[Geoff_Shackelford]

After perusing the 2004 Golfweek lists, I have a couple of questions.

1. What is it about Southern Highlands’ design that makes it worthy of its debut at #84 in the US Modern (note: no need to cite the complimentary wine list and free Pro-V1s, I already understand those gifts were well received by all the panelists attending the Las Vegas raters event)?

2. Considering it only opened in September, how did enough people get out to rate Wintonbury Hills, the #1 public access course in Connecticut?  

Cheers!  
Geoff

[Tommy Williamsen]

Geoff,

I can't speak for GOLF WEEK panelists, but when I was there to rate the course a year ago for GOLF DIGEST, I was treated cordially but given neither wine nor golf balls. 
In response to your point, Southern Highlands is a well conditioned course with a world class clubhouse and a top 1000 course.  That isn't bad considering the number of courses in the USA.  No way is it in the top 100.  It isn't even in the top five in Las Vegas.

[Gary_Smith]

Geoff,

I can't speak for GOLF WEEK panelists, but when I was there to rate the course a year ago for GOLF DIGEST, I was treated cordially but given neither wine nor golf balls.  
In response to your point, Southern Hills is a well conditioned course with a world class clubhouse and a top 1000 course.  That isn't bad considering the number of courses in the USA.  No way is it in the top 100.  It isn't even in the top five in Las Vegas.

Maybe the panelists got confused and rated the wine instead of the golf course.  

[Jim_Michaels]

Gee, I smell a little BM, Geoff.  Brad Manipulation that is. How surprising. If Brad is involved, I guess it helps the ranking a wee bit.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Geoff,

I was wondering the same thing about The Bear's Club at
# 70 and Caves Valley at # 93.

I often wonder if regionalism isn't the culprit.

How many raters who live in Oregon get to rate courses in Massachussetts or Florida and vice versa.

It may be the "big fish in a small pond" syndrome at work, and not the fault of any group of raters, rather the demographic distribution of the raters.

This is an issue I brought to the attention of Golfweek many years ago, and it's a tough one to solve.

[Tom_Doak]

Did Apache Stronghold crawl back into the list this time?  Or was it even eligible?  How would one tell?

[T_MacWood]

I'm a little surprised that Tobacco Road and Rustic Canyon did not make the list. I'm not certain how the votes are tabulated, but I suspect if you threw out the two or three highest and lowest scores for these courses they would both be in the top 100. In fact that would be an interesting exercize to see what impact it might have on the entire ranking--my guess is that it would have more impact on the modern list.

PS: The add for the Hilton in the back is something else. That course must be a real bitch...playing out of bunker across an inlet--that looks like its a half mile wide--to what must be the biggest green in the Caribean (is that the tee or is he playing an approach). I feel sorry for the houses just below the green. Incoming!

[Steve Lapper]

Black Mesa did not make the top 100 Modern?

Am I missing something?

With courses like Southern Highlands, Powder Horn, Lake Las Vegas in and others like Atlantic ,Galloway, Mayacama, and Kinloch rated so high...it seems rather blatant that these guys are voting for show over substance.

I too wonder how the Connecticut list was made.? Maybe Brad ought to be removed from that consideration? Just a little conflict on interest, don't you think?

[Chris Pike]

Geoff:

Connecticut just doesn't have that many great public courses.  I haven't seen that Golfweek issue yet, but I assume that Great River, Richter Park, and Fox Hopyard all joined Wintonbury Hills on that list.  Having played all of the aforementioned courses (some several times), I am of the opinion that they are all interchangeable on any ranking list.  I like some aspects of each course, but, as a whole, no one course stands out above the rest.  I also agree that it would have been difficult for the raters to have played Wintonbury Hills, considering both that it opened in September and we had an abbreviated Fall golf season here in Connecticut.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

I thought you were a fan of Caves Valley?  Or am I mistaken?

From the tone of your post, would you also consider The Bear's Club as overrated?

[Brad Klein]

Most of these question will be readily answered just by looking at the best public access/resort lists on a state-by-state basis that we published in the same issue. You'll see that Rustic Canyon and Tobacco Road did very well in California and N.C., respectively.

The whole process of voting and collating votes (250+ raters registered 32,500 votes) on the Excel spreadsheets is carefuly scrutinized by the Golfweek adminstration staff in Orlando and we simply print out the list from the results. I don't agree with all of the judgments that are yielded but I do have complete faith in the process. Any attempt by critics or disgruntled design consultants to explain away unfathomable outcomes is simply because some folks can't accept the fact that others might not share their views. That's just further evidence of fundamentalism at work.

As for Connecticut, CDPike (above) is right about the close nature of the courses in state. The ones he mentioned also made the top-5 in the state. Please note that there was unusally good weather from late August on. Wintonbury Hills GC sold out every availale tee time for the 2+ months it was open and registered over 4,000 rounds, so there was ample opportunity for folks to see it, just as there were plenty of raters at Friar's Head, despite that club's policy of not accepting raters to play as raters.

Slapper thinks he detects bias toards glitz and glam because we have such courses as Kinloch, Powder Horn, Mayacama and Southern Highlands in the top-100. You might also pont out that we have Sand Hils (no. 1), Pacific Dunes (no. 2), Bandon Dunes (no. 3), Friar's Head (no. 11), Wild Horse (no. 19), Kingsley Club (no. 22), Links of North Dakota (no. 63) and Hidden Creek (76).

What's the bias there? You couldn't find a better list of low-profile courses.

[Steve Lapper]

Brad,

  I do detect such a bias, whether deliberate or not. It is hard to put Sand Hills, Bandon, Pacific, Friar's Head, Wild Horse or the Kingsley Club among the "low profile courses" list! All have made major splashes on their debut and all, along with Wild Horse & Hidden Creek (i've not played the Links of ND) have well earned their lofty perches!

  To leave out a Black Mesa, Tobacco Road and a Redlands Mesa to include the previous mentioned "glitz & glamours" stands out glaringly. Having played enough of the list to make a reasoned and experienced point, the bias does stand out and disappoints me. Normally, I avoid the ranking battles, but inclusion vs. not appears to be enough to limit this panel's ability to recognize the real "Best" from just the others.

[John_Conley]

Brad:

Could you clarify this for me and Pat Mucci?  I think it addresses his concern.  It is my understanding that the growth of the panel from 175 to 250 has been via addition of panel members in less populated areas.

Jim Michaels:

Am I correct that no answer will satisfy you?  You've asked about how the lists are compiled, been told, and still claim to know differently. The only way to make a list you agree with 100% is to make the Jim list.  I know this isn't the Brad list, or he'd stop asking for ballots each year.

As for your observation that many Golfweek panelists use the site and post here... isn't that a GOOD thing?  We've been encouraged to use GCA.com to keep up with course openings.  I'm quite surprised more GOLF and Digest panelists don't do the same.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Brad (fellow design consultant),

Thanks for explaining that the freebies at the Las Vegas glutton-fest didn't influence the vote there. You really changed my feelings on that one. It's also great to hear you aren't fidgeting with the last ten or so courses on the list anymore and that it's done in Orlando now, I used to enjoy those calls when I was a panelist. Remember when we picked which Pelican Hill to drop!

But as for Wittonbury Hills issue, I didn't say it was unfathomable it would make the list, quite the opposite, I'm shocked it didn't crack the top 100 already, but even you probably figured that would be a bit blatant after just two months of play.

You are always going to have a tough time squirming your way out of this one, since you talked to us here on GCA for years about working on the routing and then working on a dozer and bringing Pete Dye in for $1, yada, yada.  And now, suddenly, amazingly it's a Tim Liddy-Pete Dye design! You have a serious conflict of interest and you are discrediting the work of your panel by allowing this course and other jobs you consult on to be eligible. If I were running that ranking, no way is Rustic Canyon allowed to be eligible.

Just a reminder before you put out anymore online fiction, Rustic Canyon had 6 panelists see it last year within 2 weeks of its opening date, and yet, didn't get enough votes to make the list according to you (you forgot that I know how few made Sand Hills eligible in year one), but you did tell people that the course had strong enough scores to have made if it had enough votes. I guess that's why you made sure to get everybody over to Bloomfield during yet another panelist outting, wouldn't want to repeat that glitch!

Geoff

[Andy]

Beautiful, Geoff.

[Richard Cabeza]

 

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHH!!!!

DEEEEEZAM!


-Dick-

[Jim_Michaels]

Go Geoff Go.  The truth hurts, doesn't it GW people?

[ChasLawler]

With courses like Southern Highlands, Powder Horn, Lake Las Vegas in and others like Atlantic ,Galloway, Mayacama, and Kinloch rated so high...it seems rather blatant that these guys are voting for show over substance.

Slapper - having only played one of these courses myself (Kinloch), I'm curious as to what your definitions of "show" and "substance" are.

[A_Clay_Man]

Mr. Shackleford, I suppose you could tell us how you really feel, or better yet, what has caused you to pick this battle?

Seems like I recall you picking Riviera has a battleground, yet when given the opportunity to perhaps influence the changes in a positive manner, you balked. Maybe it was already a lost cause, by the time you were asked and maybe it was the idea that you'd be sharing your insights fo free. Either way, as a historian, do you know if some of the golden agers ever asked another designer for input?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

You are mistaken,

Yes.

[SPDB]

Geoff -

Cdpike and Brad are right, if any course gets built in CT, it will almost by default be included in the top 5. whether Wintonbury Hills makes it to #1 I can't say, I've never seen it, but it doesn't stretch the mind to imagine that it would, given the poor state of public courses in CT. Even you yourself concede that it is Top 100 (although that may have been fuel for your conflict of interest argument), so why is it hard to imagine that the course merits its top billing in CT, irrespective of Brad's association?

I don't mean to diminish your claims about conflict of interest, which probably merit a closer examination, but I have to say it appears as if the conflict cuts both ways in this thread, since it seems as if your accusations are fueled in part by a  snub of Rustic Canyon. The appearance of a conflict of interest carries, in most cases, equal weight as an actual conflict.  

That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[DMoriarty]

Seems like I recall you picking Riviera has a battleground, yet when given the opportunity to perhaps influence the changes in a positive manner, you balked. Maybe it was already a lost cause, by the time you were asked and maybe it was the idea that you'd be sharing your insights fo free. Either way, as a historian, do you know if some of the golden agers ever asked another designer for input?

What makes you think that Mr. Fazio would have listened to anything Geoff had to say?  I have been in enough disputes to know that one good way to silence your enemies is to call them your allies, yet continue to disregard their opinions.  

While I expected as much, I am impressed that Geoff chose his beliefs instead of selling out for a little cheap notoriety and publicity.   Not so sure that many others on this site would have gone the same route if given the chance to put a course like Riviera on their c.v.  

It is an easy thing not to sell out when no one is buying, but it is quite a different matter when the offer is on the table.    

As for your second question, while I am no historian it is my understanding is that g.a. architects who respected each other's work often did exchange input.   And those who didnt didnt.  

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Adam,
I'm not sure what Riviera has to do with this, and I certainly didn't pick it as a battleground. I wrote a book on it, love the history and genius of the place, and don't like seeing that brilliance trampled on by lightweights who are changing it for all the wrong reasons. It was a lost cause the moment the USGA and the Fazio group entered the picture and I think I wisely stayed clear, and will continue to. (By the way, to see where the Golfweek panel has it, a full nine spots behind LACC, is laughable. Even with the awful changes, Riviera's in a different league than LACC North when it comes to architecture).

SPDB,
Rustic Canyon is just the snub I'm most familiar with. Call it a conflict of interest, I don't mind, you know about those too as you defend the Fazio work quite often here, even without having seen it at place like Riviera, why? Don't you have a friend of yours working for Mr. Fazio or some such thing? That's cool, I respect that appearance of a conflict, which as you say, carries as much weight as an actual conflict of interest.

And I understand golf in Connecticut is largely like the state itself, forgettable (excepting Yale), but still, if I were pushing a co-design of mine to make a list (which I wouldn't), I might at least wait until it's actually grown in before debuting it in print.

I'm sure some other architects have similar stories to share regarding the Golfweek process, but they are too kind to come on here and share them (or too wise). The Golfweek process has serious flaws and is being undermined by their rater outings and Dr. Klein's inability to disqualify courses he is associated with.
Geoff

[RJ_Daley]

Well, at least they'll have something to chat about at the Baltusrol outting tomorrow...

[DMoriarty]

I don't mean to diminish your claims about conflict of interest, which probably merit a closer examination, but I have to say it appears as if the conflict cuts both ways in this thread, since it seems as if your accusations are fueled in part by a  snub of Rustic Canyon. The appearance of a conflict of interest carries, in most cases, equal weight as an actual conflict.  

SPDB, before we call the two potential conflicts a wash, perhaps we should examine the interests involved.

Geoff was involved with Rustic Canyon and thus has a personal stake in seeing that it gets the recognition it deserves.  When the course does not get recognition it deserves, I would expect Geoff and others to question why.

Apparently, Brad also has course associations and, like Geoff, he has a personal stake in seeing that those courses get the recognition they deserve.  Yet Brad is also in charge of a magazine which has set itself up as one of the arbiters of the quality of golf courses, and which doles out the recognition which both Brad and Geoff are understandably interested in.  After all the careers of people like Brad and Geoff depend on recognition from the likes of Brad's magazine.

Now, are these potential conflicts really a wash?  With whose potential conflict of interest should we most be concerned?

Out of curiosity, I'd like to see a breakdown of which of the listed courses comped raters, and their costs to the general public (with the 'cost' of the private courses expressed in terms of difficulty of access to the general public.)  

I choose to play most my golf at Rustic Canyon . . .  should we discount my opinions as well, regardless of their validity?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()