132 replies to this topic

[Dazmaniac]

TB said:-

 

This is the 2nd hole at Royal Sydney. From the front tees the carry to the thick red is about 250 yards. You aim to the middle of the fairway. There is danger right in the trees and bunkers left. You might, therefore, decide to take a 3 iron off the tee to keep your ball in play.

 

Just because you take a 3 iron instead of the driver should be no guarantee of hitting the fairway. whilst you might gain a little more control with the iron, loose shots can still be hit and trouble found as a result.

[Ted_Ball]

That's true Dazmaniac. The 3 iron would carry to the fat part of the fairway though, and take the long bunker out of play as well as reducing the danger of being in the trees on the right. They are the decisions that have to be made in golf and what make great golf courses great. The 2nd hole was probably designed with that risk/reward in mind. If we consistently hit the ding in a computer game then there's hardly any point in designing courses with those dangers.

[Ted_Ball]

Monday morning.

 

I've got the place to myself. Mrs Clatterbang has gone off to work. I wanted to wait 'til today to add to this occasional series. While eating breakfast at the keyboard (natch) before getting started I thought I'd check in at TGC forum for some amusement and get myself revved up. I wasn't disappointed. If you want a really good laugh just read a few threads there. One in particular had me chuckling. It was about a different mindset when we play console/PC golf. It was getting heated at times but interesting too, with one of the HB powers putting in his spin as well and, of course, they were all trying hard and getting nowhere.

 

In essence it was about realism in scoring and how computers etc. fail or otherwise in replicating the real experience of golf. The most depressing thing was a general consensus that we, as computer golfers, should just accept that -22s are the way it has to be and we should treat birdie as par and eagle as birdie. Utter nonsense and I won't accept that for a minute. Unfortunately the solutions, like a thousand times before, were, tweaking the swing gauge, making courses harder, having different difficulty settings and other crackpot ideas. But the post that had me choking on my toast was the guy who said, "Until there is a motion system that can accurately capture 100 percent of the golf swing and replicate every detail of that swing in the game, there will never, ever be realistic scoring in any golf game without introducing complete randomness into each shot.  Like EA tried the random landing areas a few years back. Who wants the computer randomly deciding where the ball is going to go?  That's even less "sim" IMO than someone shooting -22 playing "laser golf".". He then went on to say, "99% of the difference (between amateurs and pros) is the pro's ability to hit the ball where he wants to." Does anyone else see the stupidity in this statement? 

 

There were some sensible replies though. One I had to agree with said this, "Sure, developers can make it so sensitive that it becomes hard, if not impossible to swing perfectly straight with normal controllers.  Which in theory would lower the scoring.  Which might not be so bad....IF you could get everyone to play with the same standard controllers.  Instead, you get people figuring out never miss controllers, using keyboards or edging with their mouse to defeat whatever sensitivity difficulty is built into the swing. Not wanting to open that debate, but the harder and more sensitive the swing is made, the more that stuff comes into play, and usually dominates."

 

OK, I'm being selective in quotes that support the TBSG-RSV philosophy but all that tangled and convoluted debate goes to indicate that, just maybe, a simple and less complex formula for 'simulating' real golf might work. The Theory of Everything (golf division).

 

By the way, I don't know first hand how successful Wii type controllers are but I was told people have discovered that rather than stand up in your lounge room and do the full swing thing with all the effort and embarrassment that comes with it you can slump down in your Laz-E-Boy chair with a beer in one hand and a plate of chips on your lap and with your arm over the side of the lounge merely flick the controller with your wrist without spilling a drop and get the same results.

 

Let's get back to Ted Ball's Swing Golf - Realism, Simulation and Verisimilitude.

 

I actually have done some extensive thought experiments on what comes next - after you've hit your drive and approach shot on this Par 4. I had an initial idea about dealing with your third shot if you miss the green but something was not quite right. I found I had to introduce a 'cosmological constant' to explain away certain aspects of the solution I had come up with in my theory. I can't possibly compare myself with Einstein in admitting this blunder. No - I'm a much better golfer than he.

 

I'll post this to keep it to an agreeable length now and expound further later in the day (and clean the crumbs out of the keyboard).

[shimonko]

But also in real golf, some people get fitted with clubs fixing their faults, they'll use rangefinders to eliminating yardage approximation, they take carts to eliminate fatigue. They'll pay top dollar for balls or new wedges that stop on the dot. People do what it takes to score less.

 

A pro with a bucket of balls will put a high percentage of those balls in a tight circle from under 100 yards. There is no randomness, just elements that can't be easily modeled, like pockets of warm air, pulsing wind, balls with off COG. Randomness is a good stand-in for these little bits.

 

But they don't cause a pro a 10 yard variation in landing zone approaching from short distance, but rather mere yards.  A player in the zone should not be at the mercy of excessive randomness every shot, but just occasionally. Mere yards in landing zone is all takes to make a par more likely than birdie. It is up to the game to realistically model putting to make this so.

 

Different controllers will never be able to compete against each other unless everything is totally random--but that isn't golf. If a controller handicap system is brought in based on previous rounds,  then the sandbaggers will come. Someone on a $16000 Trackman still doesn't have to deal with uneven lies or fellow competitors farting mid swing, so even confidently capturing the swing still won't be a 100% simulation.

[Kablammo11]

Finally a new and fresh contribution from our own philosopher-in-chief, the formidably downunderish Teddy. I completely agree with the gist of your last statement - and yes, I do swing by the TGC Forums every day, too, for a few singgering giggles and to build up an unashamedly elitist sense of slightly arrogant computer golf superiority.

 

But talking about random elements, kindly peruse the content of the following link for possible inspiration; it proposes to introduce randomnnes not only to the shot, but also to the terrain where that shot will land. I dislike quoting or linking to my own past threads, it makes me appear quite vain, I realize that, but then this might be the place to bring this up again:

 

http://www.perfectparallel.com/topic/291-fuzzy-ball-physics/

[Ted_Ball]

People will certainly do what it takes to score less. It raises a possibility of having rounds in a golf game that are casual where those aids may be used and tournament rounds where they may not.

 

Yeah shimonko I agree a player in the zone should not be at the mercy of excessive randomness. I certainly wouldn't endorse that. But as you say "just occasionally". That is what a bell curve randomisation would do. I'm sure there's a more technical term for 'bell curve' but even a small difference from perfect could contribute to a missed putt, for instance, as you say.

 

And, wow!, K11. Thanks for pointing me to that thread. I like that concept. I'll read the whole thing in depth a bit later (although the esoteroticism of the physics is slighly beyond me).

[Ted_Ball]

We have to think about what we want in a golf sim but at the same time we have to decide how we are able to achieve what we want. We also have to reconcile our expectations with the possibilities and probabilities. If we consider what we want in real golf and how we are going to achieve that within those possibilities and probabilities in spite of our expectations, and compare those things, then we are quite a long way towards answering all the questions.

 

In real golf we actually expect to hit the ball cleanly and end up with a satisfactory result. We all know that is improbable - for every shot. It's possible but improbable. I collected my only eagle in 50 years from about 170 yards on a par 5. I didn't hit the ball particularly well and in fact it went left but kicked off a hillside and turned to the hole at a sharp angle. I didn't expect to hole the shot. If it had missed the green left I would have been quite content. If I had struck the ball with perfect timing and it felt beautiful off the club - fading in with a gorgeous arc - and landed anywhere on the green I would have felt fantastic and maybe felt better than the embarrassment I felt in front of my disgusted son who was trying to beat me for the first time.

 

In computer golf games we have played over the years our expectations have become corrupted by the design and coding . It's a shame. It's a shame because there might not be any going back. But if we didn't have these unrealistic expectations and we were satisfied and even sanguine about simply being out there trying hard to hit the next shot well, then we might have a golf sim that reflects the expectations and probabilities of real life - as well as the scores.

 

There is one thing that a golf sim can do though. It can allow you to play like a pro. If that's what you expect from the game then it can be achieved. If you expect to score -22 each time you boot up the game then there are plenty of cartoon games out there already - but you won't be playing like a pro.

 

This is how I would have you playing like a pro.

 

You miss the green with your approach shot. It leaves you well within a full shot to the green. Your next shot could be anything. It could be from 50 yards or from the fringe. It could be from a deep or shallow bunker. It could be a chip, a pitch or a punch. It could be a little push with a driver from just off or a putter from 20 feet off. It could be from up a bank or from down in a ditch well under the level of the green. No matter from where or with what club you will play it like a pro. You won't necessarily get it close to the hole but you will play it like a pro.

 

My next post will explain further and will probably reduce my demographic to one and even he has his doubts.

[Dazmaniac]

That's true Dazmaniac. The 3 iron would carry to the fat part of the fairway though, and take the long bunker out of play as well as reducing the danger of being in the trees on the right. They are the decisions that have to be made in golf and what make great golf courses great. The 2nd hole was probably designed with that risk/reward in mind. If we consistently hit the ding in a computer game then there's hardly any point in designing courses with those dangers.

 

I think you miss what I am getting at.

 

Taking an iron off the tee is no guarantee of hitting the fairway. Yes, it will take the bunkers out of play a few hundred yards and change away, but a 3 iron can still be hit well off line, just like any other club and find trouble.

 

I'm all for courses that force a bit of course management on the player, but folks shouldn't always see an iron off the tee as being a given for hitting the fairway.

[Ted_Ball]

Absolutely. I think you would agree though, that the chances of a 3 iron staying on line IRL are better than a driver given the difference in ball flight and the influences on the ball. 

[Ted_Ball]

What makes a great golfer? What sets them apart from an good golfer? I'm only talking about people on the tour. Let's say - the top 200 male golfers in the world. What is the difference between number 200 and number 1? They both can hit the ball over 300 yards accurately. They don't have obvious weaknesses in their iron play or short game. In fact No. 200 is quite capable of beating No. 1 over 18 holes on any given day. Someone once said that golf is the only game where you win less than 10% of the time and be called a champion. Jack, the greatest of all time, played in 100 majors between '62 and '86 and won 18% of the time. He was incredibly consistent and finished second on a lot of occasions. He always seemed to be in contention but even he missed the cut 6 times and had a lot of majors in which he finished worse than 20th. So it seems to me that golf games have got it almost right. Everyone who starts the game has an equal chance to post a low score or even win a tourney. Or have they?

 

 

But it appears Jack had an edge.  It could be natural ability, an extensive practice regime, a good coach or good luck but just about everyone else probably had the same things. I believe it was his course management. You could call it nouse, vision, instinct. They are attributes that would be hard to teach - especially in the middle of a round. Or even in the middle of a swing. Jack stood on the 17th tee at Pebble Beach in the '72 US Open with a gale blowing off the ocean straight into his face. The 17th was a 209 yard par 3. He chose a 1 iron (!!!). He aimed to play to the middle of the narrow or shallow green but at the top of his swing he felt a strong gust and actually adjusted his swing to play a slight draw (I think) and hit the flag stick to finish 5 inches from the hole. That is an extreme example of course management but Jack was noted for his ability in that skill. He was the first guy to carry a yardage book. He was also a great putter (most of the time) and I still think that low crouch with head slightly behind the ball is a great model. Can you imagine Jack using a broomstick?

 

 

This is what I would like to see in a golf sim. I want to take away the unlevelness (?) of controllers and swing gauges and physical input giving players an unfair edge (*cough). I would like to see the seperation of scoring based on a players ability to use their course management skills - choice of club, placement, green reading from on or off the putting surface etc. If you couple that management skill with the building of your skill with certain clubs and acceleration for distance then you will have a significant input into how well you play golf in the sim and not have people winning online tournaments by their ability to ding a gauge or slide their mouse for a monotonously perfect shot every time.

 

So this is how I would have you playing like a pro.

 

Let me just remind you about my suggestion that instead of having a swing gauge or controller input I would have a "Take Shot" button that launches the ball. That sounds fine for full shots (if you agreed) but what about half swings, bunker play or chipping and putting? How do you set the strength of the swing or the acceleration needed for those shots? Well, you might want to sit down for this. I wouldn't have any. Rubbish bins.

 

We have made a golf game that allows you to play like a pro so let's take out the one thing that seems to make you play like an idiot around the greens and even on the green. The player input control.

[BionicWolf]

...and behind most every great golfer is a Mrs. Clatterbang (I love that term, clatterbang-hehe)

Carry on-

[Dazmaniac]

Absolutely. I think you would agree though, that the chances of a 3 iron staying on line IRL are better than a driver given the difference in ball flight and the influences on the ball. 

 

Given the way drivers are designed these days, and many amateurs opting for hybrid's instead of 2, 3 and 4 irons, I'm not so sure, lol.

 

[Ted_Ball]

The problem I had with swing gauges or TruSwings in playing 'touch' shots around the green was that you end up with the players that are best able to control the mouse having an unfair advantage over the rest. It was my theory while in online car racing clubs that the guys who were fastest were the people who were the most comfortable with computers. In other words, their ability to relate to what was happening on a computer screen through their dexterity with the controller. I'll explain it like this. I found that I was driving the sim with a certain amount of care so as not to go off the track and maybe crash out. Even with Force Feedback in the steering there wasn't that real life 'feel' for the momentum of the vehicle and that instinctive guide to the limits of traction and so on. The 'aliens' had come to terms with computers from playing games from a very early age and had the ability to overcome that lack of real input. They drove like it was a game. 

 

And so it is with golf games.

 

So it was for the reason of introducing a level playing field that I advocate a "No Controller" system. Unfortunately my method for the short game in the golf sim - where the stroke is less than a full swing - is far too radical for the general public. Galileo Galilei was placed under house arrest till the end of his days because of his radical views concerning heliocentricism. Darwin delayed publication of Origin of Species for 20 years for fear of social disgrace (among other reasons). I am already under a form of house arrest, as many married men would be familiar with, so that doesn't really concern me but social disgrace is a much more important matter hence my great reluctance in releasing my theory. Nevertheless, the system I might propose would have you playing like a pro and not like a frustrated buffoon and would be a lot more fun and place the emphasis on your skill as a golfer rather than your skill with a mouse.

 

What I can do is discuss the great art of putting and how it can be as salient in a golf sim as it is in real life without horribly psychadelic, distracting and superfluous grids as well as little aiming sticks or indicators cluttering up your screen designed by clever little graphic artists under the dubious excuse that, "You don't have the same visual inputs as in real life" instead of putting the effort into actually making a green look like a green.

 

Putting is the part of real golf that I really love. There's nothing like driving straight down the middle or sticking an 8 iron shot to within the shadow of the stick but it's when I'm on the putting surface that I feel most comfortable and confident. Just off the green I'm a wreck by the way. I'm strange I suppose (and you no doubt agree) but in real life I love downhill putts. It doesn't matter if it's straight down or a curler or down off a tier - I love them. I think it's something to do with the fact that gravity takes away a lot of the need to gauge the speed of the club head for someone with nervous hands. I just seemed to have this skill of being able to pick the 'fall' point - that spot on the green on a downhiller where the ball loses the human induced momentum and falls straight to the hole by gravitational force. (I noticed lately that there is a mob making a fortune from a system that finds that spot with a card and/or an app. I should hire myself out at half the price.) A golf sim can give you that same beautiful reward of holing or even lagging close without artificial aids.

 

A computer screen can't replicate what you see out on the green but it doesn't really matter. Every player will see the same detail on their screen (given the same resolution). What a computer can do though is simulate the decisions and choices that we are faced with IRL on the putting surface. The philosophy of putting can be exactly the same and I'm going to give you a free putting lesson utilising my philosophy.

 

Sir Francis Chichester became world famous in 1967 by becoming the first person to achieve a true circumnavigation of the world sailing solo from West to East via the great Capes. But in the late 1920s before he became a sailor  Chichester was a daring airman flying solo across vast oceans in a de Havilland Gypsy Moth biplane. On one trip he had to fly to Lord Howe Island - a speck in the Pacific - from New Zealand. He only had enough fuel to get to his destination and, therefore, had to hit the mark or ditch and die. His method of navigation was with a sextant and had to do calculations in an open cockpit while flying the aircraft and also had to use a certain amount of dead reckoning. Without going into detail, he found an ingenious method of surviving. The problem was that if he flew as straight as he could to Lord Howe using those unreliable navigation systems then what if he missed? What if he got to the position where he thought the island should be and had no visual contact? The question would be - which way do I turn? If he chose the wrong direction it's all over. It's an old navigational trick of course but what he did was deliberately aim to miss to the right!! When he flies to the distance of Lord Howe from New Zealand he then TURNS LEFT! Bingo.

 

And that's how you become a good putter.

 

Brad Faxon was asked how he became a good putter. He replied that he only became a good putter when he started to allow for more break. I read that this morning. I have always done that and I worked it out at a young age. We all know that the ball dies off at a greater angle as it nears the hole and loses forward momentum. It seemed to me that you could then afford to, sensibly, aim further outside the hole. But here's the real cruncher and my own "Ball's Theorem". If you miscalculate the line but have aimed wider then THE BALL WILL BE MISSING "TOWARDS THE HOLE" (and getting closer all the time). I've seen it happen so many times at my local club and even by pros on television where they misread a putt and because they have aimed too narrow the ball falls away and keeps GETTING FURTHER AWAY!!! I'm going to invent a coarse oath for those people when they miss low - "Lord Howe!!" I find myself erring on the wide side even though I believe the line is too wide to hole the putt but it's amazing how many putts you do hole to your own surprise.

 

I used the very same method in TWO and WGT (even though WGT is a horrible blur) without grids with great success. That's why I believe having no grids is not only the very best simulation method for putting but will also make you a better putter. You might say, "what if it's a straighter putt and the graphics can't pick a break?". Well then it's just like IRL when you can't pick the break -  hit it straight at the bloody hole! I would have great faith in no-grid putting if one day there was some future golf sim featuring K11's amazing courses.

 

It's a strange fact. People seem to want a golf game where they score really well. They don't seem happy unless they are hitting fairways in the middle and greens with every approach. They want to hole 30 footers at will. And they are happy to achieve that with magic eyes in the sky and little aiming sticks zipping around the fairway that they control from 300 yards away and strange text in the sky that tells them the windspeed to within 0.5 of a mile per hour and colours and lines and grids and garbage on the greens. You don't need all that rubbish to have a wonderful, rewarding experience.

[Acrilix]

Nevertheless, the system I might propose would have you playing like a pro and not like a frustrated buffoon and would be a lot more fun and place the emphasis on your skill as a golfer rather than your skill with a mouse.

 

I think you need to replace the word golfer with the word strategist, and in real life the primary skill of a golfer is closer to the skill needed to use a mouse than the skill of strategic play. Of course strategy comes into play, but it is not what separates the good golfer from the bad. That comes down to the physical control of the golf club. Golf requires far more than just mind games.

[Ted_Ball]

I'm disregarding bad golfers. I don't want a game to simulate MY real game for instance. Why would you program in a bad golfer in a golf sim. I think you'll agree than the top, say, 100 pros are all of a similar skill level in their control of the golf club - and as I have said before - any one of the top pros can beat any other one. If that's the case then mind games are very important.

[Kablammo11]

Thank your for your kind words about my humble course designs, Teddy.

 

Regarding your thoughts, your last bit was a good read. Absolutely loved the Lord Howe story! But your devious and deliberately provocative oversimplification of the golf game mechanism has not failed to elicit the unfavourable response from me that you no doubt have been aiming to draw out.

Overall I'd say that I need a bit more control over my own destiny in a golf game, other than making a strategic decision and pushing a button. If I hit a bad putt, a frequent enough occurence IRL, I want to be angry at myself for hitting a bad putt - and even more so, after hitting a bad putt I relish analyzing what I did wrong and trying to get it right at the next possible occasion. Likewise, if I execute a bad swing, an even more frequent occurence IRL and also a potential eventuality in a computer game, I deserve to be punished for it. And again, I want to mutter to myself "Keep your head still, you idiot!" or "Don't move your feet so much during the upswing, next time try and feel your thigh muscles tighten up instead of hopping around like a stupid ballerina..." Berating yourself and making minute adjustment to your body and your mind during a round is a visceral part of the game. With simply a single button to press (as opposed to going through a simplified and awkwardly incomplete shot routine with a swing meter or a mouse movement), there is no space for this vital part of the game.

Nor, correct me if I'm wrong, is it leaving room for personality and spur-of-the-moment situations: If I want to attack a 4 foot putt and ram it into the hole straight, at the peril of lipping out and ending up twice as far away, I want to have that option. If I decide to trickle the same putt in and start it outside the hole for it to die into the cup, I want that possibility, too. I'm not the same man I was a minute ago - nor similar to the one I'm going to be a minute from now. I do not want to "Take the Shot", I want to be able to "Make the Shot."

(SLAP!)
Yes Mom, no more cheap word play, sorry. Yes, sophistry is bad, Mom...

 

Another thing; you wrote this earlier: 

 

The problem I had with swing gauges or TruSwings in playing 'touch' shots around the green was that you end up with the players that are best able to control the mouse having an unfair advantage over the rest. It was my theory while in online car racing clubs that the guys who were fastest were the people who were the most comfortable with computers.

 

I must beg to differ. The players you described did not have an unfair advantage, I'm afraid. They had a completely fair advantage, because they excelled within a given system and performed a decisive task better than others. Being most comfortable with computers, by the way, is one of todays most sought-after comparative advantages in the economy and the work place. Sorry, you shouldn't blame guys who are better at something for being better and then undertake to protect those that aren't from being not quite as good. Meritocracy is a fact that you can't wish away when it does not suit you.

That's like saying that Tiger Woods has had an unfair advantage over all the other players these last 15 years simply because he played better than them. Advantage, yes. Unfair, no. It was only fair on account of him being brainwashed into playing golf by his Dad and being drilled 24/7 on the range as a kid without childhood, etc. He certainly fully deserved his later victories.)

 

 

People in general and computer golf players in particular come from different backgrounds, have different histories, possess different levels of different skills (some useful and others not so), harbour different expectations and ambitions and all have their own individual style of going about doing their thing... How can this diversity ever manifest itself within a golf game with just one button?

How can I express my own personality, my mood of the moment, my state of mind etc by pushing the same button as everyone else, "Take A Shot", with only limited control over the outcome and without being able to hold myself truly accountable for either success or defeat? How?

[Dazmaniac]

I want a golf game that allows you to play like burk, if that is how you make the shots or to play like a pro if I execute correctly, not just have me play at the the highest level all the time.

 

Like in a driving sim, I don't expect to be behind the wheel of a virtual car and drive it like Lewis Hamilton or Sebastian Loeb. I want the sim to let me drive the car how I drive it and let me crash, make mistakes, drive good laps etc.

[Ted_Ball]

I can't possibly comment on your post Dazmaniac.

[Ted_Ball]

Don't you just love 'The Forum'. Probably the most underrated, misunderstood, misused but egalitarian and most democratic form of public discourse in human history where everyone has a say whether what they say is crazy, ill-informed, wise, off-the-point, confused, enlightened, perceptive, indiscreet, irrational or heedless (well, everyone has a say unless they mention the sliderule). There is no-one talking over you, cutting you off, interrupting or throttling you. So I'll reply to K11 one point at a time safe in the knowledge I'm half a world away and far from his grasping hands. 

 

Mr K11 said that he needs a bit more control over his own destiny in a golf game, other than making a strategic decision and pushing a button. No, he'll be making a strategic decision and pushing FOUR buttons. It sounds like it's four times my preposterous method. But it's not of course. I've re-read through the "Swing Meter" thread looking for K11's animation of the woman swinging the club (as an alternative to a swing gauge). Reading all those posts reminded me of why I started this "Rubbish" thread in the first place. So many opinions. So many likes and dislikes. So many good and bad arguments for and against. So much scope for confusion and even rejection all together. I was actually looking for the animation to help me to support that method of swinging the club. Let's see if I can.

 

I have to reiterate my objection to 'the swing gauge' and that method's inherent trait of producing a similarity of result once the user is able to hit the spots time after time and, therefore, getting an unfair advantage over the users who haven't reflexes and dexterity as good.  "The players you described did not have an unfair advantage."   OK, you've had your say. Now let me have my say and why are your hands twitching? Unfair or fair advantage - they have an advantage.  "You shouldn't blame guys who are better at something for being better and then undertake to protect those that aren't from being not quite as good."   Madam Speaker, the Member has had his say. Thank you Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I'm not blaming those 'guys'. If anyone is to blame it's the developers who perpetuate the ancient method of swing gauge as shown by this example from 1991. 1991!

 

 

Sure they can add a click spot or two and introduce spin calculations but it's still open to manipulation (in the nicest possible way).  "Tiger Woo...."  Thank you Madam Speaker. At least Tiger Woods was always going to come back to the field unlike the 'Great Computer Manipulators (meant in the nicest possible way)' who will get better and better and will be shooting 49s.  "Meritocracy is a fact that you can't wish away when it does not suit you."  What you can do is reduce the number of ways that meritocracy has an influence on the glories of competition by having an emphasis on strategy, course management, tactical vision and the ability to read the lay of the land instead of how well players can hit a ding.  "How can I express..."  It's OK Madame Speaker let him speak.  "...how can I express my own personality, my mood of the moment, my state of mind etc by pushing the same button as everyone else, "Take A Shot", with only limited control over the outcome and without being able to hold myself truly accountable for either success or defeat? How?"   You mean your individuality in the twitch of your finger on the mouse button four times? Well if I could work out how you are expressing your mood and your personality in that manner I'll make that the subject of my thesis.  "How can this diversity (of background, history, expectations and ambitions) ever manifest itself within a golf game with just one button?"  No, you need four buttons and an avatar with stumpy legs. "I'm not the same man..."  Let him speak.  "...I'm not the same man I was a minute ago - nor similar to the one I'm going to be a minute from now."  I'm moving further away Madam Speaker.

 

But I have been thinking about the animation K11 posted in the "Swing Meter" thread. This has some potential.

 

I think it's quite sad that after all these years (decades) since "Hole in One Golf" from 1991 that there hasn't been the development of an innovative swing design. Other game genres are continually coming up with different systems of combat with varying degrees of success but at least there is an ongoing process of improvement and innovation. Apart from anything else it is a good way to stand out from the rest. Ponder this. Would it be interesting to be able to 'design a swing' for your avatar? That would certainly satisfy a need to input your personality and mood and individuality. Let's forget about the feasibility implementing this idea. Anything can be achieved if you want it. I'm sure a swing could be broken down into parts and with each part having an impact on the way the ball reacts. Swing plane, swing arc, how far past parallel at top of swing, swing speed, club face angle, angle of attack. And not just the swing of the club. The avatar's stance (open, closed, upright, bent?), position of ball at address, weight transference, body coil and uncoil. I'm supposing that the more parts to tweak, the more individuality is put in. Once you've settled on a 'swing' then it would be made the 'default' and you would have defaults for different shot types. 'Head Down' is a set default. No-one wants to swing like me.

[Kablammo11]

Well, here's that video again for all those who do not know about it:

 

 

But that would not eliminate your pet peeve about pesky meritocratic overachievers hitting the ding and thus milking the system. 

As for designing a swing: Links let you do that, determine your stance and swing plane and attack angle, but the animation did not change accordingly. And certain TW console games let you tweak your avatar swing and make it look different, but without any of this impacting the ball flight when taking a shot.