Worst New List

[Tom_Doak]

What is the list of "Best New Remodeled Courses" suppose to reward?

a)  architects who are fixing up their most off-base work from 10-20 years ago;

b)  architects who have brighter ideas than Ross or Flynn;

c)  architects who can't generate any new work for themselves; or

d)  panelists who can now get on more old courses.

Lumping all these categories together is not only absurd, but as dangerous as mixing explosive chemicals.

[Joe Hancock]

Lumping all these categories together is not only absurd, but as dangerous as mixing explosive chemicals.

Why, Tom, that's absurd!

Joe

[Ted Kramer]

Could it be for architects who have done good work undoing the mistakes made by jerkoff members, greens chairs, greens committees, of classic courses?

-Ted

[Cliff Hamm]

What is the list of "Best New Remodeled Courses" suppose to reward?


c)  architects who can't generate any new work for themselves;

Even if that were the case so?  DK if you're being facetious or not, but certainly Silva, Nicklaus, Rees Jones have plenty of work.

[Joe Hancock]

I don't see this list as the marketing tool the other lists are....at least for the courses. The one who stands to gain the most would be the architect who wants to do more of this kind of work. The clubs that do the work are pretty much set in their business plan and won't see significant numbers due to being on this list. To me, it would be more of an insiders list rather than a list that benefits the public in any meaningful way.

Bring on the explosive chemicals....

Joe

[Kelly Blake Moran]

What is the list of "Best New Remodeled Courses" suppose to reward?


c)  architects who can't generate any new work for themselves; or

For someone who is on top of the profession that is a pretty fucking arrogant statement to make.  While I have greatly enjoyed your insight here you seem to be having trouble moderating your lofty status with your public comments, or having trouble recognizing where you came from before you reached your present position.  For some of us who don't have the tremendous talent you have and therefore don't get the choice sites of the world, nor care to chase around the world looking for them, for those of us largely ignored by the media and raters, and care little about it, although it is a little tough to take this time of year, and for those of us who do renovations and new work, but have seen a dramatic increase in renovation work, your attitude sucks in my view.  Maybe Ran will start a tab for you and your butt boys and the other snobs on this site and leave the rest of us to ponder the issues of the real world.

By the way I agree that the remodel category is ridiculous.

[Tom_Doak]

Kelly:

I don't know why you took that as arrogant, other than because you already think it's so.

There are a lot of architects who can't generate much work for themselves.  We were among them not so long ago.  Some of them are likely just as talented as us, if not more so.  They can't generate much work because they aren't succeeding in the world of marketing and rankings and other b.s. that has nothing to do with their ability as designers.

I wondered aloud if this list was partly some misguided attempt to give some publicity to those guys.  If it is, it's failing, judging from the results.

Merry Christmas.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Your explanation is by far different from what I preceived from your intial post.  Maybe I do have a predisposition to think it was arrogant.  

In part this is due to the angst that is generated here because of these best new lists, and the general feeling that one has to be a better marketing person as compared to being a better architect.

Or it may be the anxiety I am feeling over the Texas-Colorado game today, knowing there are a bunch of undeserving PennStaters salivating for an upset.  Tough time to be in PA!

[Garland Bayley]

I suppose if you look at the lists as suggestions of where to play, this simply gives you more suggestions of where to play. For most of us, these lists come up with a place we might be able to play some time about once every three years. This list justs gives us a slightly larger chance of finding a new and interesting place to play.

[Don_Mahaffey]

We all question raters and rankings from time to time and it is debatable whether the rankings truly identify the "best" courses consistently. If you agree with me there, is there any question that the raters would really struggle to rank remodels? I mean, which is better, a sympathetic and well done restoration on a course never considered to be great...or a complete fricking redo where a horrible course was made...better? To be able to rate this you'd have to know what was there before, what the goals were, and then rate whether the goals were achieved. How many people have the ability to do that?

[Jim Thompson]

Don,

42

JT

PS - Thanks for the fish

[Patrick_Mucci]

What is the list of "Best New Remodeled Courses" suppose to reward?

a)  architects who are fixing up their most off-base work from 10-20 years ago;
b)  architects who have brighter ideas than Ross or Flynn;
c)  architects who can't generate any new work for themselves; or
d)  panelists who can now get on more old courses.

Lumping all these categories together is not only absurd, but as dangerous as mixing explosive chemicals.

Tom,

I think there's a critical factor which you omitted.

This creates the incentive for clubs to undertake architectural surgery.

Clubs, Boards, Committees, Presidents and Chairmen, knowing that the process can be rewarded, vis a vis notoriety from a National golf magazine, will embark upon surgery or disfiguration where none is needed, all in an effort to remodel which equates to modernizing their golf course.

If the category was "best restoration" I'd view it differently.[/color]

[Joel_Stewart]

I personally think its a valid category and has some merit.  The problem is the fine line between restoration and renovation.   As an example, its crazy that Monterey Peninsula should be nominated because it is basically a brand new course and should have been nominated for best new private (which is what I voted for).  The winner Brookside seems like its deserving (I didn't play it) although Silva embellished a little according to Rons write up.  I don't see anything wrong with awarding quality restorations?

Below is some of Rons write up, the last 2 paragraphs make me nervous.

Some 30 or 40 years ago, they began planting shade trees along the fairways with little or no regard to their long-term impact. The trees grew, branched out and filled in, so in recent years Brookside's fairways were as narrow as bowling lanes.

And its fairway bunkers were mostly grass gutters, because over the years any bunker that anyone found offensive was filled in and grassed over. By 1979, Brookside had lost almost 50 of its 94 bunkers, nearly all of them fairway bunkers. Many had since been reclaimed, but few looked like Ross bunkers and many were maintenance headaches. The greens remained authentic in contours, but modern mowing practices had reduced their rectangular shapes to ovals that were easier to mow.

What Silva did to reclaim the Ross design was not unroll the original blueprints and slavishly reproduce every feature in accordance with its 1922 dictates. Instead, he updated Brookside while fashioning nearly everything in the style of the original architect.

Sometimes he did restore Ross bunkers, as on the first and 10th holes, where their outlines were still plainly visible. But Ross had a set of cross bunkers less than 150 yards off the tee on the short, uphill par-4 15th. Seeing no point in restoring bunkers that would catch only high-handicappers, Silva instead added cross bunkers farther up the hill, in the 300-yard range. But he made sure they were built in the Ross style, with geometric shapes, angular faces and canted sand bottoms. Today, most observers mistake them for genuine Ross hazards.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joel,

As a panelist, can you really be objective ?

Can you really avoid a conflict of interest and view this in a detached, impartial manner ?

I suspect, that it's difficult to be a panelist and remain at arms length when it comes to evaluating the category's merit.

[Tom_Doak]

Joel:

I hope that's the post-award write-up you are quoting from.

Since the very beginning of the GOLF DIGEST awards, one of the things I've been most bothered by are the descriptions of the courses which are provided to panelists by the magazine.  In many cases, these "unbiased" descriptions actually gig the system.  Just by the length of them and their enthusiasm for particular courses [and they are NOT all written in Joe Friday style], they seem to tell the panelists in advance what to expect and indirectly, how to vote.

I would think this would be especially true for the new category from hell.  Someone has to tell you as a panelist what was there beforehand, and how they describe it to you will have a lot to do with how you vote.  Wouldn't it?

I still don't know what it is you are voting on ... the architectural merit of the final course [in which case Tom Fazio wins for putting new tees in at Pine Valley], or some attempt at "Most Improved Course."

[Jeff_Brauer]

Long Version:

The inclusion of this category was simply because remodels will a signifigant part of the design landscape in the coming years, so it ought to be recognized with a new category.  I understand that total "blow outs" will probably be put in the new categories.

I don't think this new category has a signifigant impact on the current situation facing clubs that remodel - it is up to the club (and its consulting gca) to do what THEY think is best for their course, which is exactly the same decision they face if rankings weren't a consideration.

The same design evaluation criteria for the new courses apply for the remodels.  Whether a gca restores or replaces the original design ideas,  panelists rate them as newly designed, according to the the criteria.  If ta great original design idea was replaced with a stinker, it won't help ratings unless you presuppose that the GD panelists usually make gross evaluation mistakes in favor of new work.

And, can a gca worry about what a bunch of outsiders think when designing?  As documented, there doesn't seem to be a ryhme or reason to how the 800 GC panelists vote, and there is certainly no guarantee that their course will place in the rankings, so it is hard to make decisions based on that.

Frankly, I believe a historical old club remodeling for rankings would probably be looking to get up into or back into the top 100, not get a one year prize, since there would be little marketing value in selling new memberships. Newer clubs or most public courses out  would have some marketing value, but then no one is defacing a classic.

GD panelists or other raters never cross my mind while designing.  However, I have often mused what the unoffical raters on this board might think of a certain design feature!  Then I remind myself that since I am not one of the favored few here, its certain they WONT like it, and I proceed about my business......

Short version: Not hard to imagine that there will be some unintended consequences, that Tom alludes to, but I don't think its as big a problem as our initial reaction might presume.

[Mike Benham]

The purpose of this category is so that there will be an additional list of courses that will be "ranked" where said course can then throw up a sign and use in advertising "Ranked by Golf DIgest" and in very fine print "Best Newly Remodeled Recently Restored Course by the non-original architect who had a better idea on architecture then the golden age architect who can't generate enough new work but is wise enough to convince a greens committee to allow him to improve their course".  

Tom - I'm surprised that you make issue of this category.

[Mike Hendren]

Mike,

It's the last place to throw up such a sign, but a local club that made the list might be a tad disappointed at its spot given the time and money invested in the "redo."  Damned with faint praise perhaps?

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

One of the silliest articles about golf course design was in the Myrtle Beach paper when I was working down there years ago.  It was about an architect (I can't remember who right now, but I would if I looked at the roster of courses down there)  who was designing his new course specificially to qualify for the GOLF DIGEST Top 100.  According to the writer, he was carrying around the definitions of all the categories in his hip pocket as a reminder to include plenty of memorability, shot values, etc.

It's also frightening to get the occasional call from a club which is seeking a consulting architect because they are concerned about their rankings, but I've had a few of those in recent years, as well.

You are right that most clubs probably have their sights set higher than the "Best New Remodeled" category.  

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom D. —

There is a great deal of range in the term "remodel", don't you think?

I offer a few thoughts...

 1.  When any golf architect takes a chuck on land, he or she is, in effect, "remodeling" a particular landscape into something else. Even the most natural and passive golf venues is a "remodeled" version of what was there. Quite often, I feel, we judge golf courses (new courses) on a basis of whether the golf architect improved upon nature, asking ourselves, "Would it have been better to have left the site alone or, perhaps, for some other designer to tackle later on..."

 2.  "Remodels" of existing golf courses can cover "rebuilds", "restorations" and "improvements". Could it be that the category attempts to reward and bring acclaim to those who have simply done a good job at among one of these categories? Take the case of the old and tired harbor that once graced the coast of an exciting town. Perhaps someone such as Michael Graves (the lauded American architect) comes along and redefines the harbor, taking some elements from the past and mixing them with exciting elements of his own. Does Graves, in this case, deserve to be awarded an honor if his work breaks new ground and solves problems? Maybe a better question is: "Should Graves be excluded from putting his work forward for review just because it took an existing piece of the built environment as opposed to a virgin site?" My opinion is that redevelopment (another work for "remodel") is a worthy undertaking. In many cases it represents the right decision. Much better, in contrast, to building new.


I, too, felt your first post somewhat arrogant. But, I now see better your intent.

My personal — and professional — viewpoint is that work to existing courses is an exciting part of golf. It keeps alive the undeniable notion (and reality) that golf courses are never "done" — that tinkering, tweaking and the occasional science experiment are a healthy part of golf and its playing boards.

Without such "remodeling" it would exclude as much as 75% of the posts and discussion on this site. I believe that 75% represents an important part of golf architecture. Certainly it is worth the rating system's time to look at and come up with some assemblage of "winners"...and, by default, plenty of "losers".

[Steve Lapper]

Your explanation is by far different from what I preceived from your intial post.  Maybe I do have a predisposition to think it was arrogant.  

In part this is due to the angst that is generated here because of these best new lists, and the general feeling that one has to be a better marketing person as compared to being a better architect.

Or it may be the anxiety I am feeling over the Texas-Colorado game today, knowing there are a bunch of undeserving PennStaters salivating for an upset.  Tough time to be in PA!

On behalf of those people out there that might best be desciibed as "architectually agnostic butt boys," GO BUFFALOS!!!

[TEPaul]

"What is the list of "Best New Remodeled Courses" suppose to reward?"

TomD:

How would you feel about a list called?

"Best Faithfully Restored Courses"

It probably wouldn't be hard to tell what a list like that was supposed to reward.  

[TEPaul]

"On behalf of those people out there that might best be desciibed as "architectually agnostic butt boys"...."

Steve:

ARCHITECTURALLY AGNOSTIC BUTT BOYS???

Did you say that or did Kelly say that?

Shit, man, that's one beautiful description, whoever said it.

AABB's, for short. GOLFCLUBATLAS.com has just GOT to get that into the next edition of every significant acronym dictionary. Work on it!

[paul cowley]

One result of the annual ratings that has gotten little press here, but does ripple a little through the design ranks are contractual bonuses paid post construction when a course makes the top 10 list [or lists]..... and  unfortunately its going to be a little leaner around the house this holiday season after this mornings returns.
Its interesting that this suggestion is usually made by the client, I guess in the hope one works harder or performs better or something , but hey, a little extra never hurts.

....but Hark, t'is still hope...GMag has yet to declare!

but thats in Jan, right?

[Jim Thompson]

Paul,

I've never understood that.  I've never met a creative type who performed or created better "under pressure" be it time, financial or what have you.  A pretty dumb move in my book.

JT