[Mike_Cirba]

John,

I try to write here about any course that makes some kind of personal impact, and have written quite a bit about the course in question this year.   I'll leave it to you to figure out which one.

As far as contacting the architect personally to express those views and laudatory rating, that didn't happen.  I frankly don't know what anyone else rated it, and don't frankly care.

Let me ask you, John; five years ago, was Jim Engh a "famous name architect"?   Was Gil Hanse?   Was Tom Doak?  Was Graham Marsh?   Was Dick Bailey?   Was Baxter Spann or Mike DeVries?  David Esler?   Lester George?  Stephen Kay?

Yes, John, this is some giant conspiracy led by some GCA fanatics to prop up undeserving architects to the detriment of everyone else in the business.   You found us out.

[John Kavanaugh]

Let me ask you, John; five years ago, was Jim Engh a "famous name architect"?   Was Gil Hanse?   Was Tom Doak?  Was Graham Marsh?   Was Dick Bailey?   Was Baxter Spann or Mike DeVries?  David Esler?   Lester George?  Stephen Kay?

Mike,

They don't owe you for their success...you had zero to do with it...get over yourself.

[Mike_Cirba]

Rating seems to be a necessity for many but in reality.....
Many very good golf courses don't give it a second thought and worry only about the 500 or so customers that give them 35000 or so rounds per year.  These guys would have to spend money to market in order to cater to rating and the green fee would go up.....And in the end they know when some one is RUI and they will not pay for it.

Mike,

I agree that many very good golf courses are being built, often with lower budgets and some tight constraints, and I try to make it a point to visit them and also come here and talk them up.   Frankly, I think golf is way too elaborate, way too expensive, way too gaudy, and should in fact be a very simple game, and the courses should be complex and interesting without being difficult to maintain or overbuilt in a way that they aren't reflective of their natural surroundings.

And, I think courses of that ilk are being recognized, more and more often, whether they actively seek rating or not.

What is RUI?

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

They don't owe you for their success...you had zero to do with it...get over yourself.

John,

I might as well be talking to the wall because you missed my point by 500 miles.   No, none of those architects owe me or anyone else for their success or failure, and that's my point.

Their work speaks for itself and that's why they are now recognized.

[RJ_Daley]

Mike, make that 10 years ago, and with the exception of Swampy, I think 99% of folks that like golf courses and their design would still have said; Who?  That isn't a whole long time when you think about the rise of careers and reputations.

that would be one very busy bunch of conspirators...

rating under the influence?

[Mike_Young]

Rating seems to be a necessity for many but in reality.....
Many very good golf courses don't give it a second thought and worry only about the 500 or so customers that give them 35000 or so rounds per year.  These guys would have to spend money to market in order to cater to rating and the green fee would go up.....And in the end they know when some one is RUI and they will not pay for it.

Mike,

I agree that many very good golf courses are being built, often with lower budgets and some tight constraints, and I try to make it a point to visit them and also come here and talk them up.   Frankly, I think golf is way too elaborate, way too expensive, way too gaudy, and should in fact be a very simple game, and the courses should be complex and interesting without being difficult to maintain or overbuilt in a way that they aren't reflective of their natural surroundings.

And, I think courses of that ilk are being recognized, more and more often, whether they actively seek rating or not.

What is RUI?

RATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE

Mike,
I agree with your take on golf....I think it is good that you seek out these courses but would you not agree that many of these owners have no concern for the ratings they just want the local players.  They are experts at making money at golf by servicing their customer and have very little interest as to what a magazine in another state has to say.....a better example is restaurants....
JMO
Mike

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

I think that's fair, and let's face it.   There are about 30,000 courses worldwide, maybe 18,000 of them in the US, so when we talk about the Top 100, or even "Best in State", we're talking about a very small percentage of courses.

However, to me the good news is that the best of those lower budget affairs, such as Wild Horse, or Rustic Canyon, are receiving greater notoriety on a larger scale as models to emulate from both an architectural as well as a monetary standpoint.

[John Kavanaugh]

Mike,

They don't owe you for their success...you had zero to do with it...get over yourself.

John,

I might as well be talking to the wall because you missed my point by 500 miles.   No, none of those architects owe me or anyone else for their success or failure, and that's my point.

Their work speaks for itself and that's why they are now recognized.

Recognized, that's funny.  Nobody reads Golfweek unless they are stuck in a pro shop because it is raining.  Do you actually know one individual who pays for a subscription to the mag that is not in the business or leaches off of it..

note:  There is not a sane individual in the country that has heard of either Rustic Canyon or Wild Horse.

[Mike_Cirba]

Recognized, that's funny.  Nobody reads Golfweek unless they are stuck in a pro shop because it is raining.  Do you actually know one individual who pays for a subscription to the mag that is not in the business or leaches off of it..

note:  There is not a sane individual in the country that has heard of either Rustic Canyon or Wild Horse.

John,

What's funny is that with your continued negative obsession about Golfweek, you're probably providing more publicity for the magazine than they could get with six month's worth of advertising revenue.  

[RJ_Daley]

Mike, just off the top of my head, since you brought up restaurants and any possible comparison to golf courses...
the smart independant local operators are also being done in by marketing of the brand name national franchisers.  I get that from my very good friend who is in the wholesale food biz and sells to local restaurants.  Now, the chains get much of their supplies through in-house procurement and commisaries, not the local wholesaler. The local franchise restaurantuer relies on a national promotional budget to augment his local word of mouth reputation.  It is marketing that rules the day, not local reputation of a local operator and family traditions. Thee are exceptions to this, but how many long time local operators have folded in the face of the national buzz saw?

Taking that to the golf course, none of that list of archies is making it to franchise status, as far as I can tell.  How many have 80 courses going, world wide?  How many have 3 going at a time?  The other archies have brand name recognition and marketing to get even more brand name recognition.

Local courses have the same problem, I think.  Look at Wild Horse, as local as you can get.  However, if it weren't for rating, marketing and outsiders seeking it out due to publications and ratings, then I personally have my doubts it would be as financially viable as it is, if only dependent on local customers.  Isn't that sort of what Jimbo is getting at?

Then, with the ratings comes the buzz and the consuming public seeking status and validation having been trained and stuffed with McDonalds, Applebees, and Outbacks > Fazio, Nicklaus and Jones.  

Again, I'm not speaking authoritatively here.  I am just sort of brainstorming... which is a real shot in the dark for me.

[John Kavanaugh]

Wild Horse is as local as the last gas station before the airport rental car return.

[Mike_Young]

Mike, just off the top of my head, since you brought up restaurants and any possible comparison to golf courses...
the smart independant local operators are also being done in by marketing of the brand name national franchisers.  I get that from my very good friend who is in the wholesale food biz and sells to local restaurants.  Now, the chains get much of their supplies through in-house procurement and commisaries, not the local wholesaler. The local franchise restaurantuer relies on a national promotional budget to augment his local word of mouth reputation.  It is marketing that rules the day, not local reputation of a local operator and family traditions. Thee are exceptions to this, but how many long time local operators have folded in the face of the national buzz saw?

Taking that to the golf course, none of that list of archies is making it to franchise status, as far as I can tell.  How many have 80 courses going, world wide?  How many have 3 going at a time?  The other archies have brand name recognition and marketing to get even more brand name recognition.

Local courses have the same problem, I think.  Look at Wild Horse, as local as you can get.  However, if it weren't for rating, marketing and outsiders seeking it out due to publications and ratings, then I personally have my doubts it would be as financially viable as it is, if only dependent on local customers.  Isn't that sort of what Jimbo is getting at?

Then, with the ratings comes the buzz and the consuming public seeking status and validation having been trained and stuffed with McDonalds, Applebees, and Outbacks > Fazio, Nicklaus and Jones.  

Again, I'm not speaking authoritatively here.  I am just sort of brainstorming... which is a real shot in the dark for me.

I see some of your points but I sort of see just the opposite....
a public golf course in a town of 100000 people gets how many rounds from someone reading of them in a national magazine???  maybe 100 per year....now wildhorse..sure it needs the marketing because it depends on destination play.....
Bt most of golf does not depend on destination play and therefore needs no signature or national marketing/rating campaign  IMHO....if it happens it happens seems to be the attitude....

[RJ_Daley]

John, thinking about what MY said - about the 500 locals that must play 35000 rounds a year - that would suggest local reputation rather than national ratings, and could be based as much on personal service and ancillary qualities of the golf course operations, than to just rely on the architecture.  

Yet, even if in Wild Horse's case, perhaps 1/4 or > of that play is from those seeking to play all the top rated courses, and follow the ratings and write-up crowd.  I believe that is the # of rounds per year difference between success or failure, financially speaking.  

Big Jim Thompson will have to speak for himself.  But, on this subject I would look to no more authoritative voice.

[John Kavanaugh]

Dick,

Are you trying to tell me that Wild Horse does 35,000 rounds per year.

[RJ_Daley]

No, I'm only guessing that they are probably up to about 30K, and that maybe 1/4 "might" be destination play, stimulated by its ranking and reputation via discussion groups.  

On the other hand, what I'd call destination is a 4+hour trip from Omaha to Gothenburg, that that bunch out there may think of as a trip to the grocery store.

[Jim Thompson]

Just got back and trying to get caught up here.

To continue what I was trying to get at before I had to take off....  I really do admire the folks that are into this task for the right reasons.  From my limited knowledge, and what I have REALLY tried to learn in the last five years of reading here at GCA, I question whether the criteria that ratings are based on best serve the game and its long term viability. That's what I don't get about some of the raters that visited our course.  As a side note I think it would be a good thing if new course representatives were put in a position to actually rate the raters as some of the raters really are in the game just for free golf.  I had one rater who played the course three times during the summer of 2005, which would be considered a thorough approach had he not demanded that we comp his entire foursome; all three times.  As an operator you get concerned about whether you should even open your mouth and any repercussions you might face.

I began to mention my level of respect for the job John Percival did when he visited.  Although he and I don't agree on everything, not even close, he really did put in a thoughtful approach to rating a course.  John was probably at the course for a good ten hours and had been to the course on prior trips just to walk it and check out the dirt.  

I've seen to many raters come in, just play the course, and leave.  I can't believe anyone can truly understand everything that is going on with a number of our holes with one play or look, especially with our width, angles, and internal green contouring.  Each of our holes has an incredible amount of thought behind it and I would be happy to share those ideas with anyone.  One of the concepts we wanted to embrace was the idea of creating a course that could provide variable strategies not between sets of tees but between plays and pin positions.  The development of holes that with a certain pin location are aerial holes and with another really favor the ground game was also a principal concern.  Part of that comes from learning to play on a course that favored the player who was in the center of the fairway and center of the green on every shot.  As my skill level improved, the course became an almost monotonous dirge.  I didn’t want to be involved in producing anything that would end up fitting that mold.

I also think that some raters don’t appreciate the site characteristics that lead to some design considerations.  I think some tend to believe that the site is just a blank canvas and that is just not how it works when you find that extra special surprise in the middle of the seventeenth hole you’ve built and have to make the best of it.

As for architect notoriety, I certainly hope no one would fall for that.  I do believe that there are cultural issues in rating though.  I think the disparity between Bull Pulpit and Angels Crossing relative to the two publications is a pretty good example.  I don’t know how many of you have spent much time in West Michigan, but it’s not the best place to find people who gush with compliments.  West Michiganders tend to be fairly critical thinkers and often discount their reviews.  I used to think it would be a good thing if publications used their general pool of raters to perform a first level of evaluation and then sent the same ten raters to examine their top x number of courses.  At least that way the same eyes and cultures would be making or forming the same numeric valuations relative to the set criteria.

Our customer base at AC is a bit unique for the area and again it has to do with price.  In the greater Kalamazoo area there are a number of consumers who just won’t pay x number of dollars to play a given course regardless of the perceived value.  As a result, I’d say only 50% of our customers are actually local (travel less than half an hour to get to the course).  A good 30% of our customers come from Northern Indiana, driving by a number of good courses to get here, and I don’t think it’s just because I’m an Irish fan, the balance of players come from Grand Rapids, Lansing and the Detroit area with close to 10% being Chicago folks who have cottages in the area.  Price really is a concern here in our market.  I know a number of GCAers have thrown out prices that they think we should charge or that the round is worth.  I wish everyone would pay Paul Thomas money to play AC!  Pricing, like politics, is always local.  We probably did 25,000 eighteen hole equivalents this year.

I don’t know as I would share the course inspirations any differently either.  I truly believe there is value in trying to share the architectural story behind the formation of the course design.  I hope that every visitor we get to our web site actually takes the time to read the hole by hole description s and learns something about golf’s history and traditions.  If that means some rater wants to knock us for building a Biarritz or Redan, that’s OK with me, I probably didn’t stand much of a chance of teaching them anything anyway.  Kind of like some days here on GCA.  I also thought that the My Home Course was pretty objective and far from being fluffed or overstating its case.  Perhaps that was a mistake on my part, don’t know, but I tried to put in it what I would have wanted, if I knew nothing about the course.  My only regret is that I didn’t do a separate four direction shoot and 50yd shot of each green complex.  I think that, as a set, our greens truly are something very special.  May very well end up being one of my spring projects.

Cheers!

JT

[Tim Bert]

Do you actually know one individual who pays for a subscription to the mag that is not in the business or leaches off of it..

I know one.  Me.  

Am I really the only indivdual, paying subscriber in the country?  If so, I want a free round at Wintonbury Hills next time I'm in town!!  

[Mike_Sweeney]

I had one rater who played the course three times during the summer of 2005, which would be considered a thorough approach had he not demanded that we comp his entire foursome; all three times.  As an operator you get concerned about whether you should even open your mouth and any repercussions you might face.

Jumping in before Jaka, I hope you reported that guy.

Excellent post, thanks for taking the time. It really made me want to come out with my son next fall for the ND BC game. Thanks for taking the time, I wish we had your course close to NYC.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Thompson,

The "rating" process is complicated for several reasons.

Establishing rating categories is difficult.
Educating, or finding educated raters is difficult
Seeing a golf course once and providing a thorough analysis is difficult.
Weather and time of year can influence a rater's experience and their evaluation.
Limited exposure makes rating difficult
Multiple exposure is often difficult from the rater and the club's perspective.

You can't expect a rater, who may be in town for other reasons, to play every day.  And, if they're only in town for one day, they're availabliity is inherently limited.

The conflict is:  You're right, one play isn't sufficient to provide an in depth analysis of a golf course.

Charles Blair MacDonald agrees with you and voiced his opinion on this in page 295 of "Scotland's Gift".  But, who can do that ?

So therein lies the conflict.

The need to see the course often, and the limitation of only beign able to play it once.

And, you're perspective differs from most clubs.
Most clubs don't want raters to have the run of the golf course in unlimited fashion over a period of a week or more.

It's an imperfect system, but, to date, it's the best one available.

P.S.  Mike Sweeney is correct, you should report that rater.
        He's not doing anyone but himself any favors.
        He should be dismissed immediately, as a rater

[Mike_Young]

As for architect notoriety, I certainly hope no one would fall for that.  I do believe that there are cultural issues in rating though.  I think the disparity between Bull Pulpit and Angels Crossing relative to the two publications is a pretty good example.  
JT

Jim,
Couple of things.....
I try not to judge raters as a group....and architects talking about raters is the classic example of why one would not wish to use his real name on this site....BUT...I did have one cancel a day at a course I did once when he got the chance to play one that was exclusive by a top signature.....just a fact...the architect matters...may be subconscious but it matters....IMHO

This site seems to have a lopsided view of golf architecture sometimes.....in vertical structure architecture, architects many times are designing for profitability as much as aesthetics...Take a McDonalds or a Walmart vs. a boutique retail clothier or restaurant...same thing goes for golf course design....most courses have to be designed to make money.....as one guy told me " there are a lot more Walmarts than Nordstoms"  Now this site and raters don't care for this type of architecture and it will never be rated...much like most of our homes, churches and schools and hospitals.....but in no case does it not mean that these strcututres or courses are inferior..they are just not "fashion statements".
Mike

[John Kavanaugh]

I had one rater who played the course three times during the summer of 2005, which would be considered a thorough approach had he not demanded that we comp his entire foursome; all three times.  As an operator you get concerned about whether you should even open your mouth and any repercussions you might face.

Jumping in before Jaka, I hope you reported that guy.

Excellent post, thanks for taking the time. It really made me want to come out with my son next fall for the ND BC game. Thanks for taking the time, I wish we had your course close to NYC.

Jim,

Would you be pissed at that rater if you had come out of this process with a 7.5 average...I doubt it.  When a guy like Paul Thomas tells you some ridiculous fee he thinks you should charge (I'm assuming he was comped himself, much like I figure you would comp me) and then goes back home to his voting booth and gives you a 6.0 (A rating not worthy of the high fee he quoted you)...don't you wish he had been more honest with you face to face.  Can you imagine how this process would change if every individual rater score was made public to the owner.  We would have alot fewer and better raters.

My initial point is....Don't report the guy unless you would have done the same with a 7.5 in your pocket.

[Mike_Young]

Do you actually know one individual who pays for a subscription to the mag that is not in the business or leaches off of it..

I know one.  Me.  

Am I really the only indivdual, paying subscriber in the country?  If so, I want a free round at Wintonbury Hills next time I'm in town!!  

If I had to choose it would be GW over the others....I think it only has a circulation of around 160000 but I would bet it has a higher ratio of serious golfers reading it vs the others.....

[Tom_Doak]

Jim Thompson:

To me, a rater that spends ten hours evaluating a course is taking himself way too seriously.  Nearly all golfers "come in, just play the course, and leave," and you as the operator succeed or fail based on the number who want to come back repeatedly.  Why would a rater not experience the course in the same way?

I've spent lots of hours studying courses, and I've learned a lot from it -- but I did so because I was trying to learn how to build them, not so I could put myself at the head of the rater class.

I do think your idea of having golf courses "rate the raters" is a great one, with one caveat -- that year, the magazine shouldn't publish ratings of the golf courses at all, and just use the feedback to weed the wrong people out of the process.  I wonder how many would really be left, though.

John's idea of making all the rater ballots public is equally interesting.  My guess is that it would lead to so much hystrionics that the whole system would be exposed for its greater truth -- how thin-skinned most architects and golf course owners really are, how unknowledgable many raters really are, and how petty the disagreements between them can be.

Oh, wait a minute:  I guess that's what this forum does.

[RJ_Daley]

I certainly have to admit Tom, you don't mince words...

Congratualations on having the stones to say what might just tick off the whole kit and kabbudle of them.

I honestly can't agree with the first statement, however.  If I were and owner, or archie, or club prez, I'd be thrilled to have raters, (although I don't necessarily want to be under that system, anyway) but those that would come in for extended observation and study of the course before pronouncing something, is a good thing, in my mind.

[Jim Thompson]

John,

I comp who I want to comp and the little card in the billfold has very little to do with it.  It's not a payoff, you don't get a gift when you come to visit, the only exception being one among us who I consider to be a very good friend and he's not a rater.  That said, my comments regarding Paul' fee comment centered more around the effect that the greens fee has as a drawing factor and how that intreplays with our market.  I've had GCA visitors and raters tell me they din't like this or that and as long as they could explain where their indivdual opinion comes from, I can live with it.  Grandpa taught us at a young age that you can't buy anything that isn't for sale.  I have never been for sale, therefore yes I would still be ticked at that behavior.

--

There are a couple stories / visits that I did have to roll my eyes over.  The first is a 75+ year old GD rater who insisted upon playing the course from the black tees (6749) and then literally chewed me out because the 12th hole is just to long.  all I good do was smile and laugh about it later.  The second, and to some extent a number of players did this but one stands out in particular, is the mid to late 30 something who decided to give me a tonque lashing about the walkability of the course.  I made the mistake of asking him how many holes he actually walked, as he unloaded the clubs from his cart, you get where this is going.  By the way, just how does one make a walker friendly course for a 60 year old that tips the Toledos at a good 290???  There's an architectural feat!  This actually happened three days after RJ had been out and walked the course two days in a row!

Tom,

I think the big difference between the rater and the golfer is that the golfer lives close enough to come back and take it all in over a series of plays.  Where as, most raters are just in town for the day.  I think a true rater should at minimum ask to take a cart for a reverse trip around the course.  I also believe that you, like me, would try to be at the head of any class you were in.  That's what makes us special .  John's ten hours were over a few visits, but the day he played he was on site for a good 6 hours, played in four then went back out and hit some shots and reviewed / took notes.

I think it would be great if the course rater ratings didn't go out until after the other ratings were calculated.  i don't think there would be a problem with owners / operators being honest.  Especially if it was before the course ratings were announced.  Think of it like how coaches right reviews on officials after each game.

--

All of this is not intended to be a condemantion of the process or system.  It is, rather, an attempt to share what actually happens from the courses side of view while trying to understand why some of these things happen n the first place.  I remember when Wigler first got me to come on here and start posting.  He commented that a number of folks would like to hear what its like from this side of the counter / mower.  I hope that is what I have been doing all this time.

Cheers!

JT

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()