Southern Hills

Announce and discuss forthcoming and recent course releases or request beta help from members.
User avatar
Adelade
Posts: 960
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2019 9:24 am

Re: Southern Hills

Post by Adelade »

braden1308 wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 11:31 pm You know, I think I'm done. I've never seen a bigger bunch of whiner's than this group.
Glenn, we all appreicate your work a lot and we all leave comments with good intentions, you shouldn't ignore the positive comments you receive. You posted a Beta. I repeat - a Beta. How is anyone supposed to have known that you dont want any beta feedback unless you let us know?

I recommend checking out either or both of these Youtube links:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qo6IBY2WR6o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mGX7oRsu8g

To everyone - on behalf of all designers who think of feedback as something very valuable that is much too hard to come by these days - please, please, do not let things like this prevent you from giving feedback on courses from all designers (especially not betas).
Finished main APCD Projects: Amedal (own design), Nine Bridges (real course). Joint effort: Kauri Cliffs HD. Updates: Whirlpool, Royal Lytham, Royal St George's, Chicago, Chambers Bay
Working on: 2 fictional courses + Austin CC + a couple things...
User avatar
Jimbo
Posts: 1089
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 2:55 am
Location: Victoria-but a Raven at heart!

Re: Southern Hills

Post by Jimbo »

Adelaide-I appreciate your comment and I agree that a Beta is meant to nitpick.
Glenn-you are one of the most valuable members of the community but if you don't want me to do Southern Hills or San Antonio just say the word and I won't touch themwon't them...your call...but regardless I won't forget all the stuff you put up with from me when doing St. George's-that was special. :thumbup: :thumbup:
Jim

BTW the Southern Hills buildings and course surroundings are amazing.
Last edited by Jimbo on Wed May 18, 2022 5:42 am, edited 3 times in total.
gene_golf
Posts: 241
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2019 12:30 pm

Re: Southern Hills

Post by gene_golf »

dko wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 4:21 am Here is a quote about hole 10 from the article posted by gene_golf (who apparently used up his free previews, as have I now):

"The putting surface, one of the most severe on the course, is canted to the left toward a shaved bank that slides toward another indigenous creek." The article also states that the stimp is going to be 11 or 12, so not exceedingly fast (MC/MC?).

The same article said that while the rough won't be as gnarly as in the past, it's still pretty lush. I'll never understand why some users complain about "severe" rough. IMO, there should be some challenge to the game that regular rough does not provide (all it does it remove spin from the shot.)

For some reason, the hole handicaps apparently didn't make it to the beta except for holes 1 and 2. I just don't know how many users actually use them.

Glenn puts a lot of time (and some money for Strakaline) into his courses to make them as real as possible. Criticism like the above has got to be galling.

Maximus has some reasonable points (especially about hole 16). The PGA will be played to a par of 70.

And one last piece from the article:

“You can go out and hit 18 greens and two-putt each one and shoot 70 and be disappointed because you feel like you should’ve shot 64.” I believe that speaks to the nature of the greens.
Several cogent constructive comments that could be used by Glenn Braden to fine tune course to what it will play like in this week's PGA Championship have been done whereby him seeing those he analyses those comments and decides whether they had merit for him to change at what is soon the last minute before tournament starts. I can definitely see where he would be put off by such a comment that someone hates the look of course and that real green elevations do not suit someone for their ever playing course as cannot use fc/fc setup and Glenn out and out gave forewarning that doing so would be stupid to think of ever playing course in that way. I brought up look of course as compared to TPC San Antonio and here would add that Glenn's version in look of color and textures of greens is different than original version of Southern Hills put out in 2001 as that version was too green. Glenn looks to have opened up course removing trees as the course redesigner, Gil Hanse actually did. The one place where trees still play a factor is on hole #10 where have to drive far enough to get past the trees on right side of fairway without driving too far into the rough straight ahead. I attempted before to bring up subject of rough that is not at its peak in thickness with bermuda grass flourishing in Summertime heat and believe saw in Golf Digest article that PGA will cut rough lower as before players decided to forego using drivers that with harder fairways that were cut 10 yards narrower than will be during the play this year. As for greens they have tricky slopes and do not have to resort to being rolled and cut lower to present a challenge. I was shocked that 2 long time posters were not aware of Glenn's expertise in crafting greens for his courses to have real life elevations and that is a part of replicating courses as well as can be done here in Links. The tournament will be interesting to watch with players playing a course 7,500 yards long and a par 70. Other than the design of hole #12 that has acclaim going back to the late 60's when Golf Digest picked it then as one of the best 18 holes in USA golf. The course overall has a history of major tournaments being played on it and has usually had winners not shoot real low scores when they won. Another major tournament happening this year, the US Open at Brookline is in need of being revised as it has had a short par 3 from another course there at complex inserted into new hole configuration near the start of back nine play. What exists currently is The Country Club at Brookline done by Eddie Schmidt back in 2003 and that was just after the memorable comeback by USA team in the 1999 Ryder Cup.
braden1308
Posts: 317
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 1:02 pm

Re: Southern Hills

Post by braden1308 »

I am done, no more. I asked you people to be constructive on your comments with the betas but NO, you have to attack it. Screw all of you,
pmgolf
Posts: 811
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2019 1:41 am
Location: near Richmond, VA

Re: Southern Hills

Post by pmgolf »

braden1308 wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 11:26 pm
pmgolf wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 7:59 pm I looked at hole 10 and indeed, there is not a puttable pin on that green. The closest is pin 9, but I would still rank it as more difficult than the most difficult pins that I find acceptable. I assume no green book was used on these greens. No one ever said that all courses should be usable by all players though. We still have a lot of courses without Southern Hills.

Pete
These are the new greens at Southern Hills, straight from Starkaline
The course does look terrific - there's no denying that. But my focus is on greens, and when I check the "Moderate" pins and they fit my definition for difficult+, and then I check the "Easy" pins and they also fit my definition for difficult+, it leaves me wondering what pins there are that I could use for my Tournament set-ups. At that point I posted my comment - not to ask that anything be done, but to express an opinion.

I prefer to make a round difficult using course conditions instead of very difficult pins, but it's my restriction and not the general restriction. There are also many courses that I don't use because I think the greens are too easy. But overall it's only one person's opinion. If you don't understand it, know that I don't understand the opinion that the rough is too tough.

Pete
gene_golf
Posts: 241
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2019 12:30 pm

Re: Southern Hills

Post by gene_golf »

Maximus420 wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 1:56 am Course looks great to me. Appreciate you releasing it in time for the tournament. The only small nitpicks I noticed are #13 is 100 yards short of the PGA Championship yardage. No idea where that 632 yard tee would even go though. Also, the fairway bunker on #15 seems too close to the tees and doesn't come into play on tee shots as it appears to on the PGA Championship website. Last minor issue isn't a big deal, but #16 plays as a long par 4 for the tournament, not a third par 5, but you can just use a more forward tee for that. Thanks again for the hard work.
I checked provisualizer and new #13 tee looks as goes behind #12 green even though does not look right. Just played back nine and #13 played from back tee at 527 yards, a hundred yards shorter than will play in PGA. Concerning hole #15 the fairway sand trap is located at dogleg out about 275 yards whereas Glenn has it out only 240 yards from back tee. That appears to be an oversight on Glenn's part. Having sand traps that seem never to come into play is one of my issues with designing of courses, although some fairway sand traps might have been put on courses by designers as directional aids. Hole #16 has been played as a long par 4 in past tournaments that can remember watching. I just happened upon another article that goes against how players used to play chip shots from around greens from deep rough where every time they would grab lob wedge and do flop shot. Apparently the course redesigner, Gil Hanse has created some new runoff areas around the greens besides having deep rough or greenside sand traps.
https://www.cbssports.com/golf/news/202 ... -15-years/
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=fl ... &FORM=VIRE
Last edited by gene_golf on Wed May 18, 2022 3:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Adelade
Posts: 960
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2019 9:24 am

Re: Southern Hills

Post by Adelade »

Glenn, No one is attacking your course, please calm down. Im getting the impression you're not actually reading the posts where people try to explain or reason, but I will at least make one final attempt.

Disclaimer: I didnt want to enter all of these discussions. I thought we could just agree to disagree about our tastes in courses and move on like adults, without having to go into details in order for our opinions not to get criticized, but when I feel unjustly targetted by misconceptions and falsehoods, many of which I have strong evidence against, then I feel forced to defend myself before exiting this thread.

gene_golf wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 5:37 amI can definitely see where he would be put off by such a comment that someone hates the look of course
Wait, who said they hated anything about the course?

As for me, never did I say I had a problem with how things were, quite the opposite in fact. The same goes for Pete (pmgolf). I saw nothing that wasnt reasonably polite from anyone else either.

dko wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 4:21 amThe article also states that the stimp is going to be 11 or 12, so not exceedingly fast (MC/MC?).
gene_golf wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 5:37 amI can definitely see where he would be put off by such a comment that [...] real green elevations do not suit someone for their ever playing course as cannot use fc/fc setup and Glenn out and out gave forewarning that doing so would be stupid to think of ever playing course in that way.
No one said they needed or wanted to play this course on Fc/Fc, or even anything faster than Mc/Mc. I shouldnt assume to speak for Pete here, but the 10th green in regards to pins is at least beyond what I find enjoyable for Mc/Mc too. I have every right to decide for myself what I enjoy or not. You can indeed make an argument that speaking up about it is unnecessary in some situations, but as I will argue below, we had no reasonable way of knowing that this type of beta feedback was unwelcome here. Everywhere that I've been involved in Beta testing, the norm is that Beta versions which dont specify otherwise, always invite - even encourage - opinions. I delivered my opinion as politely as I could without lying. I very much welcome being taught how one could have phrased it better without repressing oneself.

dko wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 4:21 amGlenn puts a lot of time (and some money for Strakaline) into his courses to make them as real as possible. Criticism like the above has got to be galling.
gene_golf wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 5:37 amI was shocked that 2 long time posters were not aware of Glenn's expertise in crafting greens for his courses to have real life elevations and that is a part of replicating courses as well as can be done here in Links.
I have long been avoiding this subject, but the phrasing in those two comments have me unable to not defend myself, I apologize for my weakness. Please let me finish before you react:

Doing green charts purely with elevation lines for verts is still only an approximation, and does not 100% result in the real greens. The ground surface in Links/APCD does not go through every vert unless dealing with sharp edges (which wouldnt work for greens), the surface merely gets partially pulled towards the verts. The more dense the verts are around areas where the severity of elevation changes rapidly, the more accurate the results will be, but it will still always be at least somewhat of an approximation. In terms of putting, a difference in slope that may sound small can have a rather huge effect on how much putts will break. I could demonstrate this effect more clearly if anyone cared. Anyways, in general it can be thought of in a simplified way that slopes will become closer to the average slope of the nearby larger area, which, for greens with a character like the 10th at Southern Hills, tends to cause the flattest areas to become steeper in Links than the real thing, and the steepest parts to become flatter in Links than the real thing.

Secondly, Glenn Braden already told us that he makes the slopes on his greens on average 20% steeper than the charts show:
braden1308 wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 1:12 pm
Hi Danny, I use 10 digit on all of mine, give or take 1depending on how cranky the APCD is acting. You are going to have some mellow greens but I like your idea.

Glenn :thumbup:
(To clarify, the "correct" number for making greens as accurate as possible is eight-and-a-third digits per inch. And 10 divided by 8.33333... is 1.2 ) (For full context, this quote was taken from this thread, in response to this post by Dan: viewtopic.php?p=12802#p12802)

Now let me be very clear - I have always been fine with Glenn Braden (or anyone else) making their greens like this. I never claimed nor thought that it is reasonable to demand or expect anything particular about how anyone makes their greens. I care very little if greens dont become fully accurate, I sure like it when all greens have at least one pin that is fair and realistic for pro play simulation, but I will always be content to let each designer decide for themselves. All I claim is the right to choose for myself which courses I enjoy or dont enjoy, and the right to openly say so when I have no reasonable way of knowing that someone doesnt welcome opinions about their courses.

braden1308 wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 11:43 am I asked you people to be constructive on your comments with the betas but NO, you have to attack it. Screw all of you,
Firstly, when have you ever asked this of us? It is always possible that I might have missed something, but since I have always kind of reflected upon and wondered about why you never gave any information about what type of feedback youre looking for (or any information about your beta releases at all, really), and therefore been on the lookout for it, I highly doubt you can point to anywhere that you did ask anything like this to us all.

Either way, if I had known that you wanted constructive criticism only, and that you personally dont seem to qualify the things that's been said in this thread as constructive enough, I can assure you that I would have been happy to provide more clear suggestions, and Im sure we all could have adapted to that, if you had let us know. The problem is that highly constructive criticism where one suggests more clearly what could be done, can also easily be taken as an attempt of telling someone what to do, or as if people hint that you might need to be told exactly how to do something. Take these examples:
Adelade wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 4:04 pm[...] the lack of updated hole previews makes it troublesome for me to enjoy this course
ChuckH wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 9:24 pm[The deep rough]'s just too severe for me.
dko wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 4:21 amthe hole handicaps apparently didn't make it to the beta except for holes 1 and 2.
Maximus420 wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 1:56 amthe fairway bunker on #15 seems too close to the tees and doesn't come into play on tee shots as it appears to on the PGA Championship website.
(Keep in mind that those quotes were taken slightly out of context from comments which were all much more positive overall.)

Are you saying that you would have preferred them to have spelled out how to amend those concerns in APCD? Somehow I doubt you would have liked that better. But as I said, if this is indeed how you feel, Im sure we all would be happy to adapt to each one's best ability. We had no reasonable way of knowing this, so please stop blaming us. At least I thought all those were self-explanatory enough in their constructivity, they clearly hint that added or edited hole previews, changed deep rough property, added hole handicaps and a moved bunker are things that you could do if you wanted these people happier. Or, if you didnt want to, you could have not done those things. No one hinted that you had to. Anyone is free to agree or disagree with these opinions or "suggestions" (if Im allowed to call them that), but a disagreement in that sense is not a valid argument for calling them non-constructive.

The reason why I brought up the greenslopes in the first place was in fact not mainly as a point of feedback, but rather a heads-up to the other people who value fair pins and realistic green speeds. Usually, something that might take away from one's enjoyment during a round, can often feel like less of an issue if knowing about it beforehand, rather than having an unpleasant surprise in the middle of a round.

If someone is very sensitive to criticism and doesnt want to change that about oneself, that should be respected IMO, just give people a reasonable chance to know about it before anything like this happens. However, to everyone, I caution against culture shifts towards where nothing but flattery will feel appreciated for feedback, we've already lost several memebers of the community, in large part because of things like that. I'd be absolutely fine with sitting back and not providing any opinionated feedback to certain designers when I know they dont want it, but if more and more people start doing that, dont be surprised if it leads to that designer's courses being less and less popular, simply because they dont even find out what people want. Anyone is free to not care about other people's opinions, but since this thread resulted in such strong emotions because of things that people "didnt like", I think it clearly demonstrates that someone did indeed care whether we enjoyed their courses or not. For what its worth, at least I think that is a very positive force.
Finished main APCD Projects: Amedal (own design), Nine Bridges (real course). Joint effort: Kauri Cliffs HD. Updates: Whirlpool, Royal Lytham, Royal St George's, Chicago, Chambers Bay
Working on: 2 fictional courses + Austin CC + a couple things...
Maximus420
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 2:25 am

Re: Southern Hills

Post by Maximus420 »

Almost afraid to post again with Glenn's reactions, but I think this course is actually close to great. I personally don't mind the greens, they are severe, but by all accounts the greens are very severe in real life. For PGA replication purposes, I still think the changes to 13, 15, and 16 are necessary. But more than that, the course just needs a first cut around the fairways and about 3-5 yards of standard rough around that. The fairway slopes are pretty severe, so immediate deep rough is a bit much for tournament simulation purposes. Other than that, I think the layout and construction is quite impressive.

Unfortunately there are some limitations to the Links game as compared to modern golf simulation. Today's players and technology allow players to play actual shots from the rough, not just chop it out. The deep rough on Links only really allows for chopping out, so I think some moderation in rough textures is necessary for replicating modern golf.
User avatar
MrT
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon May 24, 2021 5:48 pm

Re: Southern Hills

Post by MrT »

Adelade wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 4:04 pm Nice update, 3 or 4 greens are indeed tough - which I dont mind - but sadly there is not a single pin on 10th hole that is not on 4% (or higher) greenslope, and that whole green seems to lack any such spots. That together with the lack of updated hole previews makes it troublesome for me to enjoy this course but not a big deal, the layout itself hasnt really grabbed my attention anyway so Im perfectly content with instead enjoying the many other courses you've worked on which suit my tastes better :thumbup: Im sure people who use slower and/or easier putting settings and who dont depend on hole previews will enjoy this one.
I am confused. Someone is saying that Hole 10 is tough? What settings are we talking about? I played it several times at M/Fc and I even birdied it twice. And I chose only medium or difficult pin placements. I am also used to see much worse in terms of sloped green. Much worse to the point that I feel like I have to curse someone. I assume that someone must be playing at F/Fc or Fc/Fc. I have not tried to play it like that, but I can guess that might be next to impossible to handle, handle well at least. But if the real game is around stimp 12, that is around M/Fc and I did not notice any issue. And, if someone has not noticed it yet, I make a huge fuss about greens. Some I even dream of bulldozing them! So, if a big complainer about greens like myself does not see the horror of the green on Hole 10 either we are talking much harder settings (maybe too hard?) or I am truly confused. Oh well, the mistery of greens. I still think that a golfer's best friend is to eagle all holes so there is not much need to putt. :tongue:
dko
Posts: 61
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2020 3:26 am
Location: US West Coat

Re: Southern Hills

Post by dko »

I guess I have to back off my previous comments about severe rough and agree with Maximus' last post. Apparently the rough at Southern Hills is not expected to present much of a challenge, with the real obstacle being the newly configured greens that will push poorly struck approaches off to the sides and down the side slopes.

Outside of common US Open setups, the pros seem to often be able to hit these high shots from rough that stick on the green with little roll. I don't know how Links design can emulate that short of making courses 100% fairway from tee to green. :bookh:

I must say, though, that you can often do more than just "chop out" of severe rough; hitting a club or two more will often get you close to or even onto the green in the absence of trees, which you can punch a shot through in many cases if not stymied, and hitting woods from it will often run out a long way. As an example, I pushed my drive on hole 1 at Southern Hills into the right deep rough and from 176 yards hit a 4-iron that hit short and ran to pin high just off the green. Just sayin'. :whistle:
Doug
Post Reply