Let it begin...GD Best New Announced

[Dan Kelly]

I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd be interested to look at the "complete history" of these GD rankings, at http://www.golfdigest.com/courses/bestnew/index.ssf?/courses/bestnew/the_comp_oiukffgc.html

[A_Clay_Man]

Everyone is on such good behavior  

I will try(implies can't) to do the same by saying two things I thought.

1. After hearing about the conditions at Devil's Thumb (not that that matters) I am surprised. WTG GD.

2.The Glen Club? The Glen Club? The Glen Club?

[RJ_Daley]

I suggest a new top 10 list.  The top 10 courses that fell through the cracks in the past 5 years... a do-over list!

I think the narrative on RC has it quite well pegged.  The narrative on Tullymore injects one interesting unresolved question or observation on construction technique related to everything built like a bathtub.  With that looming question unanswered definitively, I find it hard to believe they rated it #1 in its category given so many others to choose from.  Was the question tactfully unanswered, or don't they actually know how it drains?

I see Whitten has a homeland Nebraska course thrown in, Iron Horse, which is near Quarry Oaks, that being another Nebraska concession some years ago.  I'll make every effort to check it out next time I pass through there in the spring.

PS: I am very happy for the recognition of Rick Phelps work at Devil's Thumb!

[THuckaby2]

Matt:

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.  It all makes great sense to me.  Of course no rating system is ever going to be "perfect" although I suppose the suggestion to have a paid cadre of raters travelling around seeing every course is the best answer.. but obviously that's not going to happen (if it does, where do I sign up?) so each magazine does the best it can.

Regarding:

But, I have serious issues with individual rating assessments from people who quite likely really do not traverse our great country to make the kind of cross comparisons that are absolutely critical for the kind of results that should be forthcoming.

Yes, you've stated that many times on here.  The problem is indeed that so few people have the time, resources, etc. to allow for this.  Thus as I say, the magazines do the best they can.

As for individual ommissions, such shall always exist.  I remain surprised that Applebrook didn't make the top 10 new private.  But heck, top 10 out of the many nominated is always going to be a tough call... and there remain many reasons why this may occur.

TH

[Daryl "Turboe" Boe]

I was happy to see Jim Engh complete his "Career Grand Slam" if you will.  Adding BNU to his BNP & BNA from the past.  Although I guess to be technical one should also win BN Canadian to really have the GS.

Obviously Jim has made a nice name for himself building affordable public tracks on moderate (note I did not say low) bugets, and coming in exactly on buget.  After the big splash of Sanctuary (which is about as private and exclusive as you can get) he has been more known for his affordable tracks, Redlands, and Hawktree in North Dakota (which I think would have won instead of getting 2nd a couple years ago had more people seen it).  

You dont automatically think of Jim Engh when you think of Huge Upscale Public Facilities.  In fact I usually think of him as being able to make a great and dramatic golf course without always having the bugets that the TF, Jack, or Rees have to work with.  Isnt it somewhat fitting then that his winning the Upscale category comes on a course with greens fees of $60-70 which depending on the part of the country isnt that "Upscale" compared to many on there with +$100 greensfees.

I also wasnt sure what to make of the drainage comments, unless someone was trying to make a toung in cheek comment about how you legally drain everything with wetlands all around.  I can only say that when I played Tullymore in June, I found the playing conditions to be firm, moderatly fast, and no signs of any drainage issues.  It was interesting that they talked about the symmetry of the mounding, when I tend to not feel that anything stood out to me at Tullymore regarding symmetrical mounding.  Yes I have noticed that about Jim Engh's bunkering if you stand right above it and look down, but I find that the grassy faces and contouring that he uses actually make the bunkers nearly dissapear from view quite a bit of the time entirely.  You know they are there, but you dont get the dramatic look of the flashed sand faces up in the air.

[Daryl "Turboe" Boe]

In fact as a follow up to my previous post I did a quick check of the link on the top of this page of past results.  Since they changed to the current format in 1996 with Best New Affordable Public, Best New Upscale Public, and Best New Private in the US.  My quick scan would lead me to believe that Jim Engh is the only one to perform this feat.  Call it a "Career Grand Slam" or "Hitting for the Cycle" for US categories.

I was surprised that Tom Fazio had not done it.  It was certainly not the category that I expected that has eluded TF.  Who would have guessed that it was the Upscale category that had eluded him.  In fact Tom almost pulled off the "Real Grand Slam" in 1996 when he captured both the BNA and BNP in the same year.  But alas the same one that has eluded him since then was his downfall that year.

If you globalists (or Canadians) want to make an issue about it not being a true Grand Slam without the Best New Canadian being a criteria.  I would pose this tidbit, Jack Nicklaus has won the Best New Canadian once already, the only one of the so called "Big Name" US architects.  If we indeed consider it like "Hitting for the Cycle", then I would say that Jack has already gotten the "Triple" out of the way and all he has left are the more conventional ones.

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

Once again, how are the CANADIAN courses rated?  No I do not have an inferiority complex, I just want an answer.

I know that there are some Canadian GD panelists, but I wonder what the cross-section is like.  I also scratch my head when some courses make the top 3 that seem bewildering.

Lastly, I wonder what the numbers were that saw Timberwolf when it opened.  If GD panelists do not travel other than regionally, how the hell did they find this course in Sudbury?

Is there a limit to how many votes are needed?  Is that different for Canadian to American courses?  Why was there a shift from best Canadian to Best Public Canadian in 1994?

[Doug Wright]

I'm really happy for Rick Phelps (Devils Thumb). Although I've yet to make it to the Western slope, I've spoken with Rick about the course and he's rightly proud of it. As I understand it, he was pretty aggressive with his design of this public course in way out of the way Delta, CO and it's good to see his work recognized. And the fact that this course is so highly ranked despite the VERY remote location and conditioning issues Matt Ward mentions is very good indeed.


All The Best,

[Patrick_Mucci]

Turboe,

I'm very surprised that Applebrook didn't make it.

Is the rating process quantitative or qualitative ?

[Doug Wright]

Jim,

Matt Ward or others may know more, but as I understand it Devils Thumb has had some significant fairway soil problems on some holes since opening. Some kind of "leaching" problem, was it?

All The Best,

[ForkaB]

If Applebrook was eligible and it didn't make the list, the list is a sham.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Doug,
Thanks. I just went back to amend my post asking aclayman what conditions were and sent it off into cyberspace!

I was surprised to hear of any problems as I've read that those playing it are all satisfied and extremely thankful to have a course of this caliber, especially a muni, in their town.

[THuckaby2]

Applebrook was on the list of courses nominated for Best New that I received, and yes, it does surprise me it didn't make the top 10.  That being said, many explanations for this remain possible.  Pat - the rankings are certainly not quantitative, although I do believe that a certain number of raters are required to see a course for it to make any rankings.  Again, I don't know the specifics re this but this is a possible explanation re Applebrook.  It's also very possible it came in at a fighting #11!

TH

[W.H. Cosgrove]

As always, I am sure much debate will ensue over the choices made by GD.  

I did manage to play Briars Creek in September.  The course is highlighted by some stunning finishing holes, two very good starting holes and some good holes in between.  

Whether that is enough to qualify in my mind as the Best Private of 2002 is of some question.  Although this is a very nice golf course, I wonder whether there isn't something better out there?

[Matt_Ward]

Doug:

You are 100% on the mark regarding leaching at Devil's Thumb. The par-5 5th hole I believe was really a major problem because of nearby salt coming onto the site off property. As a result the facility had overwatered the affected fairway to a high degree in order to mitigate the situation. I would hope if any one has played the course since my visit in late May that they can comment on what's happening.

I had the pleasure in playing the course this past summer with Rick and depite the conditioning issue on a few holes on that portion of the property the holes have significant strategic interest.

The issue, beyond the leaching, for Devil's Thumb will be its relative remoteness. Even from Grand Junction you still have to trek about 45-60 minutes to get to Delta.

I really like the course and as I said earlier, the 13th hole is a superb split fairway hole -- one of the very best of its kind that I have ever played. Rick has designed a course where driving the ball to the proper spot is richly rewarded. You have playing angles that make you think with each tee shot. There's also plenty to gain for the long hitter if you can properly harness it.

I just hope some sort of long term remedial plan is put forward regarding the leaching because the layout clealy has plenty of strategic holes of interest and with some attention to course grooming has the possibility in being in the same league as Rustic Canyon and Wild Horse for its design quality and affordability.

One last thought -- Rick has developed a routing plan that takes you to all parts of the property. If you happen to be in the south central or south west portion of Colorado -- Devil's Thumb is certainly worth the time.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

Shouldn't the magazine indicate the golf courses that were considered that didn't meet the 25 reviews required to qualify for the finals ?

That additional information would have been most helpful.

[THuckaby2]

Pat - I'd imagine that information would be interesting to the participants here... but do you really think the general circulation readers care about that?

I have no problem not including that, none whatsoever.

I also have no problem with any magazine keeping their rating criteria and methods private.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

I do think it would be beneficial to the readers.

First, if Applebrook would have been included had it met the minimum rater requirement, think of the benefit to the members of Applebrook and potential members.

Second, it helps the credibility of the magazine and the ratings.  Imagine the confusion created in the mind of a golfer
who has played another course that was rated, but isn't as good a golf course as Applebrook, which wasn't included in the rating process due to not meeting the minimum criteria.
The golfer doesn't know this, so they think, either the ratings are bogus, or the golfer doesn't understand architecture, golf courses and ratings.

Nothing good happens from a material lack of material information.

[THuckaby2]

Patrick:

I still think we are talking about a tiny minority of the golf population here... even if we add up the Applebrook members, those who care about the course, all the regulars here, that's still got to be less than 1% of the readers of Golf Digest.  This group needs to be catered to?  And if so, where do you draw the line?  Should Golf Digest publish all the votes, all the courses nominated, the number of visits?  Again, I'm sure everyone here would love to see that... but to the rest of the golf world, that makes for some boring pages in the magazine or on the web site.  It might educate, but is education what that magazine is for?  Do we really expect them to be that altruistic?

One can't forget this is a commercial operation... I am likely getting WAY in over my head on this, but I still have no problem with how GD - or any of the other magazines doing ratings - publishes their rankings.  It's ultimately their decision what's gonna sell magazines....

TH

[Mike_Cirba]

I have to agree with Patrick here.  

Based on everything I've heard from others who've played Kingsley Club, for instance, it is inconceivable to me that it woudn't be included in the Top 10.  

To not be listed puts a big question mark out there...same with Applebrook.  The inference otherwise is that ALL nominated courses have been seen, which casts some doubt on the validity of the results.  

No system is perfect, of course, but some additional information would help the readership of GD to better understand that.  

www.kingsleyclub.com

[George Pazin]

Patrick's question echo's mine: Did The Bridge or The Kingsley Club get enough raters? I think it would be good to know if any course didn't.

Look at all those Fazio courses - GD's panelists must be biased?  

Since the Dye course in Avalon Lakes, Ohio was included & won a best new upscale following a remodel, shouldn't Merion & Riviera be included in best new privates? Even in their possibly lessened states, surely they're better than at least a few of the others.

Congratulations to the gang at Rustic. I say, raise the fee to $51 next year & go for best new upscale.  

[THuckaby2]

Mike - do you see any validity to what I say above?  Yes, you care, I care, Patrick cares... but outside of the regulars here, who really cares how many courses are visited and how many aren't?  It seems obvious to you, to me, to Patrick that courses like Kingsley and Applebrook should have made the list, and we want to know why they didn't... but do people really care outside this group and the members of those clubs?

The idea here is to sell magazines and that can't be forgotten.  Oh, I know how important these rankings become commercially on so many levels... but in the end, it's up to the magazine to do what they want.

I really don't see the problem here.

TH

[ForkaB]

Mr. Huckaby

If the idea is to sell magazines, why doesn't GD just rank the courses by the amount of advertising revenue they commit to spend in the magazine and do away with all the costs and logistical hassles associated with their stable of superfluous "raters?'

[George Pazin]

TH -

Can't hurt to try to educate people, even if it's just a little.

Take myself, for instance. I had been playing golf for about two years & reading GD & Golf, etc., for much of that before I finally decided to try to learn why PV always seemed to come out no. 1.

Now, just a few short years later, I know almost as much as the 43rd ranked poster on GCA can know.

Seriously, I don't see the downside to simply pointing out to people that some courses might merit more attention.

[THuckaby2]

ForkaB - love the name.  If we take this to its logical conclusion, then what the hell, they could indeed do their rankings that way.  But logical conclusions rarely occur on this earth, so the rankings are what they are.  

George - hey, I'm with you guys, it would be educational... and in the past in the writeups the magazines do mention those courses which barely missed and say why that's so.  GD apparently didn't this time, and that's our loss... In the end, it would be tough to list some courses that missed and not ALL courses that missed, just to avoid favoritism... thus my take that the magazine would be filled with several pages of boring stats.  There is likely some happy medium here, and perhaps GD should have attempted to find it.  Hell, I too am interested as to why certain courses missed out, as I say...

TH