Non-binding Referendum - Form of the New Confidential Guide

[Anders Rytter]

i would prefer C and/or F

[Brian Potash]

I guess a lot depends on how many people you want to buy the book.

I prefer B, but less passionate golfers would likely shy away from a golf book with zero pictures, right?

E would be my second choice.

Brian

[Greg Taylor]

A or C... no one takes their books when they travel, or at least in my experience... E would be nice too if that was the case.

Got to have pics, everyone loves a bit of eye candy...!

[Bart Bradley]

Tom:

I believe that I wrote you a letter several years ago suggesting that you should update the Guide and one of my suggestions was to divide the book into sections to make publication and updating much easier.

I'd love the most comprehensive guide possible...Knowing which courses scored low is as important as knowing which courses scored high!

So I'd vote for volumes:


      Volume 1 -- Southeastern US
      Volume 2 -- Northeastern US
      Volume 3 -- Midwest US
      Volume 4 -- Western US
      Volume 5 -- Great Britain and Ireland
      Volume 6 -- New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the rest of the world

Pictures are absolutely vital to the book, IMO.  I have two copies of your guide and I much prefer the version with the pictures.

Good luck,

Bart

[Mark_Rowlinson]

I go for the electronic version. You can update it more easily than a printed version. You can revise your opinion about course X when the 10th is converted from a short par 5 to a long par 4 at the click of a mouse. If somebody finds an error, you can correct it immediately. New tees are built just about every year from Augusta to Painswick. You can update the fine detail. And, you can add courses one by one as you experience them. It probably means that you subscribe to the book rather than buying it.

With an electronic book you can include so much else that would make a printed book impossibly big - the history of golf course architecture, the biographies of architects etc. But you can also link it to the MacKenzie Society, the friends of Cuthbert Butchart and so on. You can link it to GCA, of course.

But a book in your hand is a wonderful thing. Photographs are expensive - and rightly so. You know how often you take your camera to course y, it's raining and the clouds are so thick your flash goes off incessantly. And, you would want the exact picture to make your point - seriously expensive.

In practical terms - and maybe this has been discussed elsewhere - you have designed or been involved in some of the greatest of the courses of our own time. You clearly cannot omit them. They have a right to be there. But how do you treat them objectively? Can you give them a 10 or, through modesty, do you mark them down to 7? What about people with whom you have worked - Dye, Nicklaus,,, Are your hands tied? What about the work of competitors? Do you enter a ratings battle between the designers of the various courses at Bandon?

I wish you the best of fortunes with this project.

Mark.

[Steve Lapper]

There is a trend in early voting.  I'm for (c). Can you imagine how Playboy would have done without pictures? I'd include a teaser of the  other editions.  Second choice would be (e).

I'd second Pete's choices, and reasoning!!

[Doug Wright]

(e)

[Mark Steffey]

c or d

[Sean_A]

I go for the electronic version. You can update it more easily than a printed version. You can revise your opinion about course X when the 10th is converted from a short par 5 to a long par 4 at the click of a mouse. If somebody finds an error, you can correct it immediately. New tees are built just about every year from Augusta to Painswick. You can update the fine detail. And, you can add courses one by one as you experience them. It probably means that you subscribe to the book rather than buying it.

With an electronic book you can include so much else that would make a printed book impossibly big - the history of golf course architecture, the biographies of architects etc. But you can also link it to the MacKenzie Society, the friends of Cuthbert Butchart and so on. You can link it to GCA, of course.

But a book in your hand is a wonderful thing. Photographs are expensive - and rightly so. You know how often you take your camera to course y, it's raining and the clouds are so thick your flash goes off incessantly. And, you would want the exact picture to make your point - seriously expensive.

In practical terms - and maybe this has been discussed elsewhere - you have designed or been involved in some of the greatest of the courses of our own time. You clearly cannot omit them. They have a right to be there. But how do you treat them objectively? Can you give them a 10 or, through modesty, do you mark them down to 7? What about people with whom you have worked - Dye, Nicklaus,,, Are your hands tied? What about the work of competitors? Do you enter a ratings battle between the designers of the various courses at Bandon?

I wish you the best of fortunes with this project.

Mark.

Mark

I too thought about his own courses.  I wonder if he could get a guest writer(s) whose style is still pleasing to rate Doak's courses?  I recall Peter Allen used a good mate in Sam McKinlay to write some reviews for his Play The Best Courses.  While the styles don't really work together I think it was a failure of execution rather than concept.

Ciao  

[Jerry Kluger]

There is no question that I would prefer a book so I can sit down in a comfortable chair and an appropriate beverage and relax and enjoy.  It would seem to me to be far easier to understand what you are saying about a course or a particular feature when I can see it in a picture.  To me, that is what makes Ran's reviews so informative at a course that I have not played.  You could still offer an electronic version of the book but I strongly believe that a hardcover edition is essential.  I also would prefer a limited number of courses with multiple volumes over time than regional editions.  If you are going to put all the effort into the book(s) then I think that you must make it interesting to golfers beyond those who are addicts like us.  

[Jud_T]

Personally I'd scrap the pictures except for the online version.  It's primarily a reference book.  It's the rankings and the writeups that are sexy.  The last thing I need is another coffee table book.  I want as many courses rated as possible including the high priced Doak 3's.  This is particularly useful info for the real travelling Joe's.  Whether that's one large book or regional ones doesn't really matter, except perhaps sooner is better so if you're ready with a U.S. version for instance, bring it on!  I love the online version, but I'd still buy a print copy, which is something I can't say about very many books these days.  Also make sure an e-books version is available.

[Will Smith]

Tom,

It would be a shame not to include photos and I think the best way to do that is E. There are many times that I have been on the road and wished I had my CG with me. If I could have it on my ipad, that would be amazing.

I also think (not that this is why you are doing it) that you could make the most money off this option. I think you could charge about the same if not more for the book if it had a large number of your photos in it. Obviously, it would not cost anything to print. It would not become a collectors item like the first one so maybe a printed special edition with just the 7 and above's (A) would make a great companion piece.

[Kevin_D]

Option E would be amazing (online version) and C sounds great as well

My preference would be to be as inclusive as possible (including sub-5s) and have photos

[Mark Bourgeois]

Mark Rowlinson wrote an excellent regional travel guide so my inclination is just to +1 his comments. I will say I'd find an online subs ritjom-based service potentially the least useful, as books/ebooks make for vastly superior armchair travel and access problems can arise on the road, for example in China and Japan as well as in remote areas.

As I travel globally, I vote for whichever mode enables maximum entries yet dependable access. That's probably some combination of D  &  E.

And please tell us there will be a gazeteer!

[Ronald Montesano]

D and E...that way, all courses are included.

[Joel_Stewart]

A or C... no one takes their books when they travel, or at least in my experience... E would be nice too if that was the case.

Got to have pics, everyone loves a bit of eye candy...!

Ditto

[Mark Saltzman]

Any option that eliminates low scoring courses should immediately be discarded.

[Jackson C]

(b)

I like the format and size of Wexler's book.

[David Royer]

B. and E.

[Bryan Izatt]

I'd vote for E as the primary copy and primary distribution method with A from time to time for those who want the glossy coffee table print version.  All in one volume is better to me as long as it doesn't constrain the content too much.

[John Ezekowitz]

Perhaps I am underestimating the ease with which an online version could be set up, but it seems to me that e) does not preclude selling a physical book at all, and that the two would work best in tandem.

I vote for b) and e), and agree that I would want to read about as many courses as possible.

[Blake Conant]

I vote for C and E.  There's a market for both formats and both formats would get plenty of use.  

As someone who doesn't have the original CG, I think it's important to include as many courses as possible in this version, especially if the goal is to make it more reasonably priced and accessible to the masses.

[Brian Finn]

B and E...

i like the idea of the CD (or online subscription) as insert, and while it is great to know which courses are must plays when in a certain area, it is also extremely valuable to know of which to steer clear. 

[Ally Mcintosh]

"C" by a country mile.....

[V. Kmetz]

Tom,

If they have to be mutually exclusive than I vote for "A" - the large, heavy and pretty and hardest to carry around, push the envelope of your previous limits on what size it could be.

I'll try not to be a luddite preaching, but "The Book," Tom..."The Book is the thing." Forget the 3-D joys of breezing through pages, the physical interactions, the appearance on a table or shelf in ones environment...It's your mind in my hand.  Your thoughts and artistic choices communicated tangibly...

Enough proselytizing, but given this is my view, it naturally directs me to say that if it be a Book, let it be a grand, central, special Book...a precious book, with all the attempts at finery and grandeur befitting such a compendium.  I mean, didn't you have something grand, or grandly informative, in mind when you first thought to do this?  It's a chore of choices now, but think back with what compelled you to make such a gathering and exposition?

And if they are not mutually exclusive, then I still vote for "A" but of course seconded with E - an electronic edition, regionalized or not. i guarantee that if both were available, the people who will buy "A" at the commensurate expense with a grand thing, will likely buy "E" too.

As strongly as I can, I disagree respectfully with Mark R. (and anyone else who mentioned a similar facet) that you can "revise" as your opinion evolves, or that electronic fluency with other mediums - makes this better. If "A," "B" and/or "C" are not in place, these are deleterious, imo, things

On both fronts, I say: "Don't make your precious, valuable work disposable"

1.  I have heard literally dozens of writers...fiction, history, journalists, who in 2012 type with a typewriter, because of the delete/backspace key on the modern Word Processor...if it erased, its gone.  For ill or for worse, your work will be viewed by future generations and your evolving opinion stands to be as much a part of this topic's historical record as what your content is.  The future generations, imo, will find it valuable to know that in 1996, you thought this and had this to say about this or that course and in 2013, you had these different comments.  The meat of your history is doubtless your work as a GCA, but you will not be around to contribute to the discussions of distant future years, when you would probably most like to be. This is precisely what is often argued about when nuanced discussions about nuanced topics come up now in this and other "historical" venues...Wilson wouldn't have done that...Tillinghast ragged on that course, but why did he imitate 4 of its holes...Ross designed Siwanoy but Wynton should get an undercard billing somewhere..." etc.  So, if there's even a chance of revising the truth of what was said and what occurred, without a central Gospel reference edition...truth suffers for those who wish to explore the topic...

2.  Fluency with other mediums, portability..other electronic highlights.  Perhaps I have more of an inflated opinion of what you've assembled and worked at than you do.  Golf after all is a silliness and there's what?  5000 people in a world of seven billion to whom this means a great deal?  Sure enough but my point is, if you have worked at it, and are rightfully proud of it and the 5000 people care about it, why would you make it a disposable thing, right in the slipstream of whatever consumption churn goes on for the other 6,999,995,000 people on the planet in all their expressive products.  iIm not saying disposable in the sense that you can lose it or break it or computers will be magnetically pulsed clean by catastrophe...I mean disposable in the sense of "ubiquitous," "taken for granted", if everyone who wants it can get it in a click, on any germane forum, link to online magazine, etc...where's the excitement, where's the specialness, where's the quest...once the itch is scratched, the gratification so quick and immediate...how quickly consumed and ignored by its user?  I would never do that with Scotland's gift; Golf...I make sure I can see that book at all times and that it is at hand and I can turn to page whatever at the drop of a hat when i'm in the GCAzone...zone. 

But that's all if they're mutually exclusive...

To Recap:
"A" if one and only one type

"A," facilitated and backed up by "E" if the publishign situation is fluid enough.

***eliminated, for me
B doesn't go as far as A and so is out
C and D, sound like great commercial ideas for you and your cohort, but only so long as there is a central "biblical unit" from which the regional apostles come....again "A"
E alone is no choice at all for me, for reasons stated above.

cheers

vk

[Tags:]

Tags: