In retrospect...have bells and whistles equated to ranking success?

[JESII]

I am not asking how you would look at a course today.

I am asking those of you that have paid attention to all of the different rankings through the years...would a course that possesed several non-instrumental features that filled your field of vision receive better reviews than a lean and mean functional solid golf course with no bells and whistles?

[John Kavanaugh]

Rustic Canyon had to be dragged kicking and screaming onto the bottom of the Golfweek list.

[Tom Yost]

Possibly true for the 80's and 90's, but it seems the pendulum could be swinging back to where we are seeing some the flashy, highly manufactured courses slipping down in favor of the traditional and more "minimalist" modern courses.

[jim_lewis]

In my case just the opposite is true. Some examples: I tend to add credit for some brown grass and deduct for courses whose routings have been dictated by the location of the clubhouse or bodies of water (especailly man-made).  Just yesterday I reviewed a course that gets extra credit because they dug their irrigation pond out of sight of the course instead of sticking at some awkward location and routing around it.

Jim Lewis

[Brent Hutto]

Does the orange sand and frilly edges of the bunkers at Cuscowilla qualify as "bells" and/or "whistles"? I guess it depends on who's doing the labelling.

[JESII]

That was actually a question I should ask...what are "bells and whistles"?

[Joe Hancock]

That was actually a question I should ask...what are "bells and whistles"?

I hate to put him on the spot, but in the past Sean Arble has done a pretty fine job of describing "bells and whistles" as it pertains to bunkers. Sean?......you're on.....

Joe

[JESII]

Well then...in looking at a past list...is there evidence that a course with eye candy will fare better on initial review than one without?

[Brent Hutto]

I'm sure others have had their minds clarified at The Old Course but I've never had that opportunity. For me the moment of clarity came the afternoon I played a few holes at Ganton. Now I know why bunkers are important to a golf course.

I've always figured that "sand traps" were a holdover whose place in the game was assured more by historical contingency and sentiment than by their necessity to the course's design. But now that I've seen my first Well Bunkered Course (tm) I know how perfect a hazard they can provide, especially in a fair breeze.

The bunkers at Ganton are plain (not to say ugly), functional buggers of a style that I'm sure would gain absolutely no "bells and whistles" points with a Golf Digest rating panel. Their sand is buff-colored and actually filled with all sort of irregularities, bits of shell and the like. And they are pretty low profile when seen from any distance away. But they do the job and they will be taken into account when you play the course, either before you hit a shot or when you hit a recovery.



P.S. And I realize this epiphany could have come on any of dozens of great golf courses, especially in the UK and Ireland. Mine just happens to have happened at Ganton, although I believe the brilliant greenside bunkering I experience the day before at Seaton Carew prime me for it.

[JESII]

If it doesn't, or cannot, happen why would Tim Doak make the following statement about a project of his?

For example, our new course for the Colorado Golf Association won't have nearly as many bells and whistles, because it's not in the budget.  It won't win "Best New" either ... and that's fine with me because that's not their goal.  But if I took five more jobs like that one out of my next five, I wouldn't get to compete for the best sites anymore.

What do "bells and whistles" cost?
Why is it implied that they are needed to win "Best New..."?
And more importantly to me, why would all of this dictate the opportunity to compete at the highest levels of the business?

[Jerry Kluger]

I don't think that any course made a bigger splash than Shadow Creek and clearly that was a case of bells and whistles.  It is incredible and significant but its ranking has dropped.  I believe that Cascada also hit with a big fanfare.  There is clearly still a place for bells and whistles within the rankings as many people, including most golfers, view big white sand bunkers and perfect green fairways as the test of quality.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I am not asking how you would look at a course today.

I am asking those of you that have paid attention to all of the different rankings through the years...would a course that possesed several non-instrumental features that filled your field of vision receive better reviews than a lean and mean functional solid golf course with no bells and whistles?

JES II,

To a degree, "newness" seems to garner attention and votes.

The key is, do those things associated with the "newness" factor enable the course to sustain itself in the rankings, or, are they of such a nature that the course's shelf life becomes limited ?

Today's fad is often tomorrow's old news.

It would seem as if there's a rush to see and play a new course.

Often, that rush results in a euphoria, leading to rave reviews.

As the newness wears off, so does the luster that attracts raters, leaving the course, like every other course, to pass the ultimate test.

The test of time.