Ron Whitten on Dismal River&Ballyneal

[Jeff_Brauer]

I wonder what Mr. Whitten meant by Sutton Bay's "pretender" course. Sounds like an uncalled-for cheap shot, to me.

I wonder, too, if Golf Digest has any copy editors anymore. "Artesan" is not the only boo-boo.

Hoping for another 6.45 on the Kavanaugh Scale,
Dan

Dan,

If you linked to his review, he called it a pretender because it was built on rock and clay rather than sand, and built its bunkers rather than excavate baby blowouts to full fledged bunkers.

That said, and knowing Ron, I sense that, despite being a best new winner, once again, he feels Sand Hills will always be the best of its type.  Don't forget that Ron is a Cornhusker, too.

Nevertheless, I can't say I blame him.  The hard part for the others is that its hard to imagine them being better than SH. Different yes, better, doubtful, even if theoretically possible and maybe even probable (given they could possibly learn something from the original and are equally talented designers)  On the other hand, they have to consciously decide - do I emulate near perfection or do I do something different?

[RJ_Daley]

Huck and JK, many of us do have to rely on the kindness of strangers (or comrades on GCA.com) and can't just call up a tee time at any of these courses.  Many, can't just fly in and out willy-nilly to say I'll only play this course for several rounds this time, and do the other some subsequent year.  Some, may even be more uncertain of subsequent years than others. Huck, as 'America's guest', you should feel this expediency more than most, and strike when the iron is hot and the welcome mat is out.

[Dan Kelly]

I wonder what Mr. Whitten meant by Sutton Bay's "pretender" course. Sounds like an uncalled-for cheap shot, to me.

If you linked to his review, he called it a pretender because it was built on rock and clay rather than sand, and built its bunkers rather than excavate baby blowouts to full fledged bunkers.

Jeff --

I *did* link to the review. That's how I knew he called it a "pretender."

That's a loaded word. You know it, I know it, and the American people know it!

Who at Sutton Bay has claimed that the course is sand-based minimalism?

Seems to me that one's a "pretender" only if one pretends to be something one isn't. And I haven't seen any such pretense from Sutton Bay.

[RJ_Daley]

I heartily agree with Dan.  Mr. Amundson has come on here several times, generously sharing his perspectives and experiences in the conceptual and actual development of Sutton Bay.  Never once has he suggested a comparison or emmulation of Sand Hills by Sutton Bay.  

Some of us have noted the style and quality of the cabins and main lodge facilities.  I for one have offered my view that Sutton Bay has a more substantial facility in that regard than SH, while both are remote enclaves serving a get-away membership.

As for the courses, they are beautiful in their own environs, and quite different.

[Jason Blasberg]

Oh boy, we are going to have such fun in coming years, with all the comparisons and critiques.  I can't wait until Valentine also gets added into the sand hills tour.

JK, I can't agree with you on the proposed policy of limitting those fortunate enough to get invites to multiple courses on the same trip out there.  Even rich folks can't afford the time and extra money (or don't want to spend more than necessary) to make multiple trips to see them all, if they can get more than one course in on the same trip.  We have to have folks experiencing all of them to get interesting reflections and commentary...

I personally think we miss true insight into Dismal River or Ballyneal that we have gotten in the past with Sand Hills with all the current course hopping.  What's the hurry...Enjoy one course for three days one year then go enjoy the next in the future.  I would guess these short visits are worthless to all but the visitors..

JK:

I think your point is valid, one needs to be immersed in these course under different conditions to fully appreciate them.  I know that for me, it took 2 trips and about 10 rounds at Priaire Dunes to see most of what that course offers.

I do think that multiple days at each site on the same trip would be ideal.  It is difficult to get to the middle of nowhere (unless you lucky enough to live in Denver, who knew I should have taken the CO bar exam out of law school).

Jason

[Tom Huckaby]

Huck and JK, many of us do have to rely on the kindness of strangers (or comrades on GCA.com) and can't just call up a tee time at any of these courses.  Many, can't just fly in and out willy-nilly to say I'll only play this course for several rounds this time, and do the other some subsequent year.  Some, may even be more uncertain of subsequent years than others. Huck, as 'America's guest', you should feel this expediency more than most, and strike when the iron is hot and the welcome mat is out.

RJD:

Of course it goes without saying that I of all people absolutely understand that.  So I am not saying that there's anything WRONG with raters - and others - doing shorter gigs at each course, trying to see each on one trip... and of course at least for raters, the time to do that is now... All I am saying is that JK is right in that this short-shrifts the new ones in terms of receiving the in-depth insight that Sand Hills has received, being that most do go there and stay and play for a few days.  I also do believe that the others will become like this soon enough, when the furor dies down.

As for me personally, well... life realities tend to trump striking when the iron is hot.  

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I read the reviews and frankly both sounded like Ron was in and out of the courses after a quick round or less. I have really stopped taking a lot of the golf digest ratings and reviews as seriously as I might have a few years back.

[RJ_Daley]

The idea that one goes from course to course in a short time and then rates them, officially - for a magazine rating service or such, is not a credible process, I agree.  

But, I'm speaking for those not pursuing such for "official rating" purposes.  I'm speaking as a practical matter for those that love golf, its architecture or design, and want to be part of an ongoing discussion on the merits of what they have observed.  

As Jason describes the many times it took to play at PD, before he began to feel like he was becoming aware of all the merits of that course, one can and should understand that hit and run, one time plays just don't offer a basis for a serious "rating".  But, it shouldn't preclude enthusiastic commentary about was seen in the isolated (and for many, one and done chance) to play these significant courses as a matter of advancing the whole appreciation of GCA.

It seems to me that the opportunity of being able to play multiple courses in such a region, if that opportunity arises, ought to be accepted by all who want to participate in the discussion as a matter of tolerance that not many will ever get such chances to play several rounds at one course - then return another year for several at the other, then and only then be able to have a take that doesn't suck.  

In fact, the whole rater credibility is called into question, when for instance, this very article by a rating director for one of the magazines is generated on what appears to be one-time play of BN and DR by Mr. Whitten.  Do you think Ron can go back there and play DR about a half dozen times this year, go back to play BN as much next year and wait until then to offer his ideas?  It would be a pretty skimpy magazine if that was the standard.

If it takes multiple years and several plays to get into the discussion, why not just shut down GCA.com and hold your discussions among about 2 or 3 folks in a phonebooth?

[Tom Huckaby]

RJD:

Methinks you're taking this way too far.  All I am saying is that for these courses, the insights are better when one stays and plays multiple times... and that I also think this will occur after the furor dies down a bit out in the Sand Hills region.

Perhaps JakaB takes this farther... I sure don't.

So I agree with everything you say.. but don't you also agree with me?

TH

[RJ_Daley]

Tom yes I agree with you that the occasion to play several times at one course is a superior method to gaining insight.  That is obvious.

When Sand Hills first opened, circa 1995, the "furor" of one-time play was just as prevalent.  The very fact that it has now been open for ~11 years, and many have now played it several times, bolsters the legend that started almost immediately.  The very same process had occured at Pacific Dunes.  

Now we have two more significant courses out there, people are breathless to play them, and can't wait to offer their insights upon their one and only play so far, since they just opened.  All good grist for the mill of commentary and on-going discussion.  But, not exactly insightful for rating accurately or objectively.

Yet, some have only played Sand Hills once over that 11 years.  (I'm lucky enough to have played it 5 rounds now).  I have found that those that only played it once, and perhaps even a few years ago, have valid and interesting commentary and have contributed to the on-going discussion.  

Would Barney discount their thoughts?  Should we all just shut up and play the new ones each for a couple of years before we offer our thoughts?  

Huck, what am I taking way too far?  

[Tom Huckaby]

Here's what you're taking way too far:

Asking ME if anyone should shut up and wait until they've played the course many times... wondering TO ME how this effects the rating process, or the worth of it... etc.

I made my two small points and I take it no further than that.

I agree with you re the effects, etc.  

TH

[Jeff_Brauer]

RJ,

If Ron Whitten or Brad Klein waited until they had played a new course six times in all weather conditions to write an article about a new course, it would be old news.  Deadlines and budgets mean by necessity that they must review a course, giving general impressions based on one visit, although I know Ron has visited courses under construction before playing them.  While I am sure the magazine wants good independent reviews and critical thinking, they will not accept a review of a three year old course, as they will have been scooped.

Short version is that they are charged with coming up with an interesting review that sells magazines, not an in depth architectural review.  You are surmising the wrong reasons and criteria in evaluating such a review.

Now, your point about the top 100 rankings is probably a little more valid.  But how many raters, who presumably have real lives, too, can devote weeks to the study of one course?

And for that matter, I suspect that playing SH once would clearly put it in anyones top 10 on overall ambiance and style.  I think for most courses you kind of slot it in a group of ten, hundred, or thousand by first and overall impressions.  Multiple playings would probably affect your order within that group, but then again, most people just don't care whether a course is 33rd or 34th in one raters view, and these things are averaged.

Shorter version (and I hate to sound snotty about this, so take it in good humor) - Excruciatingly accurate golf course rankings are not that important in the overall scheme of things. We can all hope things go great enough in the future that golf rankings would be this country's biggest problem, but I don't think its gonna happen.

[RJ_Daley]

Geez Huck,

I did address you and JK in reply 27, but only in response to the fact that you associated your thoughts with JK in reply 25 with a qualifier...
" John - I think you're right.  But..."

I also used the   international sign of smart ass, to indicate I was funnin' ya a little...

[George Pazin]

I don't quite understand how you mess up who did what. Wouldn't that info generally come straight from the top? Wouldn't you double check it with Tom, Jack, etc., if it didn't?

Decent reads otherwise. Thanks for the link.

[Tom Huckaby]

Geez Huck,

I did address you and JK in reply 27, but only in response to the fact that you associated your thoughts with JK in reply 25 with a qualifier...
" John - I think you're right.  But..."

I also used the   international sign of smart ass, to indicate I was funnin' ya a little...

Whoops.  Oops.  I guess I am a little humorless today....

 

[Tom_Doak]

The whole purpose of the Renaissance Cup is to get some knowledgeable people to come to one of our courses and to play it for two consecutive days, with different hole locations and possibly different winds, so they can appreciate its flexibility.

A handful of the participants were raters, but only guys whom I've known for a long time and whose opinions I respect independently of their magazine affiliation.

I do agree that the pressure to rate many courses quickly is bad for the overall appreciation of each.  But, Jeff is also right, you can't expect Ron Whitten (or anyone else) to play a new course multiple times while trying to cover all the bases.  It's just a fact that he will take more time with a few, because of personal associations, and he will likely be most favorable to those because he gets more out of the repeated exposure.

[Aaron Katz]

It seems to me that a place like Sand Hills or Ballyneal is ideally suited for multiple play review.  I understand that playing in different wind conditions is a critical aspect here, but most of the other benefits of multiple-time play can be replicated in a day.  First, I think a reviewer could easily play 36 holes at Ballyneal in eight hours with still ample time to meander around the green sites, hazards, and landing areas in between shots.  Second, a reviewer at Ballyneal could easily play three or even four balls per hole, perhaps even playing to pretend hole locations with one or more of those balls.  It's ot a perfect substitute, but it's not bad.  

Lastly, I think that any good review should point out whether or not the course has the types of characteristics that make it suited for long-term enjoyment.  Many courses are so clearly straightforward in their design and shot values that any golfer knows what you see is what you get.  Pointing out that Ballyneal is not one of those places probably should have been pointed out.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Aaron,

Sadly,  Ron does wonder about long term enjoyment - albeit the wondering is about whether it can survive in its combination of "old mans club" and walking only.........

[George Pazin]

I'm sure plenty of people wondered if Bandon could make it as a walking only resort as well.

[Kevin_Reilly]

I'm sure plenty of people wondered if Bandon could make it as a walking only resort as well.

No doubt...but the 'walking in the heat' argument was probably not brought up in the Bandon case!

[George Pazin]

True - but how hot does it get at Ballyneal? Is it really that bad? I was under the impression that Colorado's heat is drier, and an extra 3700 feet of elevation would help cool things a bit, wouldn't it?

[John Kavanaugh]

Once a guy gets his kids out of college and can afford a national membership that is visited a couple of times a year...How old would you guess he would be and how many good walking years are left.  I'm 46...have an 11 year old and two kids in college right now..That's 57 yrs old when things free up a bit...ouch.

[Jim Franklin]

JB-

I am 45 and have 1, 5, and 7 year olds. I will be 65 when they are through school . I'll need a cart.

[Mike_Sweeney]

I'm 46...have an 11 year old and two kids in college right now..

So Huck is not the only one to have had a surprise package.  

It is kind of nice to have a cart when you play that last 9 hole scramble of the day at Sand Hills for holes 37+, but I would not throw Ballyneal under the bus for that reason.

[Tom Huckaby]

JB-

I am 45 and have 1, 5, and 7 year olds. I will be 65 when they are through school . I'll need a cart.

Dammit - Jim has me barely beaten.  I am 43 with an infant.  I will be 64 when he's through school.  Put me on the cart with Jim.

 

[Tags:]

Tags: