Forums

Make it realistic, please.

• Warof1812 44 Posts

  Fri, Sep 17 2010 5:10 AM

  I don't want avitars using tigers and polar bears.

  I don't want golf courses on the moon or on a glacier. 

  I don't want greens featuring windmills and chutes.

  And I don't want golfers, even Legends, averaging 61.

  The best average Jack Nicklaus ever had was 69.81, and he only had 4 seasons under 70, and there is no doubt that Nicklaus is a Legend.

  I am in favor of any changes that will move the averages of the best WGT golfers closer to 70.

  How about

  Legends 68

  Tour Masters 69

  Masters 70

  Tour Pros 71

  Pros 72

  Amateurs 74

  Hacks Whatever

  ?

• mekongmarcus 152 Posts

  Fri, Sep 17 2010 5:23 AM

  I could not agree more.I like the realism of this site relative to others but the averages need adjusting somehow.Maybe gusty winds rather than fixed ones.

• CharlemagneRH 1,054 Posts

  Fri, Sep 17 2010 5:58 AM

  #1 Legends should be a lot further than 4 strokes ahead of average players.

  #2 The reason why scores are so low is because it would be stupid to do things that would raise scores such as increase deviance of shot randomness by two- or three -fold because few people want to play a game, other than card games, where the dominant factor that decides whether they win a tournament or match play challenge round is luck, or, in computer terms, a random generator.  How would you feel if you dinged your shot, but it still went into the water or 30 yards to the left or the right of the green anyways, and if something like this happened every 10 shots?  That would be sort of annoying!  Sometimes, things are a balancing act, and I like how WGT has attempted to keep scores somewhat reasonable without making the game flat-out stupid and almost entirely luck-based.

• Faterson 2,902 Posts

  Fri, Sep 17 2010 6:01 AM

  I think once WGT adds stance control to the game, different ball lies (side/up/down), as well as draw/fade for our shots... this could help make the game more difficult, and to push the best players' averages higher, to more realistic levels.

  (The way not to make the game more difficult is, of course, the one employed most recently: forcing the best players to hit all approaches to greens with 3-woods or 3-irons, making all par 3 holes 220+ yards, etc. etc... That's not realistic either, is it?)

• CharlemagneRH 1,054 Posts

  Fri, Sep 17 2010 7:00 AM

  Faterson:

  I think once WGT adds stance control to the game, different ball lies (side/up/down), as well as draw/fade for our shots... this could help make the game more difficult, and to push the best players' averages higher, to more realistic levels.

  (The way not to make the game more difficult is, of course, the one employed most recently: forcing the best players to hit all approaches to greens with 3-woods or 3-irons, making all par 3 holes 220+ yards, etc. etc... That's not realistic either, is it?)

  I hate, hate, hate the fact that missing the ding means mostly a pull or a push instead of a hook or a slice.  That is so annoying!  I definitely wish it were purely a hook/slice penalty as opposed to a pull/push penalty, since hooks and slices actually have their uses, whereas there is no purpose to a pull or push.

  I agree completely about the up/down/sidehill lies, though.  I don't know how happy I'll be about that being implemented (game is already somewhat complicated!,) but that is definitely one way in which WGT is so much easier than normal golf.

• columbiacgt 565 Posts

  Fri, Sep 17 2010 7:53 AM

  Since golf is golf the way to increase the difficulty of a course is to lengthen the holes, deepen the roughs and speed up the greens. If even a good amateur played on a Championship course prepared for an Open, he would be lucky to break 90. If you guys played from championship tees on championship greens you would realize how difficult it is.

  The best players shoot what you call ridiculously low scores because they are GOOD. They put in the time and they have a deep understanding of the game. In those conditions there is a lot more than just aiming and dinging.

  With the current equipment the game is quite realistic, taking into account that it's a computer SIMULATION, so, no matter how sophisticated, it can't reproduce the innumerable variables Nicklaus had to cope with.

  This said, it is true that lie, stance, ect would add up the complication and the possibilities to the game. Hopefully in the future we will have that as well.

  What bothers the good players (legends) is that they are forced to play the RGs (where the money is) with the same equipment than the Masters (who are sometimes sandbaggers as well) with an enormous distance disadvantage.

  I can't blame them. Probably we'll end up with separate RGs for Legends, or maybe they'll move back the Master tees a bit, or who knows.

  In the meantime, sit back and learn, there is so much to understand.

• andyson 6,415 Posts

  Fri, Sep 17 2010 10:00 AM

  Nicklaus is a bad example War.  He focused on the majors and never won the Vardon Trophy for low average because he never played enough rounds in a year to  qualify.

  The lowest ever average is Tigers in 2000, 67.8, before tournaments started to Tiger Proof their courses.

  Gotta say though your numbers off the top of your head are pretty good.

  Took a sample of averages by tier this morning using the  search, at least 100 players in each tier.  I only used on-line players so there are no dead accounts.  And to get a bigger sample of Legends I used some offline averages but weeded out any  who were still at level 30 indicating they hadn't yet played under the new conditions.

  Here's where the averages are today.

  .............Warof1812..........Avg............Top 20%...........Top 10%.......Range
  

  Legends........68..............65.4................62.0...................61.1.......57.8 to  74.5

  Tour Masters 69..............66.9................63.9..................63.3........62.3 to 77.3
  

  Masters..........70..............69.8................66.9...................66.3.......65.4 to 78.2
  

  Tour Pros.......71..............73.6................70.1..................69.5........68.7 to 82.6

   

  Spread between the top 10% average and overall average

  Legends............. -4.3
  

  Tour Masters.... -3.6
  

  Masters.............  -3.5
  

  Tour Pros........... -4.1
  

  Someone's likely to ask so...........

  What if WGT created a new tier for the top 20% of Legends, cutoff at 63.3.  The best of the best, call them the Ultimate Legends. And assuming ULs and Legends are still on the Championship tees.
  

  ..........................................Avg...............Top 20%.........Top 10%.....Range
  

  Ultimate Legends..........62.0................60.8.................59.7......57.8 to 63.3
  

  Legends...........................66.2................64.1.................63.7......63.4 to 74.5
  

  Tour Masters..................66.9................63.9.................63.3......62.3 to 77.3

  Masters............................69.8................66.9................66.3.......65.4 to 78.2

  Tour Pro............................73.6................70.1................69.5......68.7 to 82.6

  The spreads between the top 10% average and overall average would be:

  Ultimate Legends... -2.3
  

  Legends.................... -2.5
  

  Tour Masters........... -3.6
  

  Masters....................  -3.5
  

  Tour Pros.................. -4.1

   

   

   

• columbiacgt 565 Posts

  Fri, Sep 17 2010 10:24 AM

  Quite impressive stats, andy, good job.

• CharlemagneRH 1,054 Posts

  Fri, Sep 17 2010 10:41 AM

  We've clawed back.  After relearning all the shots, and after WGT made it easier on us, the penalties of being a legend are seeming slightly more fair.

  Sandbagging is still a concern, but as long as all pros really are pro-level and masters really are master-level, I am ok with the changes.

• putternone 4 Posts

  Fri, Sep 17 2010 10:43 AM

  Warof1812:

  I don't want avitars using tigers and polar bears.

  I don't want golf courses on the moon or on a glacier. 

  I don't want greens featuring windmills and chutes.

  And I don't want golfers, even Legends, averaging 61.

  The best average Jack Nicklaus ever had was 69.81, and he only had 4 seasons under 70, and there is no doubt that Nicklaus is a Legend.

  I am in favor of any changes that will move the averages of the best WGT golfers closer to 70.

  How about

  Legends 68

  Tour Masters 69

  Masters 70

  Tour Pros 71

  Pros 72

  Amateurs 74

  Hacks Whatever

  ?

  I think you are really on to something my friend. Make it more like the real thing. 61 av. is a little too much!!