[Scott Szabo]

Ballyneal experienced some tough growing conditions during the last season.  It was very hot in May and June.  The course was pretty brown in July and August.  The greens were kept slow this year to ensure proper grow-in.  The fall brought good growing weather, and the course conditions ended on a high note, with hopes of better turf conditions next year - John Kirk

John, what effect, if any, could the slow grow-in and related course conditions have on the ratings?  I've heard quite a few comments on the slow greens, etc. (they were quite slow when I played) and wonder if this is having a negative impact on the ratings?  Just a question......

[John Kirk]

Scott,

I certainly raised the issue because I believe the slow greens could have been a factor against Ballyneal achieving a higher ranking.  Everybody likes fast greens, and Ballyneal's greens were much slower than the typical golf course this year.

[Scott Szabo]

If the greens at Ballyneal were running at 9 or so on the stimpmeter, COULD that have had a more positive effect on the ratings?  I'm not a rater, but I can understand how the course conditions could affect a person's perception of the course, both in a positive or negative way.

I must admit, when I played Ballyneal, the greens were so slow that it might have impacted my initial impression of the course.  Not so much the architectural design of the course, but maybe the playability of the course.  

I hope to have the chance to play it when it is in the proper playing conditions as I think it would be an awesome test of golf.  

At any rate, the fact that the members are pleased with the course and facilities is really all that matters.  You're never going to please all golfers, and a few discenters shouldn't spoil the glory of Ballyneal.

[cary lichtenstein]

Scott,

I certainly raised the issue because I believe the slow greens could have been a factor against Ballyneal achieving a higher ranking.  Everybody likes fast greens, and Ballyneal's greens were much slower than the typical golf course this year.

John:

Would a GD rater, looking at best new course candidates not understand the grow in phrase in new construction and take that into account in his ratings, that is, underweight it?  Or are all the criteria taken literally with no room for interpretation by the individual rater?

[Tom_Doak]

All the raters are asked to give a score for Conditioning, but they used to not use it as a factor when rating the Best New Courses ... not sure if that's still the case, as they tweak their ratings system every couple of years.  

Still, I believe conditioning still does factor into the equation.  When you are determining Shot Values and Resistance to Scoring, many of the judgments you are making depend on the firmness and speed of the greens, and how hard it is to get the ball close to the hole.  If the course is brand new and the greens are slow, I don't think panelists are going to factor that out and imagine what it's like when it's firmer and faster [and I don't know if they should try, since that is pure speculation].  If they go out and shoot 74, "resistance to scoring" is not going to be that high.

For others, too, spotty conditioning will lead to lower scores in Esthetics and in Ambience.

[Jim Franklin]

Daryl and John -

As a GD rater, I do not worry too much about conditioning of a new course. As for Ballyneal, there is no way in hell that it deserves a "1" in aesthetics. I thought the course was the best new course I have seen in a long time. Playing in 30mph winds, rain, and 40+ temps is not my idea of fun, but I really had a blast at Ballyneal and look forward to seeing it again. You guys have a tremendously fun course. Enjoy!

Jim

[Adam Clayman]

I've never heard of a panelist sharing his specific votes.

To do so, with a member is very odd, indeed. Especially when it's an extremely poor rating.

Should behavior of this type, by the panelist, be singled out as an example of what not to do?

[Jim Franklin]

Adam -

Absolutely. I try not to share ratings with anyone, not even fellow panelists. I will tell you if I like the place, but if I don't, I thank them and move on. I wish John remembered the panelists's name so he could be reported to the powers that be. We certainly don't need that type of person on our panel. I think it makes us lose a little integrity.

[RJ_Daley]

I'm not a rater, so my opinion don't mean much.  But, anyone giving a course like BallyNeal a "1" in any category has no credibility with me... 0.  To me, that indicates someone with an agenda other than trying to be objective in evaluating new courses for the advancement of understanding golf course design.  That is someone trying to make sure some course by some archie isn't going to get #1 (whatever that ultimately means in the end).   The fact that such a score can be factored in is the reason I think rating is just a beauty contest for obsessed golfers who take the process and selves too seriously.

I played BallyNeal in the fall, when the course was apparently coming back from the harsh grow-in of summer drought.  It was fine.  I don't think I will ever get to play another course much better.  I may play some courses that are as good at some point, but I really don't think they get much better, just little variances in various categories of these so-called shot values, and resistance to scoring.  The course is well made, period.

The only thing that would cause me to downgrade a course like BallyNeal at some point is if after growing it in and maintaining it for a number of years, that they loose sight of original design intents on the maintenance meld and begin maintaining it in a contrary to what it should obviously be as a matter of managment choice.  That would cause me to mark them negatively.  

[Sean Leary]

I've never heard of a panelist sharing his specific votes.

To do so, with a member is very odd, indeed. Especially when it's an extremely poor rating.

Should behavior of this type, by the panelist, be singled out as an example of what not to do?

Adam, I understand that it was told second hand to John.

[John Kirk]

I've never heard of a panelist sharing his specific votes.

To do so, with a member is very odd, indeed. Especially when it's an extremely poor rating.

Should behavior of this type, by the panelist, be singled out as an example of what not to do?

Adam, I understand that it was told second hand to John.

Yes, I received the information second hand, and debated whether to share it online.  The point is not to chastise the individual rater.  He made an honest assessment of the course, and had no agenda as far as I know.  Ballyneal's atypical appearance will not always appeal aesthetically when all appropriate assessments are added.  How's that?  

[RJ_Daley]

Yes, I received the information second hand, and debated whether to share it online.  The point is not to chastise the individual rater.  He made an honest assessment of the course, and had no agenda as far as I know.  Ballyneal's atypical appearance will not always appeal aesthetically when all appropriate assessments are added.  How's that?  

How's that?  Sorry John, that is not good, IMHO.  The information being second hand does give pause that it may not be true.    But, if it were true... then atypical appearance may be reason to lower a rating to 'some' extent.  But, a "1" is not rational.  It signifies that there is slightly next to nothing aesthetically pleasing.  A "0" would mean a blank canvas in my view.  It would be a square flat and uncovered piece of ground in the middle of a similar featureless expanse.  It would be less than a field of wheat as far as the eye could see to an equally featureless horizon.  Even that might have a scintilla of aesthetic appeal in "amber waves of grain" and merit a "1"

To say that BallyNeal is next to nothing in aesthetics should be reason for whoever oversees the selection of panelists to remove a guy for such a blatant statement of negativity.  Everyone is entitled to their opinion.  But, if you are being given the responsibility to fairly rate the work of various practioners of GCA, you need to have a rational basis and not an agenda, which that fellow clearly had to say the chop hills and a course routed among them is a "1".  

[cary lichtenstein]

I still haven't heard why 3 Creek Ranch was rated better than Ballyneal.

Surely someone must have played both for GD.

[John Kirk]

Yes, I received the information second hand, and debated whether to share it online.  The point is not to chastise the individual rater.  He made an honest assessment of the course, and had no agenda as far as I know.  Ballyneal's atypical appearance will not always appeal aesthetically when all appropriate assessments are added.  How's that?  

How's that?  Sorry John, that is not good, IMHO.  The information being second hand does give pause that it may not be true.    But, if it were true... then atypical appearance may be reason to lower a rating to 'some' extent.  But, a "1" is not rational.  It signifies that there is slightly next to nothing aesthetically pleasing.  A "0" would mean a blank canvas in my view.  It would be a square flat and uncovered piece of ground in the middle of a similar featureless expanse.  It would be less than a field of wheat as far as the eye could see to an equally featureless horizon.  Even that might have a scintilla of aesthetic appeal in "amber waves of grain" and merit a "1"

To say that BallyNeal is next to nothing in aesthetics should be reason for whoever oversees the selection of panelists to remove a guy for such a blatant statement of negativity.  Everyone is entitled to their opinion.  But, if you are being given the responsibility to fairly rate the work of various practioners of GCA, you need to have a rational basis and not an agenda, which that fellow clearly had to say the chop hills and a course routed among them is a "1".  

You're right.  My asinine attempts at alliteration are always atrocious.

The reason given for the low aesthetics rating was "No trees.  I like a course with trees."  Now we can all throw our hands up and say what an idiot this guy is, but after all, course evaluation is subjective.  We can only disagree with his assessment, and perhaps make the argument that he is relatively inexperienced.  But we don't know that.

[Jim Nugent]

The reason given for the low aesthetics rating was "No trees.  I like a course with trees."  

Wonder what rating he would give TOC?  Or Sand Hills?  

Hell, Ballyneal doesn't have an ocean either.  Mark it down!

[Andy Troeger]

John,
 
I commend you for being diplomatic regarding the "1." I've not played either of these courses, and as I think Tiger said, its really hard to judge just on pictures. My preference often is also for "trees" too aesthetically, but part of the aesthetics category (based on my understanding) is how the course USES the natural terrain and setting to its advantage. From the pictures it does appear Ballyneal does THAT part well whether you like the type of setting or not.

And even without liking trees, Ballyneal looks pretty impressive visually, and the golf course looks like great fun. I don't know where it should fall among the other candidates, but it appears there are quite a few fine courses being built in any case which can only be a good thing.

[cary lichtenstein]

3 Creek Ranch doesn't have any trees either

[Josh Smith]

Cary,
 Perhaps Whitten was miffed Tom's crew didn't run out and dig bunkers on the rightside of the 18th fairway as he suggested in his review?


Here's one I don't have permission to post, but for you guys... and in the search for knowledge... here goes...







Adam,

       Be expecting a call from a blocked number Monday morning... Just Kidding of course.  
       I don't have much to add because I have not been to a Jim Engh course, but Ballyneal is one of my favorite places on earth.  Equal parts awesome playing characteristics and very natural design/aesthetics.  
        I have to think the only reason it was slighted in the Rankings is because the harsh summer led to young grass that was not totally established and mature yet, causing a small letdown on a few fronts (which will get better every day).
        If that is not the reason, then Rankings are Dead To Me.  And I could care less.
        By my own admission, the painting Adam showed of Hole 3 is a different perspective than most see and perhaps not the best one to represent the playing characteristics of the hole, I painted it from a photo before having been on the property.  After having been there now, I am excited to do some more originals that will reflect what I really loved about Ballyneal.  
         If you go to my website, perhaps the part that I am most excited about now is the intro page, the rest of the site is still taking shape.  www.joshuacfsmith.com

Below are a few of the better photos I got at Ballyneal when I visited.  Cannot wait to get back.
 
The photo above is the par 4 10th hole.

This above photo is taken of the 8th green complex from 60 yards in front of the green in the left rough.

This above photo is a shot of the 1st hole from the tee just minutes before the ceremonial first tee shot at the grand opening.  The overcast skies opened up in honor of the moment, or so I like to believe.

[Michael Robin]

RJ - John's quote is accurate as I was the one who had the first hand encounter at the GD panelist summit last weekend. The conversation went like this:

ME: You're from Denver, did you play Ballyneal?
HIM: Yes, I hated it.
ME: Why?
HIM: No trees. I like a golf course to have trees. I gave it a 1 in Aesthetics. What did you think?
ME: I thought Ballyneal was the Best course I saw this year. I gave it a 9.5 in Aesthetics. And after I turned in my evaluation, I joined.
HIM: Oh.

I was aghast. I'm still shellshocked that Ballyneal was not higher in the final tally, especially given the accounts of some of the panelists who have posted and some others with whom I have talked about the lists with. I did not see courses 1-5 on the Private list, so I can't say that they might not be deserving.

I keep wondering though if some of the "oddities" in the results are driven by the fact that most of the votes that a course gets are Regional. What I mean by that is when a course asks to be considered for Best New, an assignment is sent out by GD to the panelists in the area. They are required to fulfill all of their local assignments, but they can play any others that are on the national list of courses asking to be considered. What that means is that most of the evaluations that a course receives are from those in the area. There are some from panelists who stay current with what's going on and will travel to see as many new courses as possible, and some from those that are in the region for some other reason and are looking to see what's in the area. But mostly, the votes are local.

I wonder if what we should do is have Topsy Siderowf, who is in charge of the panel, keep track of what courses are showing the highest ratings, say at the halfway point of the rating period, and then send a blast email asking that as many panelists as possible see these 30 to 50 courses. No one would get to all of them, but you certainly would pick off a few. In the end, you would have a much thicker sampling and 1 course would not be as vulnerable to a bad or good evaluation, and you would have the viewpoints of those from around the country included as opposed to a heavy dose from those that are from the area, who might be biased to a certain type of golf.

Thoughts?

[David Kelly]

Michael,

You can tinker with the process all you want but if GD is using panelists who would honestly give Ballyneal a 1 for aesthetics than there is a bigger problem there than just methodology.

But we knew that already.

[Andy Troeger]

Michael,
  I don't know how many panelists actually get to see the Best New candidates before the deadline, but certainly the more that could see it the better as it does tend to eliminate the outliers. I would guess that with a limited number of ballots even just one or two poor ratings can mean the difference between making a list or not and/or being at the top or the bottom of one. That's just basic statistics though, how to go about doing it at the proper courses is another thing altogether.

[cary lichtenstein]

RJ - John's quote is accurate as I was the one who had the first hand encounter at the GD panelist summit last weekend. The conversation went like this:

ME: You're from Denver, did you play Ballyneal?
HIM: Yes, I hated it.
ME: Why?
HIM: No trees. I like a golf course to have trees. I gave it a 1 in Aesthetics. What did you think?
ME: I thought Ballyneal was the Best course I saw this year. I gave it a 9.5 in Aesthetics. And after I turned in my evaluation, I joined.
HIM: Oh.

I was aghast. I'm still shellshocked that Ballyneal was not higher in the final tally, especially given the accounts of some of the panelists who have posted and some others with whom I have talked about the lists with. I did not see courses 1-5 on the Private list, so I can't say that they might not be deserving.

I keep wondering though if some of the "oddities" in the results are driven by the fact that most of the votes that a course gets are Regional. What I mean by that is when a course asks to be considered for Best New, an assignment is sent out by GD to the panelists in the area. They are required to fulfill all of their local assignments, but they can play any others that are on the national list of courses asking to be considered. What that means is that most of the evaluations that a course receives are from those in the area. There are some from panelists who stay current with what's going on and will travel to see as many new courses as possible, and some from those that are in the region for some other reason and are looking to see what's in the area. But mostly, the votes are local.

I wonder if what we should do is have Topsy Siderowf, who is in charge of the panel, keep track of what courses are showing the highest ratings, say at the halfway point of the rating period, and then send a blast email asking that as many panelists as possible see these 30 to 50 courses. No one would get to all of them, but you certainly would pick off a few. In the end, you would have a much thicker sampling and 1 course would not be as vulnerable to a bad or good evaluation, and you would have the viewpoints of those from around the country included as opposed to a heavy dose from those that are from the area, who might be biased to a certain type of golf.

Thoughts?

Shocking, but at least we have a reason. Here is Webster's definition of aesthetics: "the study or theory of beauty and the psycholgical responses to it"

I guess he has a point

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()