[Matt_Ward]

Mike:

The issue needs to be handled exclusively by the architectural editor or his designee.

Farming out that assignment to people scattered around the country lends itself to the shoddy situation that will happen.

Plainfield is already a top 100 course -- and the work that was done there only made the course EVEN better.

Essex County CC is a borderline call for the top 100 -- but the work there was also well done by Hanse and Bahto and deserves its fair share of credit.

Frankly, I've played Mayacoo Lakes and they could remodel until I meet St. Peter at the gates and it's just not that good for a mention.

Mike, before mags ADD categories they need to really understand what it is they are awarding things for.

One last pet peeve -- the elimination of the affordable category means a Four Mile Ranch is now pitted against a place like Chambers and Coyote Springs which likely charge more.

The affordable category provided Joe and Jane Sixpack with alternate options within their purse strings. Candidly, Digest has my head scratching because such a category was really appreciated by a great many people.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike:

The affordable category provided Joe and Jane Sixpack with alternate options within their purse strings. Candidly, Digest has my head scratching because such a category was really appreciated by a great many people.

Matt,

I love you and I agree with your point, but after the Sarah Palin campaign if you use the term "Joe Sixpack" one more time I'm going to drive across the river and tip you upside down into one of those Turkey exterminating machines!   


 

[Matt_Ward]

Sorry Mike -- how bout Ben Dover and Jim Nasium instead !

[Mike_Cirba]

Sorry Mike -- how bout Ben Dover and Jim Nasium instead !

Matt,

Anything, anything, but more horrible memories of....of..of..that! 

Which, of course, brings back recurring nightmares of...of...of...this!

[George_Bahto]

Matt and Mike:

We're still working at Essex County putting in new fairway bunkers.

We'll be done in a few more weeks.

Would that not be be considered for next year?

They've also really expanded the practice facilities and tons more tree removal.

[Matt_Ward]

George:

So, it's fair to say Essex County CC will be completed this year.

Good news on the practice area -- it had to be one of the worst when compared to other top tier clubs in the state -- e.g. Plainfield and Ridgewood are easily ahead. Be very much interetsed to see the bunkering aspect you mentioned.

George, only one small area of concern -- I heard from a few people that the fairways for day-to-day play are a bit too narrow and that the rough depth / density was much more than a 1/2 shot penalty -- closer to a SW lob back out to the fairway. I have not been on property for a number of months since early in the spring and wanted to hear your comments.

Mike C:

Remodeling awards need to have some consistent dimension to them otherwise you'll get nothing more than a deluge of votes for places simply because more panelists showed up at one versus another.

The category has possibilities but it needs a better handle from having one person riding shotgun over it.

Losing the affordable category as I mentioned previously really shortchanges the average reader with little disposable income or the network connections from those who play exclusively at private clubs.

[Kirk Gill]

Just occurred to me that our CGA project in Denver will be lumped in with the remodels, since there was a course there to start with.  That'll be comparing apples to apples!

I guess this begs the question - how much of an existing course do you have to utilize for work on that site to NOT be considered a renovation? How many existing greensites at the CommonGrounds are from the old course? How much of the routing was retained? When is a renovation NOT a renovation? And since some architects do have as their claim to fame the number of "best new" awards they've won, how important is a "best remodel" on the resume?

[Andy Troeger]

http://www.golfdigest.com/rankings/courses/new/2009/bestnewcourses

Includes the rationale for eliminating the affordable public category. Seeing as Cougar Canyon and Four Mile Ranch would both be on the $75 border it would seem there are at least those two--but they did well in the overall public category at least.

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

I read the rationale -- the reasoning is flawed in my mind.

Exposing people to quality architecture is what the affordable category did so well. Not everyone can afford $300+ green fees for the upper end CCFAD clubs or have the personal networks to get invites at the private clubs. No doub drawing a line on what constitutes "affordable" golf can be difficult -- but that should not have prompted its ending.

Now you have a huge pile of courses in which those with hefty budgets and those with equally hefty green fees will be at a considerable advantage over those courses that are much less so. Architects who were lesser known could count on the affordable category as a means to showcase their talents with limited budgets. Ending the category only tilts the game much more so to those with the established names and the clients who can afford them.

I admire

[Gerry B]

re; best new re-model

have not been to saucon  - so cannot comment
played Sleepy  Hollow - pre renovation - photos post renovation do look great

I am shocked  that Olympia Fields South did not make the top 10 - Steve Smyers did a wonderful job and those who have played it pre and post renovations would agree - perhaps not enough rates visited there.

[Andy Troeger]

Matt,
I don't get the impression the affordable category is necessarily gone forever. It isn't likely to be back the next couple of years, but if more affordable courses are built I certainly think and hope that the category will return. I would have rather kept it even if it only meant listing a few courses, but so it goes.

Gerry,
Pretty sure Olympia Fields South wasn't on the list this year. I was there in early June and it wasn't re-opened yet. Next year...

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

When you have a lead mag bail out on affordability and when the two top reasons that keep people from playing golf are cost and time -- it behooves such a magazine to keep the affordable category on hand no matter what.

Pulling the category sends the wrong signal and it clearly provides a much wider advantage to the deep pocket developers and the hired guns they bring on board.

[Andy Troeger]

I agree with you. I'm just holding out hope that this is not a permanent decision.

[Matt_Ward]

One final comment / re: the elimination of the affordable category. I saw where Ron Whitten said it was a "mistake" (current GD issue) to have raised the fees for the affordable category from $50 to $75 in '06.

Frankly, I don't see why Digest didn't raise them again to a max of $99 because even though certain locations would then have nominess to consider it would not have as broad a scale as what you see now with a totally open classification.

Affordable golf needs to receive even more attention -- not less.

I can only hope others will send their comments to the magazine and urge its swift return.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()