Come on Jeff, he was just asking if the article gave the "whys" as to what the basis for their inclusion on the list. Take 18 CPC. Is it the worst of the best, that on it's own it is just a "bad hole" or is it just in the wrong place on the course, or that it doesn't exhibit the same design characteristics as other holes on the course, etc. The title of the article seems to lead one to believe that it is the former. I'm sure you would agree that this is not a bad hole. Is it the worst hole on the course? Hard to say. It, more than any other hole, offers few stragegic options - just hit the corner and hit the green. Is it because Mac offered multiple routes/options on the other holes and 18 is more one dimensional?
Unfortunately, many readers will take the jest of this list as "these are bad holes" will on alot of courses I know they would probably be amoung the best.
Tim,
would it have been better if he called the article "least favorite holes on most favorite courses?" That would take the bad qualities implied in "worst of the best" and simply say which holes are least loved. They could still be good holes, a la 18CPC.
That said, I still think a list by a renowned critic, whether RW, GeoffS, or Brad Klein probably doesn't need a lot of explanation, although we probably all want one on the holes we disagree with. I haven't seen the piece, but my take on it from knowing Ron is that they called and asked him for something interesting in about 300 words when an ad canceled in GD and they needed to fill space. He probably had that as a catchy title and worked from there. Now, I don't know this for a fact, but I bet if you asked him, the story would be something like that.
Tom N,
Not sure what a link to Sand Creek Station proves. It managed to get on various Best of and Best New lists of GD, Golf, Golf Inc. and Golfweek and not just GD, which BTW, Ron doesn't run anymore. In the name of full disclosure, I do consider Ron a friend. We talk a few times a monty, and I played golf with him just last week on two of my new courses. About every 2 years, we do Carnak routines together at ASGCA (he plays Ed McMahon and co-writes some of my gawdawful jokes for the routine) Many other gca's consider him one as well.
Whenever I read sideways comments about my friends in the biz - including Rees, Damian and others besides Ron, I cringe a bit. That's because they are real people, which sometimes seems overlooked here. I still don't know if we are enough of a public figure to thrash/diminish, etc. constantly. As Tim says, maybe I overreacted slightly, but in this case, I really did wonder just what it would take for Ryan to consider this list legit?
Does it have to pass the gca.com censorship board (unofficial as it may be)? Well, since his views often don't pass muster here, as part of the more mainstream gca critics establishment, I won't even bother to tell you all that he has found even more documentation that Burbeck had the most input to BP. Oops, I just did......well, no need to worry, since I doubt he will worry about being shouted down here by presenting it, since he knows historical accuracy now takes the back seat to pre-concieved notions here
.