[Scott_Burroughs]

Matt,

What you're saying, but avoiding saying straight out, is that GW's raters are at fault for not visiting it in the past year and a half (enough of them to qualify).  Only you, who has travelled everywhere in the U.S. to play courses, and people in western Montana would not consider Deer Lodge, MT to be remote.  To me, it's VERY remote, even more remote than Sand Hills, IMO.  SH is 5 hours from Denver, a place many people travel to (I have twice).  Deer Lodge is nowhere close to any major city.  It's 3+ hours (a guess) from Yellowstone, a place most people only visit maybe once in a lifetime (I've never been there, and I visit western Idaho every year - it's 5+ hours there).  Deer Lodge, MT is probably 6-8 hours from where I visit, not exactly close.  I'm actually fairly well-travelled compared to the average person...I've been in 37 states....but MT is not one of them.

Also remember, GD has a rating panel twice the size of GW's.  I wonder which magazine's panel has had more people play Rock Creek relative to the size of the panel?

[Matt_Ward]

Scott:

Montana is not less remote than Sand Hills or Sutton Bay. In fact it's easier to get to since it's right off a major Interstate.

If you think it's more remote than Sand Hills I'll send you a compass.

I don't give quarter to either GW or GD's panels -- they are swinging and missing more often than not.

Rock Creek's omission is a matter of being timely -- the place has been open since '08 -- my God, Marco Polo traveled back and forth to the Orient in a quicker fashion.

Adam:

The defenders of the existing system -- is that you too ? -- are often raters themselves. God forbid any system were developed that might undercut or eliminate their "invaluable" role. They are so on top of things that Rock Creek sits on the sidelines. Makes perfect sense to me.

In today's nonstop information age there are no missing courses of serious note. The magazines can easily operate with far less people to do what's needed.

Adam, stop with the tap dance side story about bringing into play your inane "all kinds of perceptions of impropriety" -- as if the existing system is fail safe.

Adam, I don't need to be a czar -- there is far more info out there beyond GCA that I glean regarding where I choose to play golf.

The rankings are less and less a real place to get the lowdown on where quality golf exists.



Sean:

OK -- that makes sense. So if "X" course does not get the minimum number then the course is left out. That makes perfect sense.

I would rather defer to the editors of the pub -- provided they actually got out into the field -- then wait on the availability of a certain group of raters to mosy out when they deemed it worthwhile.

You can throw up all the nonsensical excuses you want -- Rock Creek is a bonafide top 100 course -- I'd place it easily within my personal top 50 and furthermore the place has been opened since late '08. Last I checked Montana has airports and roads that take you Deer Lodge.

[Jim Franklin]

Deer Lodge is 45 minutes from Missoula. We drove a little more than 3 hours from Couer d'Alene to get there. It was not a bad drive. We flew into Spokane which is 20 minutes from Couer d'Alene. It is not as remote to get to as you think. I have a tougher time getting to Sand Hills with the FIVE (at least) hour drive from Denver. It was one of if not my favorite golf trip I have taken. Gozzer Ranch, Club at Black Rock, Idaho Club and then Rock Creek. It was a tremendous trip and I hope to be able to do it again.

And Matt is right, GW missed the boat. GD did too by not naming it Best New last year, but that's another thread entirely.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Matt,

What I'm sayting is Deer Lodge is more remote compared to where people might often travel to.  Who travels to Missoula, MT for business or vacation?  OK, CDA, ID (and Spokane, WA, by induction) is 3+ hours away, but again, you have to have had to be specifically going there in the last 1.5 years AND be able to make the side trip.  I would bet lots of money that more people travelled to Denver (and Omaha, NE to the east) in the past 1.5 years than to the CDA, ID area.

Oh, and since I haven't been a frequent poster in the past several years, I forgot what 'arguing' with Matt and Pat M is like.  Shame on me.

[Sean Leary]

Scott:

Montana is not less remote than Sand Hills or Sutton Bay. In fact it's easier to get to since it's right off a major Interstate. Very easy for those who happen to just be driving on the interstate in Montana,. I mean pretty much everyone does that, right?

If you think it's more remote than Sand Hills I'll send you a compass. I would say that that they are about equal. Denver is far easier to get to/ be there for other reasons than Spokavegas.

I don't give quarter to either GW or GD's panels -- they are swinging and missing more often than not. Of course the only ranking worth anything is yours

Rock Creek's omission is a matter of being timely -- the place has been open since '08 -- my God, Marco Polo traveled back and forth to the Orient in a quicker fashion.

Adam:

The defenders of the existing system -- is that you too ? -- are often raters themselves. God forbid any system were developed that might undercut or eliminate their "invaluable" role. They are so on top of things that Rock Creek sits on the sidelines. Makes perfect sense to me.

In today's nonstop information age there are no missing courses of serious note. The magazines can easily operate with far less people to do what's needed.

Adam, stop with the tap dance side story about bringing into play your inane "all kinds of perceptions of impropriety" -- as if the existing system is fail safe.

Adam, I don't need to be a czar -- there is far more info out there beyond GCA that I glean regarding where I choose to play golf.

The rankings are less and less a real place to get the lowdown on where quality golf exists.



Sean:

OK -- that makes sense. So if "X" course does not get the minimum number then the course is left out. That makes perfect sense. It DOES make sense, jackass ]  

I would rather defer to the editors of the pub -- provided they actually got out into the field -- then wait on the availability of a certain group of raters to mosy out when they deemed it worthwhile. Why have raters then?

You can throw up all the nonsensical excuses you want -- Rock Creek is a bonafide top 100 course -- I'd place it easily within my personal top 50 and furthermore the place has been opened since late '08. Last I checked Montana has airports and roads that take you Deer Lodge.

Since it opened in late 08, therefore raters has basically 09 to play it. one year is not that long to have 35 or whatever raters make it to Deer Lodge

[jim_lewis]

Matt:

You have made your point (over and over) so relax. It is obvious to me that if one of your favorite courses does not get ranked within the time frame that y0u deem appropriate, the magazine and all afiliated with it are screwed up. What the hell difference does it make if it take a little longer for a course in Montana to get rated. GW does not claim to name a "Best New" each year.

You say the course was available in late 2008 and all of 2009.  I was in Montana in late 2008 and again in April 2009. I could not find a course that was open for play on either occasion. It snows there, you know. I suspect the same was true in late 2009. So just how many months during that period do you suppose Rock Creek was actually open for play?

I wonder why you didn't staighten out the various publicaction you rated for while you were still on their panels.

You seem to have an issue with GW and anyone else who doesn't agree with you. Well, can add me to that list.

[Jim Franklin]

I know Shivas was touting the qualities of Rock Creek in 2008. I don't know when he played it, but it had to be close to August. After his review, it was my goal to somehow get there in 2009 and I did. Like I said, it was not as bad as I anticipated to get there, but I had it at the top of my agenda.

[Matt_Ward]

Jim:

Speaking of relax ...

My point which few have agreed with -- save for Jim F -- is when a magazine touts itself as the source of news for the serious golfer then they should be on top of such matters. If you want to be an apologist for GW so be it.

Jim, read what I posted -- I said in late summer of '08 Rock Creek was available as well as ALL OF '09. If you were there in April I never said the course was available to be played then -- the same can be said for courses in the Midwest and Northeast at certain times. The folks who rate had the entire playing season to be there in '09. Rock Creek is as solid as any recent new course in America to garner high praise. It's omission speaks to a lack of due diligence. I guess it's fine for a magazine that rates every year to wait until 2011 to seriously include the course. Nothing like being ahead of the curve.

In regards to straightening out different publications I did just that when GD decided to hold Kingsley Club from the year it officially opened and simply bumped a so-called "new" course into a second year for consideration. That didn't fly by me either.

Jim, I have my opinions -- I am free to bring them forward in a manner that I believe is appropriate. You are just as right to say what you believe -- even if I see it differently.


Scott:

Get a thicker skin and ditch the rabbit ears.

I'm not buying the argument that Deer Lodge is remote. It's right off an Interstate -- Sand Hills and Sutton Bay aren't. If you really want remote try gettin gto Ray, ND and The Links of ND at Red Mike Resort.

[Matt_Ward]

Sean:

When in doubt throw expletives into the mix. I thought you'd be above that sort of child's retort -- forgive my error in judgement.

My assessment of courses is simple is mine. I am free to disagree with the findings of the mags and you are free to disagree with my take on things -- as I am free to disagree with you. I know what my experiences have been and I don't think the conclusions I have drawn to be on the lunar fringe.

I'd be happy to hear anyone find serious fault with Rock Creek -- in fact, just the opposite has happened.

Sean, let me help with something else -- raters are not the supreme beings you make them out to be. They had a form of necessity years ago when information sources on different courses in different locales was much harder to arrive at -- that's not the case now and editors can effectively glean the same info -- from even better sources -- without much effort if they really wanted to do so.

[Jud_T]

Matt,

I agree with you in general.  Nowadays there are clearly only a handful of new "buzz" courses that have a real shot each year of being top 100 courses.  Either get a few butts out there in a given year, or if you really have to have 35 guys see a course, don't claim to publish an up-to-date list every year.  Although frankly the current state of affairs with the Kingsley club at GD and GM is even more aggregious in my book than the delay on RCCC at GW.

[jim_lewis]

"The place was fully available starting in late '08 and all of '09."
" The place was ready for people in late '08 and all of '09."

Matt:

The above are verbatim quotes from your posts of earlier today (10:42am and 11:35am). My point was that between late '08 and all of '09, there were a limited number of months that the course was open for play due to weather constraints.

GW raters do not rush out and rate a course the moment it opens.  Those of us who travel work from a list of candidate courses  that is provided by the Magazine. A course does not usually appear on that list the day it opens. In order for a course to make to the list, at least one rater or magazine staff must see it and deem it worthy to recommend that other raters travel to see it. This process does not happen overnight, altlhough it probably happens quicker in more heavily travelled areas. Of course, there have been exceptions (Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes, for example) when a course opens with such advance fanfare, that it doesn't take very long for it to attract lots of raters. I don't know much about Rock Creek, but it apparently did not cause a stampede to Montana.  Also, as you probably know, many courses don't want raters to come until after the course has been open for a while. I have personal knowledge of at least a few whose evaluation was delayed for a year at  the request of the owners. I guess all publications would like to be the first to recognize a worthy new arrival. However, rushing to anoint the "next great course" can lead to embarrassment. Just look at how some of GD's Best New courses have fared overtime. I'm sure that Rock Creek is just as good as you say, and it will certainly get the appropriate recognition soon...Maybe next year. It seems to me that you have just gone overboard in your critcism GW and its process. This ain't life or death stuff. Some even say it is a waste of time.

[PThomas]

i keep waiting and waiting for Brad to send the GW jet for me but he just wont do it.....

[Matt_Ward]

Jim:

No fooling - Montana has a limited window.

But it was available to be played for the '09 golf season once it commences there. No one expects to play golf in Montana in the winter months -- ditto for any northeast or midwest site.

You may have missed this -- but when a mag comes out each year with ratings it needs to stay on top of things as they are happening in real time. I've said before -- you may have missed it -- that ratings would be better served if pushed back to once
every two or even three years. Let the dust settle and at the same time the course can be played accordingly.

Jim, a Tom Doak opening usually attracts plenty of advance buzz. It happened here on GCA and frankly if people can get to places like Links of ND, Sand Hills, Sutton Bay -- the visit to Rock Creek is not impossible by any means.

[JNC Lyon]

I just took a look at the State-by-State listing.  I feel the need to point out one thing:

Seven Oaks Golf Club, the golf course at Colgate University in Hamilton, NY, snuck on to the New York list at Number 15!  As my second home course back in the states, Seven Oaks deserves the recognition of being on this list.  Props to superintendent Jon McConville for keeping the course in great shape and performing much-needed tree removal.

For the record, I would place Seven Oaks ahead of Kaluhyat, which ranks 7th on the list, and the Links at Hiawatha, which rank 5th.  Furthermore, while I love Ravenwood, there is no way it ranks ahead of Leatherstocking.  Just no chance.  My two cents on the NY list.

[Matt_Ward]

JNC:

The state ratings are often out of wack with a few of the layouts -- not just in NY but elsewhere.

I have to wonder if more weight is given to those who live in the respective states so as to minimize those
votes from people who simply visit and play a layout only once.

[Sean Leary]

Matt, note the emoticon in my reply. You need a tougher skin if that is going to bother you.

As far as you point about raters, I agree that they are not perfect. But you either have a panel rating or an editor rating. You can't have both.

[Matt_Ward]

Sean:

Why use such inflammatory words to start with? You can disagree - that's fine but really using the word jackass is self evident.

Sean, another correction -- one doesn't need the army of raters used now. The editors can easily devise a system wherby you can use far less people who are more able to provide the kind of info that's missing now. The sad reality is that the top tier magazines live in a world of delusion that they are really cutting edge info sources.

[Jonathan Cummings]

Matt - late is better than never.  I believe Brad has upped the minimun number of ratings to qualify for top 100 to 30 votes and RC has yet the votes. 

I'm in your camp about RC's quality.  Rock Creek is top 50 - it's off the map good.  It's one of the very best settings in all of golf and the gca of the course is just as good.  It will make GW's modern list, I assure you.  You seem tunnel-visioned on RC's omission and GW's delay.  Look instead at the interesting inclusions of McArthur, Fallen Oak, Spanish Oaks and Greywalls. 

I have always and will continue to look forward to GW's modern list.  It is the most interesting top 100 list posted in all of golf.  If you don't believe it, look at this thread!

Fire away,

J

[Michael Dugger]

Another thread displaying why Matt Ward is such a........

Oh nevermind...I wouldn't want to be inflammatory. 

Matt, the problem here is you are arguing against simple logistics. 

Maybe you have enough time on your hands....maybe you have enough dollars in your bank account to travel all over the globe checking out courses in a "timely fashion."

To some people, even raters, however, they have different priorities in their life.  You are dense as pound cake if you don't get that.

For the record, I'm right there with you, jackass, I too wish Kingsley and Rock Creek etc etc etc. got the proper run they more than likely deserve...but I think the integrity of the system is more important than your bizarre OCD wish for total completeness.
 

[Jonathan Cummings]

Geez - I forgot Gozzer Ranch, also new to the top 100.  Gozzer is damn near a neighbor of Rock Creek's.  Pretty remarkable about the Coeur d'Alene area.  Going from nothing much 10 years ago to having 2 top 100s (BR and Geezer) and two contenders (Idahoo Club and Circlng Rave).  JC

[Scott_Burroughs]

Geez - I forgot Gozzer Ranch, also new to the top 100.  Gozzer is damn near a neighbor of Rock Creek's.  Pretty remarkable about the Coeur d'Alene area.  Going from nothing much 10 years ago to having 2 top 100s (BR and Geezer) and two contenders (Idahoo Club and Circlng Rave).  JC

Jonathan,

Supposedly the Weiskopf course at Black Rock opened last year (possibly even late '08), but I've heard nothing about it's quality first hand, even on GCA.  I'd heard it might have been better than the original.  I'd be surprised if you hadn't been out to play it, yet.

[Sean Leary]

Geez - I forgot Gozzer Ranch, also new to the top 100.  Gozzer is damn near a neighbor of Rock Creek's.  Pretty remarkable about the Coeur d'Alene area.  Going from nothing much 10 years ago to having 2 top 100s (BR and Geezer) and two contenders (Idahoo Club and Circlng Rave).  JC

Jonathan,

Supposedly the Weiskopf course at Black Rock opened last year (possibly even late '08), but I've heard nothing about it's quality first hand, even on GCA.  I'd heard it might have been better than the original.  I'd be surprised if you hadn't been out to play it, yet.

Scott,

It never opened. Mothballed for now....

[Matt_Ward]

Michael:

Love the name calling -- "dense as pound cake." Let me help you out here.

You must have missed what I said previously -- when any magazine goes out of its way to tout themselves as being ahead of the curve they need to back that up. Are there logistical issues? Sure -- there are. And, if there are such high hurdles to overcome why the need to rate it every year? Frankly, the rating issue are meant to derive a $$ flow for the magazine. That's fine. Just be sure to include info that is really noteworthy -- not late or incomplete.

Ratings don't need to be placed every year -- they can work even more effectively with a bit more time between them. Two years isn't bad -- three would work even better.

Plenty of raters throw the myriad of defenses and rationales on why things are not possible -- that's fine -- for them. The reader should get info that is timely -- Rock Creek has been open for quite some time and as I said -- I'd like to see anyone step forward and say I'm all wet that such a layout should not be rated extremely highly.

In regards to "different priorities" -- that's fine, then those folks who are raters should take care of their  "priorities" and allow others who have the wherewithal to step forward.

Michael, you keep on barking about "integrity" -- how have I suggested a completely modified system undermines that. The "integrity" excuse is lobbed forward to protect the existing station of those who rate now. I understand that self absorbed rationale but the folks running the magazine should think about their readers -- when a magazine is losing timely info to other sources then frankly the very reason for getting that pub in the first place becomes a bigger issue they should be worried about.

[Matt_Ward]

Jonathan:

As a reader I'm not interested in the accounting excuses that are offered. Why not simply hold the overall ratings to a time frame of once every two or even three years. That would allow such a situation not to happen.

Golfweek is likely bundling up various ratings to serve as an advertisement inducement. Works fine -- but the info needs to be timely to really connect with the "serious" golfers they claim to represent.

Jonathan, Rock Creek is in the rarified air of places like Ballyneal. It should have been a must play given the amount of lead time that was available.

Let me point out that I have not segregated my comments simply to GW -- I see what GD provides as also being wet in a number of places. Kingsley Club is a great example on that front.

Jonathan, the mags can space out their ratings so logistical elements are not going to hamper the final product. If you are going to come out each year then the results that are posted need to reflect real time realities.

[Jerry Kluger]

Rock Creek was #1 on GW's 2009 best new courses so it seems odd that it cannot make the top 100 list.

New courses are not being built near major cities.  2010 courses with buzz include Prairie Club, Ballyhack and Old Macdonald - none of which are close to a major city - are we to presume they will not be on next year's list?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()