TGL

[Joe Zucker]

I think it's important to remember that the essence of the game is swinging the club and hitting the ball.

I agree with nearly everything else you said.  But this is just wrong.  The essence of golf is to hit the ball with a stick to get it from a teeing area and into a hole.  Even TGL has that.

Alright I agree with that. If understand you correctly you're putting a finer point on my statement.  You're clarifying that the point is to move a ball to a hole by swinging a stick.

[Michael Morandi]

I didn't watch, but how did the setup accommodate full wedge shots of 100-150 yards? 

As I understand it, the screen is 50-60 feet tall, but these guys hit wedges at well over double that in height.  Did they have to get up close to the screen so it would hit it before then, or did they flight them down?

They move up the hitting area

[Michael Morandi]

They need wind and rain machines to truly simulate the golf we play

[Tom_Doak]

There are a lot of old men yelling at clouds here.  If you didn't like it, that's fine.  Who am I to tell you what you enjoy?  But to pretend this isn't "golf" is insane to me.  For the vast majority of golfers, golf is about hitting a ball with a stick and this absolutely is golf.  For many of us in this niche GCA world, the course and grounds of the game take a massively outsized share.


I think it's important to remember that the essence of the game is swinging the club and hitting the ball.  Doing this on better courses obviously unlocks something special, but it is not a necessary requirement.  A few days ago a thread triggered a thought in my mind of how many of us would keep playing the game if we could only play Doak 2s from here on out?  Based on most posts, it seems like many here would drop the game. To me, this means you don't really love to play the game. You may love something else.


I would absolutely keep playing because I love hitting a ball with a stick. The fact that millions of people in Asia and beyond only play this game in a simulator has to mean something.  The attraction for us is interesting courses, but for most it is something else.

Joe Z did a poor job of objecting to your post so I'm going to help him.


The essence of the game [to me, and presumably to most people interested in golf course design] is to traverse a piece of ground from point A to point B in as few swings of the club as possible.  Simulator golf of any form, even in a huge stadium with professional players, is just a poor simulation of that.

[Matt Schoolfield]

In philosophy of language, there is the concept of the indeterminacy of translation. The most interesting part of that is that there is no reason that the concept behind it need to apply to different languages, it can apply to the same language.

This is probably one of the first real world conversation I've seen that is exactly that argument. Language is just pointing at things. Point at golf, that's golf. It's fun to see a discussion of the thoughts and association beyond the word that aren't necessary for the word to contain in communication. That is, until a new thing to point at arrives and makes different the meanings people have in their heads.

[Kalen Braley]

In an attempt to find some middle ground between Joe and the guys waving their fist at the clouds...

Even though we can safely say this is certainly not golf, just like TopGolf is not a driving range, it does not mean it isn't/can't be a viable business opportunity that pro golfers participate in where an audience of critical mass finds it interesting enough to make it economically viable.  In the spirt of Tom Paul's big world theory, the TGL just makes the circle a little bit bigger.

P.S.  If simulator rounds really do exceed regular rounds in the aggregate, seems this could be legit.

[Jason Thurman]

They need wind and rain machines to truly simulate the golf we play

Things I liked:

• The detailed tracking of the ball flight and how it created a buzz in the crowd struck me as the biggest "pro" vs real golf, where most spectators are blind to where the ball is between impact and landing - there was an added energy in following shots that were bordering on success/failure
• I actually liked the at-bat music since some of the guys exhibited better taste than I'd have expected - I certainly don't look back in anger at that element
• The severity of some of the holes. These guys are good enough to be asked to hit very demanding shots and to be penalized severely if they fail, especially in match play.

Things I didn't like:

• "Normal" Tour pro outfits looked absolutely ridiculous in this more casual environment
• The holes and gameplay aren't taking nearly the liberties they could take - Tom Doak's note about all the creativity that could be flexed by routing virtual holes around the New York area really got me thinking about just how much more off-the-wall they could get... literally and figuratively
• The puff monologue from the NASCAR man that scratched at the question "Why did these busy men choose to sacrifice more of their valuable time to participate in this?" was like a saccharine Tom Rinaldi story from hell - that treacly shit is bad enough in a real golf broadcast, and certainly doesn't belong in this untraditional atmosphere

Point being: I don't think the goal should be to simulate real golf. I think the path to making it interesting will come from more differentiation, if it comes at all.

[Pete_Pittock]

Pro golfers can play the game without a one-minute discussion with their caddie? Whooda thought.  I would rather watch LIV golf than this, but TGL music is slightly better.

[Michael Morandi]

There are a lot of old men yelling at clouds here.  If you didn't like it, that's fine.  Who am I to tell you what you enjoy?  But to pretend this isn't "golf" is insane to me.  For the vast majority of golfers, golf is about hitting a ball with a stick and this absolutely is golf.  For many of us in this niche GCA world, the course and grounds of the game take a massively outsized share.


I think it's important to remember that the essence of the game is swinging the club and hitting the ball.  Doing this on better courses obviously unlocks something special, but it is not a necessary requirement.  A few days ago a thread triggered a thought in my mind of how many of us would keep playing the game if we could only play Doak 2s from here on out?  Based on most posts, it seems like many here would drop the game. To me, this means you don't really love to play the game. You may love something else.


I would absolutely keep playing because I love hitting a ball with a stick. The fact that millions of people in Asia and beyond only play this game in a simulator has to mean something.  The attraction for us is interesting courses, but for most it is something else.

Joe Z did a poor job of objecting to your post so I'm going to help him.


The essence of the game [to me, and presumably to most people interested in golf course design] is to traverse a piece of ground from point A to point B in as few swings of the club as possible.  Simulator golf of any form, even in a huge stadium with professional players, is just a poor simulation of that.

Amen, Tom. I’m surprised that so-called fans of golf course architecture discount the role of land in design and are good with anything the virtual architects can dream up. TGL may have its place with the evolving golf population but the skill of architecture isn’t one of them because the virtual architects are only limited by their imagination.

[Craig Sweet]

TGL is a good winter time diversion.   Simulator golf can be fun in the same way playing formula 1 at the arcade can be fun.  Nobody is saying this is golf anymore than saying Shawn White's XBox game can be called snowboarding.


I've been using Perplexity (AI) and I asked it to design a golf hole. It designed a 485 yard par four with an elevated tee, dog leg right beginning at 230 yards, some fairway bunkers, I small pond and greenside bunkers. It gave a good course description and reasons for why it located hazards where it did....and it said the elevated tee gave the golfer a great view of the entire length of the hole.

[Sean Walsh]

I think the concept is interesting and watched yesterday.


I do t love it but I’ll keep a passing interest. In fact more of an interest than I have in either the PGA Tour or LIV


I liken it to Test Cricket vs BBL/IPL. I love Tests, i have little interest in T20s but it’s interesting enough to have on in the background when I’m doing other things. It’s also a small enough time investment that I’m happy to dip in. I only ever watch Pro Golf when I have an interest in the course. Like T20s are to Tests this is not the same game. It uses most of the same skills but it’s fundamentally appealing to a different audience


If it survives multiple years it will be interesting how the teams and rules transform. I could see a situation where specialists start to be brought in like long drive hitters, rather than just the best Pros

[jeffwarne]

What saddened me was, when given the chance to design anything they wanted...virtually... they came up with pretty much the same theme on every hole, with forced carries surrounded by lava or other "adornments" that even the longest hitters didn't make by much-and Ricky Fowler couldn't land his ball on.
It was an exotic themed TPC on steroids, with no options for recovery other than retee or drop.
The audience was totally disengaged, most looked like they just stepped out of a private equity meeting in New York-and chances are pretty good most of them did.
I also found it quite hard to follow as players just walked up and hit before any info was transmitted to the audience(turns out pros can play fast)
Surely they should have thought of a format to continue interest AFTER a match was over or lopsided.
It was over before singles began.


It was a success because many watched and are discussing it today.
I'm doubtful to watch again.


.

[John Kavanaugh]

It’s much easier to be charming while walking down a fairway.

[Joe Zucker]

There are a lot of old men yelling at clouds here.  If you didn't like it, that's fine.  Who am I to tell you what you enjoy?  But to pretend this isn't "golf" is insane to me.  For the vast majority of golfers, golf is about hitting a ball with a stick and this absolutely is golf.  For many of us in this niche GCA world, the course and grounds of the game take a massively outsized share.


I think it's important to remember that the essence of the game is swinging the club and hitting the ball.  Doing this on better courses obviously unlocks something special, but it is not a necessary requirement.  A few days ago a thread triggered a thought in my mind of how many of us would keep playing the game if we could only play Doak 2s from here on out?  Based on most posts, it seems like many here would drop the game. To me, this means you don't really love to play the game. You may love something else.


I would absolutely keep playing because I love hitting a ball with a stick. The fact that millions of people in Asia and beyond only play this game in a simulator has to mean something.  The attraction for us is interesting courses, but for most it is something else.

Joe Z did a poor job of objecting to your post so I'm going to help him.


The essence of the game [to me, and presumably to most people interested in golf course design] is to traverse a piece of ground from point A to point B in as few swings of the club as possible.  Simulator golf of any form, even in a huge stadium with professional players, is just a poor simulation of that.

Thanks Tom.  I strongly believe you are all ignoring how small of a niche true GCA appreciation is.  For me and most people on here, Tom is right.  The essence of the game is found in grounds of the game. 


But the overwhelming majority of golfers do not care what architecture is and the essence of the game is the challenge and joy of hitting a ball with a stick.  Simulator golf and TGL and whatever other business model people invent, gets at that piece of the essence of golf and it appeals to millions of people. 


For what we love about golf, simulator golf is a weak facsimile.  For what average players love about golf, it is fun.  TGL wasn't made for us and I think it's important to keep in mind how differently we view the game.  I don't think we should change, but we should be aware.

[Chris Hughes]

This is the same feeling I had after Gladiator II.

I had the exact same thought...

Watched less than 5 minutes, not for me.

Why aren't the ladies included?  That's not fair...

[Steve_ Shaffer]

I'd rather watch Shell's Wonderful World of Golf!


Right now I'm watching Sam Snead v Roberto DiVincenzo @ Congressional.

[Michael Morandi]

Apparently the first episode of TGL was a huge rating success, with an average of 1.2 million viewers and 3.2  million at the peak. Let’s see how many watch the next episode.