Is Ron Whitten off his rocker?

[Tom_Doak]

I haven't seen either one of the courses in question and I'm staying out of that debate for that reason.

As to whether I would rather be known for The Confidential Guide or for Pacific Dunes, I'm glad I'm known for both.  However, my current feeling is to side with Jeff Brauer on his point.

At the end of the day, critiquing golf courses is very difficult work.  Even after you throw out the clearly biased attacks, 99% of the criticism I have read basically comes down to a difference of tastes, often poorly stated to boot.  The result of this criticism may be that the golfer has some new information in choosing a place to play or not play, but if any of you think that the criticisms posted here are helping to change architects' opinions and styles, I believe you are sadly mistaken.

When I wrote The Confidential Guide, I understood that the main audience was golfers looking for real opinion, and not golf course architects looking to change their ways.  I was young enough and naive enough to believe that a few designers might read what I said and actually think about it, but in fifteen years I can't remember a single case of an architect telling me that had happened, though many have thanked me for opening their eyes to new places, or told me they agreed with my critiques of others' work.

Ron Whitten's problem is now that he is dabbling in architecture too, everything he writes is going to be taken differently.  Brad Klein and Geoff Shackelford are in the same position, to a lesser degree; it's hard to straddle that line.  I'd love to see every one of them out here practicing on their own; I think they might find some more respect for those who do.

And Jeff, I'd appreciate your looking into that ASGCA gag order for me.  A couple of my associates really want to be in someday, but that means I have to apply first.

[Kyle Harris]

When I wrote The Confidential Guide, I understood that the main audience was golfers looking for real opinion, and not golf course architects looking to change their ways.  I was young enough and naive enough to believe that a few designers might read what I said and actually think about it, but in fifteen years I can't remember a single case of an architect telling me that had happened, though many have thanked me for opening their eyes to new places, or told me they agreed with my critiques of others' work.

Tom,

Golfers looking for an honest opinion may one day becomes golf architects influenced by your writing.

[Brad Klein]

Responding to this thread isn't going to be easy, since anything I say will be dismissed as bias. So let me say that Mike Fay's account (above) of the local perception of the two courses is dead right on. Wintonbury is doing 32,000 rounds a year without discounting green fees. Gillette Ridge is doing less than half as many rounds and offering lots of discounts. Once again, the people are deciding.

I wrote Whitten an email after his review came out - I didn't bother to disagree with his conclusion, just to tell him I thought there were some issues he had overlooked or mistated. Maybe I have the wrong email address for him - possible. I'll check again tom'w. Unfortunately, he's not responded (yet). I'm surprised at that. I'm also surprised he didn't point out some very basic facts, such as the Wintonbury layout dealt with 91 acres of wetlands on site (plus a powerline down the middle) and we ended up with no forced carries into greens and only two ridiculously easy carries on tee shots (50+ yards) and not even requiring that from the forward tees.

Gillette Ridge had no wetlands mitigation impact on its routing plan, though plenty of wetlands on site, yet managed half a dozen forced carries for all players - the problem being higher handicappers can't negotiate many of them.

What surprised me about the review is that after accurately portraying the different approaches to design - Wintonbury being low-profile New England, Gillette Ridge being Florida - he opts for the Florida style as his preference. I think this says a lot about Whitten. That's his view, he's certainly entitled to it, but the way it emerged from the review struck me as arbitrary and disconnected. In other words, there as no relationship betwen the basis of his analysis and the conclusions he drew. Actually, you'd have more easily drawn the oppositie conclusion. Anyway, that tells me a lot about the basis of his judgments, namely that they have no relationship to his analysis of design and exist independently of it. In fact, I always find it strange that when reading one of Whitten's reviews, I usually learn a lot about the property but I learn little about that nature of design and how he thinks about design.

By the way, I find it very interesting in terms of Gillette Ridge that people distinguish between the design of the course and its poor conditioning. I think the relationship is closer. It's not surprising that 3-4 greens are struggling mightily for air; they're located in bowls, or with high trees on the east side. Meanwhile, everyone praises the conditioning of Wintonbury Hills. That's because it's well designed (thanks to Pete Dye & Tim Liddy) and allows for good agronomy (which is why, late in the game, we moved the 6th green 10-15 yeards west, to get the surface out of the morning shadow of the wooded hill to the east).

Anyway, the sleepy little town of Bloofmield is now a major golf desitination, with two courses worth visiting and evaluating.

[John_Conley]

Brad:  Generally when I hear that someone's "heart's in the right place", I assume they were misguided in doing something.  If this is Whitten's use of the phrase, he's wrong.

Didn't see Gillette this time last year.  Don't care to.  I'm glad the opinions that matter - the GCA.com crew - are in your favor!  Wintonbury, the Roy Jones of Connecticut golf!

[paul cowley]

...perusing the code of professional ethics of the ASGCA, I cite the following;
                                        VII

Members shall recognize and respect the work of other golf course architects and shall not knowingly make statements or offer opinions and comments that are false or attempt to injure or disparage their practice, projects or any of their work.

....hardly a gag order.

 personally, I prefer to comment on the things I like about anothers work while remaining mum on what I am not in agreement with.....but if another designer invites discourse, then by all means, lets.....

[paul cowley]

 TomD....for one of your associates to be eligible they would have to be responsible for the majority of the plans, drawings and the day to day supervision of at least three courses......for their sake are you there yet?

[T_MacWood]

...perusing the code of professional ethics of the ASGCA, I site the following;
                                        VII

Members shall recognize and respect the work of other golf course architects and shall not knowingly make statements or offer opinions and comments that are false or attempt to injure or disparage their practice, projects or any of their work.

....hardly a gag order.

 personally, I prefer to comment on the things I like about anothers work while remaining mum on what I am not in agreement with.....but if another designer invites discourse, then by all means, lets.....

Paul
Do you prefer when your colleagues remain mum on your work they're not in agreement with or question?

[paul cowley]

Tom ....either way doesn't bother me, but I would prefer face to face discussion where there is a greater chance for meaningful dialoque and a free drink.

[Forrest Richardson]

Free drink...did someone say, "free drink"...?

[paul cowley]

...just say "free drink" and out pops Forrest from the trees .

note: the above statement should by no means be considered an attempt at disparagement of either the person in question or his drinking habits , and I would like to apologize in advance if there is even the slightest blurring of the lines for professional conduct when considering the above .

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom ....either way doesn't bother me, but I would prefer face to face discussion where there is a greater chance for meaningful dialoque and a free drink.

Paul,

Over the years in ASGCA I have had just those types of discussions with Pete and Alice Dye', Art Hills, Rees Jones, etc. An offhand comment from Pete that his max cupping slope is 2.25% rather than the USGA recommended 3% is invaluble, if not hard to believe given some of his green contours!

Art and I once spoke of our green design differences.  I doubt that either of us changed our work signifigantly, although the fact that I recall the discussion over ten years later means it had some impact. I think I understood how his designs came to be rather than just guess at it, and certainly understood the validity of that thought process.  

(I only mention that to share what I think is a problem with any critiques of other courses - you have to realize that you bring your own ideas to the table, and can't help but critique in the mode of this is what I would have done.  As such, a deep thinker would say that you can't truly understand the design until you curb your own ego. )  

Or, as the old proverb says, he who is talking cannot be learning!

[paul cowley]

....or "thats why God gave us two ears and only one mouth"

[Jeff_Brauer]

Paul,

Just stay away from Forrest......ASGCA legend has it that he stitches his wallet inside his pocket when we retire to the bar for the real learnin'

[Brad Klein]

ADD strikes again. There's surely enough issues in the main post to keep this going.

[Glen Rapoport]

I had the duty of playing Giillette Ridge yesterday.....I do say duty.....5+hours in a 3 some following a two-some.  

Whitten's dissection of the faults of both courses is pretty accurate. His conclusion of favoring Gillette over Wintonbury is just a disconnect from his analysis.

I think the green complexes at Gillette would make nice photographs but they just don't work in general when trying to play the course. Most of them only will receive a single type of shot and will really penalize the player who either doesn't have that shot or makes a mistake.  

My host lives on the property and often goes for walks with a ball retreiver.  He has picked up over 300 balls so far, at least 10 dozen Pro VI's with hardly any marks on them.  What does that tell you?

In general the greens are either too narrow or too shallow and set at angles which only accept the most accurate of shots and the chance of recovering from errant approaches is minimal.

The conditioning is still way below what is present in the courses in the surrounding area even allowing for the stressful summer we have had in Connecticut.

I think the course was designed without enough thought of how the target market....the daily fee player and corporate outing participant....would fare.  Too much frustration here and you have to plod along for 5 hours and endure it.  Hopefully the managment company that runs the place will see that some redesign work is in order to make this a viable investment for Cigna and Kemper Sports.

[Brad Klein]

Well stated in terms of Gillette's playability. Would be curious as to your views, correspondingly, on Wintonbury Hills.

[Doug Wright]

and I once spoke of our green design differences.  I doubt that either of us changed our work signifigantly, although the fact that I recall the discussion over ten years later means it had some impact. I think I understood how his designs came to be rather than just guess at it, and certainly understood the validity of that thought process.

Jeff,

I'd be curious to know what your and Art Hills' "green design differences" were/are--just trying to learn something on here...

Thanks,

[Jeff_Brauer]

Doug,

We discussed both the surrounds and interior contours.

As to surrounds, Art wouldn't say this quite as crassly, but I interpreted it to mean that his surrounds would never have "$%@##$% Brauer mounds."  I recall seeing some of his green details, with little spot elevation differences of a few tenths of a foot.  He also does a lot of contouring of his back slopes, even if they never rise above the back of the green where you can see them from normal view.

Dick Nugent always taught me that that half foot bumps "don't read."  He also didn't put a lot of stock in shaping far behind greens, and more on what the golfer sees.  He also liked (and transferred this to me) some backdrop on most greens, even if it isn't traditional.

My surrounds are bolder than Art's, no doubt. However, I have recently played some Hills courses and been impressed. I am beginning to see the value of some of those small variations in elevation.

As to green contours, my public course bent usually means I can't put a lot of little "diddle bumps" in my greens.  Even a six inch mound somewhere in the cuppalbe area takes out the 10 foot circle itself, plus maybe 5 feet on each side, which takes out 300 sq. ft. of cupping space.  As such, I favor long broad rolls coming off the sides of the greens.

Art has often told contractors to put subtle ridges in greens, with one telling me he used the phrase "like five fingers running just under the green."  IMHO, this type of contouring -while great (see Baltusrol greens for an older example) aren't practical for my work, at least not very often.

Those are the types of discussions you can have in a community setting with other qualified architects.  I learn a lot from listening and keeping an open mind.  Hopefully, they learn a little from me, too. (If nothing else, how NOT to do it, I suppose )

[Mike_Cirba]

Jeff,

I've heard here that it's very difficult to get things like "tenths of a foot" elevation changes and "five fingers under a green" to come out with USGA spec greens, given the number of layers one must uniformly contend with.

Thus, it's easier to just do the broad slopes that you describe and personally use.

Thoughts?

[Doug Wright]

Jeff,

Thank you for the reply.

[Tim Bert]

Brad,

I'm not sure who/what your source for # of rounds at Gillette Ridge is, but I'd say I certainly agree directionally that Wintonbury stays much busier than Gillette.  The interesting thing on top of that is I bet a fairly large portion of those rounds at Gillette are corporate / group outings.  I can't tell you how many days a week I see the carts lined up to drive off in shotgun formation.  My only point is that often times fro those rounds, the participants aren't even choosing to play the course - they are choosing to participate in the outing.  I would guess that of the people that have played both this summer, the % favoring GR over WH is VERY low.