Thought I would mention . . .

[sandwedge]

Since it is the week of the PGA Championship and this is PGA 2000 we are talking about; try Dale Sommerfelt's splendid rendition of Oak Hill Country Club. It is the host to the major this week in real life. In our computer world, Dale did a wonderful job catching the layout - albeit, the clubhouse is completely different and so it is a little less on the tournament side of things. Try out this course by a legendary architect here this week and see if you do better then the field on TV.

[SteveHorn]

Sandwedge! In my season play I finished tied for 12th (-9) in the PGA Championsip at Oak Hill. Thought I should have scored lower but conditions were nasty in the final round.

[sandwedge]

That's a good score Steve for sure. I often wondered since most here in the community would say that cyber golf is easier to play than real golf and since real courses tend to not be as tough when transferred to the computer - just how could you compare your score to what the pros shoot? What I have done, when wanting to see my proficiency, is take the best round a guy had for the entire tournament and multiply that by 4 to make my target score for my computer tournament. Jim Furyk shot a -5 today, so right now a total of -20 for four rounds would match in the cyber world what the pros are doing in real life; IN THEORY I think the best I have ever done over four rounds at Dale's rendition of Oak Hill is condsidereably less - so maybe for guys like me I should only multiply by 3

[bryce]

Sandwedge, I notice that usually the first round score is just maybe doubled as the final score for 4 rounds. In this years US Open and Open Championship, the final score was less than the leading first round score. I notice this when playing in tournaments in PGA 2000 as well. Sometimes I will see -9 or -10 after round 1, then the winning score will be -16!

All it takes is one good round to win....or in some cases, like me, one bad round to put you out!

Doron

[sandwedge]

Never thought about it for real life tournament winners - a pretty good observation on your part.

I was talking about finding a target score for the simulated seasons that Steve and I play on PGA 2000. If the theory is true that playing cyber golf is easier than playing real golf then what is a good score on a computer course or what is a score that would compare to a professional's round if all things were considered equal? For me, I figure that I can take the best round a professional shoots on the course in the real tournament and then multiply that by four to get my target score for a computer tournament. If the average pro played in my tournament then he would shoot that target score. So to match Jim Furyk for the PGA Championship, I need to score lower than -20 for four rounds at Dale's Oak Hill course. It is not going to happen for me but for Steve (on his way to a 3rd season title) and you guys, probably a realistic chance. I guess I was trying to say Steve is like the professional and I am the guy sellling hot pretzels thinking what would it be like For what it's worth, I like the cinnamon ones the best

[SteveHorn]

Just thought I'd mention that, unless the course stays moist which allows the players to pin hunt, in the previous 5 majors held at Oak Hill there has been a total of 10 players under par. I think (-5) has a good chance of winning if the course firms up. Oak Hill ( a Donald Ross design) has alot of simalarities to Scioto C.C. here in Columbus. Its another Donald Ross designs that has hosted many majors but has logistical problems.

[bryce]

The conditions of the course will drastically change your own personal scores. I personally like to play with very dry greens most of the time. However, playing in the PGA on my own season, I changed the rounds to random for a few tournaments, and in the second round got pretty much what they did in real life. From very dry in round one, to moist in round 2, I improved from 72 to 64, putting me at -4 for the tourney and 4 shots back of Bubba. Coincidently, Adam Scott had the first round lead in my version of the PGA as well, at -7.

Sometimes if I have the house to myself during a major that PGA 2000 has the course for, I will get a piece of paper and write down my hole by hole score. I only do this because I will play in practice mode with the most similar conditions to what the pros are facing, as well as clicking on the hole until I get the most accurate pin position to where they are playing to. A little tedious, but it makes me happy

[sandwedge]

Sometimes if I have the house to myself during a major that PGA 2000 has the course for, I will get a piece of paper and write down my hole by hole score. I only do this because I will play in practice mode with the most similar conditions to what the pros are facing, as well as clicking on the hole until I get the most accurate pin position to where they are playing to. A little tedious, but it makes me happy

NICE! Will have to try that myself

[stillgolfing]

This is a pretty descent version of Oak Hill. I really am enjoying playing along with the real pros on this older version and the newly released Links 2003 version . Both courses are realistic.The links vesion has the rocks along the creek edges, but the designer rendered a clear instead of muddy creek, which is definitely not realistic. I like the PGA 2000 rendition of the muddy creek, but would like to see the updated rock surrounds. Any chance the designer would update the creek surround with the rocks?
P.S. After 3 rounds, I am currently tied for tenth in both versions.
All Golf Simulations Rock!
Cheers, Dave