[Tommy Williamsen]

[quote author=Tom_Doak link=board=1;threadid=32458;start=0#msg640344 date=1197589602

Tommy W:  Your last couple of paragraphs are honest, but also disturbing.  A personal relationship with the architect should have no bearing on your votes, even though we all know they do.
 

I think that it is hard to separate feelings from objectivity.  I really try. Sometimes I wonder if it doesn't work against an architect, I know in my profession, that my assistant may have a great sermon and mine can me a dog that just came in from the rain.  Most will like mine better because of the relationship I have developed with them for 25 years. This being objective stuff is hard.  I just do the best I can and hope i did it well.  I realize that some folks are impacted by the ratings.  That is  why I take them so seriously.  That is also why I am a member of this board.

[Tom_Doak]

Lou:  The first half of your post has got it backwards.  Every architect in the business is doing their best to find some raters who like their work and then doing what they can to get THOSE guys (the easy 9's) to go rate every course they've done.  There are all sorts of stories about efforts along these lines and who is crossing the line ... which I won't go into here, but I can say for a fact that it happens, unless you think there is no line to cross.

As for liking the large-scale courses, you are one of many.  Think about all the courses which have won awards these past twenty years.  It's the hallmark of Nicklaus' work, Fazio's, Brauer's, Engh's, mine, and anybody else who can afford it.  (It's not really the hallmark of Bill Coore, except at Kapalua and Sand Hills, which may be why he keeps coming up second or third in the DIGEST polls.)  In truth, large scale and green grass are about all they have in common.

Bill Cosgrove:

You did identify the third thing most winning courses have in common, they're long.  Over the past 25 years, there has been a ton of real estate on American golf courses sacrificed to trying to gain a point on the "Resistance to Scoring" meter.  Not everyone is out to host a championship, but everyone wants Best New.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I gather that if we were really trying to design for raters (and I guess we are, subconsciously or not) and knowing that they rate based on one visit only, then the big scale and wow factor are logical choices over subtle nuance in design for ratings.  And, as Andy mentions, I think the thing that I try to provide is variety in green size, bunker patterns, clearing widths, etc. to help make each hole stand out a little bit.

I'm not sure I wouldn't do that anyway!

Sometimes SI will do a five year later evaluation of the draft class of "XX" for the NHL, NBA, or NFL.  The gist is that they re-order them based on actual success as they hit the prime of their career.

I can't recall any of the mags doing this, except in passing on a few courses.  I wonder if they could add a follow up piece on past winners as a regular feature, or at least highlight movers up and down a bit more.

[TEPaul]

Designing for raters???

I'm sure it's true but in my opinion just remarkably sad and counter-producive for both architecture and golf.  

I realize I'm notoriously anti-rating and ranking but I'll be honest enough to say I am that way because I don't think most raters rate courses correctly.

Even the Doak Scale is suspect in my opinion. I doubt I'd object if Tom Doak just went out and rated all the courses in the world via the Doak Scale or whatever criteria he wants to use.

The problem for me with the Doak Scale is I doubt anyone else knows how to apply it to architecture the way Doak does.

I guess I just don't trust the opinion of many people on architecture and in the end I guess that's just my problem and noone else's.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

TePaul,

I think you are in the minority.  Most of us like to rate anything from chicken soup to golf courses.  Especially golf courses!

I have oft said that I think the national pastime is rate and debate.....we just take up other activities to give us something to argue about.

Make it a great weekend!

[Andy Troeger]

I gather that if we were really trying to design for raters (and I guess we are, subconsciously or not) and knowing that they rate based on one visit only, then the big scale and wow factor are logical choices over subtle nuance in design for ratings.  And, as Andy mentions, I think the thing that I try to provide is variety in green size, bunker patterns, clearing widths, etc. to help make each hole stand out a little bit.

I'm not sure I wouldn't do that anyway!

Jeff,
One would hope your last sentence of the above quote is what all architects would do...the best they can to deliver a quality course. One would hope that the raters recognize the quality of the golf course and that it would not have to be compromised by architects feeling they had to cater to the whims of panelists.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Andy,

A tongue in cheek look at the architects perspective on awards and review, from a long ago cybergolf.com piece by yours truly.......

Most architects will tell you that reviews/award don't affect their designs, because:
• Design is site-specific, so if your design is what's best for a site, it will be good. What you did on the last course doesn't matter.
• Combating past criticisms is akin to generals "fighting the last war."
• Critics really don't know what goes into design, or what the owner wanted.
• Critics are out there to, well, criticize, so you can't let it bother you.
• Critics have a point of view, so you must take the review in context.*

They would say that, but they would also be lying! We all live and die with reviews. Good reviews please us. Bad ones infuriate us.

Actually, few reviews are totally negative. Reviewers have ways to subtly pan a course** with double-entendre phrases, including:

• "You'll be lucky to enjoy this course." (It would depend on something besides design.)
• "I would like to enthusiastically recommend this course to you." (But I can't.)
• "Best of its kind." (The bad kind.)

• "Never seen anything like it." (And hope not to again.)

• "He designed a course like he's never designed before." (How do you mean that?)

• "Now, that's a golf course." (What kind?)

• "I had a hard time believing what I saw."

• "It redefines the meaning of a place to play golf."

• "It had it all" (tee markers, flags, ball washers, the works).

• "I don't usually write about clubhouses, but this one is the club's focal point."

• "It's always interesting to see a designer take chances."

• "I understand the architect turned over all responsibility on this job to an associate."

• "It proves you can build a golf course just about anywhere."

• "Years from now, golf course architecture students will visit this course just to study it."

Reviews do serve a purpose, and can affect both general design trends and specific architects. Golf design isn't immune from the popular culture mentality of looking for the "next big thing," and reviews can spur that.

One review affected my general design theory. TangleRidge in Grand Prairie, Texas, got favorable press, but one reviewer noted that all its par-3s were of medium length. I purposely did that, feeling that public players liked such holes. But that comment made me think about creating different length par-3 holes for variety. In newer designs, like my current renovation of Indian Creek in Carrolton, Texas, a similar public course, I have par-3 holes of 130, 180, 205 and 270 yards, which provide great variety.

The "illegal" full-driver 270-yard hole and the partial-wedge 130-yard hole, with a deep swale in the green, are memorable and different. Since these sit just two holes apart on the back nine, I doubt any golfer will forget them as they review their round.

So, I will live with reviews good and bad, and use them as one source to further my personal education in golf course design.***

* Some magazines exist to promote, others to create controversy, etc. Few have in-depth golf course design reviews.

** That's what I understand from other architects. Naturally, I’ve never had a bad review!

*** All I ask is they spell my name right, something a recent GOLF magazine review couldn't do. Who would name their kid "Keffrey"?

[Brad Klein]

Since a half a dozen architects have already inquired, if anyone wants a PDF version of the Golfweek Raters Handbook, just email me and I'll send it along.

I'll try next week to get it linked on the Golfweek.com Web site.

[Adam Clayman]

If panelists represent a cross section of golfers, and GCA's design their courses for golfers, aren't all courses then designed for panelists?

[Greg Murphy]

A couple years ago I drove from Arizona to North Dakota, stopping to golf along the way. In Arizona, I played Apache Stronghold, SunRidge Canyon and Grayhawk Talon, then Paa-ko Ridge in New Mexico, Ridge at Castle Pines North near Denver, Powder Horn in Wyoming and finally Bully Pulpit in North Dakota. What really struck me on this tour, punctuated with Bully Pulpit, was that one of the biggest challenges for today's designer is the need to catch the attention of the traveling golfer (AND THE "RATER") with visually overwhelming features.

Subtlety has become synonymous with pedestrian.

By far the most subtle of the seven courses played was Bully Pulpit—low profile greens. little flat bunkers. extremely walkable—for the first 13 holes—then, "Wham!!", three or four "knock your socks off" holes high into badland hoodoo territory. I mean HIGH. It must be at least a 200-250 foot climb.

What do I remember? What would I write home about? What HAS been written about in the major publications? Of course, the show-time holes, one of which I believe Whitten has written is the best par 3 he has seen, EVER. But these holes are really incongruous with the rest of the layout which is so walker friendly and subdued, so subdued I can't imagine the course would be getting any notice if all the holes were so similarly subtle.

Tom's reply to Peter is sadly bang on and worth repeating: these expansive eye popping jaw dropping creations (they really are magnificently eye popping and jaw dropping) get the drive by accolades and awards from the raters leaving the quieter, affordable designs in the dust—"nobody is building them anymore, because everybody thinks they need to win an award and charge $80 green fees". How true. Without question, courses are being designed for raters.

[Tom_Doak]

Greg:

We have done some subtler courses over the past 5 years ... St. Andrews Beach and Tumble Creek are two of them.  They didn't do as well in the rankings as Barnbougle or Sebonack, but we are still very happy with both.  (For that matter, I don't think we really went over the top in building Barnbougle; it's just a spectacular piece of property.)

[John Kavanaugh]

Tom,

How do you think having the guy who wrote the raters handbook on the team will help with the ratings of Bandon IV.  I think it is a lock for top ten modern no matter what ends up in the ground.  It has always been my opinion that if people weren't told how great the Macdonald template holes are they wouldn't know it by playing them.  I don't think a course has ever been built more dependent for ratings to be successful when compared to its sister courses.

Can you possibly deny that the addition of the boss had nothing to do with ratings.

[Kalen Braley]

John,

All 3 courses out there are on multiple lists including best modern, best new, etc, etc.

Do you really think they sat around and thought, "You know what, Bandon isn't getting much exposure, lets bring on Brad Klein as a consultant so we can get some publicity on the resort and our newest edition"

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kelly,

Welcome back to the fray.  I am only serious discussing it and not trying to achieve it. Jim Engh was accused of doing so, but I am like him - if you could put that magic in a bottle I guess we would all win every time.

Like you, I try to design for the greatest pleasure for the greatest number of golfers. As Adam says, raters should reflect those tastes fairly accurately.

It would be another interesting philosophical debate as to whether you design internally or trying to please the public at large.  On the other hand, I consider myself fairly representative of the average to decent (or formerly decent) golfer and that makes it easier, because I figure if I like it, a lot of others probably will, too.

[John Kavanaugh]

John,

All 3 courses out there are on multiple lists including best modern, best new, etc, etc.

Do you really think they sat around and thought, "You know what, Bandon isn't getting much exposure, lets bring on Brad Klein as a consultant so we can get some publicity on the resort and our newest edition"

Follow the money.  I hope I am wrong and ratings never cross any developers mind.

[Brad Klein]

Follow the money? Okay by me. John K, just so you know, by way of agreement with Mike Keiser and Golfweek at the outset, I'm donating my consulting fee to the Orlando Junior Golf Foundation.

[John Kavanaugh]

Brad,

You had told me before that you were not getting any fee at all.  Congrats on the excellent choice of charity.  I don't see how your payment affects your tax return has any bearing on the quality of the architecture that will result because of your participation.

What I find interesting as a member of the Raynor Society is if the general public will accept a Macdonald template design unless they are convinced it is great architecture.  I do not believe the templates are capable of standing on their own any more than a plate of broccoli in a school cafeteria.  It is my opinion that this is why Keiser did not feel that Doak could carry this project on his own...Purely spin in an attempt to not end up with another course that is only overflow management.

[Kirk Gill]

If panelists represent a cross section of golfers, and GCA's design their courses for golfers, aren't all courses then designed for panelists?

As I was reading this thread, I was thinking this very same thing. Are magazine panelists so different from other humans/customers that their desires can be addressed by a GCA specifically? Or are panelists especially susceptible to the charms of certain architectural features? Are non-panelists more able to appreciate subtlety? Or is it really the hit'n'run golfer that the GCA's are allegedly designing for?

[John Kavanaugh]

Let me add that I lost respect for the Digest system when Erin Hills was banned from the list because of the Whitten participation.  For one, I trust raters enough to know the difference.  For two, it is clearly a top 100 course so the list is now moot. For three, if I believe the Golfweek guys the Digest is so scientific it can not be comprimised though bias.

[John Kavanaugh]

John,

All 3 courses out there are on multiple lists including best modern, best new, etc, etc.

Do you really think they sat around and thought, "You know what, Bandon isn't getting much exposure, lets bring on Brad Klein as a consultant so we can get some publicity on the resort and our newest edition"

Kalen,

Have you ever had a lunch so good that you ate it four days in a row.  It better be damn good to make it to that fourth day.  I think maybe once I made it three but never four.  Bandon IV is a huge risk that needs to be planned out at least as well as Bandon I.

[Tom_Doak]

John:

When you get tired of talking to yourself, send me an e-mail and I'll get back to you with an answer.

If Brad brings up ANYTHING about his raters handbook he'll be off the job.  The only thing I care about is whether we are building a course that's worthy of Macdonald's name.  If we manage that, I think we'll be okay.

[John Kavanaugh]

Tom,

That is a whole lot of we.  I look forward to seeing another you course someday.  Makes me worry the business is really going to hell.

[Tom_Doak]

John:

I use "we" a lot because I've got seven associates working their asses off, too.  And we've got a bunch of projects to do by ourselves the next few years, so don't worry.  Maybe you should get out to see your brother's work in Wyoming, and then come on up to Montana next summer.

[Kalen Braley]

John,

All 3 courses out there are on multiple lists including best modern, best new, etc, etc.

Do you really think they sat around and thought, "You know what, Bandon isn't getting much exposure, lets bring on Brad Klein as a consultant so we can get some publicity on the resort and our newest edition"

Kalen,

Have you ever had a lunch so good that you ate it four days in a row.  It better be damn good to make it to that fourth day.  I think maybe once I made it three but never four.  Bandon IV is a huge risk that needs to be planned out at least as well as Bandon I.

John,

As for your silly lunch question, I can answer yes if lunch is well made Thai or Indian food.  

As for the 4th edition at Bandon, I don't see how building that new course is a huge risk.  The 1st 3 courses have done extremely well and speak for themselves.  Bandon has made a great name for itself and given Mike K's track record I don't see how the team will build anything short of another excellent course.  As your anaolgy relates to the courses at Bandon, you are not "eating" the same thing on the 3 courses, they all have thier own unique style, and course 4 sounds like it will be different as well, and will stand on its own merits.

Do you not agree that adding a 4th course bears far less risk than building the 1st at Bandon?

[Matt_Ward]

This topic makes me howl with laughter.

I agree 100% w Kelly regarding the fact that of the architects I have ever spoken to the most important consideration they take to heart is designing a course that is acceptable to the person who owns it. End of story.

I don't know how you design a course specifically for raters or such other group of people. No doubt whoever owns the course wants it to be successful and liked by the customers who will ultimately play there.

To think you can build a course to some sort of "standard" that will automatically garner national acclaim is preposterous.

Look at the situation from another side. In any given year the competition for attention can vary greatly. If you do come forward with a "new" course you'd have to face competition from others. In some years the competition is incredibly high. No matter what -- you are still faced with any number of outside factors that can only be left to chance.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()