59 replies to this topic

[BlackCat0315]

Can someone please explain what realistic greens actually are ?

 

Perfect greens are obvious. When I watch a PGA tournament or the like, the greens are perfect. They have to be or the players would leave. Bumpy greens are obvious because I have played a few municipal courses where they are just that. Not maintained properly, pitch marks not repaired, bits of dirt, leaves, twigs and the odd mole hill.

 

But what is a realistic green ? By what is it measured ? What is the standard ? And who decided what the standard was ?

 

On top of this, why does the green grid not reflect what the green is doing ? Real golf allows us to read a green even if it is bumpy but the green grid on here reflects only the perfect option.

 

Can we either get rid of the realistic option or at least have a green grid that gives us a fighting chance ?

[Buck]

Here are 2 forum links for you to check out that have lots of comments on this subject and are a good starting point for your research.

http://www.perfectpa...alistic +greens

http://www.perfectpa...alistic +greens

[BlackCat0315]

Here are 2 forum links for you to check out that have lots of comments on this subject and are a good starting point for your research.

http://www.perfectpa...alistic +greens

http://www.perfectpa...alistic +greens

 

 

Thanks for those Buck, I hadn't previously seen them.

 

It actually brings up another question of why others are allowed to alter the green state (when setting a tournament) when the course creator might have spent time creating their greens in a specific way. When I designed my course, I had a very clear idea as to how I wanted my greens and think I succeeded in doing just that. I don't particularly want them changed because I think they are challenging enough without "randomness" being brought in to the equation.

[NoPutt]

Designers cannot choose whether a green is slow, fast, etc..,

or the condition of the green; perfect, realistic, etc., This is

an 'in game' decision by players and tournament organizers.

Greens change with weather, growth, mowing, and the game

gives options for these. Nothing is locked in by designers, as it should 

be. Of course you can suggest that your course be played in certain

conditions to play as you have designed it to be played, but options

are always a good thing.

[BlackCat0315]

Designers cannot choose whether a green is slow, fast, etc..,

or the condition of the green; perfect, realistic, etc., This is

an 'in game' decision by players and tournament organizers.

Greens change with weather, growth, mowing, and the game

gives options for these. Nothing is locked in by designers, as it should 

be. Of course you can suggest that your course be played in certain

conditions to play as you have designed it to be played, but options

are always a good thing.

 

 

In terms of the green speed, I agree.

 

But organisers never decide to have bumpy or "realistic" greens. The greensmen are always out there to ensure the very best putting surface possible regardless of stimp.

[JoeF]

You've pretty much got the explanation of bumpy greens.

 

There is no such thing as a "perfect" green in real life golf (as there is in a golf game), though PGA Tour venues would come close.

 

Realistic greens are just that.  Minor imperfections that elude the eye but can potentially move a ball off the "perfect" line.  

[BlackCat0315]

You've pretty much got the explanation of bumpy greens.

 

There is no such thing as a "perfect" green in real life golf (as there is in a golf game), though PGA Tour venues would come close.

 

Realistic greens are just that.  Minor imperfections that elude the eye but can potentially move a ball off the "perfect" line.  

 

 

I think I can probably agree with this.

 

If this is the case, then we need green grids that reflect what is going on.

[worrybirdie]

I generally play with realistic greens, as I feel they most closely emulate the majority of greens on tour (almost perfect). Perfect greens can be used when playing courses that are famous for the smoothness of their greens (Augusta, etc.). I rarely use bumpy, though I suppose it would be good for municipal courses, or other unusual circumstances (such as the year they had the US Open at Pebble, and the po annua got out of hand).

[Buck]

I generally play with realistic greens, as I feel they most closely emulate the majority of greens on tour (almost perfect). Perfect greens can be used when playing courses that are famous for the smoothness of their greens (Augusta, etc.). I rarely use bumpy, though I suppose it would be good for municipal courses, or other unusual circumstances (such as the year they had the US Open at Pebble, and the po annua got out of hand).

Me too - The only time I use perfect is when I'm going for The Masters experience.
I have sometimes setup a Bumpy round with some serious winds for a wild ride around The Old Course too, but not very often.

[JoeF]

I think I can probably agree with this.

 

If this is the case, then we need green grids that reflect what is going on.

 

But if the imperfections elude the eye, they'll elude the grid, too.  

[BlackCat0315]

But if the imperfections elude the eye, they'll elude the grid, too.  

 

 

Not all the time. They would have to interact with the grid every now and then. I just don't like the idea of not being able to see anything on here when you can on a real course.

[JoeF]

I don't use the grid.     

[Acrilix]

Not all the time. They would have to interact with the grid every now and then. I just don't like the idea of not being able to see anything on here when you can on a real course.

 

The realistic setting is supposed to simulate the imperfections that you can't see on a real course, so it is pointless to make them visible on the grid.

Just use perfect greens if you want the grid to be accurate.

[Buck]

The realistic setting is supposed to simulate the imperfections that you can't see on a real course, so it is pointless to make them visible on the grid.
Just use perfect greens if you want the grid to be accurate.

+1
Well said

I honestly love the Realistic setting. By my recollection, the imperfections have put in as many putts as they may have caused me to miss over time. For me it adds a little touch of some of the "stuff" that can exist and just happen when out on a real course and it makes the game more enjoyable to me.

For those that don't like that, Perfect still exists of course.

[BlackCat0315]

The realistic setting is supposed to simulate the imperfections that you can't see on a real course, so it is pointless to make them visible on the grid.

Just use perfect greens if you want the grid to be accurate.

 

 

When playing friendlies, I pretty much always use perfect greens but I do throw in a bumpy or realistic option from time to time.

 

In terms of the PG tournaments, I have a slightly different perspective. That is to say that if we are not able to read the true green state, then putting can be little more than pot luck rather than a test of ability. I think tournaments should be decided by the skill and ability of a player as opposed to the amount of luck a player gets, if you get my meaning.

 

It is interesting to read the angles of other players on this subject.

[BlackCat0315]

+1
Well said

I honestly love the Realistic setting. By my recollection, the imperfections have put in as many putts as they may have caused me to miss over time. For me it adds a little touch of some of the "stuff" that can exist and just happen when out on a real course and it makes the game more enjoyable to me.

For those that don't like that, Perfect still exists of course.

 

 

I'm not making a complaint here. I am just curious as to the nature of the setting.

 

I have asked about the standard by which realistic is measured and why the green grid does not reflect the state of the green under that setting. As I have mentioned, in real golf, you might not see everything but you will see some if not most things like pitch marks for instance and you can adjust accordingly. On the game, this is impossible which can be frustrating. It does sometimes feel like pure luck when the ball drops and I wish it didn't.

[Buck]

...in real golf, you might not see everything but you will see some if not most things like pitch marks for instance and you can adjust accordingly. On the game, this is impossible which can be frustrating. It does sometimes feel like pure luck when the ball drops and I wish it didn't.

This is mainly just a limitation of where we are with golf game visuals at this point.
Given your frustrations, it's probably best to just use the Perfect setting.

I personally don't mind the variation as, like I said above, it helps me as much as it has ever hurt me.

My putting is all the place anyhow..lol

[axe360]

I brought this up a long time ago. I agree with Blackcat. If I design a course, which I do, and I make the greens the way I do and I do, then I don't like some arcade thingy making them react in a Bumpy fashion.

 

However, the powers that be have overridden me on this and what the hell ya gonna do. So I just keep plugging away and hope everyone enjoys my courses. It's I guess, really not that big of a deal, it's more of a pride thing I guess.

Also it is really quite confusing to me anyway. If I put humps and bumps in my greens then what dose "Bumpy" do to my greens. Hmmm Anyway, I WILL NOT argue about this.

 

Not really that big of a deal, I guess it's there just to add some variety I guess.

 

Peace

[Buck]

...it is really quite confusing to me anyway. If I put humps and bumps in my greens then what dose "Bumpy" do to my greens. 

 

"Humps and Bumps" would be about the underlying terrain, whereas I think the green setting is more about altering the quality of the surface for that given round.

 

Does that make sense?

[BlackCat0315]

I brought this up a long time ago. I agree with Blackcat. If I design a course, which I do, and I make the greens the way I do and I do, then I don't like some arcade thingy making them react in a Bumpy fashion.

 

However, the powers that be have overridden me on this and what the hell ya gonna do. So I just keep plugging away and hope everyone enjoys my courses. It's I guess, really not that big of a deal, it's more of a pride thing I guess.

Also it is really quite confusing to me anyway. If I put humps and bumps in my greens then what dose "Bumpy" do to my greens. Hmmm Anyway, I WILL NOT argue about this.

 

Not really that big of a deal, I guess it's there just to add some variety I guess.

 

Peace

 

 

This potentially brings up another question.

 

Would a green be passed to play by PGLS or OGT if it was created in a realistic or bumpy manner ?