[Ran Morrissett]

And is it higher than a '6' on the Doak scale?

[brad_miller]

Jupiter Hills, (Hills Course) 6-7???

[Don_Mahaffey]

Mike,Your course looks very good. I am curious if you can tell me how many acres of irrigated turf the ocean course has? Thanks,

[brad_miller]

I'm sure this is the best one, Fisher's Island, you can walk and carry your own bag, but from my experience many use carts. Given the location of this property one can understand why they don't have caddies. Course is very walkable, but if you are playing 36....

[MTWilkinson]

TEPaul:Thanks for your post, except that the most fundamental of premises overrides your conclusion that "(w)hat this means to me is that some of these magazines aren't doing an adequate job of rating golf courses and their architecture.That is, of course, and you know this, the first and only goal of the various course lists isn't to an adequate job of rating golf courses, but rather to sell magazines.GCAers spend infinitely more time caring and discussing about how the rating lists are determined than the magazine folks themselves.Your other suggestion that GD have "3-4 people like Ron Whitten and send them on the road to play them all (or whatever they do)" as an alternative is scary, because I've never understood how or why Ron Whitten (or Gary Galyean, Brad Klein, or even Tom Doak when he ran GOLF's list) became an "expert" on architecture other than they have seen many, many golf courses.  Well, many of the raters (and non-raters) have, too.  Just because someone eats out alot doesn't make him a restaurant critic or someone who goes to the movies every weekend a film critic.  Ron's and Gary's, and Brad's and Tom's opinions are often times right on, and other times makes me scratch my head.  Their opinions aren't any more authoritative than yours or mine, or the many others on this site and elsewhere who have studied the subject, done the research, and travelled to and examined the courses.  And, I should say, being a practtitioner, i.e., an architect himself, doesn't qualify their opinions as expert.  Talk to 10 different architects about their opinions regarding the various courses and you would be shocked by some of their favorites and ones we think are good and they don't.  Limiting the number of GD raters to 3-4 would just significantly reduce the number in the sample leading to even worse results.When the GD list was first published as the 100 greatest from the 200 toughest, Cypress Point wasn't even in the Top 50!  And, the panel at that time has 60 to 70 very recognizable national panelists.Hopefully, over time, Kingsley and other deserving courses that have been slighted by the rating process, will be recognized beyond the irrelevant 4 corners of the various rags, in discussions among knowledgeable golfers at your club, my club, in the press rooms at tournaments, at amateur events, by some tour pros, etc. until they become part of the lexicon of great golf courses.

[TEPaul]

Routing is indeed a complex undertaking--in many ways a massive jigsaw puzzle! I think I would feel save in saying that many times a routing may very well NEED to serve a particular purpose--and there can be many of those. In other words if a routing NEEDS to return to a clubhouse in loops of nines (or other loops) than it just does. This is done for the type of club (and memberhip) the golf course serves and probably must be done or inconveniences and inherent dissatisfactions will be structured into the golf course. So there very well may be a number of "best routings" for a golf club and course depending on the purpose the routing needs to serve. If it doesn't need to serve a particular purpose in some way other than the best and most exhilitating 18 holes of golf that can be found on the property than that's a different matter. But even that needs to be analyzed to some extent to determine what kind of golf course needs to be built and for whom (the golfers). I think that's the type of routing that the contributors to this thread are thinking about. And if the course is that sort of "pure golf" or "golf walk" or "tournament golf" club and course than a whole series of separate factors come into play. But once that's established the architect is faced again with an enormous jigsaw puzzle unless the land is a blank canvas for some reason. If it happens to be that the routing is still a jigsaw puzzle but the architect has quite a bit of latitude to "make the pieces" and to be good he obviously has to make them right!But if the site has some complexity to it then he has to (or should) work with the  pieces that were there for him to find and use and arrange cleverly even if those pieces can be used with the architecture or even as par of it. The natural interest should be exposed and used but that creates additional obstacles that must be cleverly OVERCOME.I have to go but this is a fascinating subject. Mostly a golf club does have some kind of purpose though that dictates things as basic as a course's routing and that can be OK if done with the best routing for that purpose.One can dream though, and the best of all routings to me would be something on a great piece of natural golfing ground that would allow you to do something that could be courses within a course in such a way that looking at any particular course or purpose would be a bit like the inkinng of a Rohrshach test. You would look at it one way and see one thing and none other. And you could look at it another way and see something else and none other. Geo. Thomas thought of routings like this! To me that would be the ideal in all architecture! A great course in one configuration that appeared only as that---but another one that appeared only as something else when presented another way! The possibilities are endless to think about!This could be accomodating to every purpose and you would need some real luck to find a property that could handle and accomodate it! And to do it really well would be an enormous jigsaw puzzle. Matter of fact it would be jigsaw puzzles within an enormous  jisgaw puzzle, and most fascinating!

[Ran Morrissett]

Mike,You need to get to Peter O. (I'm unsure how to spell his last name!) and inform him of the changes since the Ryder Cup.When asked to compare the course to the one played in the 1991, he lacked the facts to articulate why there were so many more neat recovery shots.Good luck today and here's hoping for a fresh ocean breeze!

[BillV]

Oh RanThe "Members" all ride at Kapalua.

[T_MacWood]

TimAs I said I'm no expert, I'm just relaying my opinion, an opinion that several hundred GD panelists obviously disagrees with. I'm sure there are reasons why the course is routed the way it is, no doubt the wetlands were a major factor, perhaps the position of the clubhouse to take advantage of a view of the property, the need to bring the ninth hole back, and probably many others. Whatever the reasons, valid or invalid, the result was in my opinion awkward. I do think the land north of wetlands is the most interesting and the only way to get there is to cross wetlands at some point -- it just seemed that first crossing was overly long, it seemed to be more for effect. I wasn't fond of the numerous parallel holes near the cluhouse, the strange twist with first few holes and the ninth, if I recall correctly. I didn't understand why. You have a beautiful, albeit difficult property, and there are so many holes jammed in near the cluhouse. I wonder if the course would have benefited from a routing that didn't return after nine.The use of natural features was the most disappointing aspect. The wetlands are the most dominant feature of the property, yet they were really not untilized. And along the north there some very interesting natural ridges, but they were used more to frame the holes. And as walked along many of the fairways I had a feeling of an artificial creation, I would look into the woods and see interesting terrain -- natural ridges and ravines -- however the fairway was totally devoid of those features.The views are spectacular, however in comparison to the other courses in the area, the golf was disapointing. I wonder if Fazio toured the area courses. Cleveland courses have certain rugged quality, through the use of very interesting natural terrain, a tour may have inspired him. (Say hello to Cathy for me, she could tell you some stories that might make you think twice about a game with me)

[T_MacWood]

BillVVistas? I think you would enjoy Sand Ridge. At VN I wished there were more views of the waste piles in the field of play.RanI'm not sure if there was better routing or not, only that the current routing is awkward. The other disapointment was the bunkering, Fazio creates some very artistic bunkering, but I don't think SR are among his best. And there seemed to be holes that utilize his typical stylized bunkering, and other holes that had a million bunkers of a different style -- perhaps like Pinehurst #4 -- it seemed odd to me.

[Tim_Weiman]

Ran:Let me add some further perspective about the routing at Sand Ridge.About one third of the 360 acres is wetlands.  From the very beginning designing a course that would disturb this feature of the property as lttle as possible while presenting the beauty of the wetlands as much as possible was the priority.You might say that the priorities of the design, the routing plan, etc., all focused around the wetlands: part of the "design intent" was environmental, part was "aesthetic". Surely, one might disagree with these objectives, especially the aesthetic part.  But, there is no question Fazio was given these priorities by the club leadership.When the course opened I did a couple write ups and used two words to describe the course: kaleidoscope and cabernet.  "Kadeidoscope" refers to the changing presentation of the wetlands throughout the round."Cabernet" refers to the fact that, in my judgement, the course has a choppy start on the front nine before becoming very smooth on the back.  When Tom MacWood refers to "numerous queer twists and turns", I think he is partially correct.  On the front nine you sometimes feel like you've played 3-4 golf courses.  However, it would not be accurate to say Tom's comment fairly applies to holes 10 to 18.Routing always struck me as the most interesting part of golf course architecture, the part I wish we would devote more time to.  But, doing so is not so easy without having a lot of information about the property in question and knowing something about the many tradeoffs faced by the architect and project team.My memory of the various routing plans considered for Sand Ridge is fading, but I seem to recall that my favorite plan not selected was rejected for permitting reasons.  I also recall that it had fewer long walks than the final plan.Could a better overall compromise been achieved?  I don't know.As for the question about members riding, I would say it is mixed.  There is a pretty good caddy program and many members walk.  But, a fair number of mostly older members do ride.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom MacWood:I'm no expert either!But, one might say the failure to "utilize" the wetlands was intentional.  Permitting authorities were pretty strong about staying away from them.  When Fazio finally presented the "kaleidioscope" plan, it was very well appreciated by the permitting authorities.You mention bunkering.  Actually, I'm more disappointed by this aspect than the routing plan.  The large waste area bunkers (#2,#12 and #14) were actually part of the permitting strategy - a buffer to the wetlands.  That aside, I do not believe enough effort was put towards the aesthetic side of the other bunkers.  Boy, I would have loved to see someone like Mike DeVries do this work.  Beyond that, I believe the many bunkers on the par 5 #3, could have been placed to create more interesting strategy. Here one does find an emphasis on "framing" rather than making the player think how to play his second and third shot.  Even Dusty Murdock, who approved every detail on the golf course, agrees with me.Finally, Sand Ridge never made it to #16 on Golf Digest's rankings; the number was #55, itself a pretty amazing number. What you might be thinking about is the result of stripping away the bonus points for "tradition" and "walking".  Doing so, incredibly, put the course at #17, far higher than where the course will eventually settle out.With all the sensitivities, it is not easy for a member to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of a golf course.  With sand Ridge, I stay away from comments about its ranking and try to openly and critically discuss specific design features.  Clearly, the "presentation" is extremely well received.  The contrast, the blue grass rough (what John McMillan called "chinese water torture") receives the most complaints from people who play the course several times.

[Lou_Duran]

I think that routing, much like other facets of golf course development, has evolved in response to changed consumer demands (form follows need?).  Whereas the "Golden Age" architect had to design for walkers often on a relatively compact site, in some parts of the country today 80%+ of rounds played are on carts.  With the indisputable consumer preference for riding, and real estate development, environmental, and larger field of play requirements, the flowing, transitional, close and "comfy" routing must often be sacrificed.  This is bad for the purists and for those of us who love to walk, but for the vast majority, poorer routing is not an issue.  It does become a problem when the architect is not careful in controlling traffic and routes carts/walkers toward the line of play to reach the subsequent tee (or a green on parallel holes).  This is poor routing in any age, yet I've seen it done on a number of sites.  

[Denise Goolsby]

Sand Hills

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I have to do this quick as I'm currently in an electrical emergency mode for one of the restaurants. (Panel literally melted and I have to change it)These pictures are not the best looking pictures I have seen Pete Galea-Master Of Photography, take. I think it is more of a scan or transfer thing because they are not what I would call exactly clear.However, what makes some of these holes pertain a Rees-Jones look, is the bunkering which features that litle mini Rees-mound in each cape of each bunker. Also, another giveaway is that he combines the above mentioned look with the "Grass faced" bunker look. (Right of the top photo) So as, there are two very distinct bunkers styles on every course, at every Rees Jones course in existence (Maybe a slight exaggeration, but not by much) This doesn't do much for relating to the natural environment that a site can give. The same bunkers at Old Kinderhook in upstate New York can be found at Sand Pines near the ocean in Oregon; Nantucket and Long Island. The top pictures looks to be a prety good golf hole, but the other two just don't show a lot.One thing that seems to be missing is the tall Rees-style fescues that he frames with. Certainly after a while, people will notice that it is a disguise to make the course look more natural, even if the grass isn't native to the site. It just hits you in the face. In both seeing it in person at Sand Pines, I have seen in pictures that he has used this grass at Atlantic, Nantucket, The Bridge (right of the par three hole) and many others.I think many HAVE to start realizing how imnportant it is to design a golf course with all of the elements of natural site involved. It is the only way a golf course can fit into the environment.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tommy,Please have a look see at the much clearer pictures of OK on a thread by Scott Wood talking about Rees Jones.  It might be on the second page, but once you comment on those I'll be happy to have a discussion with you on what I find to be very different for Rees Jones on those pictures.Hope your work day went well!  

[John_McMillan]

Mike,Hopefully you've gotten some rest from last night.  Can you tell us what types of promotional efforts the Kingsley Club used in its first year?  My impression - and you certainly have more inside information than me - is that they were fairly low-key in their promotional activities.  It seemed to me they were more focused on building their membership - primarily from Detroit and Chicago area summer vacationers, and that the prototypical Kingsley Club member is not necessarily the GD top courses reader.

[THuckaby2]

I can agree with most of the above, although my thoughts on Coyote Creek have been well documented here - I don't find it all that bad.  I'm also assuming cost and access are not issues here, as they are in most of our other conversations re my home town courses...  With those caveats, here are some other ideas:1. Pasatiempo is indeed looking wonderful - you ought to go there just to see #10 - perfectly restored to late 30's configuration - stunning.  The only caaveat here remains DRAINAGE.  I hope Doak & co. have helped in this, but it's been awful for many years - just an absolute quagmire in any sort of rain.  Early December means 50/50 chance of rain here within a week or your arrival... take heed.2. I'm with everyone else, I know no one who's played The Institute.  Gib?3. Cinnabar is good fun, but don't go there expecting Olympic or Pasa... it's a brutally hard walk also.4. Cordevalle is solid - corporate golf center.  Worth a look indeed from what I hear, though I haven't cahsed the chips to see it myself yet.5. A truly fun overlooked private course in the area is San Jose CC - quirky to the max, hilly but walkable, very interesting.  Look into that if you get a chance...6. Another decent private is Almaden CC - solid, great conditions, winds though houses but still achieves a certain beauty up against gorgeous hills... also worth doing.7. The new Club at Boulder Ridge is running on thin ice... 14 members as of the last I heard... way overpriced.  I drive past it every day, haven't seen it but I'l lconcur with Jeff - others have said it's absolutely unwalkable.  Looks interesting from below...8. An interesting public course about 40 minutes max from Santa Clara is Monarch Bay, across the bay in San Leandro.  Harbottle renovation, very interesting deep sod-sided bunkers, linksy.  Also worth a look if you want to drive that far...9. And if you don't mind about 40 minutes in the opposite direction, San Juan Oaks near Hollister is decent also.  Bates/Couples, some very interesting holes, walkable, fun.10.  And though Pete is too modest to do so, I'll put ina good word for his course - Pajaro Valley.  Over the hill in Watsonville, darn high quality, great fun at a low price.  Meeting Pete is worth the drive in and of itself!Cheers!TH

[Neal_Meagher]

Bill,Are you the same Bill Ayers who once consulted with Shapell Homes on their golf courses?  If so, I believe we have met, though several years ago.  You can email me directly at nmgolf@pacbell.net if you want more info on The Institute.  I designed it.

[Ran Morrissett]

My favorite picture is the middle one but I am confused as to which hole it is - I don't think it is the 14th as the green doesn't seem to encourage the run-up shot as described by Paul?

[Ran Morrissett]

Bill, You're right - I think there are indeed members at Kapalua. Interestingly enough, we walked it one of the rounds and it worked out well. The one long walk is between 5 and 6, which was fine, because we had to wait for the 6th green to clear anyway - we had the right wind and my brother drove the 360 yard par four! The other long walk is between 9 and 10 but there is generally a back-up on 10 anyway as people stop for refreshments. All in all, a fine setting to go for a stroll.

[Ran Morrissett]

Paul, I don't know Maui to comment but I am in complete agree with the gist of what you say. In fact, other than the front at County Down, is there a better side than the back at Waterville in Ireland/N. Ireland?Maybe the front at Portrush, maybe even the front at Portstewart, maybe the front at Lahinch and maybe the back at Portmarnock are all as good but certainly none of those are clearly better.

[RJ_Daley]

The more I think about this, the more I wonder why the magazines haven't abandoned their rating systems all together and ripped off Ran and John's idea here on GCA.  With a couple of hundred courses coming on line each year, it has become somewhat of a matter of picking fly dung from pepper.  Each magazine has their parameters of rating methodology that they still "adjust" by the senior magazine editorial staff anyway.  They don't have room in the magazine issue to honestly deal with their rationale of why a course has made it to one of their lists.  Usually they only have one or two pictures and about a 500 word composition to describe new featured courses.If I were running those magazines, I would use and default to the internet to compile a list of courses in categories such as new public high end, affordable, private, and traditional, and historic or legendary and use the archive system to first post a serious article describing the course written by one of the senior established writers, then have a comments list like we have here on GCA, held to 50 words or less, to agree, disagree or bring out aspects the lead article missed.  They could be really ethical about it and not sell advertising on the sidebars related to the considered courses, resorts etc.  Just stick to equipment and non-related to course enterprises.It is just too simple and superficial in the magazine formats to put a numerical rating on a course by the multitude of raters, and then separate courses based on that data base to form a top 10 list.  With the numbers of courses being dealt with and the minute numerical separation,  one really doesn't get enough information such as one can receive in this GCA format.Ran, can you copywrite or patent this format to protect it?

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

Chris,When I played the Mag, I played it from the back tees.  I cannot think of how the course would play much different though from back there.  I though 14 and 17 were solid holes, but nothing else stands out.  It is challenging from the back tees if for no other reason then the length.

[John_McMillan]

Ran - The surprise answer to your question is Crystal Downs, and yes, it is higher than a '6' on the Doak Scale.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()