Worst New List

[Garland Bayley]

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

Late flash
Texas 34
Colorado 3

Woops, they just called that one back because of a penalty.
Oh Well, Colorado is still getting their due.

[Garland Bayley]

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

Late flash
Texas 34
Colorado 3

Woops, they just called that one back because of a penalty.
Oh Well, Colorado is still getting their due.

And due they are
Texas 35
Colorado 3

Figured I had to post here, because all the Buffalo fans have probably already turned off their TVs.

[George Pazin]

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!

No worries, Kelly, Texas is rolling.

GP, Pennsylvanian by birth, Texan wannabe.

[paul cowley]

Jim....we are in agreement [did you not notice the eye roll?], as to it being a source of design inspiration......but its most commonly offered by the client as in "so, you want X to design the job?...well instead I'll give you Y, but if the course makes a top 10, I'll followup with Z...deal? ".

not necessarily dumb...just ask the Donald. .

[SPDB]

I don't see anything wrong with the category. It is almost a throw away category that I highly doubt would motivate any club to do work on their course in hopes of garnering a mention in the list. Clubs that undertake to restore/renovate their course are probably motivated more by the best course rankings than by a one time appearance in a best renovation category. Let's be serious here, not sanctimonious.

I think you guys are overestimating the cache of this best renovation category.

that being said, what's wrong with simply comparing the course prior to restoravation () versus to what results from it? MPCC would certainly merit high marks in this category based on the disparity between what existed there before and what Strantz produced. Brookside on the other hand, might not be ranked so highly because, while Silva may have improved on it, the course that was there before was already highly regarded such that the difference isn't as wide as MPCC, for example.

[Tom_Doak]

Forrest:

Thanks, like Kelly, for pronouncing me arrogant and then maybe backing off that a little bit.

I did not complain about the process of renovation anywhere above, did I?  [I have before, but not here.]  I was just trying to say that this new category of ratings is more a case of comparing apples and oranges than any ranking so far.  And, I still haven't heard anyone make clear whether they are judging their mixed fruits by taste, color, best product from a poor orchard, or cultivar name.

There are lots of things I don't like about the consulting business.  Some architects [even famous ones] seek out clients so they can attach their names to a famous course.  Some perform surgery of questionable necessity, usually when they aren't busy with other projects.  I wouldn't pretend to know you well enough to judge your motives, I just assume from your past participation here that you are trying to do the right thing when called upon, as I have assumed for Kelly, too.  And isn't it nice when one assumes the best motives of others, instead of the worst?

[Bill Wernecke Jr]

Tom

An old saying in business is that if a man is forthright and outspoken, he is a great executive.  A woman doing the same is arrogant and a bitch.

So I hereby pronounce you never arrogant, just forthright and outspoken!

Bill

[Tom_Doak]

Either that, or I'm a bitch!  

[paul cowley]

and TomD, I think the old adage "be carefull of the people you piss on on the way up, because these are......blah blah" really wouldn't count in your case as I doubt you will ever come down....I can separate brashness and outspoken confidence in ones beliefs from arrogance....I think your market keeness and strategy has been brilliant and by combining that with a real design talent you have truly earned all you have achieved.

but hell ...even turning into an arrogant ass probably wouldn't hurt your image or your legacy.
....just conjure an image of Mr Wright atop one of his creations.
But try not to go as far as running around the site in a black robe ......that might be a little much .

you know, then again, that probably wouldn't hurt either.
....I've got your address, just hope I can get it there before Xmas.

[Bill Wernecke Jr]

Tom

There you go, going negative again!

This isn't brain surgery, no one is going to die (at least I don't think so!).  It always surprises me when people take things on the site too personally, but of course, not being an architect I am just a passive observer.

I believe in the theory of inclusion.  As LBJ used to say: "I would rather have the camel in the tent pissing out than outside and pissing in".

[Chris Kane]

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;

Tom, which category would you put Mike Clayton in, with respect to his work at Peninsula (North)?

[Forrest Richardson]

I have not looked at the BEST NEW REMODELED as a ranking. Isn't it more of a recognition for work well done, creatively carried out, or expecially deserving...for any variety of reasons?

I am far from stating that any/all award recipients will have met these milestones...but I do believe the honor is supposed to call out recognition. The purpose is not to establish some sort of ranking.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Paul,

I have never even had a discussion of a bonus for a ranking.  Kind of wish I had!  

Tom,

since all the other gca types seem to weigh in on your "arrogance" I will too - didn't seem arrogant to me, but in the corporate world, you would be on your way to "sensitivity training" right now. (or maybe several years ago, but that is another story!)  As you say, its probably recieved a certain way based on the readers predisposition.  Case in point, I think if Geoff S. had written the same thing, I probably would have found it arrogant, but that is just me.

As to the original question of who this might reward, its supposed to reward the magazines circulation department first and foremost.  Its 99.9% a tool to sell magazines.  Perhaps the other 0.1% may be to positively reward us gca's, or even influence golf for the better (a la 2 points for walking)  

They haven't taken on maintaining classic courses in their original condition as a similar cause.  If they did, there would probably be even more unintended consequences to splitting the remodeling category into two - "blow ups" and "restorations" as "restoration" is as nebulous a term as "championship course."  

To answer Mike Young's question in another thread, the highest and best use of rankings is to stimulate discussion about golf and golf course architecture. And, that they do.....

[Mike_Young]

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

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

Tom,
It is funny how many $400,000 restorations become unecessary $3 million dollar renovations.   Mostly because of what you say above.
 

[Forrest Richardson]

Maybe it is Tom D's chosen title for this thread that seems arrogant at first glance. I often use the setting of a pub gathering as a perspective for how these threads are titled — and the content, too.

One can visualize Tom, slightly raising his tone over in the corner of the bar, asking his question to a small group. And then each of us joining in — or just listening.

[ChipOat]

Tom D:

Is it always/usually true that an architect is remodeling his sub-par work of 10-20 years ago?

Is he never "updating" a pretty good initial effort from 10-20 years ago based on his new base of knowledge and experience gained in those 10-20 years?

That is a sincere question and not a camouflaged challenge as you would know better than I what is going on out there.

Here is a bit of a challenge if I infer the correct meaning of one of your items:

Why can't anybody have the OCCASIONAL better idea than Flynn, Ross, etc.?  Not every hole they built was so wonderful - how could they be?

I don't know if you altered any of Strong's work at Inwood, but if you had been permitted to do so, I can't believe that you wouldn't have come up with at least 2-3 excellent changes to an already-fine layout.

[paul cowley]

Jeff... that doesn't really surprise me as its been proven that most artists don't have much business sense...but then again I've never collected a bonus which I guess would question my artistic abilities....is this making sense...maybe I should IM Forrest for help.

..but wait, my business card says 'Designer' so maybe I'm off this artist hook thing.
I hope this is of some help and good luck with your career and congradulation on your recent achievement,

p :)ul

[Tom_Doak]

Forrest:  I must have understood what those numbers were for in front of the individual courses.

Jeff:  If I had been in the corporate world I would surely have been forced into the role of entrepreneur by now!

Chip:  Of course it's possible for an architect to have some better ideas for one of his better courses, years hence.  However, I don't think that would usually be on the scale of a complete renovation, such as the one at Loxahatchee which was on the recent list.  They moved a lot of earth to re-do that course.

It's also possible for an architect (or anyone else) to have a better idea for a hole than William Flynn did at The Country Club in Cleveland.  Not likely, but possible.  Again, does that make the grade for a best new renovation?  That's a sincere question, too.  

[Forrest Richardson]

Yes, the numbers signify a "ranking"...but the honor is in having a course included. I will assume that anyone involved with the "remodel" — regardless of the ranking — would be proud to be among the courses listed.

Alphabetical would make sense.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I don't see anything wrong with the category.

It is almost a throw away category that I highly doubt would motivate any club to do work on their course in hopes of garnering a mention in the list.

How many green commitees and how many boards have you been a member of ?[/color]

Clubs that undertake to restore/renovate their course are probably motivated more by the best course rankings than by a one time appearance in a best renovation category. Let's be serious here, not sanctimonious.

It's a matter of progression.

If you can make one list, chances are you have a shot at making the other, and if not, then you continue the process of altering your golf course in the hopes of making the top 100.[/color]

I think you guys are overestimating the cache of this best renovation category.

You'd be surprised by what motivates club members.[/color]

that being said, what's wrong with simply comparing the course prior to restoravation () versus to what results from it?

What's wrong is it doesn't stop with but one alteration.
The process becomes repetitive with each succeeding regime attempting to outperform the other in continuing attempts to elevate the club to star status.[/color]

MPCC would certainly merit high marks in this category based on the disparity between what existed there before and what Strantz produced. Brookside on the other hand, might not be ranked so highly because, while Silva may have improved on it, the course that was there before was already highly regarded such that the difference isn't as wide as MPCC, for example.

I'm not qualified to comment on either project.

The question is, will another attempt be made to alter these courses and others like them in the near future.

If these projects continue on a repetitive basis will the original, distinctive architecture disappear, falling under the scalpel of a variety of architects, producing a course that might be refered to as a Heinz product ?

As Tom Doak stated, once the cycle begins, it never stops.
And, encouraging the process vis a vis rewards for ALTERATIONS can't be in GCA's best interest.

But, that's just my opionion, and, TEPaul is still wrong.[/color]

[Joel_Stewart]

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.

Pat:

I'm not sure what you are getting at but I think I at least have a better understanding of renovations then most.  I played last week in Florida with another panelist who asked why I liked all the old courses?  He belongs to a Fazio course and probably doesn't appreciate restorations and renovations.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joel,

It wasn't a question of whether or not you have a better eye than most, it's a question of whether you can detach yourself and be objective when it comes to a discussion of a rating category or system used by a magazine that appoints you as one of their raters.

[Mike_Young]

I don't see anything wrong with the category.

It is almost a throw away category that I highly doubt would motivate any club to do work on their course in hopes of garnering a mention in the list.

How many green commitees and how many boards have you been a member of ?[/color]

Clubs that undertake to restore/renovate their course are probably motivated more by the best course rankings than by a one time appearance in a best renovation category. Let's be serious here, not sanctimonious.

It's a matter of progression.

If you can make one list, chances are you have a shot at making the other, and if not, then you continue the process of altering your golf course in the hopes of making the top 100.[/color]

I think you guys are overestimating the cache of this best renovation category.

You'd be surprised by what motivates club members.[/color]

that being said, what's wrong with simply comparing the course prior to restoravation () versus to what results from it?

What's wrong is it doesn't stop with but one alteration.
The process becomes repetitive with each succeeding regime attempting to outperform the other in continuing attempts to elevate the club to star status.[/color]

MPCC would certainly merit high marks in this category based on the disparity between what existed there before and what Strantz produced. Brookside on the other hand, might not be ranked so highly because, while Silva may have improved on it, the course that was there before was already highly regarded such that the difference isn't as wide as MPCC, for example.

I'm not qualified to comment on either project.

The question is, will another attempt be made to alter these courses and others like them in the near future.

If these projects continue on a repetitive basis will the original, distinctive architecture disappear, falling under the scalpel of a variety of architects, producing a course that might be refered to as a Heinz product ?

As Tom Doak stated, once the cycle begins, it never stops.
And, encouraging the process vis a vis rewards for ALTERATIONS can't be in GCA's best interest.

But, that's just my opionion, and, TEPaul is still wrong.[/color]

This could become the biggest weiner measuring contest for private clubs with committees yet.  

[Tom Dunne]

As to the original question of who this might reward, its supposed to reward the magazines circulation department first and foremost.  Its 99.9% a tool to sell magazines.  Perhaps the other 0.1% may be to positively reward us gca's, or even influence golf for the better (a la 2 points for walking)  

Ding ding ding. We have a winner. (And extra credit coming from a guy who has won two years in a row!  )

I don't have much to add in terms of forecasting the consequences, nefarious or otherwise, of GD's new category--other than to place me in the camp that believes this will have consequences on the ground at America's older clubs. But I am just so tired of LISTS--of the obsessive sorting and re-sorting and splitting of hairs. I know this is nothing new (as a sidenote, the most fascinating list I've seen in a while is the one Tom MacWood posted from 1939), but sometimes it seems to me that the only lessons golf magazines learn from their reader focus groups are that golfers like big, pretty pictures....and lots of lists. The underlying assumption, of course, is that no one likes to actually read anymore.

So that's my fear, and I don't think it's an unfounded one. Left unchecked, the list-making mentality can almost take over a magazine front to back. Suddenly so much becomes a sound bite, pre-processed and easily digestible. What gets the squeeze is in-depth reporting, thoughtful writing...the human voice. Because a list isn't so much read as absorbed, it's not hard to start applying that notion (even subconsciously) to other elements of coverage. Of course, when you ask less of your audience, next time you come around and ask them what they think, they will actually demand even less than they did before!

After several such cycles, what you'll probably wind up with is golf's version of the (utterly wretched) Robb Report. All service, all the time, consume consume consume. Never think. Consume.

All of these various lists may be interesting fodder for debate, but one can only consider them "thought-provoking" in the same way that one might consider divination by chicken-guts or oracular mumblings thought-provoking. Probably because there's no sense of authorship to hang your hat on--they just sort of appear from the ether and we're left to fill in the blanks. (Hence we get debates here on the impact of the comped round, and so on...)

At the end of the day, they might sell magazines, but they truly don't ask anything of their audience that might lead to a better understanding of what makes a golf course great.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Young,

Sad .... but true.