Is Ron Whitten off his rocker?

[Dan_Callahan]

I just read Ron's comparison of Wintonbury Hills and Gillette Ridge. I have to say, I've never read one of his reviews that is more off base than this one. (see http://www.golfdigest.com/courses/critic/index.ssf?/courses/critic/gillette_wintonbury.html)

I have played Wintonbury many times. It has its shortcomings, as I've said on this site several times. The repitition of holes 1-4 and 10-13 is unfortunate but, as Brad Klein explained, was a result of a tight piece of property. Otherwise, Wintonbury has some exceptional holes and a distinct look (far different from other New England courses).

I just played Gillette Ridge yesterday, and it is near the top of my "most disappointing" list. Forgetting for a moment the abysmal conditioning (at least 6 greens weren't puttable), the course has some very unusual design choices:

#2 a short par 5 has a cart path that cuts across the fairway in the exact place that you want to place your layup. The problem? The cart path is blind!! Imagine your surprise when you hit your shot exactly where you want to, only to see it bounce 50 feet in the air and land in a pond.

#4 is an uphill par 3 that Whitten seems to like. It is one of the crapiest holes I have ever seen. The green is 50 yards long. I don't know where Whitten got a width of 12 yards (maybe at the mouth of the green), but most of it is only 7 yards wide. The green is cut into the side of a hill. Go right, and you have an impossible chip downhill from deep rough. Go left and your ball is lost into the woods far beneath the green. This is shoehorn design at its worst (in fact, come to think of it, the green kind of looks like a shoehorn).

Not only is Gillette more expensive than Wintonbury, it will also cost you at least an additional $15 in lost ballls. There are forced carries off the tee and into the greens. Rarely is there a reward for challenging any of the hazards. The layout is tight, long, and uninspired. Holes 12–14 form a shooting gallery, where there are more balls flying around than a gay porno. Why anyone with a handicap over 10 would play this course is incomprehensible.

How any person with any interest in architecture could prefer Gillette Ridge over Wintonbury Hills is simply beyond me. I have typically agreed with most of what Whitten has written over the years, but he is smoking crack on this one.

[Mike_Cirba]

Dan,

Funny stuff.  

I won't ask how you know about the balls flying around.  

Seriously, my company's home office is on the grounds of GR so I'm hoping to play it (as well as Wintonbury) this fall.

It should make for an interesting comparison.  Sounds like two very different courses.

[TEPaul]

It will be interesting to see who on here who has not played or laid eyes on Wintonbury Hills or Gillette Ridge who defends Ron Whitten and his reviews anyway because he's Ron Whitten.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

I haven't played either, and with the other thread lamenting the state of CT golf, probably won't go that far out of my way to do so.

But I did read the reviews, which I found to be fair and balanced about both courses, pointing out his take on their strengths and weaknesses, without comparing at first.  

Then, he adds the opinion that he generally goes to a Palmer course with a bad feeling about forced design, and comes away more pleasantly surprised than he expected.  Its like me going to Star Wars movies - not being a sci fi fan, I went to the first one in 1977 with no expectations of it being good, and was blown away.  I went with expectations on every other movie of the series and was dissapointed.  Very human tendency, I think.

Even if you factor in the possible human tendency for Ron to perhaps want to diss competing fellow golf writer/aspiring architectural consultant (His hearts in the right place?  What does that imply?) Brad Klein, or was told to do so by his mags superiors (which I doubt) I think the reviews are fair.  And, if you disagree, whats the big whup anyway?  

He likes the unique "feature" of a frankfurter green and you don't?  While you do make a valid point, I don't think there is anything wrong with a long skinny green.  If you do, I can tell you right now to avoid Spyglass for one (surrounded by ice plant) and my Indian Creek for another (although my green is 14 yards wide, and does have kick in banks to help the shot!)

My point is, for this, someone posts that Ron is mentally unbalanced and a drug addict?  Someone please forgive my rant...... and then explain.......

[Dan_Callahan]

Jeff,

The mentally unbalanced/drug addict reference is pure hyperbole. But I'm sure you knew that.

Do me a favor and play both courses. I can understand how you might read the review to be fair and balanced if you haven’t seen how bad Gillette Ridge is. I'm not saying that Ron was bought off or is trying to discredit other architects. I'm simply saying that his preference for Gillette over Wintonbury speaks volumes about his eye for design.

I don't mind long skinny greens. There is a par 3 at Royal New Kent with a long, skinny, shallow green that was my favorite hole on the course. The third at Gillette is absurd. Unless you miss short, there is no place to miss. You built a green that is 14-yards wide? Great. Now cut that width in half and you have Gillette's third.

This is an obnoxiously penal course. You know those signs they have at amusement parks saying you must be more than xx inches tall to go on this ride? Well Gillette should have a sign in the proshop saying you must have a handicap less than 10 to set foot on this course. Otherwise, your search for lost balls on every hole will create a traffic jam that would make the DC beltway look like the Indy 500.

Throwing out his praise for the frankfurter green, Whitten misses the boat in his descriptions of a number of Gillette holes. How can he fail to mention the annoyingly-in-play cart path on 2, or the fact that it is a driver-wedge-wedge par 5 (no point in going for a green that is fronted by water and falls off into nothingness behind)? The other hole that he likes, the par 5 17th, has about two yards of room past the green before it falls off a wall and into water. Yet a second par 5 that you really can’t go for in two. There is simply zero risk reward on this course. Your entire round is dictated to you, because there is typically only one way to play each hole. They even messed up what would have been a nice drivable par 4 at the 14th. The neck leading into the green is canted left so that a shot is redirected into a greenside bunker. Unless you are insanely lucky (perhaps getting a lucky bounce out of one of the hundreds of unfilled divots in the area in front of the green) there is no way to get a ball to run up to the green. I could go on about several other holes, but my fingers are getting tired.

All that aside, I am primarily taking issue with his preference for Gillette over Wintonbury. Is there anyone else who has played both courses who can weigh in here? Am I the one smoking crack? I just can't believe that ANYONE would prefer the architecture, conditioning, price, etc. of Gillette over Wintonbury. Given 10 rounds, I would play all 10 at Wintonbury and 0 at Gillette. That's how bad it is.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

What were the comparative costs to build the two courses?  Can a fair comparison be made of any twio similar courses when the budgets varied?

I have seen both properties, and played neither.  Th Gillette course seemed to have more earth moving and seemed a more complicated project.  With the possible exception of the hole at Wintonberry by the resevoir.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Dan,

Yes I understood your hypberbole.  (Is it Hyper Bowl or is it High Per Bah Lee?) I get slightly offended at either directed at people I know, like Ron, Ed Seay, Fazio, Rees, Jim Engh, etc.

They are not ethically, visually, or architecturally challenged.  They have a style of design or writing, etc.  If we don't care for it, the world goes on.  Its not that important, or (as per the Baltusrol thread, "tragic.") It just is....Do we need to sensationalize everything, or critisize people in the biz, or just discuss architecture?  Read TePaul's Ethos thread......

Your critique is (sans personal attacks) is well thought out, detailed, and appropriate to this site.  You make some fine points based on playing the course, and I agree with the concept of many of them, although not having played either course.  The pic of the hot dog green shows it to be narrow.  I think it would be a better hole with a fw cut kick in bank above to give some bail out.  I don't like penal architecture.

But thats not the point of a web review on Golf Digest.com. A broad overview - with serious space considerations - for travelers is. Neither course review was glowing.  I clearly sensed that Ron is not highly recommending either, and probably shares many of your views.  

Ron never comes right out and says "whoo...this course is a real stinker!" But I think he finds ways to get his point across with double entendre.  We had a thread to that effect here on GCA (and I have a piece on it on my Cybergolf column) about course critisims.  Saying things that sound okay, but are really slams, like "Best course of its kind" and "Now thats some kind of golf course" etc.  Ron is a master at that!

And not all was that subtle - Palmer had to be shown around the course?  Long heard in the industry, rarely spoken of in national press out of respect for Arnie.  And he implies that he has very low expectations of Palmer Design, so he was pleasantly surprised.  Thats pretty hard hitting for national golf press.  Just IMHO, as always.

[Dan_Callahan]

Jeff,

I don't mean to belabor this, and I apologize if you took my attempt at humor to be a personal attack against Ron, but Ron is really doing his readers a disservice.

Let's assume, as you suggest, that we can read between the lines and infer from Ron's review of Gillette that he didn't really like the course. Perhaps he shares my views but prefers to offer a nuanced, "softer" opinion. I think that does a disservice to his readers, but perhaps that's his style.

He is very clear, however, that he thinks Gillette is a better course than Wintonbury. If he doesn't like Gillette but prefers it to Wintonbury, doesn't that mean he REALLY doesn't like Wintonbury? And if he REALLY doesn't like Wintonbury, than I think he is in the bottom 5% of everybody who has played the course (not a scientific number, of course). That means that his recommendations are really not helpful to the average golfer that makes up Golf Digest's subscription base.

Or perhaps he just made a mistake on this one. Maybe one day he will go back and play the two courses again and come to his senses (as he did with Great River a fews years back).

[T_MacWood]

I don't know either course, but I have to agree with Dan, why should we have to read between the lines?

IMO golf architecture would benefit from a more critical stance from the major magazines--Golf Digest, Golf and GolfWeek. Not complaining or personal attacks, but frank, honest and fair analysis of new designs--the postives and negatives. I also believe golf architecture would benefit if the ASGCA would remove their prohibition on architects analyzing other architects work.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

Didn't Ron give a frank analysis of the things he thought were good and bad?

Hate to sound like Pat Mucci, but please tell me EXACTLY or SPECIFICALLY how gca would benefit from more critical analysis, and how the SPECIFIC review in question would be changed to fit your criteria? Given that neither you or I have seen the course, I am thinking format, not content.  

Should Ron go hole by hole?

Compare every hole to the nearest comparable classic design model?  

Be the grand poobah and declare which strategy in which spot is the be all, end all of strategies, thereby setting a standard (or would that be formula?) for design quality?

I am not really trying to be snotty to you here, just pointing out the inherent problems with an opinion piece.  Ron was clearly not doing a fluff ad piece that you might find paid for via advertisement in other magazines.  And, its almost a given that Dan or someone will differ in opinions with any critic.  No problem there.

As to ASGCA members critiquing others work, I know you have said this before, and I REALLY fail to see the value in this, nor do I have any desire to do that in public.  (As I have stated in the past, we all do it in private!) Besides the unseamliness of it all towards those I consider friends, I know that any critique I make is certainly in the mold of "This is what I would have done."  The interest in gca is how differently different people would attack the same problem.

The point is, we provide our points of view and critiques with what we do, not with what we think others ought to have done, and that is the way it should be......If you want confirmation, I suggest you ask Tom Doak if he would prefer to be known more for Pacific Dunes or the Confidential Guide?  

[TEPaul]

"I also believe golf architecture would benefit if the ASGCA would remove their prohibition on architects analyzing other architects work."

Tom MacWood:

Amen. I think you should threaten to sue the ASGCA for abridging the First Amendment. Come on, that's the least you can do.

I think it'd be great if the architects let fly on each others products somewhat like they used to do in the good old days.

Doak:

"Brauer, you're latest course sucks eggs bigtime."

Brauer:

"Doak, your Pacific Dunes is basically a piece of crap merely saved by the ocean."

Ran liked Pacific Dunes but he thought the 17th hole needed a redan bunker on the right and he thought the tee shot on the 15th was way too wide with no immediate challenge to it. Of course I immediately screamed at Ran right there on the course that his opinion on those two items sucked eggs bigtime and he immediately changed his mind. Or at least I think he did as he had no response. He even asked me if he should call up Bill Coore to ask him if he realized that because he neglected to meld a portion of the 14th and 15th fairways at Sand Hillls that he totally blew an otherwise potentially great course. I think he was expecting me to tell him that opinion sucked eggs bigtime but I didn't tell him that. I told him he should ask him that by all means. That sort of shut him up too.

[Dan_Callahan]

Jeff,

The point is, we don't know if Ron gave a frank analysis. If, as you say, he uses double entendre, doesn't that mean he isn't being entirely frank?

There are two possible conclusions:

1) He is being coy, giving a review in which the true meaning can only be deciphered if one has insider knowledge of the true meaning of key words and phrases (similar to what is described in the book Freakonomics about the words used by realtors to describe various properties). In this case, his reviews really aren't helpful to the average reader who knows nothing of these terms of art.

2) He honestly prefers Gillette over Wintonbury, which is certainly his perogative. In this case, I question his eye for good architecture and his ability to assess the playability of a course. As I said earlier (I think), I usually agree with his reviews (although I disagree with his panning of the Ranch), so I would like to think that in this case he simply made a mistake.

Again, I'd like to ask if there is anyone out there who has played both courses who would favor Gillette to Wintonbury. How about if there is anybody out there who even LIKED Gillette? Maybe I am way off base here and just really missed something when I played Gillette.

[George Pazin]

If you want confirmation, I suggest you ask Tom Doak if he would prefer to be known more for Pacific Dunes or the Confidential Guide?

Tom is first and foremost an architect.

I could certainly be wrong, but Ron seems to be first and foremost a writer and critic.

Gigantic gulf between your positions, Jeff.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dan Callahan,

To help you put this in perspective, he also called Jasna Polana a modern day Winged Foot.

I think that tops anything else.

[Jeff_Brauer]

"I think it'd be great if the architects let fly on each others products somewhat like they used to do in the good old days.

Doak:

"Brauer, you're latest course sucks eggs bigtime."

Brauer:

"Doak, your Pacific Dunes is basically a piece of crap merely saved by the ocean."

TePaul,

Yes, that is just the way it would happen.......

[Jeff_Brauer]

If you want confirmation, I suggest you ask Tom Doak if he would prefer to be known more for Pacific Dunes or the Confidential Guide?

Tom is first and foremost an architect.

I could certainly be wrong, but Ron seems to be first and foremost a writer and critic.

Gigantic gulf between your positions, Jeff.

George,

I am first and foremost an architect.....what I was relaying to Tom Mac was that I would like to be known by my design work - period.  As a result, I have little desire to publicly critique others golf course design work, as I suspect  Tom Doak or any other gca would feel.  When Tom did the CG, he not yet a full time - full fledged gca, although he may disagree.

So, what is the big gulf in my positions?

I again ask Tom Mac (knowing he may not have a chance to read my last post) what benefits do you see in a free for all between architects, other value to gca buffs trying to understand ideas and concepts? I understand that.

As for advancing the art of gca, I believe that if I view other work, and learn to avoid bad things, or borrow, adapt and improve good things at my next opportunity, it is the highest advancement of the art I can personally achieve.  If I stop to point out the error of others ways, it doesn't improve my art, nor does it probably improve the art of others. I am sure most of us do go through this as part of our own self evaluation process privately, but again, there is no value to us as designers to go public with what we dislike.  

[George Pazin]

Well, then I totally misunderstood your point. I thought you were trying to defend Ron's use of innuendo, rather than defending the proposition of becoming a critic yourself. My apologies for my misunderstanding.

I personally don't really understand why it's necessary for a critic to use innuendo and double entendres, etc., in a review. I understand the realities of business, but if you are a critic, I would think there is an understanding that you are going to be critical. This seems self evident to me, much like I would expect a movie, restaurant or art critic to function as such, and not use camouflaging(sp?) language to praise or criticise a course, such that no regular reader could pick up on it. Why is Ron writing for the professional audience and not everyone else?

There was a band here in the Burgh I used to print t's for, and they were okay - kind of a Pearl Jam sound, well after the fact that PJ had established themselves. The local writer wrote a review that was apparently completely sarcastic and scathing. I read it, called their manager who had ordered the t's, and found out I totally missed the point, because I don't generally read everything this guy writes. How many other people do you think picked up this guy's point? Not many, I'd guess.

[Dan_Callahan]

I think it's unrealistic to expect golf course architects to review and critique each other's courses in a frank and honest way. After all, as a group they have a hard time giving an honest assesment of their own work. I mean, every single new course can't possible have been built on "the greatest piece of property I [insert name of architect] have ever had the priviledge to work on."

(note: this is meant purely in jest, thus the smiley, so please don't take offense anyone.)  

[Jeff_Brauer]

I actually reread Rons review - Other than the Brad Klein comment, which may have been sincere, there wasn't really innuendo.  It was a pretty straightforward mix of good and bad holes in his opinion.  There was a little mixing of expectations vs. reality, I guess, but that is just to give the reader an idea of his context, which isn't a bad thing in "honesty in journalism" is it?  So, I was a bit off base in my first reading of the article.

Clearly you disagree with Ron's take.  I have no idea whether he "misrepresented" or misunderstood the fourth hole at Gillette, although he chose a photo which clearly shows the maintenance problems that he alludes to.  

So, as I said before, I will let those who play the course make the next post.

[michael_j_fay]

In all likelihood Mr. Whitten prefers the course at Gillette Ridge.

I suggest you make a weekend of Gillette Ridge and Jasna Polana (?sp?) rather than Wintonbury and Pine Valley.

I have played both and found nothing endearing, natural or clever in the design of Gillette Ridge. I prefer natural and clever to manufactured forced golf holes.

I know the propeerty at Gillette Ridge extremely well. It is about 1/4 mile from where I grew up. There is nothing and I mean nothing that has not been shaped to death by the AP Company. In addition they have dug out nine new ponds.

Wintonbury on the other hand displays well the undulating farmland on which it is built. It is straightforward and has very good golf values.

I understand the desire to change entirely the palette when designing a course on a piece of dead flat scrub land in Florida and the manufactured look you get when finished. I do not understand building a golf course on very nice natural site and producing the same effect. It shows me that the Architect is bound and determined to create new ground without respect to the surrounds or the site itself.

All of my friends have played both and to a man the verdict is that one playing of Gillette Ridge was enough. Invariably, they are happy to return to Wintonbury.

When all is said and done the prospect of advertising revenues from CIGNA are a much worthier prospect as the same from the Town of Bloomfield.

 

[Tim Bert]

I've played both courses.  I've played Wintonbury 10-20 times since it opened and I've played Gillette Ridge twice.

I'm right there with Dan.  Gillette Ridge is one of the biggest golf course disappointments that I can recall.  The layout of the course is over the top to begin with, but the condition has been atrocious (to be fair, I haven't played since early June this year, but it is because I swore I wouldn't go back at the ridiculous prices they are charging until I heard from several trusted sources that the conditions have been fixed.  They appear to be stocking the course with corporate outings during the week, but I can't figure out how they are getting ANY return customers at this point.  I've read several customers opine that they need to shut the course down and grow the course in properly before re-opening.

I've said before that I think the 4th hole at Gillette Ridge is the dumbest I've ever seen.  In no way do I think that hole works well.  At its widest, the green is probably no bigger than ten paces and at its narrowest it runs 6 paces.  Think about it.  If a standard pin placement is not less than 2 or 3 paces from the edge, then that leaves nothing other than middle pin placements.  Add in the fact that there are some serious bunkers stretching almost the full length of either side of the green, and you've got all the makings of a really bad par 3.  I can only imagine how many people have gone back and forth from one bunker to the other because there is no where to land the ball unless you come out at an extreme angle.

Wintonury isn't a GREAT course, but it is a good course and it is a lot of fun to play.  I think that it is a bit over-priced if you don't live in Bloomfield, but given surrounding options it is still worth the fee.  The course is always in top notch condition, and it has been since the day it opened.

I'm on the Gillette Ridge mailing list, so I just received an email from them bragging that they've won the "Battle of Bloomfield."  It is based solely on Whitten's review.  It inspired me to come here and post something, and to my surprise I found this thread already in action.  I can honestly say that he is the first person I've heard review GR more favorably than WH, and I've talked to many people that have played both.  Most have sworn GR off at least until they fix their current issues.

I've got some pretty funny pictures of the course conditions that I'll try to post tonight if I can figure out the technology.

[T_MacWood]

"Ron never comes right out and says "whoo...this course is a real stinker!" But I think he finds ways to get his point across with double entendre.  We had a thread to that effect here on GCA (and I have a piece on it on my Cybergolf column) about course critisims.  Saying things that sound okay, but are really slams, like "Best course of its kind" and "Now thats some kind of golf course" etc.  Ron is a master at that!"

Jeff
I was responding to the idea that one can decifer what he actually thinks  by picking up on his double entendres and other subtle comments.

Why not just call a spade a spade? If I don't pick up on the double whatevers, I might not get the true message...how does that advance our understanding of golf architecture?

And how does that help the architect he is double entendring...who might be as dumb as I am, not understand where he may have gone wrong.

Regarding the ASCGA gag order....I strongly believe any artitic endeavor benefits from an open exchange of ideas. Being forced to articulate your design ideas would benefit all architects IMO...and benefit everyone absorbing the exchanges.

Knowing that your work will be questioned by your peers in public would have a postive affect IMO. The act of articulating your thoughts and ideas on golf architecture (or any subject), I believe is also a great benefit. If you remove the muzzle, I believe it would create a very healthy situation.

[Tim Bert]

To be fair, these pictures only represent some of the worst of what I saw at Gillette Ridge.  Still, I can't understand how you can slap a $90 sticker price on any course with these kinds of issues.  My apologies to my friend who posed for these photos without knowledge that he would be an Internet star!


A couple views of the fairway...





This green needs some serious help!



Nicely groomed tee area...



I don't think this clover was the intended landscaping...

[Tim Bert]

For a comparison of conditions, here is Wintonbury Hills about one month after the grand opening (almost two years ago.)  The pictures I posted of GR were taken almost a full year after the course opened.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I was responding to the idea that one can decifer what he actually thinks  by picking up on his double entendres and other subtle comments.

Why not just call a spade a spade? If I don't pick up on the double whatevers, I might not get the true message...how does that advance our understanding of golf architecture?

And how does that help the architect he is double entendring...who might be as dumb as I am, not understand where he may have gone wrong.

Regarding the ASCGA gag order....I strongly believe any artitic endeavor benefits from an open exchange of ideas. Being forced to articulate your design ideas would benefit all architects IMO...and benefit everyone absorbing the exchanges.

Knowing that your work will be questioned by your peers in public would have a postive affect IMO. The act of articulating your thoughts and ideas on golf architecture (or any subject), I believe is also a great benefit. If you remove the muzzle, I believe it would create a very healthy situation.

Tom,

What can I say about a writing style?  As I said in a later post, there really isn't a lot of potential double entendre, just an admission, basically, that his expectations affect his perception. So, some people like subtle things (like golf strategies!) and others like bold and direct.  

I do agree with you about articulation.  In fact, Ron has encouraged ASGCA members to write little bits about what we were thinking in the design process of each of our courses for posterity and I do think that would help each of us, the research community, etc.  One of the reasons I agreed to write my blurb on Cybergolf was the idea that if I couldn't articulate my design principles, maybe I didn't have any!

But, just as I believe that writing a new song for your band is a greater accomplishment than doing a cover version - no matter how you spice that up - I think writing about my own stuff (in theory, as a prelude to design or in review) is more worthwhile than simply critiquing something else post design.  In other words, figuring out the right thing to do while alligators or snakes are chasing you through the woods is clearly the goal of the gca - not figuring out what you - or someone else  - missed while running!

I don't know what the "gag" order is, but I will check my ASGCA ethics dox when I get back to the office.  I know we agree not to say disparaging things about other members in the course of trying to secure work, but that never helps the cause anyway, in my experience.  I doubt we have a specific rule against a review of others work, although common sense dictates we don't, or at least, it would be written somewhat like Rons subjective good and bad, rather than the all out bashing that occurs on the internet!