Only One Good Course in Chicago...

[Tim Martin]

I agree re comments about ratings in the CG that don't take into account significant restoration efforts. Tom Doak maintains that he wouldn't bump up any rating more than a point on the Doak Scale regardless of restorative effort but the difference in many courses since the original CG came out more than twenty years ago is remarkable. In Tom's defense I realize that getting back to every place that claims a significant restoration is easier said than done but in the case of the new version you have three guys instead of one to get around.

Tim:


Yes, that's why I enlisted my co-authors.  Ran did get to a couple of the courses post-restoration -- Flossmoor in particular -- and I got back to Beverly, but there are too many others to cover.  [Chicago is not the only town where courses are being restored, you know.]


My biggest problem is that anytime I go back to Chicago I've got three clients to check in on, and it doesn't leave much time to go see other places.

Tom-My comment pertained to the broad scope of golf courses and not just Chicago which I failed to relate in my post.

[Mike Treitler]

I have played Ravisloe many times.  It is a fine golf course and a nice deal at $65 to ride on the weekends. It's  a fairly easy golf course that is not always in the best shape.  The bunkering is excellent though and it has Donald Ross written all over it.


As a member of Calumet, if you could combine the awesome bunkering at Ravisloe and the difficulty and conditions of Calumet you would have a damn good golf course.


Ravisloe is a nice public option at this point but not what I would consider an upper echelon course in Chicago.

[SL_Solow]

Mike;  Your post says a lot about how you rate courses.  Conditioning may have an impact upon how much a given individual enjoys a course but it says very little about the architecture.  I can assure you that there was a time when Ravisloe was among the upper echelon in conditioning.  It was a better conditioned course and the maintenance meld helped emphasize some of the features but it was the same golf course. By the way, the super at Calumet is doing a wonderful job.

Clearly you place a premium on difficulty.  There are many, including the Good Doctor, who do  not (or did not ) agree with that view.  However, if it matters, when the greens are running, Ravisloe can be made into a very interesting test.  The new equipment renders it a little short for the accomplished long hitter but most older courses suffer this problem to a greater or lesser extent.

[Mike Treitler]

SL,


It's not that a course has to be unfair or anything like that, I just like a reasonably good test and I feel like Ravisloe is one of the easier public courses out of all of the top public courses in Chicago.


I didn't say I disliked Ravisloe though.... I like the golf course and think the bunkering is wonderful.  I just personally wouldn't suggest it as one of the best courses in Chicago.  There are too many currently private tracks I would rate above it as well as several public tracks. 

Obviously this is just my opinion.  However, difficulty and conditioning do definitely carry weight on my course rankings.

[Mike Treitler]

Also, to add to that, I agree that you need to take the course conditions out of the equation when analyzing a course for architectural purposes.  I was simply commenting on the state of the course when I played it last year.

[Jim Hoak]

Mike, not to get off track on this thread, but, since golf is a game for most of us, why do think that difficulty should be an essential factor in valuing the architectural value of a course?

[BCowan]

Ben;  I am unperturbed by your unwillingness to engage, even though you did.  My problem is not that you like Ravisloe; I thought I made that clear.  My problem is the lack of perspective.  I readily concede that the Tom Doaks of the world have greater expertise and experience than I, its one of the reasons that I have consulted with Tom and other experts from time to time going back more than 20 years.  I also concede that the rating of courses is imprecise and in many cases a matter of personal taste.  That said, attempting to place a particular course on the ladder within a geographic area where one has very little experience is very difficult.  Again, I really don't care except that overstated claims, rather than increasing interest in a deserving course , are likely to have the opposite effect, particularly when those with knowledge of the area are almost universally in disagreement.  But I am glad you like the course.  So do I.   I guess I don't like it as much as you do and there are any number of courses in Chicago that are more interesting architecturally.  An interesting thought to consider is if one of the others in the area had gone "public", would it be the object of your affection?  I am all in favor of increasing the quality of public golf; its great for the game in a variety of ways.  But the status of the course shouldn't sway our analysis either way.

Shelly,


I engaged you in a prior post with examples which u did not.  You aren't engaging in discussions in your replys, just PC.  I explained to you prior that my rankings are very close to Tom's and others opinions that I value without looking prior, I don't own TCG (NON butt boy here).  I also have friends who are Archies that ask my opinion and we learn from one another for last 15-20 years so I match u there.  Jack claimed that Rav was a 5, I said it was a strong 6. To say that is overstated is ridiculous, for if u have read the TCG they disagree by 1 point frequently.  Again I said it was a 6.8 in my book. Lack of firmness and tree removal is a deduction.  Those small greens that have nice internal contours would be fantastic if maintained as firm as my single play at flossmoor with 1-2ft of speed.  Wedge-8 irons would require well struck shots.  I'd doubt it was maint real firm when private.  I dont need to compare a 6 with other 6s in the area, I can list plenty of 6s in the midwest that Jacks played.  Jack gave Inverness a 9 and he gave Calusa and Naples Natonal a 7 or higher. All rated higher then Doak gave them and I gave them.  Ravisloe if maint firm and fast with some tree removal is as good as Flossmoor. Rav has no substantial weakness period, floss has highs and lows.


Ur comment about me rating it higher because it's public carry no weight. Only 2 in my top 14 US courses are public and those 2 happen to be in pinehurst.  Please explain what the Rav lacks architecturally that makes it a 5?  A close friend if mine that played OE gave it a 6.5. He has played CGC and has either toured or played all the windy city tracks. Short courses get a pass if they are a soup club.  I haven't been impressed with only but a few Chicago gcaers opinion on architecture, it's refreshing the ones that voice their opinion in an articulate manner without being arrogant. 

[Terry Lavin]

Everybody is entitled to their opinions. If you asked all of the knowledgeable Chicago gca folks to rank (not rate) the best courses in the area, Ravisloe wouldn't make it into the top 25 of many, if any.


Except for one corner, the land is pretty uninspiring and it probably has four or five great holes. It is much improved on the ground after Esler's work but it is still fairly run of the mill.


Compare that to Flossmoor, which has about 60 more acres of land, a phenomenal set of greens (among the best and most unique in town), a very fun routing and only two or three ho-hum holes, and Rav comes up demonstrably short. Rav is slightly better than Idlewild, but inferior to all of the rest of the well known south suburban courses.

[Ira Fishman]

I have not played any Chicago courses since I moved away 35 years ago (except for Bryn Mawr and Knollwood), but I do love my hometown so I committed heresy and looked at the the GD, GM, Top 100 World, and GW rankings.  Here are the Chicago area courses that make at least one of the lists in no particular order after CGC:


CGC, Butler, Medinah 3, Shoreacres, OFCC North, Rich Harvest, Conway Farm, OFCC South, Old Elm, Skokie, Beverly, Medinah 1, Flossmoor, Black Sheep, and Cog Hill 4.


By comparison by the way, here is the Philadelphia list:  Pine Valley, Merion, Aronimink, Philadelphia Cricket, Rolling Green, Huntington Valley, Gulph Mills, and Stonewall.


Top two in Philadelphia sure carry a ton of weight, but Chicago fares pretty darn well on depth even if you discount the raters love of Rich Harvest.


Ira

[Sean_A]

I don't know anything about golf in Chicago.  But I am intrigued by the notion that conditioning can't enhance architecture. To me, this is absolutely not the case.  Why else do folks wish for dry weather leading up to the Open?  For sure it is so the architecture can best shine.  There is no question in mind that a course meant to be keen is better when keen than when wet.  The opposite is also true.

I don't know how much conditioning should effect one's view of architecture, but it certainly should have some effect. Architecture, soil, turf, terrain and conditioning all effect each other in the big scheme of things.  It matters a bunch when all work in harmony. In my experience it is a very rare treat.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

I don't know anything about golf in Chicago.  But I am intrigued by the notion that conditioning can't enhance architecture. To me, this is absolutely not the case.  Why else do folks wish for dry weather leading up to the Open?  For sure it is so the architecture can best shine.  There is no question in mind that a course meant to be keen is better when keen than when wet.  The opposite is also true.

I don't know how much conditioning should effect one's view of architecture, but it certainly should have some effect. Architecture, soil, turf, terrain and conditioning all effect each other in the big scheme of things.  It matters a bunch when all work in harmony. In my experience it is a very rare treat.

Ciao

Sean:


There's no doubt that conditions matter, on the day.  And if you have a course that's never in good shape, then it should be knocked down for that accordingly. 


But if the raters see the course mostly in the off season, how are they to rate it?  Or if most of the people see Erin Hills when it's primed for the U.S. Open and hasn't seen a round of golf for six months, how is that a fair comparison to its neighbors?  Those conditions certainly exceed what most people have paid to play.

[Mike Treitler]

For me personally, it is very difficult to accurately judge a golf course when the conditions are not what the course designer intended them to be.    I mentioned on a post last year that I wasn't able to properly enjoy Crystal Downs because the greens were aerated to which Tom replied that I shouldn't take that into account when ranking my courses. 


I agree with that but unfortunately Crystal is a course I may get to only play once in my lifetime so I almost HAVE to rank by my experience that day.  I know that I also played Kingsley when the greens were aerated and enjoyed it but didn't think it was anything too special.   I did have the good fortunate to play Kingsley again and its now firmly in my top 10 because it was super fast and firm and I loved every second of it. 

[Sean_A]

I don't know anything about golf in Chicago.  But I am intrigued by the notion that conditioning can't enhance architecture. To me, this is absolutely not the case.  Why else do folks wish for dry weather leading up to the Open?  For sure it is so the architecture can best shine.  There is no question in mind that a course meant to be keen is better when keen than when wet.  The opposite is also true.

I don't know how much conditioning should effect one's view of architecture, but it certainly should have some effect. Architecture, soil, turf, terrain and conditioning all effect each other in the big scheme of things.  It matters a bunch when all work in harmony. In my experience it is a very rare treat.

Ciao

Sean:


There's no doubt that conditions matter, on the day.  And if you have a course that's never in good shape, then it should be knocked down for that accordingly. 


But if the raters see the course mostly in the off season, how are they to rate it?  Or if most of the people see Erin Hills when it's primed for the U.S. Open and hasn't seen a round of golf for six months, how is that a fair comparison to its neighbors?  Those conditions certainly exceed what most people have paid to play.

Tom

I guess you have to trust in the individual raters. For me its a rarity either way that I would up or down grade a course due to conditions...and never for scheduled maintenance or prolonged bad weather.  I think this is simply another reason why courses should be seen more than once.  I am lucky in that I see many courses in the winter so it offers a gauge for the lower end of conditions, but then I rarely play places in the winter where I think conditions will be ropey 

Ciao   

[SL_Solow]

Reluctantly entering the fray again.  I'll start with what I consider to be the relatively easy part; the most recent comments.  Its hard to compare geographic regions.  How far do they extend, how deep does one go etc. etc.  Nonetheless, I think there is more to learn in Philadelphia and greater NY than in and around Chicago.  I think we are a great city for golf and golf architecture, I just find more in those towns.

Conditioning certainly makes a difference in the overall experience and can enhance or lessen the architecture.  But putting aside Tom's valid points about timing and lack of multiple plays, the architect has no control over subsequent maintenance practices.  Accordingly, if an evaluator does the job right, he/she should try to envision how a course would play given different maintenance practices and evaluate the architecture accordingly.  As stated, that may make the architecture better, or worse, than the overall experience.

Finally, turning to Ben.  I am not sure that my comments are PC.  I confess to trying to be polite, I was raised that way and my inclination is magnified in a public forum.  Moreover, I meant what I said.  Like Terry, I understand that you are entitled to your opinion.  I just think it is extreme given my knowledge and multiple plays of the courses in question over several decades.

Significantly, I am not sure I agree with Terry on some of these issues.  I am a bit biased toward Idlewild  but I think its ground is more interesting than Ravisloe and Calumet.  Its routing is quite good, particularly the way the architect got in and out of the corners of the property.  There are several very interesting greens complexes like 6, 8,10 and 15.  it has a nice "postage stamp hole, 16.  Its not as cramped as Calumet or Ravisloe but each of those courses have their high points.  I guess that is the point of criticism and rating, on close cases even those with similar approaches can disagree  My point to Ben is that with limited play and no exposure to any number of the courses you are rating the course against, your attempt to place any of the courses in its place among those in this region is likely to be flawed.  I may disagree about the relative placement of several of those listed by Jack and others.  But at least they have a broader universe to judge and in a non-public forum, we can discuss them without rancor knowing that each of us has a "data base" to draw upon.  I wouldn't begin to tell the Detroiters where a particular course falls in relation to others unless I have played them enough to have a well developed opinion.

As to the "public course" point, you misperceive at least part of my comment.  I meant to suggest that if you had the access to some other course in Chicago that Ravisloe's public status provides, you might be saying similar things about those courses.  Again, this does not denigrate Ravisloe, a very nice course.  It goes to the relative status.

A final point.  Does it strike you odd that no one from Chicago agrees with your opinion?  Nor, apparently do any of the out- of- towners who have sampled many of the Chicago courses.  I have never been afraid to take a minority opinion and clearly you are the same but when, on a matter of opinion, no one that I respect agrees, it will cause me to reexamine my views.

[corey miller]

I guess I am a little confused, or perhaps I just use my own definitions but isn't there a difference between "conditioning" and "maintenance" ?

I agree with what Shelly seems to say in regard to "conditioning" on a particular visit.  It may have rained, the greens may be slow, tees closed and any variety of problems that might crop up in a golf season.

I do not agree however that this is the same as "maintenance" which are linked to the long term issues often encountered in renovation work.  Narrow fairways are maintenance should a rater discount the choice the club has made?  Deep rough? Too many trees? lack of full use of green pads? mowing lines?

Heck, This may be 95% of the work a restoration architect may face and if we are going to "reward" those clubs that have embarked on this endevour I don't think we should be so cavalier that we then discount not having done the work. 

Granted, my ratings trend toward "fun" 

[SL_Solow]

Corey, we are just differing on terminology.  If a course makes permanent changes, e.g. over planting trees to narrow playing corridors, then the architecture is altered and the rating should be impacted on both architectural and experiential grounds.  But slow greens, aeration etc are a different story.  You will note that I referred to conditioning.  Maintenance meld as used on this site has referred to conditioning

[BCowan]

Shelly,

Finally, turning to Ben.  I am not sure that my comments are PC.  I confess to trying to be polite, I was raised that way and my inclination is magnified in a public forum.  Moreover, I meant what I said.  Like Terry, I understand that you are entitled to your opinion.  I just think it is extreme given my knowledge and multiple plays of the courses in question over several decades.
''I try not to comment on Chicago rankings because of my position with the CDGA'', "By continually trying to elevate Ravisloe to a higher level, you make it almost impossible to take your comments seriously and thus discourage any real analysis of an interesting course''

Now Shel, that first quote is PC.  You don't put yourself out there and have Doak rankings for each course in the Chicago area, but you sit in the glass house and cast stones.  I was taught by very fine parents to be polite, it's a 2 way street.  ''Impossible to take my comments seriously'' is extremely arrogant and condescending but i don't think you understand how you come across.  That's why you got it right back to you, I don't take shit from anyone.  As stated prior, I said the course was a 6, not an 8.  1 point higher then Jack's Doak 5 ranking.  I give Jack credit for posting Doak numbers. 


  I am a bit biased toward Idlewild  but I think its ground is more interesting than Ravisloe and Calumet.    Its not as cramped as Calumet or Ravisloe but each of those courses have their high points.  I guess that is the point of criticism and rating, on close cases even those with similar approaches can disagree  My point to Ben is that with limited play and no exposure to any number of the courses you are rating the course against, your attempt to place any of the courses in its place among those in this region is likely to be flawed.  I may disagree about the relative placement of several of those listed by Jack and others.  But at least they have a broader universe to judge and in a non-public forum, we can discuss them without rancor knowing that each of us has a "data base" to draw upon.  I wouldn't begin to tell the Detroiters where a particular course falls in relation to others unless I have played them enough to have a well developed opinion.

So you value land highly in evaluating a course.  I notice many giving higher marks to dramatic change of elevations on one 9 vs another 9 of the 18, not taking into account the Architecture of angles, intricacies, green contours ect.  Shel, very important here, is a Detroit Doak 6 different from a Chicago, Philly, or NY Doak 6? The answer should be a NO.   Chicago could have the most Doak 6's, don't know and it's not relevant.  I do know that I have played enough Doak 6's in the US, to know what a Doak 6 is.   I never mentioned tiers. Discussing behind closed doors is PC.  I never told Chicagoians where Ravisloe fell in.  That is miss information.  I've played Ravisloe 3 times and I consider myself a quick learner with evaluating a course as an amateur.  There are a few US GCA amateurs on here that I value their rankings and views, such as Cirba, Bausch, Tom Paul, Mucci, and Chalfant just off the top of my head.  I've had people email and PM that they like my opinions/evaluations.  Again, there are only a few Chicago GCAers that I value their insight.  Doak 8s, 9s, and 10s might require more plays (maybe 5 plays), not Doak 6's.  Many of us have jobs and have to work.  I don't think the fact that you have played Ravisloe north of 40 times or so makes a difference IMO.     

As to the "public course" point, you misperceive at least part of my comment.  I meant to suggest that if you had the access to some other course in Chicago that Ravisloe's public status provides, you might be saying similar things about those courses.  Again, this does not denigrate Ravisloe, a very nice course.  It goes to the relative status.

   That is very condescending IMO.  Access has never been a problem for me.  OE ain't easy to get on.  I've played one course each from Jack's Tier 1, 2, and 4.   I think short courses get unfairly deducted for resistance to scoring as Mike Treitler suggested in his honest opinion.  Unless said short course is exclusive with the right pedigree of Archies  .  You seem to wanna put courses in boxes with Private and Public.  They are either good, great, or poor courses.  Could careless of their status when evaluating.

A final point.  Does it strike you odd that no one from Chicago agrees with your opinion?  Nor, apparently do any of the out- of- towners who have sampled many of the Chicago courses.  I have never been afraid to take a minority opinion and clearly you are the same but when, on a matter of opinion, no one that I respect agrees, it will cause me to reexamine my views.

That is not true, Anthony Fowler a buddy of mine has Ravisloe in his top 25.  He seems not to care to involve himself in this discussion.  No worries, I'm a one man machine.  Again I'm only impressed with a small sample of folks on here with their ability to rate a course.  I don't know who's opinion you respect, so that doesn't tell me anything.  The biggest thing here is i can successfully articulate hole for hole or groupings of par 3, 4, and 5s why the course is really solid and a strong 6.  Lastly the land on 2, 3, 5, 8, and 9 is as good as the land on the back, holes 13 and 15.  Speed slots and swales and the intimate not crammed feel of the Rav is greatly reduced with modern technology.  The lack of 1-2 stout Par 4's is all the course is missing.  The par 5's are an excellent bunch as are the par 3's.  The 7th green matches the hole very well and that is probably the weakest hole, which i think is better then many other long par 3's at other regarded Ross's.  The 4th, 5th, 12th, 15th, and 18th are extremely strong holes.  We do agree when I find someone with whom I respect articulating their dislike I'll reexamine my views.  I welcome minority opinion, we had MN GCAer Jeff Shelman ask why Red Run wasn't in our MI top 25.  It isn't a well liked club among the MI GCAers.  We didn't disregard his opinion on lack of plays, we discussed what was on the ground.

[SL_Solow]

OK Ben, I am finally done.  We have had numerous talks on and off line since you first came on the board.  Periodically you accuse me and others of condescension because we disagree with you and rely on significant experience.  Occasionally you retract but then you revert.  Every discussion leads you to point to one or 2 friends who agree with you as justification for your position.  I recall an early thread where you cited a well known professional and then retracted.  I engage in reasoned argument for a living.(sorry if you consider that fact to indicate condescension)  I come here to learn and for fun.  In order to achieve either I need reasoned responses.  You appear to be very interested and very sincere.  Unfortunately, attempting to engage with you doesn't work for failure to meet the critical requirement.  So I will do my best to refrain from engagement.  Not that you care, but don't mistake silence for agreement.   I reserve the right to comment on threads where you are involved.  Good luck to you.

[BCowan]

OK Ben, I am finally done.  We have had numerous talks on and off line since you first came on the board.  Periodically you accuse me and others of condescension because we disagree with you and rely on significant experience.  Occasionally you retract but then you revert.  Every discussion leads you to point to one or 2 friends who agree with you as justification for your position.  I recall an early thread where you cited a well known professional and then retracted.  I engage in reasoned argument for a living.(sorry if you consider that fact to indicate condescension)  I come here to learn and for fun.  In order to achieve either I need reasoned responses.  You appear to be very interested and very sincere.  Unfortunately, attempting to engage with you doesn't work for failure to meet the critical requirement.  So I will do my best to refrain from engagement.  Not that you care, but don't mistake silence for agreement.   I reserve the right to comment on threads where you are involved.  Good luck to you.

  There is a difference with condescension and disagreeing, more Lawyer like tactics you are using.  I have more experience then you, have you worked Golf course Construction?  Experience with non golf Architecture related items have no bearing to discussing course rankings.  What well know professional have i cited and retracted?  Are you referring to the time a dirt bag gcaer that was removed from this board baited me into naming the course that had a $330,000 maint budget, because he was on the board at his private club and it was 3-4 times more.  Which is very common due to location and labor costs and unnecessary spending at private clubs on maint.  I was in a state of panic for posting confidential information and causing said Archie Acquaintance to worry of a lawsuit.  The fact you rehash this incident really tells me a lot about your character.  That dirt bag was removed from here and he questioned my honesty and baited me, showing his ignorance in not knowing maint numbers outside of his home club.  The Golf world is a very small place and Jobs can be lost due to posts, now I only share information with close friends.  I don't need affirmation from the likes of you, but you won't dare accuse me of dishonesty on this board.  You just made stuff up on a board and speak to me in a condescending way and then play the victim.  Nobody has called you on it before.  I made a very reasoned response to you, however you failed to respond to them, but you are great at playing the victim.  I don't care if you agree with me, I care that you provide reasoned Architectural rebuttals without naming your credentials (non Architecture) before you get to the rebuttal. 

Unfortunately, attempting to engage with you doesn't work for failure to meet the critical requirement-  It's one condescending comment after another.  Very passive aggressive.  You do have the right to comment on threads I am in, but you will so in a respectful manner.  Good Luck to you, i think you need it more then I. 

 

[Anthony Fowler]

Hey Guys,


My name has been invoked, so I suppose I should respond, haha. I consider several of you close friends, and I have a lot of respect for your views. In the case of Ravisloe, I don't think that you guys actually disagree all that much--at least not enough to warrant any grudges or feuds!


Jack, I think your overall assessment is very good, although anyone can quibble with a course here and there. I personally think Ravisloe deserves to be in Tier 3. Thinking about the greens, the design of the holes, the strategy, etc., it's clearly better than the other courses in Tier 4. And if it were conditioned the same way as most of the private courses we're discussing, I think a lot of you would agree with me and Ben that it deserves to move up one category. As Ben says, the par 3's are memorable, strategically interesting, scenic, and well varied from one another. The short par 4s are fun, quirky, and provide different ways to play them without being contrived. I also think the stretch of holes from 12-17 has a really neat feel. It's great land for golf, and that part of the course has a quiet ambiance that you can't find at many fancy private clubs.  It does lack a really good long par 4, like say 5 at Beverly or 13 at Calumet, and if it had something like that, it would be even better. I also wonder if Ravisloe is held back in some minds because it's not particularly difficult, but Chicago has plenty of long slogs with thick rough, and it could really use a few more fun, quirky, strategic courses like Ravisloe.


I do agree with a lot of the general statements in this thread about the overall market in Chicago. If we're being honest with ourselves, Chicago has very few truly great courses (as the title of the thread implies), but it does have a deep bench of very good courses that are architecturally interesting and a lot of fun to play. In my view, our top 5 courses wouldn't fare particularly well against the top 5 of Philadelphia, Boston, San Francisco, Los Angeles, etc., but I suspect our top 30 would hold up very well. And because of the dearth of truly great but the depth of very good, there's a lot of hair splitting when we discuss the best courses in the region. There are probably 35+ courses that different reasonable and well informed people could argue should be in our top 20. Ravisloe is clearly one of those that could be on or off one's list depending on how much they value length, difficulty, and conditioning, among other things.


As far as the Doak ratings, I'll go ahead and call Ravisloe a 6, but I understand why others would rate it a 5. In general, Doak et al. were pretty tough on Chicago, but that's probably the way it should have been. They're trying to highlight the most unique and interesting courses in the world that students of architecture should actively seek out, and we don't have a lot of those. But on the other hand, we have so much competition in the 5-7 range that a lot of very good courses get overlooked. Heck, if Elgin or Onwentsia were in, say, Kentucky, their Doak ratings might be 2 points higher, and people from Chicago would be traveling to play them!


Anthony

[BCowan]

Anthony,

   Excellent post.  Apologies for bringing you into the fray. 

[Tim Martin]

OK Ben, I am finally done.  We have had numerous talks on and off line since you first came on the board.  Periodically you accuse me and others of condescension because we disagree with you and rely on significant experience.  Occasionally you retract but then you revert.  Every discussion leads you to point to one or 2 friends who agree with you as justification for your position.  I recall an early thread where you cited a well known professional and then retracted.  I engage in reasoned argument for a living.(sorry if you consider that fact to indicate condescension)  I come here to learn and for fun.  In order to achieve either I need reasoned responses.  You appear to be very interested and very sincere.  Unfortunately, attempting to engage with you doesn't work for failure to meet the critical requirement.  So I will do my best to refrain from engagement.  Not that you care, but don't mistake silence for agreement.   I reserve the right to comment on threads where you are involved.  Good luck to you.

It's tough to read this post and not find some level of condescension with the "I engage in reasoned argument for a living" comment. Further I can't imagine how that would lend any additional credence to your argument.

[Brian Hilko]

As a Chicagoan I find it amazing how many us hold our golf courses up on such a pedestal. We are very lucky to have the quantity of golf we have here but the quality is a step below the great golf cities. What makes Chicagoland golf great is the passion in the golfing community. We have a lot of doak 5s and we try to convince the community they are 6 and 7s.
I also want to add some fuel to the fire. The three public courses I always make special trips to see every summer are Ravi, Highlands of Elgin, and Spring Valley. I will not argue that Ravi is world class but I thoroughly enjoy every round I have there. I agree with the lack of a long par 4 but 7 and 11 make up for it. Both are excellent long par threes. 11 is one of my favorites in Chicago.

[Paul OConnor]

Ravisloe is a Doak 4.  No more

Which is defined:

Doak 4.  A modestly interesting course, with a couple of distinctive holes among the 18, or at least some scenic interest and decent golf.  Also reserved for some very good courses that are much too short and narrow to provide sufficient challenge for accomplished golfers.

Doak 3. About the level of the average golf course in the world.

All these so called Tier 4 courses are 3-4's.  NOT 5's

Tier 4: Ravisloe, Calumet, Idlewild, Naperville, Ridge, and Bryn Mawr. Doak 5's. Fun to play but nothing real special. 

[Bill Seitz]

I guess I am a little confused, or perhaps I just use my own definitions but isn't there a difference between "conditioning" and "maintenance" ?

I agree with what Shelly seems to say in regard to "conditioning" on a particular visit.  It may have rained, the greens may be slow, tees closed and any variety of problems that might crop up in a golf season.

I do not agree however that this is the same as "maintenance" which are linked to the long term issues often encountered in renovation work.  Narrow fairways are maintenance should a rater discount the choice the club has made?  Deep rough? Too many trees? lack of full use of green pads? mowing lines?

How about this: In terms of a home, maintenance = the paint color, and conditioning = the current state of the paint job.  Both can be changed, and neither may be what the original architect intended.  If you were rating the beauty of a home, both would be relevant, but neither may factor in to whether you would purchase the home.  They're both, to varying degrees, temporary.  But when it comes to rating a course for a magazine, it's more relevant to take maintenance practices into account as that is how the typical player is likely to find the course at any given time.  Regarding conditions, a rater can only rate what he sees, but he/she ought to be able to make an accommodation for anomalous situations. 


The example of a course getting screwed by this is Lawsonia.  I'm not going to dig into the history, but I seem to recall a big drop in the Golfweek ratings a couple years ago after a late spring rater retreat after a really tough winter.  I've been up there once and it was in really good shape, and I hear its even better know.  But get a bunch of the wrong people there at the wrong time, and that's that.  On the one hand, those guys can only react to the course the way they find it.  On the other hand, they should have done a little research to determine whether those were typical conditions, especially given the time of year they played it.  This is all second hand and from memory, so forgive me if I have the facts wrong, but theoretically the prinicple would still stand.