Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Chip Gaskins on July 01, 2008, 01:44:31 PM
-
Take a wild ride down Tobacco Road
Ten years ago this summer, a billboard went up on U.S. Route 1 south of Sanford, N.C., proclaiming the arrival of something totally different. “Tobacco Road: A Whole New Playing Field,” blared the ad. For those of us used to turning right just beyond the sign to go to Pinehurst, word of architect Mike Strantz’s latest creation was reason enough to have a peek.
The look and feel of the place would prove unlike anything ever seen in golf. If the asphalt plant at the entrance wasn’t enough, there was the rustic cabin behind a green to the right and an overblown shed that looked like a halfway house until you realized it was, in fact, the clubhouse.
But that’s nothing compared to the view from the first tee. Here, the player looks out upon a 558-yard par 5 that weaves and bobs through massive dunes that narrowly pinch the fairway landing area. Most courses shun blind shots entirely. By the looks of things, Tobacco Road had three on the first hole. It’s a good indication of the ensuing walk on the wild side. Make no mistake about it: This is a scholarly golf course, though the esoteric allusions are enhanced by sex, drugs and rock ’n’ roll. There’s a Biarritz green (No. 3) on LSD. A reverse Redan with the amp juiced to “11.” And a Dell hole green on a par 5 (No. 13) that makes one feel like a Pinball Wizard.
more in article here: http://www.golfweeksbest.com/GolfweeksBest/article.asp?ID=404
• • •
RATER'S NOTEBOOK
Tobacco Road Golf Club
1. Routing: 5
Feels slightly cramped at times, with a few switchbacks and the occasional sense of exposure to shots on adjoining holes. If the space between No. 12 green and No. 13 tee had been used for a par 3, it would have eliminated the disappointing short par-3 17th and several problem areas.
2. Quality of shaping: 10
Mike Strantz and his associate/shaper, Forrest Fezler, a former PGA Tour player, have achieved something new in bulldozer work – what Duke University anthropologist Orin Starn has suggested is a surrealist painterly quality.
3. Overall land plan: 9
....
Rest here: http://www.golfweeksbest.com/GolfweeksBest/article.asp?ID=404
-
What is the date of this article?
-
JK -- My guess is it's fairly current, though I can't be certain. I played it in December 1998 and it hadn't been opened a year yet I don't believe.
I think this best sums up my feelings on TR:
"Tremendously entertaining. Note: Half of what you see here is fictional and the other half is exaggerated. For all of Strantz’s classicism, the game here is entirely aerial and thus stressful on mid- to higher-handicappers. It belongs on our top-100 list, though it’s perfectly plausible to dismiss it as a monumental joke the first time you play it. It’s much more rational the third or fourth time around."
-
Published April 11, 2008, based upon my fourth trip there, mid-March 2008.
-
Glad to hear it is a recent review. Excellent article that captures the spirit and the worth of the course perfectly. Thanks.
-
I enjoyed your review Brad, are there others like it on the Golfweek website? I couldn't seem to find any at first glance.
-
Played TR for the first time in April. Easily the most polarizing course I've ever played. Half of our group didn't see the point of the course and have no desire to go back, while others liked it. I thought the 13th was one of the worst par 5's I've ever seen. There's no room to land a driver, so it's a layup to a layup to a short iron. What's the point?
The round was on a Saturday and took about 5.5 hours in pretty harsh weather. The course is a real problem for high handicappers because of the forced carries and long grass.
Ran told me TR is the only course built in the area in the last 20-years that makes money, so it must be doing something right.
-
Pat Craig, I've written 8-10 of these formatted reviews a year since the first one in jan. 2003. If I can't get them all up on Golfweek.com I'll just publish them in book form.
-
If you ever print the The
Confidential Guide, by Brad Klein, could you print enough so my copy won't cost me upwards of $1,000?
-
If you care about golf, a subscription to Golfweek is a great move.
-
Pat Craig, I've written 8-10 of these formatted reviews a year since the first one in jan. 2003. If I can't get them all up on Golfweek.com I'll just publish them in book form.
Sign me up for a copy.
Reading through the thread I had that thought about 5 posts before you mentioned it.
-
Brad, I'll buy your book, too, if it's under $100. Will you include photos?
Golfweek ranks modern and classic courses separately. Any chance you will also have a combined list, in addition to these categories? I'm interested to see how GW raters feel the modern courses stack up to the classics and vice versa.
-
Jim, Brad does show the scores so you may be able to do such a comparison yourself. I think the general sentiment is that Great-to-Good falls off rather slowly on the pre-1960 side, but the tremendous number of excellent new courses helps the Modern catch up to the point that the borderline Top 100 compare very favorably to their counterparts on the Classic.
-
I enjoyed your review Brad, are there others like it on the Golfweek website? I couldn't seem to find any at first glance.
Pat, be sure to read Brad's first golf book "Rough Meditations" for similar discussions on courses he's seen.
-
Jim, Brad does show the scores so you may be able to do such a comparison yourself. I think the general sentiment is that Great-to-Good falls off rather slowly on the pre-1960 side, but the tremendous number of excellent new courses helps the Modern catch up to the point that the borderline Top 100 compare very favorably to their counterparts on the Classic.
If I understand the ratings system right, modern and classic are completely separate. i.e. the scores for the modern courses are only in comparison to other modern. Same with classics. In particular, I thought the scale works as follows:
Rating Classic Modern
10 1-5 1-5
9 6-15 6-15
8 16-40 16-40
7 41-100 41-100
6 101-200 101-200
5 201-500 201-750
4 501-1500 751-2000
3 1501-3000 2001-5000
2 3001-6000 5001-9000
1 6001-7000 9001-10,000
This means that to get a 10 in the classics, the course must be rated among the top 5 classic courses. Moderns also must be among the top 5 to get a score of 10, but only compared to other moderns.
To do a combined ranking, GW raters would have to compare courses with ALL courses. i.e. for Sand Hills to get a 10, it must be among the top 5 of all courses in the U.S., both modern and classic. Right now the scores don't let us mix and match.
I still think this ranking system is flawed, though. Raters cannot reliably say a course is top 5, if they haven't played all the other courses that reasonably contend. And very few raters have played all those courses.
-
Glad to see Brad acknowledging the fine work of Michael Strantz.
-
Jim Nugent, inherently flawed because they have not seen every course? That's 17000 courses. Since we can go in and change the rating once we experience a better course we can tweak our version of what is what we think is best. One aspect that I can't get my mind around is when someone says they have never given a 10
-
Adam- Your point raises a good issue. A 10 for one person may not be a 10 for someone else solely based on their perspective (i.e. what other great courses they have played). I assume someone that plays locally and then plays say, Pinehurst #4 may give it a 10 where someone who has played Cypress, Seminole, RCD etc would give it a 6...it all depends on where you are coming from. By no means am I advocating for a system where only people that have played all the best courses are qualified to rate, I am just saying its all about perspective.
-
Adam- Your point raises a good issue. A 10 for one person may not be a 10 for someone else solely based on their perspective (i.e. what other great courses they have played). I assume someone that plays locally and then plays say, Pinehurst #4 may give it a 10 where someone who has played Cypress, Seminole, RCD etc would give it a 6...it all depends on where you are coming from. By no means am I advocating for a system where only people that have played all the best courses are qualified to rate, I am just saying its all about perspective.
...which is why Brad should be commended for advancing the area of 'rater education' with his frequent gatherings featuring both his presentations and invited luminaries.
Honestly, the criticisms get old because they've all been addressed. Chip, do you feel not enough has been done to address your issue of perspective?
-
Jim Nugent, inherently flawed because they have not seen every course? That's 17000 courses. Since we can go in and change the rating once we experience a better course we can tweak our version of what is what we think is best. One aspect that I can't get my mind around is when someone says they have never given a 10
If I haven't played CPC, Pine Valley, Shinnecock Hills and Merion, and I give Pebble and ANGC a ten, there's a huge flaw in my ranking. IMO that ranking is close to worthless.
Some similar analogies: if I haven't heard Mozart, Bach or Beethoven, how can I say Tchaikovsky is one of the three best classical composers?
If I haven't seen any Doak or C&C courses, how can I say Nicklaus and Fazio are among the top three modern designers?
If I haven't seen a single Mackenzie course, how can I say Ross or Tillie or anyone else is the greatest golf architect of all time?
If I haven't seen GCA.com, how can I say Bombsquadgolf is the best golf website on the net? ::)
Obviously it's impossible to play 17,000 courses. But if you haven't played, say, what are usually considered the top 25 or so, how can you say what is the best? Or 2nd best or 10th best or 100th best? I'd be real interested to learn how many of the top 20, top 50 or top 100 courses each GW rater has played. Bet few to none have played them all.
I prefer giving absolute numbers to each course. That, too, has problems, but they seem to me more manageable. The real problem is that we are trying to objectify a subjective topic. Who is the greatest composer or artist? The greatest athlete? The best restaurant? It comes down to taste.
-
John-
Hopefully you didn't take what I was saying as I had an issue. I don't.
All ranking systems have issues, golf, restaurants, wine, hotels, etc. Anything that is based in subjectivity has these same issues. Some systems have large databases of rankings to try and statistically solve for the subjectivity and some systems almost celebrate the subjectivity...either way they both are just a bunch of opinions (some more informed than others) versus measurable facts.
Again, I have no issue concerning perspective.
The novice wine drinker may like Kendal Jackson and be very happy with drinking it where as the French wine collector only drinks 1974 Bordeauxs to be happy. Both wine lovers are happy so how can the expert call the novice wrong...
Clearly we all learn from people with more informed perspectives, but it would be a pretty closed system if that is the only group we ever let rate something.
-
If I haven't played CPC, Pine Valley, Shinnecock Hills and Merion, and I give Pebble and ANGC a ten, there's a huge flaw in my ranking. IMO that ranking is close to worthless.
Of all the criticisms I've heard, yours is a new one. Now you're saying the GOLFWEEK list doesn't accurately recognize courses at the TOP of the list. ??? Wow.
Has anyone ever listened to the music of everyone that ever made out a treble clef? No. But it is enough to rely on the beliefs of others to get a short list to listen to and evaluate.
Jim, given the myriad shortcomings of exisiting lists, it seems the opportunity exists for you to clear things up once and for all with the ideal rating system.
-
All ranking systems have issues, golf, restaurants, wine, hotels, etc. Anything that is based in subjectivity has these same issues.
Chip, I don't think anyone has ever argued otherwise. Which is why efforts are taken to address the areas that are addressable and at the end you still have the inherent issues you mention. Seems easy to me...one kind of has to accept them, right?
Portfolio managers deal with systematic and unsystematic risk. They can diversify all they want but at some point further diversification won't help. They'll still be affected by the risk you can't eliminate. Isn't the same phenomenon at work here?
Brad has:
* added panel members until there is enough 'coverage' so that all worthy courses garner enough visits
* held mandatory gatherings where panel members advance their knowledge of both architecture and the ranking methodology
* highlighted the process for all - panel members and magazine readers alike - in his periodic "Golfweek's Best" magazine features
* willingly accepted all input from people like yourself and Doug Ralston (that doesn't mean he changes the approach every time he hears a comment, but the comments are received and he works hard to implement them when it will improve the product)
There's right,, wrong, and different. Seems to me anything 'wrong' was addressed a long time ago. What's left may be different than some other way of doing things - Matt Ward's "one rater" ideal is an example - but certainly isn't wrong.
Want to see great golf architecture? Do you grab Brad's list to see if you can travel to see something on there or go by the TV ads for the Trent Jones Trail or glossy advertising used to promote the Grand Strand? Seems like a no-brainer to me.
-
Another thing Brad has purposely done is to embrace the diversity of opinion.
That aspect alone guarantees and encourages subjectivity. However, as votes for any given course increases, the subjectivity of a single vote is mitigated. The resulting database, with age (allowing newer courses to filter through the system) will read like a fine wine.
-
All ranking systems have issues, golf, restaurants, wine, hotels, etc. Anything that is based in subjectivity has these same issues.
Chip, I don't think anyone has ever argued otherwise. Which is why efforts are taken to address the areas that are addressable and at the end you still have the inherent issues you mention. Seems easy to me...one kind of has to accept them, right?
Want to see great golf architecture? Do you grab Brad's list to see if you can travel to see something on there or go by the TV ads for the Trent Jones Trail or glossy advertising used to promote the Grand Strand? Seems like a no-brainer to me.
Yep, I think we are on the same page. I have no issues with the methodology. And, yes, I grab Brads (and GCA's) list when I am seeking out new courses
-
If I haven't played CPC, Pine Valley, Shinnecock Hills and Merion, and I give Pebble and ANGC a ten, there's a huge flaw in my ranking. IMO that ranking is close to worthless.
Of all the criticisms I've heard, yours is a new one. Now you're saying the GOLFWEEK list doesn't accurately recognize courses at the TOP of the list. ??? Wow.
Has anyone ever listened to the music of everyone that ever made out a treble clef? No. But it is enough to rely on the beliefs of others to get a short list to listen to and evaluate.
Jim, given the myriad shortcomings of exisiting lists, it seems the opportunity exists for you to clear things up once and for all with the ideal rating system.
I laughed when I read your last line, because I thought it was funny.
I don't know if there is an ideal rating system, but I think there may be a better one than GW's. It should be point based, not order based. i.e. each course should get points, based on criteria GW sets up. The courses with the most points are ranked highest.
In this type of ranking, no one says "Course X is one of the five best in the country." Because unless you've played virtually all the good courses, you cannot make that claim with any certainty.
The logic is clear to me that you can't compare or rate courses you haven't played. But that is how GW's present rating system works. I am not wrong about this, no matter how many "wow's" you may feel.
-
Jim, Listing criteria and assigning points dictates a formulaic process and outcome, doesn't it?
Having the criteria separated from the overall number, allows for intangibles that can highlight what makes a golf course great. Or, at least better than a collection of 18 pre-defined great holes.
-
Formulaic may not be bad, if the formula is comprehensive, well done, and is followed correctly.
Can build in flexibility, too, if you want to. GW can put in an "intangibles" factor, that gets added to the point score. Or the raters can weight some categories higher than others, if they feel those categories hold special importance.
I think weighting is how Brad comes up with his own final point tallies.
-
Jim, I've never viewed the numbers as anything other than a way to separate. I think I understand your points method, but that too has shortcomings. Like I said, there's right, wrong, and different.
Let me walk you through a scenario. The approach you have is similar to Course Rating or Slope where the criteria are given a number and you sum the total. (For C.R. and Slope it also tallies per hole; I'm not suggesting that you'd do it the same way.) Sounds great in theory, but let's put it in practice.
Say I'm at Pebble Beach, which I did play 23 years ago so this isn't entirely hypothetical. There are some pretty bland holes to get you started, and then a tease of the ocean on #7 with that little drop shot. (I played the old configuration before #5 was built. Yes I'm aware that and #6 are along the edge.) Now I get to #8 and climb the fairway only to be greeted by the magnificent approach and two wonderful par 4s, all serving as a prequel to the unrivaled finishing hole. How do you quantify that?
Judging from the rankings, the good offsets the bland (and then some) at a place like Pebble. Ditto Black Diamond's Quarry, which has 13 kinda normal (for Fazio) holes and the big 5. At the end of the day raters are asked to "bottom line" it. An employer I used to work for FORCED managers to do a "paired comparision" where they ranked all employees and each was superior in performance to those below them and below the level of all above. Don't bother me with all the specifics, did you prefer Friar's Head to Greywalls or not.
Golf Digest has the sum-of-the-parts approach, so maybe you are off the hook on creating a new method. Remember the complaints there. Your "intangibles" category has been called "tradition" and it functioned as an incredibly arbitrary way of undoing the rating work done in other categories.
Two specifics:
1) the old professional at a wonderful club knew their Donald Ross course was always ranked below a few other courses in the state. He had a great deal of pride in where he worked, and rightfully so. It is considered a great course by all on this board that have played it. One year GD made the move to 'disclosure' and showed the data collected for each criterion. You know the categories - Shot Values, Resistance to Scoring, etc...
Anyway if you netted out Tradition the course had more points than several in the Top 100. So he actually contacted GD and laid out a great case for garnering more tradition points. He had club history about Ross, stories of events held there, and details about their longtime member that won some USGA events a very long time ago. It was not possible to say that his club had more or less 'Tradition' than someplace else. How can you weight the value of a US Open held and is it more meaningful if such an event was won by Andy North or Orville Moody?
2) a friend of mine is a member at Sand Hills. I don't know that you can find ten people that have played there that can name three better courses in the WORLD that were built since WWII. It is without question as good as it gets. If there is a better course in heaven I hope my clubs die with me. Anyway, SH was ranked about 41 by Golf Digest and absolutely blew away the 20 courses just in front of it. If you netted out Tradition. Stripping that category I think you'll see it was about 7th or 8th in the US. Rarified air with Shinnecock, Augusta, Cypress Point, and a few others.
"Tradition? How can Sand Hills score low on Tradition? I don't think there's a more 'traditional' layout anywhere." He was right. If you go back to the days before irrigation and earthmoving equipment golf courses were just laid out over the linksland with minimal disruption to the native environment. I think the construction budget for Sand Hills was just $1.4 million with three-quarters of that allocated to irrigation. If it were in an area with predictable rainfall the course could have been completed for something under a half-million. The greens aren't USGA spec, they were smoothed a bit and seed was thrown down. Hard to get more 'traditional' than that.
And it scored real low for the category.
Finally, another criterion for GD is or was "Walking". In an effort to celebrate good designs and the superiority of walking to play golf, GD tacked on another 2 points to courses that allowed walking all the time.
I played Sanctuary with Jim Engh. To his credit he completed a course on a difficult site. The course is unwalkable. Or so I thought. Ron Whitten made it around Sanctuary without a golf car. Twice. The policy is that you can walk and that got them the two points. I play golf to play golf, not to hone my hiking or rockclimbing skills. Yet this has an impact on that course's place in the Top 100? Okay. It is a blast to play. At least when you see it in GOLFWEEK's Top 100 you know the panelists didn't prop it up because of a nonsensical policy that encourages walking a golf course that isn't suited for it.
I never worried too much about Digest's rankings, because I recognized the limitations and accepted them for what they were. Putting these policies in other words, you and I could have opened the greatest golf course in the world and it could not place higher than about 40th on their list because of the way the data was compiled.
It is important to understand why these 'props' made sense. Remember, Haig Point and Muirfield Village debuted in very high places and the increased emphasis on 'Tradition' was designed to suppress the hysteria of the new and wow factor.
I don't need to bed all the 10s in the world to see a girl and say she rates a 7 in appearance. Why is a golf course any different?
-
I don't need to bed all the 10s in the world to see a girl and say she rates a 7 in appearance. Why is a golf course any different?
But you can't with any reliability say a woman is one of the five most beautiful in the world.
GW says it CAN determine who the five most beautiful women in the world are. And the next ten most beautiful, and the next 25 after that, and so on.
That is the difference. It is flawed, at least logically. Maybe in practice it doesn't matter, as the various lists look pretty similar, don't they?
-
I don't need to bed all the 10s in the world to see a girl and say she rates a 7 in appearance. Why is a golf course any different?
But you can't with any reliability say a woman is one of the five most beautiful in the world.
GW says it CAN determine who the five most beautiful women in the world are. And the next ten most beautiful, and the next 25 after that, and so on.
That is the difference. It is flawed, at least logically. Maybe in practice it doesn't matter, as the various lists look pretty similar, don't they?
Jim
For what its worth, I agree with you. Trying to rank courses is futile. I can see trying to create classes of quality and then just say its up to the individual's preference within that class as to which course is best (IE The Rihcelin Scale). Even this has problems as where does one draw the line between classes of courses? It may be the case that there is a clear distinction between certain classes, but its just a matter of luck if this is the case. Which is also a reason why I don't like predetermined numbers for Best Lists. There may be only 29 Best courses. The 30th through 84 on a list may be in the 2nd best category/class. To me, the entire point of ratings is to get a flavour for the courses and to gain a better understanding of which class of course we are talkin about. Creating a top 10 or whatever is a completely meaningless endeavour if I know that #11 is really in the same class as the top 10.
Ciao
-
John Conley:
I am enjoying your arguments; just do understand your statements about Golf Digest rating system are dated. It might have worked as you say at one point, but it no longer does.
Best to just leave this at "no system is perfect." ;)
-
Although a bit contrived design wise, I thoroughly enjoyed my round at Tobacco Road back in mid December. Here is a link to the review I wrote for golfwrx.com with pics.....
http://www.golfwrx.com/BagChatter/2007/12/08/tobacco-road-gc-more-addicting-than-nicotine/
I played Talamore the following day and hated it, probably because of the vast difference in styles between the two courses....