Designing for Raters?

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Is it any more foolish to say a course was designed to hold a US Open?  

Victoria National was promoted as a possible Open site with the option of floating grandstands discussed.  

Washington National was touted as a new site for the Open when it was built.  Never gonna happen.  

Chambers Bay was promoted as a new site for a PGA tour event and a US Open.  Will these ever come to pass?  We don't know, yet.  

What is the difference between designing for a possible major and receiving high ratings?  Whether architects and designers design for these options or not, I would suggest that developers certainly make promises concerning these possibilities that they may or may not be able to keep.

[John Kavanaugh]

Cosgrove,

There is nothing foolish about designing for a US Open.  The floating grandstands are a perfectly simple solution for crowd control.  What is so hard for you Golfweek guys to get about a floating barge.  And why would you call an owner who was generous enough to host so many of you guys foolish for having a dream.  What exactly would you want an owner to aspire too?  What is not foolish is your mind?  Aren't you the genius that said the green contours were over the top?  If Victoria National had been designed for Golfweek raters I would have gotten bored with the place in the first 20 rounds.  Keep you simpleton designs for yourself.

[paul cowley]

I want to go on record that I design for raters no differently than I design for anyone who I hope will get to play the course....if its good enough they will come, and hopefully rate it well if it deserves it.

What a weird, slippery design slope it would be if it wasn't that way.

That might sound naive to some but I really don't give a shit.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Kavanaugh you don't seem to have any problem with your own demented ideas, so if you would allow me my own opinions.  Never mind that you would appear to be a belligerent blow hard who seems to have nothing better to do than personalize attacks on others who may wish to explore the idea that designing for major tournament might be any less productive that designing for a ratings.  

You are correct in remembering that I did not care for parts of Victoria National.  The putting surfaces had nothing to do with my criticism, however.  And since it is my opinion, your attempts at intimidation will simply reflect on you, not on my right to express an opinion.

 

[John Kavanaugh]

Cosgrove,

Tell me why it is foolish to design for a US Open...Is it possible to call someone a fool without being offensive?  

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Cosgrove,

Tell me why it is foolish to design for a US Open...Is it possible to call someone a fool without being offensive?  

Read the post.  It is phrased in the form of a question, not a statement.  I don't think anyone was called a fool.  

I am a firm believer that when creating a business plan it is important to 'under promise and over deliver.'  In the case of the three examples, I thought the developer may have violated this process.

Tell me if you would, what are the qualities of VN that lend it to being a venue for the open.  The floating grandstands are certainly a creative way to handle crowd, but are they practical?  Would it be possible to move the crowds effectively on that property?  How about corporate tents?  Is there available space? and is that space close enough to be appropriate?  

By the way, when I think of VN, I am more apt to think it would be a very good Ryder Cup venue.  With the punitive nature of some of the holes, I think it works better for match play and the crowd management problems would be reduced.  

[John Kavanaugh]

Victoria National is 22nd best in the country according to Golf Digest.  It is also top 50 Modern in Golfweek.  I do not think that is over promising and underdelivering by any stretch of the imagination given that it is located in Evansville, IN and I am a member.  I'm sorry if your single poor rating was not enough to throw the course under the bus.  Maybe by continuing to rant about non architectural issues you can achieve your mission.

I have no idea if it can host a US Open by 2025 given the state of the game by that time (A generous estimation given a 1999 open date and considering an Open course should be 25 years old by the time it does the rota and the day finally comes.)  Yes there is room for tents and yes there is room to move the people.  It is not like getting a man on the moon given 60's technology considering where we should be in almost 20 years.

We will not get a Ryder Cup considering Valhalla is 90 miles away.

[Brad Klein]

OOops, my mess up, as I just got an IM from someone in GB and was trying to email you the Raters Handbook. Unfortunately, I deleted your IM too soon and botched the email/attachment. Can you please rewrite me? Thanks.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

I'm sorry if your single poor rating was not enough to throw the course under the bus.  Maybe by continuing to rant about non architectural issues you can achieve your mission.

Fortunately, I lack the arrogance to think that my single vote could make an overall difference in the success or failure of a single course.  I believe that is why GW has 450 raters and GD has 800.  If it were important for me to throw your golf course under the bus, I would need my own little private rating.

While you might think I out to destroy VN, you might be interested in knowing that my actual rating of the course would put it somewhere between 50 and 75 on the GW list.  Hardly a personal vendetta against your home track.  I am certainly not out to "throw it under the bus."

You want to talk about architecture and ratings,  I think VN is the perfect example of a course that would be preferred by the GD system in part due to resistance to scoring.

What concerns me is your eyesight.  Have you had this severe case of myopia treated or are you able to see a broad picture when it comes to the topic?