316 replies to this topic

[frank70]

Ted_Ball, on 08 Sept 2016 - 01:22 AM, said:

I often read the argument that the game is too easy around the greens and I am genuinely interested in why people think that way. In my experience with RTS-M and RTS-H it doesn't seem that way at all. It seems quite realistic. The real tour golfers I watch on TV appear to be able to get the ball close most of the time. Half wedge shots land close. Chip-ins occur. Bunker shots seem to be bread and butter for those guys. Long putts drop. The pros get annoyed if these shots aren't effective. It is very similar to my JNPG game (at Pro level and with the HUD on) and better than me at times.

 

Is it because of the swing hardware people use (and I'm not trying to advocate BARE golf here) or because of the precise information the HUD, grids and BLI provide? Even with those aids I'm not god-like around the greens. I guess if someone on JNPG wants to study extensively and slide-rule all that info the stats will be much better than real life. They'd be mad not to if they are competitive types.

 

I'd like someone to identify just where and why this part of the game is considered easy. I'm not trying to stir up trouble - I'm genuinely interested. There is another stat that I don't read about much in this debate and that is the putting stats for greens in regulation compared to overall putting numbers. If GIR putting numbers are extremely low then you can also assume that the longer game is easier as well.

 

I suppose if all the variables in shot-making come down to mathematical formulae and simplicity of equipment and swing mechanics then it is inevitable that scores will be very low. Although a real Tour Pro has a lot of info in regards to each shot they will never have the precise data or the simplistic and repetitive nature of our swings. Maybe it is time to consider less info in this game. I don't think the solution is to make it harder to score well by tweaking things like putting.

 

Maybe I AM advocating BARE golf.

Ted, the numbers don't lie. 80-90% of the Tour Pro players at OGT scramble better than the PGA Tour average.

 

And the best putters take around 95 putts per 72 holes. The best putter in the world (Jordan Spieth) took 115 last season. For me this difference is simply to big to call the short game a good simulation of golf. Others may differ.

 

There are 3 reasons for this imho:

 

• Physics aren't right. With shorter clubs there is simply too much spin on the ball, especially out of rough lies. This makes distance control too easy. You don't have to land the ball way in front of the flag and let it roll towards it. That's really difficult to calculate in real life. If you have a 60-foot chip out of heavy rough you normally play it around 20-25 feet in the air and the rest is rollout. This brings the slope of the green way more into the equation than we have it right now in the game. In the game you play it 30-40 foot in the air in the same situation. Huge difference imho.
• Execution difficulty: The most crucial thing in real life with chips, pitches, flops and greenside bunker shots is perfect contact with the ball. The game tries to simulate thin or fat contact through the snap (3-click), the ratio (mouse swings) or the swing plane (controllers). I would say the penalty simply isn't harsh enough if you miss the perfect contact. Again: this makes distance control a lot easier than it is in real life.
• Information: This is the main problem with putting. The BLI and the grid are simply too precise. You can exactly see every tiny little break. If a ball goes a smidgin to the left or right ... you can see it. In real life it is hard to see every subtle break. Even the Pros misread putts. We JNPG-players cannot misread putts, we just can interpret the information wrong. But over hours of play you get a better and betterv feeling what the BLI means in a certain situation. And the crazy putting numbers show it.

 

So what could be done?

 

• Ramp up the spin penalty out the rough for scrambling shots
• Make the perfect execution of those shots way harder. I could imagine speeding up the meter for the clickers for those shots in combination with a bigger penalty for missing the snap. Make a ratio miss for the mouse swingers costly. If you hit it with a 0.26 (fat contact) ratio the ball should be visibly shorter than intended. A 0.27 ratio would be a bad shot. Find a way to make it comparable difficult for the controller players.
• Putting. We don't really need NAP, as we don't want to put players with lower end rigs into disadvantage. I could imagine a seperate putting view (Links had it). In this view you would see only the contur of the green. No grass, no BLI no grids. Maybe a solution of different colours (blue downhill to red uphill) could be implemented. You would read the putt in this seperate view but you would have to aim in the main view. And of course getting a putt perfectly straight off the blade should have skill involved. It shouldn't be brutally hard (this would be an (too) easy bailout for the devs to ramp up the putting statistics). But even Pros push or pull putts from time to time. So should we in the game. With RTS-M it's easy to putt straight. The other devices may be different. But the numbers indicate that all swing methods could see some work.

 

That's my contructive take on the topic. The only thing that requires quite a few work would be this seperate putting view. I would suppose that the other things could be tweaked without a really big amount of time. I could be wrong though.

[Sup?]

jt83, on 08 Sept 2016 - 02:42 AM, said:

I only play single player 3C, and I sometimes shoot a good score around -7, but there's no way I'd do that at Southampton with strong winds, fast greens and hard pins.  I'd be happy with par.  If people are shooting -10 under those conditions, they're doing something extraordinary IMO.

 

 

Practice some more and get out there and play some multiplayer.... maybe you will get better.  I have found Southhampton to be a fairly easy course... but that's just me.  When you say "under those conditions" did you play in the OGT tourney?

[jt83]

No, solo play, I just set Southampton up with those conditions because it looks like that kind of track.  I also have some self-imposed restrictions, like re-hitting if I've hit somewhere that looks unplayable and rarely using the flop shot.  Combine all that with the odd mis-click and there's no way I'm double digits under par.

[fishwicket79]

frank70, on 07 Sept 2016 - 9:10 PM, said:

I think a lot of guys would appreciate the challenge. We don't need another level for that.

After all playing in an online tournament is all about trying to finish as good as you can. I don't believe that the majority get a great satisfaction of shooting -10 per round.

If we all would need 16 putts more per round and the scrambling would be harder the leaderboards would still be close together. This wouldn't harm the healthy competition at all.

Most of us are foremost golf fans. Wouldn't it be great to play more like golf on the PC than a video game of golf.

so are you saying that if guys play well putts really well and scrambles well when they do hit a few bad shots and then ultimately score well like -10 that there is no satisfaction in this lol ,am I reading this correctly or am I confused 😂

[Greensboronclion]

frank70, on 08 Sept 2016 - 06:50 AM, said:

Ted, the numbers don't lie. 80-90% of the Tour Pro players at OGT scramble better than the PGA Tour average.

 

And the best putters take around 95 putts per 72 holes. The best putter in the world (Jordan Spieth) took 115 last season. For me this difference is simply to big to call the short game a good simulation of golf. Others may differ.

 

There are 3 reasons for this imho:

 

• Physics aren't right. With shorter clubs there is simply too much spin on the ball, especially out of rough lies. This makes distance control too easy. You don't have to land the ball way in front of the flag and let it roll towards it. That's really difficult to calculate in real life. If you have a 60-foot chip out of heavy rough you normally play it around 20-25 feet in the air and the rest is rollout. This brings the slope of the green way more into the equation than we have it right now in the game. In the game you play it 30-40 foot in the air in the same situation. Huge difference imho.
• Execution difficulty: The most crucial thing in real life with chips, pitches, flops and greenside bunker shots is perfect contact with the ball. The game tries to simulate thin or fat contact through the snap (3-click), the ratio (mouse swings) or the swing plane (controllers). I would say the penalty simply isn't harsh enough if you miss the perfect contact. Again: this makes distance control a lot easier than it is in real life.
• Information: This is the main problem with putting. The BLI and the grid are simply too precise. You can exactly see every tiny little break. If a ball goes a smidgin to the left or right ... you can see it. In real life it is hard to see every subtle break. Even the Pros misread putts. We JNPG-players cannot misread putts, we just can interpret the information wrong. But over hours of play you get a better and betterv feeling what the BLI means in a certain situation. And the crazy putting numbers show it.

 

So what could be done?

 

• Ramp up the spin penalty out the rough for scrambling shots
• Make the perfect execution of those shots way harder. I could imagine speeding up the meter for the clickers for those shots in combination with a bigger penalty for missing the snap. Make a ratio miss for the mouse swingers costly. If you hit it with a 0.26 (fat contact) ratio the ball should be visibly shorter than intended. A 0.27 ratio would be a bad shot. Find a way to make it comparable difficult for the controller players.
• Putting. We don't really need NAP, as we don't want to put players with lower end rigs into disadvantage. I could imagine a seperate putting view (Links had it). In this view you would see only the contur of the green. No grass, no BLI no grids. Maybe a solution of different colours (blue downhill to red uphill) could be implemented. You would read the putt in this seperate view but you would have to aim in the main view. And of course getting a putt perfectly straight off the blade should have skill involved. It shouldn't be brutally hard (this would be an (too) easy bailout for the devs to ramp up the putting statistics). But even Pros push or pull putts from time to time. So should we in the game. With RTS-M it's easy to putt straight. The other devices may be different. But the numbers indicate that all swing methods could see some work.

 

That's my contructive take on the topic. The only thing that requires quite a few work would be this seperate putting view. I would suppose that the other things could be tweaked without a really big amount of time. I could be wrong though.

 

 

Two comments on what you said and they are all good thoughts.  First with all that going on to line up a putt then the average gamer would be turned off and not play as a lot of people who play this game just want to turn it on and play with some friends and I would venture that 75% fall into that category so if you were to make those changes it would have to be an option and not the rule so those who wish to play that way can and those who do not don't have to and that might be an expensive proposition.  Second is on the penalty for miss hits on 3C and Putting well you really need to go play some 3C and you will see that the penalty new is quite severe and anymore and it would no longer be fun or on some case playable and as for the putting if you want to see putts go left and right just try playing with an Xbox 360 controller at TP or Pro and you will get your wish.  All that you are looking for are good thoughts and as always you have good ideas and I value your opinion but the cost of these in both money and enjoyment of the masses is just not good for the bottom line of the game in general.  Just my two cents.

[frank70]

fishwicket79, on 08 Sept 2016 - 10:44 AM, said:

so are you saying that if guys play well putts really well and scrambles well when they do hit a few bad shots and then ultimately score well like -10 that there is no satisfaction in this lol ,am I reading this correctly or am I confused

The two of us miscommunicate quite often  .

 

Yes, you probably misunderstood me again. What means well? If i would have a -10 round once in a season at OGT i would fistpump after it. If i have it again and again it's no joy anymore - at least for me.

 

Scoring around -30 to -40 every single tournament isn't relaistic at all - period. No real person can do it. Actually, my German countryman Stephan Jäger set a record this year with a -30 in a Web.com tournament. It's the lowest score ever since the PGA exists. In OGT tourneys this score is the norm.

 

Almost all players on the OGT tour are way better scramblers than the best scrambler in the world, almost all are taking 20 putts per round less then Jordan Spieth. So, yeah, i stand by my point, that these scores are so unrealistic, that it is no fun for me anymore. You seem to feel differently - which is fine.

[fishwicket79]

frank70, on 08 Sept 2016 - 10:56 AM, said:

The two of us miscommunicate quite often .

Yes, you probably misunderstood me again. What means well? If i would have a -10 round once in a season at OGT i would fistpump after it. If i have it again and again it's no joy anymore - at least for me.

Scoring around -30 to -40 every single tournament isn't relaistic at all - period. No real person can do it. Actually, my German countryman Stephan Jäger set a record this year with a -30 in a Web.com tournament. It's the lowest score ever since the PGA exists. In OGT tourneys this score is the norm.

Almost all players on the OGT tour are way better scramblers than the best scrambler in the world, almost all are taking 20 putts per round less then Jordan Spieth. So, yeah, i stand by my point, that these scores are so unrealistic, that it is no fun for me anymore. You seem to feel differently - which is fine.

but it's not like you can close your eyes and score well every time haha when I score well I've played dam well and made some nice putts maybe that's why I am confused frank,maybe you should take your foot off the pedal:)

[frank70]

Greensboronclion, on 08 Sept 2016 - 10:50 AM, said:

Two comments on what you said and they are all good thoughts.  First with all that going on to line up a putt then the average gamer would be turned off and not play as a lot of people who play this game just want to turn it on and play with some friends and I would venture that 75% fall into that category so if you were to make those changes it would have to be an option and not the rule so those who wish to play that way can and those who do not don't have to and that might be an expensive proposition.  Second is on the penalty for miss hits on 3C and Putting well you really need to go play some 3C and you will see that the penalty new is quite severe and anymore and it would no longer be fun or on some case playable and as for the putting if you want to see putts go left and right just try playing with an Xbox 360 controller at TP or Pro and you will get your wish.  All that you are looking for are good thoughts and as always you have good ideas and I value your opinion but the cost of these in both money and enjoyment of the masses is just not good for the bottom line of the game in general.  Just my two cents.

As always you have good points.

 

These changes should apply only for the Tour Pro mode (maybe we should call it simulation mode). There would be absolutely room enough for the masses to enjoy the game as they like. I would say that the average gamer will not invest the time and the dedication to even reach the highest level of difficulty. But the die hard fans of the game do. Those players will embrace the realism imho.

 

Difficulty of putting: If it is really so difficult, why are the numbers of putts per round so low? Affo is a 3-clicker and he is the best putter on the Tour. Divotmaker is a RTS-C-player and needs 20 putts less than the PGA average. My numbers and those of many, many others are equally low. Again: Numbers don't lie.

 

If you get the simulation aspect really down (that means: execution of all shots in the game are comparable in difficulty with the shots in real life), this could have a huge marketing boost for the game. You could really play it like the pros. Erasing -40 and -50 out of the highest difficulty level would be an achievement no other current game in the market has done. If you want sales you have to be better than the competitor at least in some elements of your product. Right now there isn't much in JNPG that is clearly superior. We have the lobby, weh have a wonderful innovative swing mechanic with RTS-M, and realtime physics (unfortunately most of the potential buyers won't care about that). Other than that: Graphics? Career? Atmosphere? Not better (yet) than the competitors (good enough for me!).

 

For fans of video sports games scores are very important. Because they are an indication of realism. Nobody wants to play a football manager that calculates 7:6 scores regularly, or an NBA game that has 180:180 scores. If PP can get those scores (on the highest difficulty level) to around the scores the sports fans can see every weekend when watching golf on TV it can only help the game. I don't see any negative point in that. Could realism really hurt a simulation?

[frank70]

fishwicket79, on 08 Sept 2016 - 11:12 AM, said:

but it's not like you can close your eyes and score well every time haha when I score well I've played dam well and made some nice putts maybe that's why I am confused frank,maybe you should take your foot off the pedal:)

With your play week in and week out you would wipe the floor with the Jason Days, Rory McIlroys and Jordan Spieths of the real world. How realistic is that?

[Ted_Ball]

Frank says...Ted, the numbers don't lie. 80-90% of the Tour Pro players at OGT scramble better than the PGA Tour average. And the best putters take around 95 putts per 72 holes

I say...This is obviously where the biggest difference lies. That’s at least 5 shots per round right there. We have to assume the best OGT players are using grids, BLI or both. I think we can also assume that these players will never play JNPG without those guides.

 

Physics aren't right. With shorter clubs there is simply too much spin on the ball, especially out of rough lies. This makes distance control too easy.

We can also assume that the lowest scorers are using every advantageous pitch and chip shot types available. That also means they know within 12 inches the distance to a landing point and by utilizing grids and BLI almost exactly how the roll out will break. Depending on their swing method they also know almost exactly how far to take their backswing. In some cases it would be millimeter accurate.

Does it matter how much air they take with those detailed assists?

I would make the point that tweaking the spin from heavy rough or from anywhere is not going to make a scrap of difference and those players will just make the necessary adjustments to compensate for any tweaks. It still doesn’t answer the question of how the real top class Tour Pros are so accurate around the greens and so similar to our top guys. If it is so difficult in real life to play those shots and the real pros are still so skillful in that part of the game then why can’t we. Forget about comparing stats. Why don’t we just compare what we see physically.

 

The most crucial thing in real life with chips, pitches, flops and greenside bunker shots is perfect contact with the ball……Again: this makes distance control a lot easier than it is in real life.

What makes distance control easy for us is the mechanical nature of a computer game and the traditional need for accurate information. (You are probably seeing where I’m going with this.) The trouble with making this part of the game more touchy is that there is a danger of making the game too frustrating and that is probably the biggest killer of enjoyment. Maybe not for a dedicated and skillful few but certainly for the majority.

 

This is the main problem with putting. The BLI and the grid are simply too precise.

Yes, exactly. Why would anyone expect putting stats to be anything worse than the real world in those circumstances?

 

Putting. We don't really need NAP, as we don't want to put players with lower end rigs into disadvantage.

Do we really need to persevere with artificial lines and dots (and crazy low putting stats) to satisfy low end rigs? All they need to do is to play their rounds with those aids on until they upgrade.

 

I could imagine a separate putting view (Links had it). In this view you would see only the contour of the green. No grass, no BLI no grids. Maybe a solution of different colours (blue downhill to red uphill) could be implemented.…….And of course getting a putt perfectly straight off the blade should have skill involved.

Putting is another part of the game that should never be made an exercise in frustration. Beware of those changes to the ability to putt straight. I’ve been there in the past in PG and it is no fun to have putts with a mind of their own. I have always maintained that pros and I dare say a lot of amateurs have the skill to putt in a straight line. Why would you replicate the game of a bad putter? It wouldn’t make sense. (I see a problem with the amount of dead level putts - even 30 footers – that course builders give us. It is almost never a completely level putt at that distance in real life. Certainly not the high percentage we experience here.)

The option of different colors and shades for green contours has been raised before but it is still an visually artificial aid and I’m sure there would be a never ending debate about the best way to implement that.

 

That's my constructive take on the topic. The only thing that requires quite a few work would be this separate putting view. I would suppose that the other things could be tweaked without a really big amount of time. I could be wrong though.

We can wish for and plead for and make loads of suggestions but to be realistic (or cynical) I don’t think tweaking and adjustments and new methods of reading putts will ever happen. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the way things are now and I would think the developers wouldn’t want to go down that rocky road. Especially when our players are getting very good putting numbers with NAP.

 

Sometimes it takes a complete change from traditional ways of doing things to embrace new innovations brought about by technological improvements. It’s hard to change twenty years of habits – but not for some of us.

[fishwicket79]

frank70, on 08 Sept 2016 - 11:15 AM, said:

With your play week in and week out you would wipe the floor with the Jason Days, Rory McIlroys and Jordan Spieths of the real world. How realistic is that?

I'm sorry frank but I can't help it if I play well can I and after all this is video golf and I love video golf,realistic or unrealistic

[frank70]

@Ted

 

great in depth answer. Just one thing. Your eye test is misleading. Tour Pros scramble on average with 58% and they get up and down out of greenside bunkers with a 50% clip. That are facts. Maybe they show mostly the successful scramble attempts on TV.

 

P.S.: short game physics: You may be right, that realistic ball physics may not make a big difference (i would concur that, because there would be more variables to be calculated). But realism in this case is a value on his own. If something is right .... it is right. Saying in front .... "won't help much anyway" for me isn't the right approach.

[frank70]

fishwicket79, on 08 Sept 2016 - 11:22 AM, said:

I'm sorry frank but I can't help it if I play well can I and after all this is video golf and I love video golf,realistic or unrealistic

Fair enough. I love video golf .... but only when it's realistic.

[fishwicket79]

frank70, on 08 Sept 2016 - 11:24 AM, said:

Fair enough. I love video golf .... but only when it's realistic.

which im afraid you won't get.buy a simulator to fulfill your realism needs frank.I take it you won't be playing anymore then😊

[frank70]

fishwicket79, on 08 Sept 2016 - 12:01 PM, said:

which im afraid you won't get.buy a simulator to fulfill your realism needs frank.I take it you won't be playing anymore then

Yeah, i am a pretty good golfer in real life. But when firing up a video game i want to play like Rory and Co. .......  (but not that much better!!!!  )

[Armand]

For all of my rounds at OGT (I play Tour Pro RTSH), I do find that it is generally pretty easy to hit straight off the putter.  At Pro mode, it's even easier.  That statement comes from me, where I do well to break 80.  If anyone ever takes note of my scores, they would probably question why I play the game or why I don't play Amateur or Beginner.  But I digress....

 

When not playing at OGT, I use "Custom" difficulty - that is Tour Pro with the snap assist set to off as well (i.e., the old Tour Pro).  I find I'm often pushing putts to the right.  This usually has to do with the angle of mouse in my hand, the angle of my hand relative to my elbow, and/or body posture while swinging.  Yes, I can often correct those things, but they easily creep back in and catch me off guard.  Maybe it's just me, but perhaps try a few solo rounds with the off/off difficulty setting and see if your perception of putting straight remains.  To me, it seems that PP have added more difficulty/sensitivity to the putting swing, but most everyone continues to use the aids that, by default, set up in the difficulty levels.

 

I agree that another level of preset difficulty could be added or perhaps just change Tour Pro back to off/off - I never understood why this changed.  If a new preset is added, make it off/off with no BLI and no grid.  I like the suggestion of calling it "Simulation", even though the game is played on real simulators - just don't make this difficulty level the default if players are using a simulator!

[Gemini43460]

Well, after 10 pages of this thread, the short answer to the OP question is simply "YES"...is a realistic round of golf on JNPG an impossible dream?

We need to remember this is a video game, whether anyone wants to argue the semantics of calling it a "simulation" or not.  It is impossible to replicate a real round of golf using 0s & 1s coded by a programmer in a computer.  Whether you subscribe to "chaos theory" or not, one cannot possibly duplicate the infinite variables that exist in playing an actual round of golf on the course with a computer program.  I don't care how good the game physics are supposed to be, they will always fall well short of an actual "simulation."  Everything from dew point, to barometric pressure, to whether the golfer's pants are too tight one day which is affecting his backswing...lol

And we need to reconsider the goal of "tweaking" things to make the scores more in line with the PGA players.  Doing this will actually make the game worse, IMO.  If the goal is to decrease scores by an average of say 5 strokes per round, we need to remember this is an AVERAGE.  The best players scores will actually only go down maybe 2 strokes, while the rest of the field will get worse by like 8 strokes.  All you are accomplishing is widening the distance between the "haves" and the "have nots."  

Inherently, there is a ceiling to how good you can be in a golf video game.  I consider -22 a "perfect" round on a par 72, where you eagle the 4 par 5s and birdie the rest.  The reality is, the easier the game, the more people can approach this ceiling which increases competition.  The harder the game, the fewer will approach that ceiling and the gap will be wider between the top & bottom of the leaderboard.  So, you need to decide...do you want "realism" (at the expense of competition), or "competition" (at the expense of realism)?

[frank70]

Gemini43460, on 08 Sept 2016 - 12:57 PM, said:

Well, after 10 pages of this thread, the short answer to the OP question is simply "YES"...is a realistic round of golf on JNPG an impossible dream?

We need to remember this is a video game, whether anyone wants to argue the semantics of calling it a "simulation" or not.  It is impossible to replicate a real round of golf using 0s & 1s coded by a programmer in a computer.  Whether you subscribe to "chaos theory" or not, one cannot possibly duplicate the infinite variables that exist in playing an actual round of golf on the course with a computer program.  I don't care how good the game physics are supposed to be, they will always fall well short of an actual "simulation."  Everything from dew point, to barometric pressure, to whether the golfer's pants are too tight one day which is affecting his backswing...lol

And we need to reconsider the goal of "tweaking" things to make the scores more in line with the PGA players.  Doing this will actually make the game worse, IMO.  If the goal is to decrease scores by an average of say 5 strokes per round, we need to remember this is an AVERAGE.  The best players scores will actually only go down maybe 2 strokes, while the rest of the field will get worse by like 8 strokes.  All you are accomplishing is widening the distance between the "haves" and the "have nots."  

Inherently, there is a ceiling to how good you can be in a golf video game.  I consider -22 a "perfect" round on a par 72, where you eagle the 4 par 5s and birdie the rest.  The reality is, the easier the game, the more people can approach this ceiling which increases competition.  The harder the game, the fewer will approach that ceiling and the gap will be wider between the top & bottom of the leaderboard.  So, you need to decide...do you want "realism" (at the expense of competition), or "competition" (at the expense of realism)?

Some interesting thoughts. I have a different opinion considering the last paragraph. First of all a score of -22 in a golf game that calls itself a simulation is almost a travesty in my opinion.

 

And i am of a different opinion considering the gap between top players and good players as well. I was talking about the short game only, the long game is perfectly fine. Right now the best players make 10-12 birdies a round (sometimes more) - the leader on the PGA Tour, Rory Mc Ilroy made 4,4 on average.

If this would drop down to an average of 5 for the Top-players in the game because the difficulty of putting would be more in line with reality, i would think that the scores would even be closer together. The good players wouldn't make zero birdies all of a sudden. They too would make a few. And they won't all of a sudden begin three-putting. We won't see that many more bogeys - why shouldn't we, because the length of the shot would still be on the screen.

 

Example: The Top player knocks the ball on the green 16 feet away from the flag. Stastically (Pga Tour statistics) he makes birdie 18% of the times.

The other player knocks the ball to 24 feet. Statistically he makes birdie 12% of the times.

 

If that would be reflected in the game the scores would be closer together, cause the top guys wouldn't birdie that much. I would estimate that the top guys right now sink 16 footers with a clip of almost 50%. From 24 feet it is a different story. Maybe with a 25% clip. That's a huge conversion rate difference. Whereas on the real Tour the difference in this szenario is just 19% against 12%. Less birdies for everyone would be bringing the scores together imho.

If you look at real PGA Tour stats the putts per round is relatively close together. Jordan Spieth took only 1 putt less than the PGA Tour average. This is because all players have a rather slim chance to hole a putt from 15-20 feet (Tour average under 20% !!). If that would be the case in the game as well, superior ballstriking of the Top-players would kind of be nivellated by the difficulty of holing putts.

 

I don't know who is right. Maybe we just test it? 

[Gemini43460]

For the record, I wasn't suggesting -22 should be attainable...only stating that there is a relative "ceiling" for the game itself.  And I disagree that you can make a difference to the game that only affects the top players, in order to level the playing field.  I still feel that the harder the game, the wider the difference between top and bottom.  The easier the game, the more people can compete.  I'm not advocating one over the other, just stating my opinion.

[frank70]

Gemini43460, on 08 Sept 2016 - 1:23 PM, said:

For the record, I wasn't suggesting -22 should be attainable...only stating that there is a relative "ceiling" for the game itself.  And I disagree that you can make a difference to the game that only affects the top players, in order to level the playing field.  I still feel that the harder the game, the wider the difference between top and bottom.  The easier the game, the more people can compete.  I'm not advocating one over the other, just stating my opinion.

Harder is a question of definition. If top players and good players have a statistical similar chance to hole a putt, i don't see any indication that that would lead to wider scoring gap. Top players would sink one or two putts more a round than the good player. Now they probably sink way more of a difference than that. 

 

It would merely be the question one-putt or two putt.