Hurdzan/Fry Course in Wisonsin

[Chris Munoz]

Just wondering if anyone knows about a new golf course Hurdzan/Fry are building out in Wisonsin.  I know LUI is doing the construction.  I hear that it might host the US Open in 10 years.  I don't know about that.  

Chris Munoz

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Whatever course it is, it MIGHT host the Wisconsin Open in 10 years. This is the only course in WI listed at www.hurdzanfry.com :

Troy Burne Golf Club     Hudson, Wisconsin
Golf Course Web Site www.troyburne.com
Troy Burne was designed in collaboration with PGA Tour Professional Tom Lehman.  The course is open “links” style with lots of bunkers, and many native grass areas between holes.  The contouring matches the contour of the surrounding countryside, giving the golf course a very large look and feel.  Troy Burne has been rated an Honorable Mention choice for Golf Magazine’s “Top Ten You Can Play.”

[Jeff Shelman]

I did a search through a newspaper database and found nothing. Troy Burne is certainly not the course as it has been open close to a decade.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I believe this is the course Dr. Mike and Dana are building with Ron Whitten.

I hear its on some outstanding ground.

[Steve Lapper]

I pray they do it WITHOUT their infamous "bunkerwol" product....a real disaster waiting to happen.

Maybe someone can convince them to build bunkers without 30 degree faces?

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Tommy

Upon further investigation,you're right about Ron Whitten's involvement with Hurdzan/Fry on the WI course. Whitten mentioned it in his "Course Critic" review of Hamilton Farms in NJ at golfdigest.com. I could not find a name or location for this project.

Steve

[Chris Munoz]

You haven't seen Shelter Harbor Golf Club in Charlestown Rhode Island yet.  After you see it or play it, get back to me.  And tell me what you think.  Or what about Hamilton Farms in NJ.  

[Bill Kubly]

The new course that you are asking about is called Erin Hills and is located 30-40 miles northwest of Milwaukee in the town of Erin Hills.  It is a spectacular, natural site.  In fact most of the golf holes will require little or no earthwork at all.  Many of the greens will be natural core-outs and may be constructed with on-site sand.  Construction has started and this course will be seeding in 2005.  The bunkering will be great part of this golf course.

I first saw this site about 4 years ago after meeting Bob Lang the owner of the site.  He has a passion to build (discover) one of the great golf courses in America, and has the potential to do this with this site.  I have toured the site with Dana Fry, Mike Hurdzan and Ron Whitten on numerous occasions,  and they have spent countless hours finding and tweaking this course.  This is one of those courses you will have to play.  The fairways of the course have been carved out by mowing the native vegetation and if you look at the photos of this site, it looks as if it is ready to play and as of yet, virtually no dirt has been moved.  You do not need to worry about this course being maintained to the fullest as they all want it to look natural, even dry around the edges.  The native grasses and fescues are spectacular already and very little will need to be disturbed except for the actual fairway areas which will most likely be a fine fescue blend.  

Dana, Mike and Ron also have a great passion for this site and I truly believe that Erin Hills has the potential to become one of the great golf courses, and a course that GCA guys will truly enjoy.  

I also concur with your statement about Shelter Harbor and Hamilton Farms.  The bunker work at both of those courses is spectacular.  Also, you have not been around if you have not seen a great Hurdzan-Fry golf course.  They have designed some great ones in the past 6-10 years, and the two above are only a sample of what they can do.  Erin Hills, their latest  will be a course that will be talked about for many years to come.  

[Chris Munoz]

Who is doing the bunkering work at Erin Hills?  Is Jeff Bradley's name going around.  He did a awesome job at Shelter Harbor.....

Chris

[Bill Kubly]

Landscapes Unlimited will construct the bunkers, but Jeff has been talking with the owner of the project about being involved in the bunker work.   He may end up helping  at some level,  but that decision has not been finalized.  We value Jeff's knowledge in this arena.  These bunkers will be a lot of fun to build with all of the natural native grasses and native sandy soil.

Jeff did a very good job on Shelter Harbor's bunkers on a golf course built by Landscapes Unlimited.   Dana Fry has a lot on confidence in Jeff's bunker work.

[Paul_Turner]

Was this the site that Tom Doak almost got but was beaten at the wire by Hrdzan and Fry?

 

[Tom_Doak]

Paul:  Yes, that's the one.

I saw Ron Whitten today in New York and he says he has been spending 3-4 days a week on site in Wisconsin since they started in September.

If so, that's more than me and Jack put together in New York.

[Matt_Ward]

I'm just curious but how does the chief architecture critic for Golf Digest -- the most circulated magazine in the industry -- become a consultant to actual projects?

Isn't that a conflict of interest and minimize his function at the magazine?

At the very minimum does it not run the risk of causing issues relating to the perception of a conflict of interest even if fully disclosed.

I mean how can one be an umpire and baseball player at the same time?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Matt,

Ron is affected three ways, by agreement with the magazines.

First, he stopped publishing his annual golf course architects rankings in Golf World, and second, his courses are not eligible for the GD Best New competition.  Lastly, while he still writes the best new articles, he doesn't do anything in tabulation of votes or running the competition.

Both he and GD believe that relieves any issues of conflicts of interest sufficiently.

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff B:

I'm glad they think so.

I'm not so sure.

Let me give you an example -- not too many years ago Frank Rich did the reviews of Broadway shows for The New York Times. His comments could affect the nature of which shows stayed on Broadway and those that closed -- sometimes the next day after the review appeared. His reach was indeed a powerful presence. Rich also had no connection to the development, production or any other aspect of the Shows he was reviewing.

The position of chief architecture critic for Golf Digest is a bully puplit for Ron to provide his no-holds-barred comments and frankly I think he does very well even when I disagree with his assessments. Ron is extremely knowledgeable and is well respected.

Nonetheless, when someone holds that position you can't be a "player" in the design field while also holding to a chief architecture position as umpire without compromising yourself -- even unintentionally in some way. I don't doubt Ron has fully disclosed the fact, but that doesn't square the reality of what takes place and the lingering perceptional questions that logically flow from it.

There are architects who may wonder if Ron will speak favorably about those architects he has consulted with even if those courses he is involved with are not eligible for "Best New" annual awards. I'm speaking about future projects he may not be involved in reviewing because of a relationship with the principles from work he did with them as a consultant.

Such situations may cause the kind of compromises a full fledge no-holds-barred review needs to be for the benefit of the reader.

The issue fundamentally is giving the readers a balanced and independent assessment without wondering -- even if it's disclosed -- whether or not the critic is indeed a player in the industry.

Like I said you can be an umpire or a player --you just can't be both at the same time IMHO -- particularly with a forum as powerful as what Digest provides.

[Jeff_Mingay]

I think it's interesting to note here, that A.W. Tillinghast and Walter Travis were editors of golf magazines, and course architecture critics back in the 1920s and '30s while they were designing courses, on their own and in collaboration with others, too.

I like to think Ron Whitten's involvement with certain golf course design projects wouldn't influence him not be subjective, open minded, and honest when writing about golf architecture and reviewing courses.

I think Tillinghast and Travis were. It seems to me they called it like they saw it - praise of certain courses, criticism of others, seemingly without any external influence.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Matt,

I specifically replied that "they" think this adequately distances them, anticipating I wouldn't change every mind here.  

Perhaps "they" also take some comfort in the fact that Geoff Shackelford and Brad Klein both review golf design and designs for different magazines and are involved in consulting.  And, of course, the grandaddy of them all - Tom Doak writing for Golf while breaking into the industry set the standard for this crossover.  He certainly did show that he could do a "no holds barred" review of other architects, no?

I think Ron and Brad do the same, if in a different style. Geoff wrote a pretty complimentary article on using architects for renovations in this month in Golfdom, which I appreciated.

So, with every major critic jumping over to supplement his income, avid readers of such critiques simply need to factor this in to their personal reviews.  

[Mike Hendren]

Like I said you can be an umpire or a player --you just can't be both at the same time IMHO

Matt,
I recently heard that tennis players in the Southeastern Conference call their own matches.  Don't know if it's true or not.

Integrity always trumps the appearance of impropriety - at least in the long run.

Mike

[Kelly Blake Moran]

You are right Matt.  I have heard another writer/architect go out of his way to praise an architect, and a casual reader would not know that they had collaborated with that architect on previous projects.  It certainly diminshes their position as a critic I think.

Dave,

In chasing this babe you said you never got a squat from her.  What exactly is involved in getting squatted by a girl?

[JakaB]

Now we all know why Tommy is so in love with the work of Forrest Richardson...

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff B, et al:

My point is not about the honorability of the aforementioned people. That's not the issue.

It's also not relevant that person 'X' at another publication does the same thing. Two wrongs don't square the reality of the conflict that exists -- real or perceived.

Conflicts of interest do happen. When there's a perception of a conflict and even when the person discloses the nature of the relationship that doesn't mean that that person is now OK to write a "clean" course review. How does the reader begin to decipher the nature of the relationships involved -- in fact, why should the reader have to do this at all? It's up to the publication to ensue a clear separation exists.

Just like I said before even if a person recuses himself from a review of a course he was involved with ... that doesn't mean the same person will recuse himself from future works by that architect does it? What does that say about the process? How independent and credible can future reviews be? Why should the reader even begin to ask these questoins?

I work in the media field -- I know good friends who work in PR and marketing. You can't do both job at the same time because it does play a major role in diminishing what you do. Those in the media may have to write a critical investigatory article and if the primary thrust in the PR / Mktg arena is the advancement of the client and their service / product you undercut your own credibility no matter how insightful the analysis is.

The first thing any publication needs to have is a wall between who and what is written and the people within a given industry. If people need to decide what field they wish to go in the publication should either pay them more $$$ to stay as an independent critic or wish them well in their new profession. J D Powers & Associates -- likely the most prestigious reviw companies -- understands this very well and doesn't have conflicts of interest -- real or perceived that undercut their clout and respect.

When people say person 'X' is honorable and can easily shift between the roles I don't see how one can do that. The isue is not their honorability. I've never questioned that.

Like I said -- if you want to be an umpire -- then call the game. If you want to be a player then play the game and allow someone else to call balls / strikes and safe / out. You can't hop scotch between the two as the game goes on and presume you are capable of independent analysis. There is a taint when you try to plant one foot in one column and one in the other at the same time.

One last thing -- if a person has to recuse himself to such a degree then the whole point of being a critic becomes self-defeating. As a reader I should not have to figure out the dancing ball of various mechinations taking place. That's something the publication should be thinking about.

[JakaB]

Matt,

Do you stay on the Golfweek panel for anything but the free golf and access it gets you.....When I read the Golfweek rankings and know each of your excellent votes are negated by an equal and less informed vote I know the process is being bastardized by less qualified eyes.....Do you see yourself becoming an independent rater any time soon...

[TEPaul]

John B;

How much better than Fazio do you think Hurzdan and Fry are?

[JakaB]

Tom,

I would put Dana Fry in my list of top five living architects....a list Fazio does not occupy..

[Matt_Ward]

John:

I now serve as Travel & Architecture Editor for a blog called bunkershot.com. I also contribute to a wide range of publications -- many of which are regionally based. I also do the course ratings for Jersey Golfer -- a publication I started with my good friend Lowell Schmidt 14 years ago.

As you likely know I served for 17 years as a Digest panelist and now do likewise for GolfWeek.

John -- as a full member of the Golf Writer's Ass'n of America and the Met Golf Writer's Ass'n my network of contacts in the golf industry is quite deep and varied. Frankly, my ability to access key sites doesn't require my connection to GolfWeek although clearly it doesn't hurt. The old line of six degrees of separation is certainly true in the golf industry.

John -- you're point about the "consensus" nature of ratings has been stated by me and no less than Tom Doak agrees provided the person has a keen pair of eyes and can provide frank and insightful analysis. As you know few people can do this because their portfolio of courses is quite small and it's quite hard for them to stack courses against each other with some meaningful analysis applied. Many people may know their own turf / neighborhood but stack them further up the food chain with courses from across the country and it's a far different story. Unless you stay active and current the assessment of courses can easily become stale and tired. Info, as you well know here on GCA, is a 24/7 operation.

Frankly, the magazines choose to enlist raters because it costs them nothing. I believe, if memory serves, Dan Kelly opined it might behoove the overall process / credibility to simply pull the plug on all raters and do al the reviews in-house. That's a strategy no doubt but I don't see any takers.

As my involvement deepens it's likely the independent route your mentioned will take place. It's already happening now. Maybe I'll start something akin to what J.D. Power & Associates does now. !