GCA and its influence on golf course ratings

[Tim Liddy]

In a very short time, GCA has had a profound impact on golf design and golf course ratings. I can cite many examples of this, but the traditional golf courses and ideals that this web site supports have sky rocketed to the top of rater’s list and change golf course architecture (much for the better).

[paul cowley]

...tim , i agree ,and ,a few months past, i suggested the idea of a GCA ratings panel because of similar sentiments....

  did not fly....

   one of my 'gut' feelings was a fear of putting ones balls on the block and a cocooned critisism cosiness.........


   i still think the best of this mess would be of great service to this ratings world......................

[ChipOat]

Tim Liddy:

Your statement regarding GCA's impact on ratings and architecture is quite bold - to say the least.

I'm not challenging you or doubting that there is, at a minimum, some merit to your position.

However, your statement positively begs for at least 2 solid examples.  Otherwise, there may be some on the outside that think we're being extraordinarily self-congratulatory on this DG without providing some evidence of the significant impact that you have articulated.

Would you (or Paul Cowley or anyone else) share 2 of the examples you have in mind?

[Ran Morrissett]

I can barely find my way around a computer (one gent just asked me to post something within the DG and I replied I wish I knew how ) and don't understand the internet but I do understand this: the golf world is a small one and the fanning out effect of people who post and lurk here has been phenomenal.  

For instance, I was playing at the member-guest at Forest Creek, NC against some worthy competitors from Long Island, NY. I remarked about Raynor's all-time finest green complex (the 6th at The Creek) as I saw the The Creek bird logo on one of their golf bags. Halfway down the fairway, it turns out the man has been on the web site "a few thousand times." A very small world indeed!

Rather than the very elusive undertaking of trying to figure it out or explain it, we can just be thankful as to how things have progressed to date and look to refine/improve things in the future.  We will be discussing that very thing with everyone venturing to our September 20-22 get-together in New Mexico.

Meanwhile, perhaps a rater or two might read the In My Opinion and My Home Course sections or the course profiles on Rustic Canyon and Holston Hills and The Kingsley Club and Eastward Ho! and Lawsonia and Cuscowilla and Lookout Mountain and Lost Dunes and Royal Worlington & Newmarket and Harrison Hills and Huntingdon Valley and Fenway and West Sussex and Beverly and etc. etc. and be motivated to play them and start a thread: discussion of specifics is how we truly learn, unless you're a stubborn molecular biologist with initials GC  

Cheers,

[Mike_Sweeney]

What I really enjoy about this site is finding a number of Doak Scale 5's, 6's and even 7's that slip through the ratings panels. I am really really excited to play Misquamicut this weekend having read many of Tom Paul's post about the course. Thus, if anything, I would propose a Doak Scale type of list (not a ranking) called "The Right Brained GCA List of Classic Golf Courses That Sellout Major Publications Ignore."

[Mike_Cirba]

Ran;

At least you didn't name a tall, fainting, left-hander as someone who's on your sh*t list!  

If anyone doubts that this site has far-reaching exposure, I can recall having lunch at Pine Valley on afternoon.  The four gentlemen at the table next to us were engaged in conversation and based on the discussion, I couldn't help picking up my ears and eavesdropping.

It turns out that they were talking about "that Website", and some of the discussion that had taken place right after Pebble Beach displaced Pine Valley in the Golf Digest #1 course in the country.  One of the fellows ventured, "that Tom Paul knows a lot about architecture", and I had to chuckle to myself that it is indeed a small world of golf.  

Of course, I was also happy that Patrick Mucci wasn't there or a heated debate about that last contention would have likely ensued!  

[GeoffreyC]

Meanwhile, perhaps a rater or two might read the In My Opinion and My Home Course sections or the course profiles on Rustic Canyon and Holston Hills and The Kingsley Club and Eastward Ho! and Lawsonia and Cuscowilla and Lookout Mountain and Lost Dunes and Royal Worlington & Newmarket and Harrison Hills and Huntingdon Valley and Fenway and West Sussex and Beverly and etc. etc. and be motivated to play them and start a thread: discussion of specifics is how we truly learn, unless you're a stubborn molecular biologist with initials GC  

Ran- While I TRULY respect your great eye, photographic memory of golf holes with all their subtle   features where is the interesting discussion without different perspectives? However, in respect for your opinion I will make every effort to revisit the TWO courses we disagree on (out of the numerous ones we are in complete agreement)   .

Besides - if pissing you off a bit gets you to post as much as you have in the last few days I'll gladly be the GCA whipping boy for a while.    Huckaby can enjoy the vacation.

I was with Mike at Pine Valley for that eavesdropping and it was revealing to hear them speak.

[THuckaby2]

Is there any wonder why I admire and respect my friend Dr. Childs so much?

 

Interesting topic here.  I really don't know what influence this web site has had in the world of golf, but these examples are telling.

I haven't had many instances of people mentioning this site out in the "real world" yet, but they have occurred... The most interesting for me is that in my course rating duties for the NCGA, I was singled out twice as "that guy who posts all the time on that web site" when people met me... Don't know if this was a good or bad thing, though!

The internet is pervasive, in any case.  I feel strong that as time goes on, the influence of this site will get stronger and stronger.

Let's just hope that is a good thing, as it has been so far.  

TH

[Tom_Doak]

I'm not sure I see the influence.

Certainly, there is some overlap between GCA opinion and the GOLFWEEK rankings, simply because there are so many GOLFWEEK panelists involved here.  If there is an influence, that would be it, because the various magazines' rankings influence each other a great deal.

(Examples:  Fishers Island or The Valley Club, first rated by GOLF Magazine, now in GOLF DIGEST top 100 even though they're much too "easy" to make it on Resistance to Scoring.)

But, some of the courses most talked about here are NOT currently featured in any of the rankings, a subject which has produced heated debate in the past week ...

National Golf Links hasn't moved into the top ten of anyone's rankings yet, either.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tom, Hopefully my "10" will make a difference.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

When I first came on this website, TEPaul knew nothing.
It is truely amazing how much he has learned from me in these few, short years.  He's now about 98 % there.

[Mark_Fine]

I think Bill makes some good points.  People should only be allowed to vote for courses that they have played just once or better yet, just saw on TV.  Furthermore, they can NOT vote for any course they have played more than five times or that they feel they know very well and have studied carefully.  That would clearly make them bias.  

[RJ_Daley]

The cross section of GCA posters for tastes, knowledge and geographic diversity in not just urban centers is far more widespread than any magazine rating panel.  Collectively we are more eclectic in our exposure to other courses than a list of all the ussual suspect courses.  And, we at GCA debate - not just numerically rate.  Discussion of the merits of anything trumps a numbered list anytime.  We may say a course is a Doak scale 6-7-9 etc., while we also continue with a discussion of why.  That kind of information is far more instructive.  People, and architects can read the various threads and actually determine what we are thinking.  You can't do that reading a magazine list and short attendent written article introducing the newest years ranking.  

Now, Tim Liddy is a archie and he thinks GCA has a "profound" effect on design and ratings.  Doak seems more reticent to say that.  I haven't seen Jeff Brauer's work yet unfortunately, but if I understand this correctly, he has himself mentioned that he has at least utilized some retro-design concepts on a few of his most modern courses and has made a serious effort to get back to some original intent on a few remodelling jobs he has undertaken.  Did he do that as a result of reading our comments for the last several years?   I think that the mere fact that archies are keenly aware of the praise and bashing that goes on here, and grudgingly admit that there is a collective baseline of real knowledge of the subject of design, design history, and maintenance issues amongst the body of GCA posters is testimony enough that GCA has an influence.  You can decide for yourselves if it is profound, emerging, or minimal.  

But, keep this in mind.  What archies ears aren't going to perk up if he finds out a group of 40 or so ardent GCAers have planned to do an outting-gathering at that archies newest course to have a look and speak for themselves?  Some archies know the effect of that and count on it for the buzz because they are confident the design is solid.  Others, might poo-pooh such a gathering as a non-event.  We are begining to know which archies fall into which camp, I think.

[Tim Liddy]

Chipoat,

Two examples:

Colleton River, Dye Course

This is one of Dye’s best and it burns my butt that it does not get the recognition it deserves.  I hear the comments that it looks artificial, especially with raters that like very natural layouts, but I fear they cannot get beyond this to see a great piece of sculpture that represents Dye more than any of his other golf courses.

The hand built quality, great site and strategic layout is hard to grasp with just one or two rounds of golf.  I hope over time raters will revisit one of Dye’s best.


Crystal Downs

One of my favorites, and I love this golf course more than most, but the finishing holes are suspect.  It has many great, great golf holes (6, 7 and but it begs the question: why does it not finish on the lake?

[Tom_Doak]

Tim L:  Crystal Downs apparently didn't need to finish on the lake to be a pretty good course.

Why doesn't Yeamans Hall play along the marsh more?  Why doesn't Muirfield go down to the water in all those dunes they own?  If you open up that Pandora's box, we'll need a whole 'nother thread.

P.S.  That's the first comment I've heard about Colleton River that makes me want to see Pete's course, but I don't understand what it has to do with GCA's influence.

[ChipOat]

Tim Liddy:

As per Tom Doak, I'm afraid I don't understand how GCA has had a "profound influence" on how either of the 2 courses you mentioned was designed and/or is rated.

The DG has exposure, to be sure.  But profound influence may be yet to come.

When Messrs. Doak, Hanse et al begin to credit some of the thought processes from Messrs. Paul, Huckaby and Mucci as having an influence on their routings and and green complexes, THEN we'll know that Ran has helped change the world.

[larry_munger]

Mr. Oat be careful what you wish for