are changed. (Something that the real courses can't do). But is this enough?
Based on my limited experience with APCD, once you start changing elevations, the ongoing ramifications become a much more complicated problem.
Or perhaps this is because of my lack of imagination? Let's face it the golf course designers that we now consider great did not lack imagination!

I have often thought about building a course based on the "18 greatest holes, the 18 best holes, the 18 most difficult holes, the 18 most beautiful holes", because that sounds perfect. Who wouldn't want to play them. But I have yet to think of a way of integrating them all in one course and it being seamless. Again lack of imagination?

Hopefully your course may help with all of these, but it is much more important that above all, you enjoy building your course.

Good luck,
Ian

Ian, don't hold your breath for my course. I intended to start it maybe 2 years ago now. I announced it here, I was ready to start on it, 2 weeks later lost my job. I went from a 3 day/20 hour week to a 5 day/45+ hour week. Have little time for anything these days. Real life ended course design. If all goes well, next year will be my last working year or at least my last full time working year so then I will be able to look at things like creating my course.
I have many plans and intentions for it. Some things rely on what can be achieved within the limits of the APCD and the game. I don't really know till I get into it where the limitations are.

Regarding real and fictional and how to blend them. I intend to use a real course I know well. It has some fun and great challenges to the real life golfer but these would be lost to the Links golfer with a straight reproduction.
It's about changing the course in Links to provide the same challenges you get from it in real life. There is no way to do this other than change it from being an accurate reproduction.
I think a good way to look at how courses are represented in Links is to ask yourself do you want the technical or do you want the experience? Many designers here and players imo want the technical. The course MUST look the same as the real course. The numbers for all aspects of the real course MUST match the course in Links. Yeah, that's fine if you just want to "look" at the course in Links. If you want to play it and get the playing experience and feel of the real course in Links then imo you have to alter it.
Cosmetically, on my course I won't limit visuals. Why play bland when there is no need?

Interesting the great 18 you mention. I agree, I don't think imagination helps. It's just impossible to really pull off successfully. You can only maybe blend holes from courses that are similar at best. If someone thinks they can blend a hole from a desert course with a hole from an ocean course good luck to them!

[gene_golf]

....,

Presently I am attempting to do justice to Pasatiempo GC which I am sure will meet your criteria of a "blah course". Opened in 1929 and measuring only 6495 yards it may even be your first "blah blah course".

Thank you.
Ian

Real courses that real people have seen on tv or in person with professional golfers playing them in a tournament or even a real golf course in a resort that real people are unlikely to be able to go see and play because of cost or possibly their health prevents them from playing real golf anymore-----are interesting to see what they might look like and what they might play like here in Links. A course with elevation changes on course plot, an interesting panorama, (trees or maybe cactus plants if location is a desert), water hazards, (any combination of rough, sandy areas, rocky areas or pine needles), as well as the real designer of the golf course employing a variance of holes in par and direction that they go in concert with prevailing wind, as well as adding sand traps and mounds in greens is the essence of golf course architecture. Some fictional courses in Links could be real and I have said that Sage has the good sense of varying his courses to where there is strategy involved in playing them as well as a feeling of being on a course, although would not say goes to extent of having the feeling of being on a beautiful real course, such as when I play Wade Hampton with the extras put into its design.

I will say that flat links style courses to me with aiming markers as aids do not display all that well here in Links. Ballybunion despite its hills did not come off all that good even with reputation that many US pros all want to play it when go across the big pond. I personally believe if Seminole were designed here in Links that it does not have definition of holes and would require aiming markers being that it is set on flat plot of land in Florida. There are several what I would call links style courses inland in the US such as Sand Hills or a half dozen located in Oregon and Washington that have some acclaim as best courses to play, but I would see them as hard to show as interesting to play here in Links. I would also say this about a world reknowned course, Royal County Down. Regarding a course being only 6,500 yards I believe I suggested to Sage when he designed Chicago that he could add fictional longer tees as Robert Miller did with Pine Valley and might be done with different angle instead of just adding on yardage to present back tee. By adding 10 yards to each par 3, 20 yards to each par 4 and 25 yards to each par 5 would mean course playing 330 yards longer. Or go 20, 35 and 50 yards making fictional course play 590 yards longer for par 70 course befitting the extra length ball travels today that has been discussed by the USGA along with R and A that may soon roll back distances ball can go and Nicklaus has long lamented some courses no longer offer a challenge to where they cannot host majors as once did. 7,000 yards at sea level was once considered to be championship length and the US Open tricked some courses up by having short par 5's play as long par 4's making par 72 courses be par 70 courses. Of course fairway sand traps would have to be adjusted to where they are in distance for normal drives that is unless rough or a water hazard limits drive to say 260 yards at most that see as technique employed on some courses making players lay up their drives. Also when adding extra length for tees it would have to be possible to where there is free space to do so and that holes are not tightly fitted together coming off a green and walking close by to next hole's back tee. Definitely would not want to create case have seen on some courses where next hole's tee area aims over previous hole's green. When Glen Braden did a couple of courses with member and tournament versions he changed pars, but he could have changed rough textures to be more penal that I do not think he did for tournament versions.

[Adelade]

Ian, I do not at all think there is anything wrong with your process of selecting courses so far, Im pretty sure well known real courses will most likely have highest popularity overall. Courses that provide a good challenge for simulation of pro play likely become more popular than those that are really easy in Links, but you shouldnt feel like you HAVE to take that into account if you dont want to.

However, if you want to try something else - like your ideas about a compound course, or a fictional course that you think would suit Links players better than real courses, or even just a real course altered with certain fictional elements - but dont feel like you have the imagination to pull it off, you could always look to collaborate with someone. I bet there are several people in the community who have good creative minds for layout design or planning together a compound course with its environments, who just dont feel like they have the time or technical mind to learn or pilot APCD. They might be up for helping you plan things like that outside of APCD. To help with, or possibly even all on their own provide you with ideas or drawn maps, that someone as skillful with APCD as you could then turn into a course. People are good at different things, I think if we all collaborated more and utilized what we're best at, we could produce a lot of outstanding courses as a community. It might even be possible to get several people together in public and together plan ideas for a course if someone presents the base project and is prepared to do much of the work within APCD. There is the risk of too many cooks of course, but I think it could work.

Just food for thought.