[John Mayhugh]

2. ATB...Love the idea of the non-custodians. Might get us shuttered

Why exactly would you get "shuttered?" Is there some precedent for this?

[Ronald Montesano]

I was thinking of the entire community. If we came up with a list of 147 items/courses/people/companies that are non-custodians, we all might be ostracized by the golf community (and with good reason.) A good example might be the notorious April-Fools-Prank-Gone-Wrong, Foulpointe golf club history.


Half a decade ago (or perhaps longer) Jon Cavalier posted a photo thread on Myopia Hunt Club, which had people recalling how the MHC was rumored to have asked Ran to take down a review of the course, that originally ran in the "Courses by country" section. Cavalier did not pull his thread, nor did Ran.

[David Harshbarger]

Half a decade ago (or perhaps longer) Jon Cavalier posted a photo thread on Myopia Hunt Club, which had people recalling how the MHC was rumored to have asked Ran to take down a review of the course, that originally ran in the "Courses by country" section. Cavalier did not pull his thread, nor did Ran.

The official MOH thread review is not directly available on this site.  Instead a copy can be retrieved from the web.archive.org ->
http://web.archive.org/web/20060310225950/http://www.golfclubatlas.com/myopiahunt1.html

[Kalen Braley]

I agree with John here, i don't recall any precedent for Ran taking down or otherwise removing lists.  The only stuff that gets removed is the out of bounds stuff like ugly personal attacks and the like.


I think it'd be a terrific idea to come up with a 147 non-custodians that included courses like TR and Black Rock. Where is Tom Paul and his big world theory when you need him. 

[V. Kmetz]

I agree with John here, i don't recall any precedent for Ran taking down or otherwise removing lists.  The only stuff that gets removed is the out of bounds stuff like ugly personal attacks and the like.

I think it'd be a terrific idea to come up with a 147 non-custodians that included courses like TR and Black Rock. Where is Tom Paul and his big world theory when you need him. 

KB, you're neither a lover or a hater; you're usually sober, but this is how ill social media shit is started.


Your "agree[ment]" with John is over his reaction/misconstrual to something I said, not to a truth of what was said/intended.  I'm loath to forensically re-examine the quotes in question, as most don;t care, further disagreements about what words will mean will ensue and meanwhile whole threads never talk about the thing at issue or what should be at issue.


For one last time, in the hopes that someone can take up a "beef" (if that is the lifeblood of discussion boards) and forget the semantics.


1. Ran is not an ill-spirited censor; and I never said he was. And I would know, as I have had a handful of my posts/threads taken down over the years. He is a good moderator of the site.


2. It's his control/invention, so I have been for the most part for the 18 months its been up, been silent. He can have his head, but someone put up THIS thread and I have been responding


3. My official stance, for the record, is that I wish he never put it up and gave it top tab status because:

• it leans on non-architecture/cultural bs, that, even announced,  is inscrutable, perhaps most importantly this "custodian" thing itself.
• it is list-making, which this site and its threads have proven time and time again is obscuring of in depth discussion
• that sets criterion that are violated all over the place in other chosen courses and omission of other venues
• its poster is unresponsive to the discussions/debates that it purports to foster.
• that silence doesn't invite or have a dedicated link to discussions/reactions embedded as the list is, so IF desired, the board could keep running commentary.

4. And my ultimate objection is that this (imo) hogwash about club policies should in any way influence the esteem of architecture in its utility, beauty and joy of play. I think it is presumptive and nearly a straw man debate to have arguing this list because of that. If I really want a response from Ran, it is on THAT... make the argument that a fine course/club which ONLY permits walking is any more worthy than a fine one with a cart path network that permits a tough property to be used and the greatest number of people play it....C' mon Ran make the argument that a fine course/club with a BYOB policy at anytime is better than one with a caddie program, which by their very nature require hours of subsidy.
[size=78%] [/size]


It's only an analogy, but it's akin to Ran putting out a list of best worldwide restaurants that turn out to be 90% vegan buffets, because its good for you and man subsisted on plants long ago.


Last for now is that again, if I didn't say it before 147 (though I know the self-styled place from where the number comes) is way too many...just like the Golf Digest list, I don't know whose #68 or the 7th best in state in NY from season to season... if it MUST be I'd rarther see a Desert Island list of less than 50 or fewer... that's where the tough calls come... would you put up a course at 38 if you didn't know you were going to get a vital course on it later? Does Ardfin even make the list if you weren't going to include Brora later?   If the list was only 30 or 40 deep, would you exclude Ardfin (which is #26 currently)?

[Kalen Braley]

Hey VK,

I just want to clarify that my agreement is only that Ran doesn't censor those who wish to make their own lists here.  I have no official opinion on the other things you and John went over.  So if you implied something otherwise, it was not intended.

As for the bullets in your 3rd point, I actually agree with you, and I wish Ran had been more willing to engage in why some made the list and others didn't. However, i certainly have no issue that he posted it on his site as I'm a believer in the man and his castle concept, and this is in fact his website.

Yet in the end, I do think Ran would lend more credibility to his list if he provided more context and back story.  Frank discussion and arriving at solid opinions/conclusions almost always requires lots of back and forth, not just a manifesto followed by silence.

[corey miller]

I would love to see a debate on the architectural elements of Winged Foot compared to Wykagyl.  Perhaps a separate thread? 


Why should Ran have to further defend his list when it is clearly his alone and exemplifies what he finds important? He does have eight paragraphs explaining his thought process so not sure the extent to which  it matters what others think.








 


 

[V. Kmetz]

I would love to see a debate on the architectural elements of Winged Foot compared to Wykagyl.  Perhaps a separate thread? 

• It would HAVE to be on architectural elements, as on those "custodial" elements that Ran styles, it's no contest.
• If I were charged to debate the WF side, it would be the East, not the West.
• I don't know why WF (E or W) has to exert the energy to engage and be defended against a course in a lighter weight class. In the century that both courses/clubs have existed I have not an iota's worth of evidence to think the clubs were equivalent weight classes in local reputation or tournament hosting; in architectural lineage, in popularity and reported delight in play. I've worked and played and closed up clubhouses over a beer in that neighborhood for nearly 40 years, at nearly every course in the Westchester Golf Association and prolly 70% of the Met... I have never felt or encountered a burning, passionate observation about Wykagyl...meanwhile I have encountered scores of players come off either WF course and be blown away...especially...ESPECIALLY when they were at first disappointed to be "only" be on the East, and then realized it's the more amusing challenge.

Why should Ran have to further defend his list when it is clearly his alone and exemplifies what he finds important? He does have eight paragraphs explaining his thought process so not sure the extent to which  it matters what others think.

He doesn't have to defend his list
(but someone must defend WFE vs Wykagyl? a thread which you would love to see? I wish you would love to see him defend his list and those eight paragraphs, that's would I would love to see.)

and I've stated four times in this thread alone I'm fine with his indulgence, but it's that - 147 Indulgences - the "fostering discussion" provocation is a non-sequitur.  And the eight paragraphs - and barely anything in the individual notes about the courses means that its all this cultural custodianship, which doesn't even line up with some of the venues listed.  Lastly, again  in those eight paragraphs, there's this snarky prose about...(Sorry...whomever) and the geshrie about "What's happened to our dear game?"


I restate I merely wish he didn't put it up at all, certainly not as a top tab perma-link feature ...but there it is.

[Ronald Montesano]

It was never my intent to suggest that anyone defend his/her list. It is possible to create a debate about list A, created by person A, where persons B and C mention the list without asking A to defend it. That was my hope, reaching all the way through the alphabet. I did not wish to condescend and dictate playing rules.


People have written opinion pieces under IN MY OPINION for years. I don't recall anyone ever countering or debating one of them, but I haven't paid such close attention as to confirm this 100%.


I've met Ran, not Joe nor Ben. They are wonderful people, who have provided this special place for us. The Discussion Group has evolved since it began in the late 1990s. Some have stuck around, others have left, still more have passed on to the next life. I joined in the late 2000s, so I've been around for 10 years or so. It is important to me, in any environment, to encourage and participate in healthy debate.


Let this thread be about the custodians elaborated in the list: do you agree with its members? would you remove some to add others? This is a healthy exercise, of which I approve.

[corey miller]

Ran has eight paragraphs describing what he values and then he has eight bullet points....


I think V Kmetz has already stated WF is a better puzzle to solve than Wykagyl and that it is more firm but what of the six other criteria?  Is it that much of a walkover? 

[JESII]

VK,


Perhaps it's the constant chase WF is embedded in that turns off someone like Ran...it does me. I know both courses, but not intimately. I do not know Wykagl at all.


The fact that they agree to rip up an entire hole on the East course in order to park VIP tents exhibits just the attitude I'd like to avoid in my limited golf travels.


And I agree that the two WF courses are absolutely off the charts. I think Ran's list touches on things beyond the weight classes you reference and I suspect the comfort in plowing under some of one course in pursuit of the National Open exemplifies a different agenda that would not be seen as Custodial...


But, to Corey's point, many would love to hear a coherent argument from you on Winged Foots virtues as compared to Wykagl.

[V. Kmetz]

Jim...All...


All that's happening is round and round...and no one wants to read that... if I say that this 147 has flawed, tangential, subjective criteria that have no place in the architectural bona fides that this site has earned, someone says, "but he announces this," or "its Ran's board."  So there's no where to go


If I say courses on the list seemingly defy those eight paragraphs of his own (imo flawed) custodial view, and bring up one local example of comparative omission, I am asked/invited/desired to provide a defense of Winged Foot East/West as a better course...Corey is even keeping a tally of Ran's explications to which I have already responded. Well I'm keeping tally of Ran's responses to critiques such as mine and they are nil.  So, there's no where to go.


And now good and usually sober stalwart Jim is even given to say that WF must be a poor custodian of the game because they will plow under the East for the cred and coin of hosting a national event.  Jim, you realize they put it back exactly (and I mean exactly) as it was and a few months later, no one playing in an Anderson or a  2-day M/G or as an outing participant or you can tell...


 ... and do you realize that the last time they accepted Caesar's silver pieces for an Open, it was the first piece of underwriting for the most dramatic and unanimously-lauded Hanse restoration of the East, and the first piece of like an 8 phase/10 year plan in which the entire WF campus, both courses, clubhouse, maintenance facility, dormitories and service structures has been renovated, updated and in good shape physically for perhaps as many as the next 50 years.


Isn't that good, wise, economically practicable custodianship...to trade a hosting headache and tarpaulin and big machinery over 8 months,  and you get an infusion of funds to launch needed capital projects while your "brand" recirculates in the public, which allows outings to be filled and more money to be charged in guest fees? 


I mean Jesus Christ in his wisdom may still return and claim the uber-class who populate all these clubs, but the WF facility will be there long after the smell of brimstone and cries of mercy have subsided.


Last, so Jim or someone can get that bloodsport of a GCA discussion that they long to hear from my keys... Ran.... or anyone who knows Wykagyl:


Is there one fucking thing that is the best at Wykagyl that isn't equaled, exceeded or blown by 3x at WFE...best/memorable green? best/memorable hole? best stretch? best par 3s? best par 4s? better walk? firmest/fastest?

[Garland Bayley]

Vinnie,

I just reread his criteria. Seems there may be some in that list that rules out WF. Over manicured perhaps? Spending money to tear it up, and then recreate an exact replica could be over manicuring.

Perhaps the simplest explanation is he's never been there. To make the list he has to have seen it.

I'll watch for Vinnie 's 100 architectural wonders, which would be a more productive use of you time than grousing about Ran's list.

[Jeff Loh]

By that logic then Wykagyl is off if they host a U.S. Open??
Please don't tell me it's about "how" they host it...

[corey miller]

The belief that Winged Foot hosting a high status tournament (that makes money) is somehow a detriment is a little silly.  I think Vinnie hit on all the "good" that that does for the club. 


I suppose we could argue on how hosting influences daily set-up...?


The list itself is Ran's and he lists what is important to him...I guess Vinnie would feel better if we heard that "carrying a bag" was 10% of the equation and being able to "walk briskly" 25%?  Isn't that what makes the (golfweek, golf digest) other lists faulty?


Ran lists eight criteria important to him....for me...applying those criteria...Rockaway Hunting "beats" all the Westchester courses on his list and Winged Foot as well?  Perhaps for Ran,  Rockaway would fit on his list even before Winged Foot?

Should I get a golf club "throw-down" between Rockaway and Wykagyl with Ran?  My own club Sleepy Hollow is on the list and IMO there is no way it surpasses Rockaway based on Ran's criteria.


Heck, I applaud Winged Foot for being the best it can be....but for too many years every club in the met area was trying to be like winged foot with the tree plantings, high rough, narrow fairways, bunker style, difficulty etc etc.  They were worse for it.


My personal opinion is that perhaps Ran has subconsciously given "extra-credit" (I do) to those clubs that have changed and have attempted to be different in the area?  It does not apply to Fenway, or Ridgewood, or Bethpage,or Baltusrol, or quaker Ridge (that were all bettered by restorations)  but it does apply to Sleepy Hollow and Wykagyl and Whipporwill and others even those a little removed like Rockaway Hunting or Huntington or St George?


Vinnie is spoiled by Winged Foot...do you understand how much worse the latter group of courses are when they try to derive anything from the architecture at Winged Foot?  When a member comes back having loved Winged Foot and attempts to emulate the same things on the home course?


Perhaps it is not fair (though why does my opinion or my own custodians of the game matter?) but I hold Winged Foot in lower regard, not for anything they have done (they have only attempted to be as good as they can be) but rather the negative influence they have traditionally had on other Metro area parkland courses.


I have had "debates" with Vinnie that have been far from polite...I will take my share of the responsibility and apologize but I truly do want to engage in this debate with a person that knows and loves Winged Foot.  I think Winged Foot (sub-air system, usga greens?) is miles from being a "custodian".  Best course in Westchester or metro area? Fine... but they have and they will continually have (through no fault of their own, through only pursuing what is best for the club)  a negative influence on the other non-Tillinghast clubs in the area. Not a custodian any more than Augusta or Merion are. 


 

[V. Kmetz]

CM and all,


I appreciate the collegial and civil tone, it's been deficient in other debates we've had and i too own my share of it.


I suppose when it gets down to it, it's that these values (though announced) are contained in Ran's mind and therefore inscrutable...


And I will take up Winged Foot as "my idea of a custodian" perhaps later in the week, but just for now...


1. Wykagyl HAS policies about caddie usage til the afternoon...you're not free to just walk out to the first tee
2. Wkyagyl is not as flat or walkable as either Winged Foot course...it's by no means a grind, but it's not the equivalent of Winged Foot (many are not)...thsi also calls into question the playability at age criteria.


3. And conspicuous maintenance - at Royal Melbourne during the Prez Cup they mentioned several times about the HAND CLIPPING OF BUNKER EDGES and a handful of laborious (yes, conspicuous) maintenance practices...not just for the tournament.


I can (if I wanted) could get the 2019 ,maintenance budget for TWO WF courses.... can Ran get that for Royal Melbourne?  If so, let;s compare.


cheers   vk

[Ira Fishman]

Who will lose sleep over what Ran thinks about a particular course? The 147 Custodians represent a fun and intriguing exercise. Nothing more or less. The golf world will continue to turn regardless.


Ira

[V. Kmetz]

Who will lose sleep over what Ran thinks about a particular course? The 147 Custodians represent a fun and intriguing exercise. Nothing more or less. The golf world will continue to turn regardless.

Ira

I haven't lost any sleep... and I only commented because there's this thread... its fun and intriguing for Ran (I guess)... the site used to be more free of these imposed artifices of personal style and more about what goes into good architecture... there's less of that now and this is one example of tangent inscrutable opinion filling air time.


vk

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Who will lose sleep over what Ran thinks about a particular course? The 147 Custodians represent a fun and intriguing exercise. Nothing more or less. The golf world will continue to turn regardless.

Nobody has said it's an issue of national importance. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed, because if that was the case, and the standard applied to everything here, the forum would see about ten posts per year.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but point-missing is running rampant here, IMO.

[Ira Fishman]

Who will lose sleep over what Ran thinks about a particular course? The 147 Custodians represent a fun and intriguing exercise. Nothing more or less. The golf world will continue to turn regardless.

Nobody has said it's an issue of national importance. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed, because if that was the case, and the standard applied to everything here, the forum would see about ten posts per year.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but point-missing is running rampant here, IMO.

I agree that it should be discussed. But in an earlier post, I noted that other than Ron’s original post, no one has offered alternative criteria. Most of the debate has been about why WF was not included. That is a fine point to debate. However, it is not as interesting as a debate about the criteria themselves. Now, VK has objected to the concept of “Custodian” itself which also is worthy of debate. But neither he nor anyone else has proposed a different Organizing Principle, Criteria for Such a Principle, or Courses that Satisfy Such Criteria.


As I previously noted in support of Ron’s initial point, Ran’s list is not consistent with the criterion of a club not pursuing trappings. There are a lot of clubs on the list that are built for or cater to the economically elite. I either would revise that criterion or the list.


Ira

[V. Kmetz]

I agree that it should be discussed. But in an earlier post, I noted that other than Ron’s original post, no one has offered alternative criteria. Most of the debate has been about why WF was not included. That is a fine point to debate. However, it is not as interesting as a debate about the criteria themselves. Now, VK has objected to the concept of “Custodian” itself which also is worthy of debate. But neither he nor anyone else has proposed a different Organizing Principle, Criteria for Such a Principle, or Courses that Satisfy Such Criteria.

Ira

I always objected to the custodian concept, the custodian concept as defined by Ran, and this site (historically) has been chock full of alternative/subjective criteria for evaluating courses - ARCHITECTURALLY... not the CULTURE of clubs where the courses are in situ. If my objections weren't known or announced before, it is because I've been willign to give Ran his head as proprietor and all that, but Ron's thread and the first pieces of discussion gave me the quarter.


Not WF and Wykagyl is indeed a fine point, but apt because they are about 1.5 miles from one another, and Wykagyl violates some of the canons and comparsions found in Ran's 8 paragraphs...and no one...and I mean no one ever thought of custodian and thought Wykagyl before several clubs in that same neignborhood... until Ran.


No disrespect intended but my meter is running out on this...(ran out, perhaps) but it's darn silly to respond in kind to a criteria one thinks is specious, presumptive and thus nearly as OT as a post the site founder can make.

[Sean_A]

VK

It is better to come up with your subjective criteria which includes your beloved WF than rail on about Ran's criteria and result. Nobody will completely agree with another list and the underpinnings of those lists.

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean - I don't know for sure, but I think VK is not so much questioning the specific criteria for custodianship as he is the very concept of custodianship itself. I've been letting this thread roll around in my head for a while, and I think that's what it comes down to for me: I simply don't want a 'custodian of the game', and so debating the criteria is, for me, besides the point -- even when (indeed, especially when) that criteria comes from an eminently likable and decent fellow like Ran. I find myself too much in agreement with him/his tastes, which makes it even harder to step back and say 'wait a minute' -- as in, wait a minute: the USGA for decades fancied itself a custodian of the game; and in their heart or hearts I imagine the men of the Masters have also seen themselves that way; and in years past the Golf Digests of the world also tried to play that 'meta role', with a list that for a long time was called (something like) America's 100 Toughest Tests. (It took golf architecture 40 years to get past/shake off that kind of 'custodianship'.) The game simply doesn't need a custodian, no matter how many people have/will continue to volunteer themselves for that role. And as I say: that I happen to agree with this particular custodian (and set of criterion for custodianship) only makes me more wary of the concept as a whole. The very charm of the game, i.e. its almost infinitely varied fields of play, and the very soul of the game, i.e. that young and old alike, rich and poor, skilled and beginner can all find their own particular ways to play a golf hole/course, all suggest the value of differences and the spirit of freedom that the game of golf inculcates and celebrates. Coming up with a list/criteria for those who 'get it right' seems to me directly contrary to those values and spirit.
P       

[Ronald Montesano]

https://www.clearviewgolfclub.com/reneepowell

[Sean_A]

Pietro

Your point is well made. I basically think of Ran's list as many of his favourites which he “justifies" with criteria important to him. The name of the list is imo unfortunate, but not one which I take literally or seriously. For one, custodians are people not courses. It doesn't make much sense to me to list courses which have severe restriction policies or cost a bomb to play if being a Custodian is at it's essence about playing golf. How custodial can a course be with under X number of rounds per year?

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()