next »

[Steve_Roths]

Best New Private:    Gozzer Ranch

Best New Public:      Chambers Bay

Best New Canadian:  Tobiano

Best New Remodel:  Old Course at Saucon Valley Country Club

[Tom Naccarato]

Well, I'm glad I was proved wrong.

Jim, Regardless, I still think your a very good man and I look forward to someday talking more about this shit over a beer and a Diet Coke (my drink of choice nowadays)

Oh Fuck it, well do some vino!

[Matt_Ward]

Gents:

The thing about the Digest poll is that courses that certainly opened in 2008 -- e.g. Rock Creek and Tetherow, to name just two, will actually have to be assessed in 2009. At least that's I think will happen -- if I'm wrong I'm happy to offer a mea culpa.

Maybe someone can weigh in who has played Gozzer Ranch and spell out why they think it would be rated higher than either Rock Creek or Tetherow.

I'd love to hear the reasons.

Tommy's right -- pass the vino ...

[Seth Berliner]

Best New Private:    Gozzer Ranch

Best New Public:      Chambers Bay

Best New Canadian:  Tobiano

Best New Remodel:  Old Course at Saucon Valley Country Club

Any news on the rest of those lists?

[Rob Rigg]

Chambers Bay should have been best of last year . . . right?

Based on the discussions on this site courses like RCCC and Tetherow should probably have been in the running this year.

I wish all of the magazines would get out to courses the year they open.

I know this has been discussed ad naseum already but . . . okay, barf.

And I forgot that rankings don't matter, but still. 

[paul cowley]

.....with probably only 50 courses being opened next year its a good bet any one of those could make the Best New Top Fifty.

[Jonathan Cummings]

Gozzer is the place I've been watching for 10+ years.  The one-time owner is a very close friend.  Gozzer's got a storied and sometimes ugly history and someday I would like to write an article about it.  I'm way too bias to be objective but I tip my hat to the Discovery folks.  They came in as finishers and got the job done.  Gozzer is up there with Chambers and RCCC.  I have no problem with Gozzer being best new.

BTW - it is damn near astounding that Black Rock and Gozzer (almost within visual range of one another) are both best new's for Digest.  I also thought Digest blew it awarding Black Rock best new over Dallas Nat and Friar's Head (2003-4?).  I thought the editor's threw a bone to the northwest with the BR pick.  If I am anyway near right that makes this year's Gozzer pick even more surprising.

JC

[Jim Franklin]

Matt, you are correct, Rock Creek and Tetherow were not on this year's list. They will be on the 2009 list and I hope, if the market starts to cooperate, to make it out west next summer.

[Matt_Ward]

The "best new" category is really nothing more than whatever certain mags deem it to be.

Frankly, once a course has opened -- its opened. If the pubs cannot get sufficient raters to the place that's not the fault of the facility -- it rests with the magazine(s).

When you have places that have clearly made an impression and then the mags decide to hold off with an "official" listing that can be anywhere from 12 to 18 months after it's opened you have a clear case of the mags trailing what is already known by the cognescenti.

When that happens -- the standing of such mags becomes self evident. 

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

I would be the first to agree that the "Best New" rankings are frustrating, in that they often leave out courses (or pass over them until next year when they are old news), and readers don't understand why.  By the time Sebonack won last year, we had long since moved on to other things.

However, you've worked with magazines enough to understand that there is a built-in delay in the process.  DIGEST's January issue is at the printers now ... to compile a list and get their photographers out to shoot the winners, that means they really have to close the polls by early September.  So there's a 4-month delay built into the system, and that hurts golf courses that open in the summer and only have a couple of months for potential panelists to visit them.

It would work MUCH better if they held off on their results until the March issue so they could take votes until November ... but everybody wants to put their "Best New" in the January issue, even if it's incomplete.

[Jim Franklin]

Matt -

As a GD panelist, we have to have all "Best New" votes in by the end of August. Courses need to let GD know by a certain time if they are open etc... I do not know the official opening of Tetherow or Rock Creek, but I am sure I found out well after the point I could even schedule a trip out there. As Tom said, magazines have deadlines and GD does the best it can. And compared to other mags, I think they do a decent job too.

[Philippe Binette]

Gotta love this line by Fazio about Gozzer Ranch:

“These epic views stop you in your tracks… you almost don't want to hit the ball because the view is so spectacular. In this way, the very setting makes every hole at Gozzer possibly the best.”

That's what it's all about, making the player not wanting to play  


Gozzer Ranch and Tobiano seems to put a huge focus on views.

[Joel_Stewart]

Gozzer was the favorite going back to last year.  It's Fazio and he has his followers from Golf Digest.  I also would be interested in the rest of the list.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom:

I hear what you say but you missed the boat in one clear way ...

we live in a REAL TIME environment today. We also have info sources that better provide those who want to know what is happening.

I would think people who subscribe to a mag do so because they want to be informed on matters because they won't be getting that cutting edge info from any other source.

Mags needs to JUSTIFY why they continue to be relevant. They need to be ahead of even the more die-hard follower of the game or they simply relegate themselves to the tail position on the dog's body.

I hear what you say about the logistics -- but frankly that's a problem the mags should have addressed years ago. They each want to get ahead of the competition -- but when they list such courses it's clear they've missed out on others who truly did open in that given year.

One other thing -- the excuse that not enough raters got to see a course doesn't prevent the top editorial people from making a trek to those courses that clearly have garnered plenty of pre-buzz to see what's happening. You can see the info that's out there now w the Old Macdonald layuot -- the same thing happened to some extent with Chambers Bay and Erin Hills, to name just three.

For a course to be held off a full 18 months after it has opened and then still cling stubbornly to the belief that it's still new is a disservice to that respective club and those in the year that follows.

Your suggestion is a good one -- unfortunately, too many pubs today confuse being fast to print with the more important element of being accurate.

Phillippe B:

When did off-site views not matter to many people ?

See the fanfare Pebble Beach gets from many, to name just one example.

Jonathan:

Interesting point you made concerning the NW corner of the USA. It seems the panhandle area of Idaho and the SW corner of MT are now drawing plenty of eyeballs.

No doubt you are right -- the year Black Rock won it was a very contested year with the likes of Friar's Head and Dallas National -- arguably those three might have been the best of the lot when a trio of top new privates were considered.

[John Kavanaugh]

Gotta love this line by Fazio about Gozzer Ranch:

“These epic views stop you in your tracks… you almost don't want to hit the ball because the view is so spectacular. In this way, the very setting makes every hole at Gozzer possibly the best.”

That's what it's all about, making the player not wanting to play  


Gozzer Ranch and Tobiano seems to put a huge focus on views.

A week or so ago I started a thread concerning the overemphasis of "The Walk in the Park" test and its harm on architecture.  It becomes even more obvious through the words of Fazio.  All is not lost as I have found this link showing that audio is now under consideration in designing parks for the blind.  The video takes awhile but is worth the effort.

http://brezar.wordpress.com/2007/11/30/adjustments-for-blind-people-in-park-tivoli-ljubljana/

[Philippe Binette]

Views are important, golf is still the key to me...

I'll play Lytham or Garden City surrounded by industrial warehouses before a great views no substance course, anytime

[Philippe Binette]

I'm joking about Fazio's quotes,

I understand what he means, there are some holes that is so nice that the thought of hitting a bad shot on it almost make you want to pass your turn... Hitting a good shot on them is very rewarding...

[John Kavanaugh]

Please take note that Golfweek is still the head cheerleader for Fazio given the percentage of his courses in their rankings.

[Garland Bayley]

Tom:
...
we live in a REAL TIME environment today. We also have info sources that better provide those who want to know what is happening.

I would think people who subscribe to a mag do so because they want to be informed on matters because they won't be getting that cutting edge info from any other source.
...

If they want real time reporting, all they have to do is tune in here. For example, Peter had his review of Tetherow up very shortly after it opened, and it was followed shortly thereafter by a parade of posters including Dugger's fine photography.

[Sean Leary]

Gotta love this line by Fazio about Gozzer Ranch:

“These epic views stop you in your tracks… you almost don't want to hit the ball because the view is so spectacular. In this way, the very setting makes every hole at Gozzer possibly the best.”

That's what it's all about, making the player not wanting to play  


Gozzer Ranch and Tobiano seems to put a huge focus on views.

Philippe,

So does every course that has them. Do you think Kidnappers got built where it did due to the terrain for golf?

Where I have an issue with it is a case like Chambers Bay, where they went to the top of the property to cater to the view when it wasn't necessary, to the detriment of the golf course.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Philippe,

Remember, Whitman kept making this point while we were building Sagebrush. There are beautiful views everywhere, at Sagebrush. But, as Rod says, members/frequent visitors, who'll play the course over and over, over years and years, will eventually become somewhat de-sensitized to the views. This is when the pure quality of golf, over the ground, becomes most important.

[corey miller]

I won't comment on the "walk in the park test" or it's relevance but I do suspect that if one were to compare the course ratings for this category it would tend to favor the courses which already have superior architecture.  That is human nature.

[Philippe Binette]

It's an age old debate... Mackenzie was saying that the views at Cypress made people be OK with controversial design.

A lot of course have great views, and only great views. The design has to take advantage of the views and the grounds...

[Mike_Cirba]

While I've written here previously that the Fazio/Marzolff "Remodel" to Saucon Valley Old is quite good, I have to wonder what the criteria are for this category.

For instance, what about courses like Plainfield, CC of Troy, Sleepy Hollow, and Essex County that have implemented master plans based on "restorations" over the past 3-5 years?

Or is this category all about a complete shutdown and re-do?

[Dschmidt]

I agree with Matt that it's a real-time world and for a mag to call something new in early 2010 when it opened in spring of 2008 is a disservice to the reader and, frankly, a journalistic embarrassment to the editor of the magazine.

How about this:

1. The architectural editor(s) determine Best New for the year.

2. Then, after enough of their ratings panel has seen the candidates, they run a second piece as an afterward.  So it'd go something like:  for 2008, our editorial board determined our Best New to be Gozzer Ranch.  Since then, our raters have reviewed each of the top nominees, and they disagree.  Our raters liked Rock Creek better.  Here's the final results....yada, yada.

(or conversely:  since then, our raters have seen 'em all, and they agree...)

This way, you get timeliness, and if the raters disagree with the editors, two courses get some bragging rights.  Seems win-win to me...

[Garland Bayley]

Philippe,

Remember, Whitman kept making this point while we were building Sagebrush. There are beautiful views everywhere, at Sagebrush. But, as Rod says, members/frequent visitors, who'll play the course over and over, over years and years, will eventually become somewhat de-sensitized to the views. This is when the pure quality of golf, over the ground, becomes most important.

Jeff,

Thanks for that. When I read JN and TF going on and on about the scenery and framing, my mind just goes what about the golf!

[Matt_Ward]

Dave:

I agree with you -- sort of.

There's no reason why the architectural editor can't do the task. The committee approach fails because of the lack of consistent eyes and the time delays that invariably happen.

It would not be a hardship to have someone do the task. A good editor with his ear and eyes open could discern which new candidates are hot prospects worth checking out.

If the mag said the architectural editor said such and such a course wins and then the raters follow later with their assessment it looks like the mag is operating with multiple voices which I see as unnecessary.

Frankly, if you have a category that says something is "new" -- then the max time line for its insertion can be done on a time line that Tom Doak mentioned.

I'd much rather have one pair of sharp analytical eyes that can apply a consistent and thorough review rather than the mass horde of people who really are really scattered around the country and in their own thinking if one can call it that.

[John Kavanaugh]

I far prefer the way the golf magazines do it to the Oscar guys.  I hate movies that are opened in few metropolitan theaters just to be Oscar nominated in an attempt to push sales later in the year.  I can't seem to bring myself to see a movie past opening week.

Magazines and their editors need to concentrate on whatever it takes to keep the good people in the industry employed.  I don't see raters understanding or caring enough about the demographic of readers or advertisers to any longer provide a value worth their cost.  All lists should be compiled for one reason and one reason only....Keep the presses moving.  If that means a tweak or two then so be it.

[Adam Clayman]

I agree with Matt that it's a real-time world and for a mag to call something new in early 2010 when it opened in spring of 2008 is a disservice to the reader and, frankly, a journalistic embarrassment to the editor of the magazine.

If it's a real time world what place does a magazine have?

[Joel_Stewart]

While I've written here previously that the Fazio/Marzolff "Remodel" to Saucon Valley Old is quite good, I have to wonder what the criteria are for this category.

For instance, what about courses like Plainfield, CC of Troy, Sleepy Hollow, and Essex County that have implemented master plans based on "restorations" over the past 3-5 years?

Or is this category all about a complete shutdown and re-do?

I must have misunderstood because I thought someone told me that GD that this category was eliminated?   I don't recall any course being listed for panelists to review, at least in my area.   Its possible GD has taken it in house and maybe Whitten awards the winner?

[Lester George]

Is there a link to the list?

Lester

[Tom_Doak]

Joel:

I just got Ron's letter for nominations of courses for 2009 and "Best New Remodel" is a category there, too.

Unfortuntately, the Best New Affordable Public course is now gone as a category.  I'm sure there weren't many new openings in this range, but it figures it would tank just before we are ready to open one!

[Garland Bayley]

...
Unfortuntately, the Best New Affordable Public course is now gone as a category.  I'm sure there weren't many new openings in this range, but it figures it would tank just before we are ready to open one!

I see! So it's not a service for the readers, it's a service for the advertisers!

[Matt_Ward]

Adam:

There's no "If it's a real time world ..."

Modern communications today, as we see everyday, operates that way now. There is no "if."

Once the Internet became mainstream the nature of how magazines and other related sources of info operated previously had to change in order to stay relevant and meaningful.

If the readers or non-readers know more than the magazine itself what's the point in subscribing to it?

Magazines do have challenges because stories they wish to pursue now need to be written with a less sensitive time oriented equation. Most, if not all top tier magazines, have companion Websites and some of them have ancillary related pubs (see Golf World) which provide a different emphasis element in their reporting.

When you try to feature a story that's very time sensitive (as "best new" articles generally are) you need to present the information so that there will not be that great a lag from the time you assemble the info to the time you actually go to print.

Digest has options that would work far better than what's being done now. Tom Doak mentioned one alternative which is quite reasonable.

The problem w having a multitude of raters is the consistency of evaluation. The architectural editor or his designee could do the task but clearly Digest and the other pubs seem to believe that having a larger group do the task works better -- although from a real time perspective so much is indeed left out as some courses are bumped to future years to compete against other courses that are really "new" in having just opened.

The issue is really not that "new" -- no pun intended.

Garland:

I'm sorry to see the affordable category go -- but clearly the issue would be how low would the rate be in order to have meaning. I believe Digest had the threshole at a max of $75.

[Rob Rigg]

There were discussoin on the web about Tetherow and Chambers more than a year before the openings.

I would encourage the magazines to get a better feel for which courses the "big name" architects are opening up so they can play them in the opening season.

No disrespect to other archies, but it seems like the same names come up again and again in the mags.

Worst case, the magazines can pick up the damn phone and ask the usual suspects if they have any courses opening the next summer. Then they can give their raters the heads up and trips can be planned well in advance.

It seems pretty straightforward?