Quaker Ridge and Golf Digest

[Jeff_Lewis]

Sorry, I can't resist.  I know that I will be accused of bias. I assure you.  All who know me know that I am the first person to criticize courses to which I have a connection, if they are deserving of criticism.

I have been a member of Quaker for over 15 years.  It is an absolute work of art of a golf course, as fine an expression of Tillinghast's genius as there is on this planet.  And until last year, the maintenance of our course was so unfortunately bad that I always wondered how we ended up ranked so high, at one point in the Top 20. I couldn't imagine how the raters saw through the wet fairways, excessive trees and slow greens to the masterwork beneath.

Finally, last year we started our way back. We cleared the trees.  We dried out the fairways.  We reclaimed the greens.  After a tremendous amount of effort by the members and the green committee, Quaker Ridge started to emerge as the great parkland course that it is.  Our new super, with the help of Gil Hanse, was finally showing off the masterpiece that had been painted over for so long.  So what do the GD raters do? Drop it 50 places.

These rankings would only be useful as toilet paper if they didn't float in the basin.

[Jeff_Lewis]

Oh yeah, and Hudson National is better than Friars Head, as are 13 other courses in the state of NY. What's the difference between this silliness and reading a newspaper in North Korea? It all reminds me of the incident in Wine Spectator last year where a fictitious restaurant that had only low-rated wines on its "list" got an Award of Excellence.

[Andy Troeger]

Jeff,
Keep in mind that ratings take awhile to fall off--this could be a case of some good old ratings falling off and not enough really new ratings coming on to replace them. Unfortunately the list seems to trail behind reality by more than would seem to make sense sometimes.

Friar's Head is likely ranked so low because it didn't get enough ratings to qualify for the top 100 (although I don't know how that explains Piping Rock).

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff:

I give you credit for stating your connection to QR upfront for those who may not have known the relationship. However, even with the disclosure it's important to point out that conflicts of interest clearly color your perspective. Your opinion does raise a number of points though.

Let me point out the areas where I am in agreement with you.

Hudson National is not ahead of QR by any stretch -- I agree with you on that front. I'd like to know from those who think highly of HN to give the rationale for such a continued high placement. I can name a few Jersey courses -- not rated -- that would be better than what one finds there. You mention what Hanse and Company did at QR -- the same can be said for their superlative efforts at Essex County and Plainfield in NJ. I also think the renovated Banks Course at Forsgate is a design jewel that gets little, if anym serious attention.

To bolster what Andy said -- it's likely there is a lag between the QR pre-work done and the post-QR you mentioned. I salute the club for doing the things you mentioned. Candidly, the pre-QR never really impressed me and I would not have that version of the club on my personal top 100 listing. I freely admit that my take is based on the pre-version and not the existing post-version. It's also possible that there is a lag between those numbers that calculated the old QR versus what is there now.

Jeff, the best thing that could happen to ratings would be for a sufficient interval of time to pass before the next version appears. Magazines don't want to do that because of the interest ratings provide for circulation purposes.

Given what you mentioned about the "new" QR I will certainly keep the course on my active radar screen for the season ahead.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts ...

[Jeff_Lewis]

Matt, for you to state that conflicts of interest color my perspective is rather condescending.
How do you know that my opinion on this is a function of my affiliation?   Just because you can't see the brilliance, doesn't mean that my seeing it must be a function of bias.  I would imagine that of the 400 or 500 courses we have both seen, I would agree with you on about 10.

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff:

With all due respect -- please lets get real.

You ARE a member of the club in question and have an opinion on THAT club. Oh, forgive me, people who belong to a club -- can be completely and totally divorced from their views. The mere fact you are a member raises the conflict of interest question.

You accuse me of being "rather condescending" than I accuse of you being rather blind to that basic reality.

I could care less on whether you agree with me or not. I simply pointed out that what Andy said is likely true. QR likely benefited immensely from what you stated with the excessively high rating in the pre-version you mentioned. Given the recent work -- the lag time on votes being accounted for likely plays an impact on its standing now.

I'll say this again -- in the event you missed it -- QR is not the only club that has done such an effort -- fortunately for it the course still remains in the top 100. There are a number of others -- that have done no less the same kind of things you mentioned -- and are not even rated at all -- either nationally or near the top of the charts for their respective states.

[Jeff_Lewis]

I love when people use the term "with all due respect", and being respectful is the furthest thing from their minds.

Perhaps, Matt, I was being too subtle.  My point was that if our tendency is to disagree about 98% of the time, its not clear to me that bias has to be present on my part to enable that result. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff Lewis,

I think most architecture fans/enthusiasts, with a discerning eye, always recognized QR's potential.

The factor that prevented QR from striving and reaching its potential seemed to be cultural.

Fortunately, the culture that kept the course green, wet and treed appears to have relinquished its hold.

QR is a great golf course and the efforts you've cited have to result in its rise to prominence, locally, regionally and nationally.

But, I think it goes far beyond that.
I think QR will become more fun to play as conditions improve.
It will always be a challenge, but now, it will be a far more enjoyable challenge, and that's a critical element in the play of the game.

What always puzzled me about QR was how different it was from its next door neighbor.  One would have thought that the osmotic process would have resulted in improved conditions, but, I'm glad to hear that the golf course is finally moving quickly in the right direction. 

It's amazing how many great AWT courses are nearby.

While some have claimed that Long Island, especially the East End is THE ideal location for golf courses and that Westchester is just the opposite, AWT's work there is phenomenal.

Matt Ward,

Someone can be a member of a club and still be objective when it comes to analyzing and evaluating that club.
I know members of clubs who are highly critical of their clubs, much more so than non-members.

Jeff has the benefit of being where the rubber meets the road and more importantly, he's not a newcomer, he's been there for 15 years.

[John Blain]

Jeff/Matt,

For those in the know in the Met area is QR considered superior to Fenway which wasn't included in the Top 100?

I played them on back-to-back days last September and really enjoyed them both. It was the sixth or seventh time at QR and the first at Fenway.

QR seems more of a championship type course and Fenway more of a nice membership type course and I mean that in a complimentary way.

I thought the guys in the shop at QR told that they had already done significant tree work but that the great majority of Gil's work would start in the fall (of '08)??

Overall I think QR deserves to be much higher and Fenway is worthy of a Top 100, as is Sleepy Hollow.

-John

[David_Madison]

Jeff Lewis,

I am a GD panelist and a fellow panelist and I visited QR in 2007. I liked the course very much but didn't find it terribly challenging or vexing as long as I was hitting okay shots. You described the pre-renovated version well, as it looked like the course could have been far more interesting if it was opened up and played hotter. I rated the course for what it was, not what it could be. Ratings stay in play for I believe five years (it used to be ten) so please give it a little time for the older scores to come off and be replaced by new ones reflecting the new conditions. I'm looking forward to getting back up there and experiencing the course playing to the potential that we saw.

[jeffwarne]

Jeff/Matt,

For those in the know in the Met area is QR considered superior to Fenway which wasn't included in the Top 100?

I played them on back-to-back days last September and really enjoyed them both. It was the sixth or seventh time at QR and the first at Fenway.



Overall I think QR deserves to be much higher and Fenway is worthy of a Top 100, as is Sleepy Hollow.

-John

I'd agree with that and put both Sleepy and Fenway  well ahead of Hudson National.

When I see such omissions as that and Ballyneal (and Sage Valley well ahead of Palmetto) it further reinforces my opinion that too many raters place service (or overservice). (needless)amenities, and conditioning (overconditioning) ahead of architecture and, well,...fun.....-

[Jim Franklin]

Jeff/Matt,

For those in the know in the Met area is QR considered superior to Fenway which wasn't included in the Top 100?

I played them on back-to-back days last September and really enjoyed them both. It was the sixth or seventh time at QR and the first at Fenway.



Overall I think QR deserves to be much higher and Fenway is worthy of a Top 100, as is Sleepy Hollow.

-John

I'd agree with that and put both Sleepy and Fenway  well ahead of Hudson National.

When I see such omissions as that and Ballyneal (and Sage Valley well ahead of Palmetto) it further reinforces my opinion that too many raters place service (or overservice). (needless)amenities, and conditioning (overconditioning) ahead of architecture and, well,...fun.....-

Probably true, but fun is the first thing I rate. If the course isn't fun, it will not hold my attention. I must be on the other end of the GD camp.

As for QR, I have not played it and look forward to it. As a member of another AWT course, I hope to see QR soon.

[Steve Lapper]

It is exactly this type of situation that reminds me why I so loathe the Golf Digest and Golf Magazine rating lists. Growing up down the street from QR, I have played, and in the past caddied, over 150+ rounds. I've seen the course in it's best and worst conditions, wet/dry. slow/fast, brown/green...well you get the point! Lately, the stars have all aligned and QR has restored itself to its parkland glory. Not in the past 30+yrs have I seen QR setting up for a better, more consistent reflection of it's strengths (and a diminishment of it's past weaknesses)!!!

GD/GM raters show up once, usually combining their visit with other nearby venues, subject to their convenience and schedule (can anyone say Kingsley?). They use some stated, yet mostly arbitrary and questionable, set of measurements as they try to make comparisons of relativity between old and new, spartan and lush, architectural and formulaic. They make little time for understanding recent course or club improvements/renovations (Just witness their treatment of PCC). Their reviews are so often subject to the degree of reception they receive. They revel in their collective power to make determinations that will last for years, without the adequate corrective filter to discern gaudy and new from old and renewed. Oh, I forgot, they also predetermine just how long a place must be open to receive the pleasure of their pseudo-merit! I should know as I've played with more than my fair share.

They ask for and expect access so as to perform their "duties," yet if denied or deterred, many often pass judgement based on a range of inane or historically biased inputs. Simply put, their process is corrupted, artificial, and so obviously unreliable. Jeff is right, this stuff is as worth as much as a share of BLM securities!

With such a developed and defended reputation for this poorly-run process, why in hell would a Ken Bakst or Jim Kidd want to host these types??

Why would a place with a classy membership like a QR want them to ever come back? Does a QR, Ballyneal, or Friars Head membership believe they need the GD/GM "seal of approval" to attract and retain quality members?? I think not! Does Hudson National, Rich Harvest, Black Rock, Canyata, or Stone Canyon need such a "seal of approval." Most probably!

When I look over the the recent GD list, I see such a noticeable skew towards long, stupidly tough, feature-less tracks (Medinah, Butler, Oakland Hills, Balty Lower, Oak Hill) with mediocre architecture, that ultimately defines this list as just plain idiotic.

[Dan Herrmann]

Jeff,
Personally, I wouldn't care about the GD rankings.  I think a club like QR should be at the point where you pretty much ignore stuff like the rankings.

I remember a day back when my course first opened.  The course was still in grow-in.  My wife and I let a single in a cart play through on the 5th hole.  Talked to the guy and found out he was a GD rater. 

After we were done, I asked in the clubhouse about the guy's experience.  They reported that he played in about 2:45 and left without even saying "thank you".

In my opinion, he was taking advantage.  He was probably trying to get in a round at French Creek and the two Stonewall courses next door all in one day.  What in the good Lord's name could he have garnered from a rapid-fire don't slow down and look around?  Nothing!

Jeff - I know that this rater wasn't typical, but who knows - maybe he visted QR too and did his 2:45 round.  If so, I say, "who cares".   Don't let the bas***** get you down!

[corey miller]

Perhaps I have a perspective a little different than many on this site as my club was involved in a restoration at Sleepy Hollow with Gil Hanse and George Bahto.  I was a participant in the process.

I don't know of Jeff's involvement in the process at QR and though I have never seen the course I am confident with the tree work, firming of the turf, commitment by those in power, new Super, and the involvement of Gil, the course is surely better.  I mean weren't they "fixing" Rees?

I also think my home course is clearly better and I was a little surprised we did not make Golfweek top 100 classic and we moved down in the NYS list on golf Digest.

I will also preface this by stating that the friends I have who are raters, I have the utmost respect for including Dr. Evil .  I would love to have the view that Steve has "who cares" but that is a little difficult when you are dealing with memberships that are generally loathe to make these sorts of changes.

People put a lot of time into getting this stuff right, and it certainly is not fun politically.  I would love to be in a position like FH where these ratings are a "who cares".  But the fact is, since Gil left the property, my goal has been to not only finish everything, the little detail work etc etc, but also to somehow memorialize the changes so future members don't seek "change". 

It is a little harder IMO when places like QR, and SH are not "rewarded".  So yes it bothers me because I know the average member might actually see things like the average GD rater and have no qualms about making ill suited changes in the future.

[jeffwarne]

  I would love to have the view that Steve has "who cares" but that is a little difficult when you are dealing with memberships that are generally loathe to make these sorts of changes.

People put a lot of time into getting this stuff right, and it certainly is not fun politically.  I would love to be in a position like FH where these ratings are a "who cares". 

In my opinion, just because a course doesn't allow raters to use their position to play unaccompanied (or comp them when playing with a member), doesn't mean the members and owner don't  "care" about ratings. ....Just a little different strategy

[Dave Bourgeois]

Is it possible that QR's proximity to Fenway and WF color's s the ratings to a degree.  I am not sure how sophisticated the rating process is, or the raters for that matter.

Does QR have stand out features that differentiate it to a degree? Is the routing unique? I have only seen the holes visible from the Hutch when driving to LI.  I routinely almost crash my car looking at the big fairway hump! Looks neat to me.

[Lou_Duran]

For what it is worth, I played QR back in 2005 and thoroughly enjoyed the course.  I've also played Fenway courtesy of another "Dr." and was nearly as impressed.  Both courses at Winged Foot and the Black and Red courses at Bethpage round my Tillie resume in the NE.  I consider all of these courses "Top 100" candidates, with the Red perhaps falling off the list.  Of these courses, I only prefered the Black to QR, though WF-West is probably a superior course, certainly for tournament play.  I probably liked Fenway better than WF-East.

I can certainly understand Corey's position.  Rankings being popularity contests, we can all take some solace from the knowledge that what is popular and what is best is frequently not the same thing.

[JMEvensky]

Jeff Lewis,you're a lucky man.I had the pleasure to play QR a couple of times when it was "bad".I still thought it was great.

Regarding the GD ratings,I can understand the political problems inherent in the membership wanting to be rewarded for improving the golf course.But,why would the membership be so concerned about that "reward" coming from guys who probably couldn't get into QR as members?

Is it really important to be loved by a handful of raters whose imprimatur is really pretty worthless to a private club with QR's history?

[Mike_Cirba]

I have a little different perspective, and a possible reason why the work we tend to love at places like Plainfield, QR, and Sleepy Hollow gets dismissed by the GD crowd.

The GD raters who are here (and I'm sure others) tend to love architecture, or at least think about it and what it means and try to understand what is good and why, or at least sort out their own feelings.

I think way too many of the GD raters are simply low-handicap golfers trying to shoot a score, and who believe that "fairness" means that the course rewards their game and punishes everyone else.

I've played with a number who were so into what they were shooting that day that I doubt they even saw the golf course they were playing.

So, when trees are removed, and greens restored to previous sizes, and fairways expanded, and rough managed and conditions become firm and fast through the green, and irrigation is turned down, here's what they see;

1) Width - Making the course too easy and not punishing the bad player.

2) Fast fairways - Allowing the ball that isn't carried 250+ yards to just "roll out there".

3) Firm Greens - Not rewarding their high, darting iron approaches and letting the weaker player just 'roll it up there".

4) Taking out trees - Taking away the beauty of the course and making it too easy.

5) Bigger greens - See making it too easy for GIR.

6) Dialing back irrigation - Brown anywhere is bad.   Lush is valued.

Worse yet, if a course has wild greens, they see that as reducing their advantage and "goofy golf".

THAT to me is why we see such differences in the listings, and the GD reliance on only supposed 5 and below handicap players doesn't make their list "representative" of anything but their own general focus on their own scoring and scoring mentality.

The funny thing is that I've also played with some who I beat straight up, and I suck

[Wyatt Halliday]

Jeff L.,

Mike just pointed out the action itemlist for reclaiming QR's position in the GD Rankings.

1. Replace the trees you thinned
2. Flood the fairways
3. Shrink the greens

Cheers

[Steve Lapper]

  I would love to have the view that Steve has "who cares" but that is a little difficult when you are dealing with memberships that are generally loathe to make these sorts of changes.

People put a lot of time into getting this stuff right, and it certainly is not fun politically.  I would love to be in a position like FH where these ratings are a "who cares". 

In my opinion, just because a course doesn't allow raters to use their position to play unaccompanied (or comp them when playing with a member), doesn't mean the members and owner don't  "care" about ratings. ....Just a little different strategy

Jeff,
  The courses that I know of and those that come to mind re: lack of interest in ratings genuinely "don't care" about being rated. I more than stand by my statement that GD's & GM's lists are skewed towards those places that practice a desire to be highly rated (and even some of those who desire some "new" exclusivity.

  Corey has it right. His is the attitude of a genuine steward. Too bad such a philosophy isn't more widespread!

  Mike also has it right. So very many of the GD panelists I've played with only care about their own score and barely, if ever, evidence the ability to see the totality of the course they are on (PS..even saw this a few years back at Pine Valley!)

[Jim Nugent]

Mike Cirba, you make some great-sounding points.  Any reactions from the GD raters here?  Do Mike's points ring true, if not for you perhaps other GD raters you know? 

[Matt_Ward]

Jim N:

I used to rate for GD for 17 years and I think it's fair to say there are plenty of GD raters who care a good bit more than what they are scoring for the round.

I think Mike C has over-simplified things a tad much. No doubt there are GD raters and others from other pubs who may look upon such matters in the way he presented it.

The issue with GD is the desire to capture quick and cheap info -- expanding their panel to the size it is today ensures that the really good raters are drowned out by the numbers of those who either take the approach that Mike C mentioned or are just completely off base with what is they are reviewing.

[Dan Herrmann]

Is it really important to be loved by a handful of raters whose imprimatur is really pretty worthless to a private club with QR's history?

JME - you've nailed it!

[Tags:]

Tags: