[SL_Solow]

Ben,  I hesitate to get involved with you again because nothing ever changes.  But here you have engaged in character assassination of someone who has been very good for the game in general and architecture in particular.  He is someone who has done so largely because he enjoys the process and has the wherewithal to indulge his interest.  He is also someone who I have the good fortune of knowing and with whom I have had the pleasure of discussing GCA and playing a few rounds from time to time.  In my capacity working with Golf Associations I have first hand knowledge of charitable activities.  I could not care one whit about Mike's inclusion in a Hall of Fame.  But I do care when an architectural wannabe without any demonstrated qualifications or achievement engages in personal attacks just to make a point.  On what basis do you make any of your assertions?`  Suggesting that those who do not agree with you are "elitists" doesn't cut it, you don't know many of us or what we have done.  So let's focus on a few facts for a change.

   1.  Ravisloe is a nice golf course in an area which has too many courses for the demand.  I know this because I grew up 10 minutes away and continue to be involved in the administration of golf in the area.

    2.  Do not assume that Ravisloe is doing very well currently.  If the housing market comes back in the South Suburbs, we'll find out whether the course ( or for that matter several other privates in the area) survives.  Certainly your not suggesting that anyone should take on a failed enterprise because you think the architecture is good and you presume the LPGA would hold a tournament.  Incidentally, the LPGA has been in and out of the Chicago market for years and never gained any traction.  They are trying again this year at OFCC and many of us will be volunteering.

    3.  Mike has never bought an existing course.  Why should he start now?  The observation about building on sand is quite accurate and disqualifies Ravisloe.  It doesn't make other courses "bad", he just has ideas about what he wants to do.

   4.  On the architectural side, Mike changed the landscape in this country.  When the excesses of the housing market courses were in full swing, Mike chose David Kidd, an unknown, to build his first course.  He chose the young and promising Tom Doak to build his second course.  He selected Coore and Crenshaw for the third. Mike  encouraged the development of Jim Urbina.  Should I go on?  I submit that as much as anyone else who is not an architect, Mike helped change the direction of GCA in the USA.  Moreover, if you talk to the architects, his innate sense for when they might be going too far helped create products that worked.

  5.  Has he made money?  I presume so and why not.  But I can tell you from first hand knowledge that when he started Bandon, that was not his principle objective or expectation.  The fact that he did so well probably encouraged the additional projects and we should all be grateful for that.

    6.  As for the social consciousness issue, if you knew anything about the Evans Scholars, the CDGA Foundation, the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago and others, you would be ashamed that you raised the issue. Perhaps not; that assumes a certain sense of fairness.

Mike and I are not good friends, we are acquaintances.  I suspect that on numerous political issues we have significant disagreements.  But your statements are more than unfair,  they are completely divorced from reality.

Ben, I think I get it.  You are very passionate about this topic and you find it necessary to strike back when challenged.  I suggest that sometimes its better to remain silent and try to absorb what others say, particularly when they have first hand knowledge.  Then draw your own conclusions.  But if you want to be taken seriously you had best consider carefully what you say in a public forum.  Posts like this make it difficult to take seriously what you say in other contexts where you may have something valuable to contribute.

I await your reasoned response.

[J_ Crisham]

Shel,
    Nice post- I completely forgot about the 10 Million the Keisers donated last year to The Rehab Institute. The work they do there is life changing to so many patients.

[Mike_Young]

I like what Mike Keiser has done for golf and I like his projects.  I would assume he is not one who is worried if he enters the Golf HOF or not.  I am assuming there were past developers who contributed such as The Pebble Beach Company,  RTJ Trail, Donald Trump and others who have developed multiple projects to promote golf whether we like them or not.  Even Dick Youngscap would have to be considered for that risk...Anyway, I have no problem with Mike Keiser going in the HOF. 

[Terry Lavin]

A hospital somewhere in SE Michigan is missing its stool sample.


On the merits, I'm quite sure MK doesn't care. He's changed high end resort public golf more than anybody in memory. And he did it with balls and humility and excellence. Mike is a friend and we could not be more opposite politically. I hope to never meet the "wrong" Ben Cowan (the real guy is a 10), but even if I agree with this other guy's POV from time to time, he doesn't know shit about opening, running, designing or maintaining a real golf course.


Ravisloe?  Are you shitting me?  I've played there 100 times and I don't miss it even though it's still open. I miss the scene, all my buddies, aka, the Jews That Booze and all of the hilarity that we had for all those years. But even in its prime Ravisloe was never a Top 30 course in Chicago, great place it was and even after Esler measurably improved it.


Mike Keiser is a real man. You're nothing but a cipher. Grab the dictionary to find out what that means. In the meantime, have a craft beer or three. You'll feel smarter.

[BCowan]

     My elitist views?

Jack/Shel,

    Jack, I apologize for calling your views elitist.  I did not mean for this to be about MK's character.  I stated my opinion  earlier too harshly but stand by my initial post.  The harshness was the beer talking, apologies.   

Happy Holidays....       

[Wayne_Freedman]

What has he done to further the game compared with others?


The answer to this large question is in the answer to that question.


I am with Joel on this .


The man has vision, and risked a lot to make it a reality.


If his courses are HOF, why not the man who conjured them?

[PCCraig]

This thread is beyond ridiculous...

[Tim_Cronin]

He is someone who has done so largely because he enjoys the process and has the wherewithal to indulge his interest.  He is also someone who I have the good fortune of knowing and with whom I have had the pleasure of discussing GCA and playing a few rounds from time to time.  In my capacity working with Golf Associations I have first hand knowledge of charitable activities.  I could not care one whit about Mike's inclusion in a Hall of Fame.  But I do care when an architectural wannabe without any demonstrated qualifications or achievement engages in personal attacks just to make a point.  On what basis do you make any of your assertions?`  Suggesting that those who do not agree with you are "elitists" doesn't cut it, you don't know many of us or what we have done.  So let's focus on a few facts for a change.

   1.  Ravisloe is a nice golf course in an area which has too many courses for the demand.  I know this because I grew up 10 minutes away and continue to be involved in the administration of golf in the area.

    2.  Do not assume that Ravisloe is doing very well currently.  If the housing market comes back in the South Suburbs, we'll find out whether the course ( or for that matter several other privates in the area) survives.  Certainly your not suggesting that anyone should take on a failed enterprise because you think the architecture is good and you presume the LPGA would hold a tournament.  Incidentally, the LPGA has been in and out of the Chicago market for years and never gained any traction.  They are trying again this year at OFCC and many of us will be volunteering.

    3.  Mike has never bought an existing course.  Why should he start now?  The observation about building on sand is quite accurate and disqualifies Ravisloe.  It doesn't make other courses "bad", he just has ideas about what he wants to do.

   4.  On the architectural side, Mike changed the landscape in this country.  When the excesses of the housing market courses were in full swing, Mike chose David Kidd, an unknown, to build his first course.  He chose the young and promising Tom Doak to build his second course.  He selected Coore and Crenshaw for the third. Mike  encouraged the development of Jim Urbina.  Should I go on?  I submit that as much as anyone else who is not an architect, Mike helped change the direction of GCA in the USA.  Moreover, if you talk to the architects, his innate sense for when they might be going too far helped create products that worked.

  5.  Has he made money?  I presume so and why not.  But I can tell you from first hand knowledge that when he started Bandon, that was not his principle objective or expectation.  The fact that he did so well probably encouraged the additional projects and we should all be grateful for that.

    6.  As for the social consciousness issue, if you knew anything about the Evans Scholars, the CDGA Foundation, the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago and others, you would be ashamed that you raised the issue. Perhaps not; that assumes a certain sense of fairness.

Mike and I are not good friends, we are acquaintances.  I suspect that on numerous political issues we have significant disagreements.

Huzzah! Well said.

[Ian Mackenzie]

In a word: No.


I live in Chicago, I know MK, my wife served on the RIC board with him. It would be easy for me to say "yes".
But, let's look at the criteria and the existing inductees:


http://www.worldgolfhalloffame.org/induction/criteria/


Of 155 members, there are NO developers currently and over 20,000 courses globally. There are 4 categories under which one may be inducted: Male competitor, Female competitor, Veteran category and "Lifetime Achievement".


MK would fall into the last category whose definition states:


"To be considered for selection in the Lifetime Achievement category, an individual must have contributed to the game significantly in areas outside of the competitive arena (ie. administrator, course architect, innovator, instructor, media, etc.)"


Sure a case can be made. But, of the 155 current "members" of this elite club, there are but 7 true architects (Mackenzie, Ross, CBM, Tilly, Braid, Dye, etc.)and no sign of Bill Coore, Tom Doak or even RTJ. Yes, there is Jack, Arnie, Gary Player, etc. all who obviously are GCAs, but whose main acclaim is "on course" not off - just like Norman, Faldo, etc.


But....developer? Really...? Vision, balls and money have to be certainly respected. But, as stated above, then add Trump, Kohler and Del Webb....;-)....to that list. I'm sure there were plenty of Scottish landowners who facilitated the visions of Braid/OTM, etc. Where are they?


MK found the land, or an associate/broker found it. But it was the on-site teams that created the product. Let's see CC, Fazio and RGD get their due before the "money men" get theirs.

[Ronald Montesano]

Remember that time when MacKenzie, Doak, Ross, Coore, Travis, Strantz, RTJ1, MacDonald, Colt, RTJ2 ... put up their own money and built that great golf course?


Funny, neither do I.


That's the flaw, Ian. Without the money men, there is no single golf course. And this particular money man was hands-on in the best way possible, every time. He even had the foresight to say to Coore, this may be the best piece of land at Bandon, but because it's not on the water, it won't get the same recognition. Stick with me and we'll go places (my words, not his.)

In an era of great compromise, he has not.

That's good faith. That's HOF.

MK found the land, or an associate/broker found it. But it was the on-site teams that created the product. Let's see CC, Fazio and RGD get their due before the "money men" get theirs.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Remember that time when MacKenzie, Doak, Ross, Coore, Travis, Strantz, RTJ1, MacDonald, Colt, RTJ2 ... put up their own money and built that great golf course?


Funny, neither do I.


That's the flaw, Ian. Without the money men, there is no single golf course. And this particular money man was hands-on in the best way possible, every time. He even had the foresight to say to Coore, this may be the best piece of land at Bandon, but because it's not on the water, it won't get the same recognition. Stick with me and we'll go places (my words, not his.)

In an era of great compromise, he has not.

That's good faith. That's HOF.

MK found the land, or an associate/broker found it. But it was the on-site teams that created the product. Let's see CC, Fazio and RGD get their due before the "money men" get theirs.

Ok, I'll bite on the logic.It seems fair and well-reasoned, Ronald.


Let's just pick a number and say that golf has been growing in the UK since the latter part of the 19th century and, in NA, since the early part of the 20th century. "Money men" have come and gone. 100-150 years of course development to look back on.


Why now? Why MK? What about all the others who came before? They all took risks. Who owned the land at Pebble, CPC and MPCC before the ODGs arrived?


Yes, I see it....Bandon, Barnbougle, Cabot, Sand Valley and perhaps Coul Links. Incredible and world-class for sure.
But, as MK will tell you, he did not FIND these properties, he received "the phone call" from someone who did.


Why not Kemper Sports founders?
Why not, as said before, the Tufts family?


I'm open to the thesis you are detailing, but merely want to know, after 150 years, why should "they" NOW consider a developer?

[William_G]

World golf HOF. 


That's unfair to criticize him for profiting for building a world class resort.

+1

why the sour grapes Steve Lang??



also I sometimes get the sense from some PGA club pros they have an inherent resentment against owners/developers

have a great day if you want to

William_G,


No need to be snarky, but "if you want to", ignore my Reply#5.


Sour grapes?  Are you kidding?  I'll leave that for those in the golf business.  I simply have fun playing golf and enjoying gca interests, no illusions of grandeur here.


Regards,
s   

no snark intended, and despite one's perception, your reply has no impact on my day

"Frankly, perhaps in "The Art of Getting Money" from retail golfers.", this quote is a bit demeaning IMO, and I'm still wondering why the sour grapes about success in golf development?

Simple question or am I not reading this properly?

Thank you Mike Keiser

[Tom_Doak]

When it comes to Halls of Fame, it's often not what you know but "who you know."  To that end, here's the current committee that votes on induction:


Nancy Lopez
Jack Nicklaus
Gary Player
Annika Sorenstam
Keith Pelley European Tour
Mike Whan LPGA
Pete Bevacqua PGA of America
Tim Finchem PGA Tour
Will Jones The Masters
Martin Slumbers R & A
Mike Davis USGA
Iain Carter Association of Golf Writers
Jeff Babineau GWAA
Brian Thorburn PGA of Australia
Ivan Khodabakhsh Ladies European Tour
John Hopkins, golf writer




Other than Mike Davis, how many of them know Mr. Keiser personally?  I think you need 12 votes out of 16.


I'd guess it's an uphill battle for anyone in the Lifetime Achievement category, other than Tim Finchem, who's a shoo-in of course.

[William_G]

When it comes to Halls of Fame, it's often not what you know but "who you know."  To that end, here's the current committee that votes on induction:


Nancy Lopez
Jack Nicklaus
Gary Player
Annika Sorenstam
Keith Pelley European Tour
Mike Whan LPGA
Pete Bevacqua PGA of America
Tim Finchem PGA Tour
Will Jones The Masters
Martin Slumbers R & A
Mike Davis USGA
Iain Carter Association of Golf Writers
Jeff Babineau GWAA
Brian Thorburn PGA of Australia
Ivan Khodabakhsh Ladies European Tour
John Hopkins, golf writer




Other than Mike Davis, how many of them know Mr. Keiser personally?  I think you need 12 votes out of 16.


I'd guess it's an uphill battle for anyone in the Lifetime Achievement category, other than Tim Finchem, who's a shoo-in of course.

Thank you Tom,

I think everyone on that committee has a healthy appreciation for golf development internationally, and what it takes(2 big hairy ones)

To my eye, if a vote was taken, Mr. Keiser would be approved and he would care less.

[Kalen Braley]

Ian Mackenzie,


Very interesting thoughts on the subject...and I think you're exactly right.  If we're going to include the money men, even if they have vision as Mike K very much does, I think its a slippery slope.  With the hundreds of other excellent courses that have been built, does this mean we posthumously include the money men for the Golden Age courses as well?


P.S.  On a side note, let it be known a mind was changed on GCA.com.      At the start of this thread I thought to myself of course Mike K should be inducted into the GHOF!

[Tom_Doak]

When it comes to Halls of Fame, it's often not what you know but "who you know."  To that end, here's the current committee that votes on induction:


Nancy Lopez
Jack Nicklaus
Gary Player
Annika Sorenstam

Thank you Tom,

I think everyone on that committee has a healthy appreciation for golf development internationally, and what it takes(2 big hairy ones)

To my eye, if a vote was taken, Mr. Keiser would be approved and he would care less.

William:


Maybe you should invite the first four out to Bandon Dunes.  I don't think any of them have ever been there.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Ian Mackenzie,


Very interesting thoughts on the subject...and I think you're exactly right.  If we're going to include the money men, even if they have vision as Mike K very much does, I think its a slippery slope.  With the hundreds of other excellent courses that have been built, does this mean we posthumously include the money men for the Golden Age courses as well?


P.S.  On a side note, let it be known a mind was changed on GCA.com.      At the start of this thread I thought to myself of course Mike K should be inducted into the GHOF!

While I was not necessarily trying to convert one's view, I found the subject matter interesting enough to just ask some questions.

Cheers, Kalen.

[Joe Hancock]

.

[Mike_Young]

After looking at TD's list of voters....I don't see it as a question of should he be in the HOF as much as can he be elected into the HOF?   

[Kalen Braley]

After looking at TD's list of voters....I don't see it as a question of should he be in the HOF as much as can he be elected into the HOF?   

Mike,


I think being electable isn't even the question here as I don't think he would even likely appear on the ballot.


However...that didn't stop Donald Trump!! 

[Mike Wagner]

In a word: No.

Of 155 members, there are NO developers currently and over 20,000 courses globally. There are 4 categories under which one may be inducted: Male competitor, Female competitor, Veteran category and "Lifetime Achievement".

But....developer? Really...? Vision, balls and money have to be certainly respected. But, as stated above, then add Trump, Kohler and Del Webb....;-)....to that list. I'm sure there were plenty of Scottish landowners who facilitated the visions of Braid/OTM, etc. Where are they?

The difference:  Mr. Keiser has done what he's done without the intent of a professional tournament or to sell homes.  It matters.  He's a friend to amateur golf and that matters big time.


In my book, he already qualifies ... and he's not done yet ..

[Ian Mackenzie]

In a word: No.

Of 155 members, there are NO developers currently and over 20,000 courses globally. There are 4 categories under which one may be inducted: Male competitor, Female competitor, Veteran category and "Lifetime Achievement".

But....developer? Really...? Vision, balls and money have to be certainly respected. But, as stated above, then add Trump, Kohler and Del Webb....;-)....to that list. I'm sure there were plenty of Scottish landowners who facilitated the visions of Braid/OTM, etc. Where are they?

The difference:  Mr. Keiser has done what he's done without the intent of a professional tournament or to sell homes.  It matters.  He's a friend to amateur golf and that matters big time.


In my book, he already qualifies ... and he's not done yet ..

I agree with that sentiment, Mike, and if you and I were voters and set the criteria he would be in next ballot. Plus, like others have said, Mike would probably not care. I saw him at a party in September where he was honored for a VERY substantial donation and he was not really that comfortable with the accolades and attention.


My point was less objectively about Mike Keiser and more about the concept of admitting developers in general. My second post expanded on that. Your premise about "homes and tournaments" is one that resonates with me personally, but then at what point do you draw the line and with what set of objective and repeatable criteria?


Yes, we all agree that he's a GCA favorite for unanimous and immediate admission. But, sadly, as Tom points out, and as evidenced by historic inductees, it's not likely.


Kind of like the "Golf Digest Top 100" vs the GCA list....;-)

[Steve Lang]

Yes, thank you Mike Keiser.


He's said he'll keep on building links until he dies or runs out of money, which ever comes first.  Great spirit and I look forward to enjoying his and sons' efforts and winning gca formula, where "America meets Scotland."


Will he ever develop something not on sand?

[George Pazin]

My point was less objectively about Mike Keiser and more about the concept of admitting developers in general. My second post expanded on that.

Kind of sad that a Tim Finchem is a shoo-in, but there is a question about a developer. Any developer, for that matter.


Slippery slope? Isn't that what being a HOF voter is all about? The whole notion of a HOF is all about slippery slopes and defining who stays up and who slides down.


In the end, MK likely doesn't care. What is really sad is how few do seem to care. And that's not directed at you, Ian, just a comment in general.


If there's a place for PGA directors in the golf HOF, and announcers in other sports HOFs, etc., surely there can be a spot for a developer in the golf HOF.

[Sean_A]

HoF?  Golf HoF?  It doesn't much matter to me beyond the players, but even with this I don't need a HoF to determine for me who was important/great and who wasn't.  If the HoF isn't for those involved in the game, who is it for?  Fans?  I don't care and I doubt if many do care who is in or out.  So if Keiser allegedly doesn't care about the HoF, then he shouldn't be in.  Afterall, its about honouring that person...nobody else. 


Ask Doak if he cared about being elected to HoFs...I think he was elected to a Michigan one of some sort.  I bet he will say it was a cool honour even if he didn't give it much thought prior.  In other words, I bet he was honoured...which is the entire point.



Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()