[Ash Towe]

Today saw the opening of Cape Wickham.  Combined with the recent additions of Cabot Cliffs in Canada and Tara Iti in New Zealand they must be the most significant course openings in their respective countries in recent times.
How significant do you think these courses will be and how will they stack up when compared with each other?

[Alan Ritchie]

it will be interesting to see how they place for sure.  All look sensational, I'm most drawn to cape wickham from the pictures I have seen.

Ocean dunes on king island  is also opening 9 holes but seems to have a lot less discussion around it for some reason. it looks great too.

[Tom_Doak]

I don't really see the point of comparing these three courses in three different locations, just because they all have opened around the same time. 


If it's true that they are competing for spots in the world top 50, then they need to be compared to those 50 courses, and not to each other.  All three could belong, or none of the three. 


In reality, that's probably how it will work.  Wickham will be compared to Kingston Heath and Barnbougle and Lost Farm, and then placed in the world ranking accordingly.  Tara Iti will be compared first to Cape Kidnappers and Paraparaumu [and will almost certainly bump Kauri Cliffs down a notch].  Cabot Cliffs is being compared first to the other Canadian courses. 


There will be guys insisting that one is better than the other, but all such reports [for the next couple of years, anyway] will be based on a single visit when the course was barely ready for play ... so, strongly influenced by which architect you're a fan of.


In the end, if these courses want to be "top 25", the only modern courses in the top 25 are Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes.  That's what they have to beat ... or somebody needs to make more room in the top 25 for modern courses.

[Mark Bourgeois]

In reality, that's probably how it will work.  Wickham will be compared to Kingston Heath and Barnbougle and Lost Farm, and then placed in the world ranking accordingly.  Tara Iti will be compared first to Cape Kidnappers and Paraparaumu [and will almost certainly bump Kauri Cliffs down a notch].  Cabot Cliffs is being compared first to the other Canadian courses. 

You're saying rankers deviate from their magazine's guidance and apply their own personal Doak Scales? Interesting.

[Tom_Doak]

You're saying rankers deviate from their magazine's guidance and apply their own personal Doak Scales? Interesting.

Mark:


I've just spoken to a lot of raters, and this seems to be the thought process -- it's a process of elimination.  Many also try to mentally place the course amongst the other works of the architect who built it.  That will work better for Cape Wickham [Mike's best course] than for Tara Iti or Cabot Cliffs, which have to beat all the courses Bill and Ben and I have done that aren't in the top 100, and then some of the ones that are in.


Notice that in the world list, most of the courses seen as real outliers are those which are the only course in that country to make the list, and many are also the only course in the list by the architect who built them.  It's harder to place those in amongst the rest, so it's easier to place them too high [or too low].

[Steve Lapper]

I don't really see the point of comparing these three courses in three different locations, just because they all have opened around the same time. 


If it's true that they are competing for spots in the world top 50, then they need to be compared to those 50 courses, and not to each other.  All three could belong, or none of the three. 


In reality, that's probably how it will work.  Wickham will be compared to Kingston Heath and Barnbougle and Lost Farm, and then placed in the world ranking accordingly.  Tara Iti will be compared first to Cape Kidnappers and Paraparaumu [and will almost certainly bump Kauri Cliffs down a notch].  Cabot Cliffs is being compared first to the other Canadian courses. 


There will be guys insisting that one is better than the other, but all such reports [for the next couple of years, anyway] will be based on a single visit when the course was barely ready for play ... so, strongly influenced by which architect you're a fan of.


In the end, if these courses want to be "top 25", the only modern courses in the top 25 are Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes.  That's what they have to beat ... or somebody needs to make more room in the top 25 for modern courses.

Tom,

   I respectfully disagree. Those three are clearly the identifiable cream-of-the-crop for 2015. Having only played one to date, Cabot Cliffs, I can't (unlike those who believe looking at pictures suffice) opine on nor fairly compare amongst the others.

   I'm not at all sure that comparisons should or have to be made on a regional basis for determination of a world ranking. Other than to suit your delineations of CG volumes, why shouldn't Cabot Cliffs be compared to a Pebble Beach, an Old Head, or a Kauri Cliffs? Why wouldn't Cape Wickham be compared to a Cabot Links, a Pacific Dunes, or a Fishers Island?? I believe you get the point.

   Using your logic and my personal experience, I'd say Cliffs is most likely the best course in Canada, but that alone might not merit its inclusion in the Top 25 or 50 in the world (although I do believe it eventually will). I'm not sure a few of the world's existing Top 25 or 50 (using GM's list) won't be bumped to receive others...perhaps a Tara Iti or a Friars Head? The process is purely subjective and tastes change over time. As we both know change remains a constant.

  Lastly, I played three rounds at Cliffs and although the course was by no means mature or perfect, it was abundantly clear that what was there was exceptional and worthy of consideration. Of course, I'd reserve any absolute or sacrosanct judgement until it does mature and find whatever tweaks might evolve. No different than every time I'm lucky enough to put a peg in the ground at Pine Valley or Oakmont.

  I do believe it is inevitable that these three apparently stellar additions will and should be compared to each other, not necessarily tri-laterally, but relative to which, if any, belong where in any rankings across the world.

[Alan Ritchie]

with Tara Iti being private, does anyone know if  there will be any availability for visitor play? 

[Tom_Doak]

with Tara Iti being private, does anyone know if  there will be any availability for visitor play?

Alan:


It's going to be similar to how they do Sand Hills -- outsiders can make a one-time visit.  You'll have to contact them in advance, tell them if you have a club affiliation, and stay on site if you want to play. 

[Tom_Doak]

   I'm not at all sure that comparisons should or have to be made on a regional basis for determination of a world ranking. Other than to suit your delineations of CG volumes, why shouldn't Cabot Cliffs be compared to a Pebble Beach, an Old Head, or a Kauri Cliffs? Why wouldn't Cape Wickham be compared to a Cabot Links, a Pacific Dunes, or a Fishers Island?? I believe you get the point.


...

  I do believe it is inevitable that these three apparently stellar additions will and should be compared to each other, not necessarily tri-laterally, but relative to which, if any, belong where in any rankings across the world.

Steve:


I don't think I said that people SHOULD compare courses by region.  I said [or meant to say] I think that's how many panelists actually go about sorting out their choices.


There are lots of psychological studies about this sort of thing.  If we are having a conversation about big numbers, then a few minutes later, your estimate for something statistical is likely to be higher.  Likewise, when you focus on a small comparison between two or three courses, it skews how you'll rank them against others. 


I had much the same conversation with Ran on the drive back from Inverness, comparing the merits of Cabot Links and Cabot Cliffs with Banff and Jasper.  All four of them finished fairly close together in our estimation, causing me to question whether I ought to rate Banff lower than I'd decided when I was there, or whether I had to rate the other three higher.


I do think that focusing on the three new courses against each other is the wrong way to look at it.  To give another example of the same phenomenon, I wonder if Streamsong (Blue) and (Red) have pulled each other down in the rankings because some panelists decided in advance that they only wanted to rate one of the two courses in the top 100, and the vote between the two is fairly evenly split, so neither ranks as high as it would otherwise.  My feeling is that both courses blow away some others soundly in the list ... but of course I'm partially biased there myself.

[Ash Towe]

In terms of significance, I think it is worthy of note that Tara Iti is NZ's first all fescue course.  It is also one of a very few that is built on sand and by the sea in this country.  Tom, would you describe it as a links course?


Cape Wickham is built in a remote location.  Is it significant that that the limit for such destinations in Australia has for the time being been reached.


Similarly is the comment for Cape Wickham appropriate for Cabot Cliffs?


I think comparisons are inevitable.  They are all new, designed by marquee architects, accessible and in locations where people, especially on this site will visit.  It may not be desirable but it will happen.

[David_Elvins]

Ash,


I think Cape Wickham is a course of great significance. 


Definitely top 5 in Australia and could comfortably sit in any one of those 5 spots depending on the preferences of the person making the list.


A joy to play again and again.

[Tim Gallant]

   I'm not at all sure that comparisons should or have to be made on a regional basis for determination of a world ranking. Other than to suit your delineations of CG volumes, why shouldn't Cabot Cliffs be compared to a Pebble Beach, an Old Head, or a Kauri Cliffs? Why wouldn't Cape Wickham be compared to a Cabot Links, a Pacific Dunes, or a Fishers Island?? I believe you get the point.


...

  I do believe it is inevitable that these three apparently stellar additions will and should be compared to each other, not necessarily tri-laterally, but relative to which, if any, belong where in any rankings across the world.

Steve:


I don't think I said that people SHOULD compare courses by region.  I said [or meant to say] I think that's how many panelists actually go about sorting out their choices.


There are lots of psychological studies about this sort of thing.  If we are having a conversation about big numbers, then a few minutes later, your estimate for something statistical is likely to be higher.  Likewise, when you focus on a small comparison between two or three courses, it skews how you'll rank them against others. 


I had much the same conversation with Ran on the drive back from Inverness, comparing the merits of Cabot Links and Cabot Cliffs with Banff and Jasper.  All four of them finished fairly close together in our estimation, causing me to question whether I ought to rate Banff lower than I'd decided when I was there, or whether I had to rate the other three higher.


I do think that focusing on the three new courses against each other is the wrong way to look at it.  To give another example of the same phenomenon, I wonder if Streamsong (Blue) and (Red) have pulled each other down in the rankings because some panelists decided in advance that they only wanted to rate one of the two courses in the top 100, and the vote between the two is fairly evenly split, so neither ranks as high as it would otherwise.  My feeling is that both courses blow away some others soundly in the list ... but of course I'm partially biased there myself.

I agree with Tom on this one. I rate courses in the UK & Ireland, and we have a guidance for how we should assess the course. This is always what I have in mind when I am playing/viewing the course, however, after, I do tend to think about the course in relation to those similarly located (geographically), and similarly ranked. It helps me a) think about whether I agree with the current position of the course I have just played, and b) allows me to judge if I feel I have scored each area correctly relative to what I scored a similar course.


An example of this was when I played Royal Liverpool a few weeks back. The course was very strong and I really enjoyed some of the design features. It was also one of the first times that I have played a round where coppers come into play so often. After I had scored and thought about where I would rank the course, I naturally thought about Royal Lytham & St Annes; another championship links course with not much in the way of aesthetically pleasing views, meaning the two were on similar ground from a rankings perspective. It helped me to determine whether I had been to harsh or generous with certain scores, or merely confirmed what I had already thought.


This may be wrong, but it is what I often do.

[Adam Lawrence]

In terms of significance, I think it is worthy of note that Tara Iti is NZ's first all fescue course.  It is also one of a very few that is built on sand and by the sea in this country.  Tom, would you describe it as a links course?


Cape Wickham is built in a remote location.  Is it significant that that the limit for such destinations in Australia has for the time being been reached.


Similarly is the comment for Cape Wickham appropriate for Cabot Cliffs?


I think comparisons are inevitable.  They are all new, designed by marquee architects, accessible and in locations where people, especially on this site will visit.  It may not be desirable but it will happen.

With the greatest possible respect to Mike De Vries, I wouldn't call him a marquee architect, beyond the confines of this website at least. Cape Wickham may help him become one, but he ain't there yet

[Steve Lapper]

Tim,


    Actually you do a terrific job of proving my point as well. Your form of regional rating, as you described (and confirmed by the geographic limitations of the UK & Ireland and it's predetermined guidances)  proves only that you can compare and contrast within much smaller sets, leaving zero room for real assessment of how a links course ranks next to say...a parkland or inland course on the continent. For example, how could you create any world list (and Tom is referring to the GM Top 100) that could fairly place a Morfontaine vs. say, a Castle Stuart or a Royal Dornoch? Regional and sub-regional rankings are, in effect, quite easy and the notional idea of comparing a seaside Cape Wickham to a landlocked Kingston Heath is borderline absurd, unless, and only unless, you are breaking out your publication only by geographical parameters.

  Tom,

   As a former founder and early proponent of the GM Panel, you full well know that it is a difficult and consuming task to try to place a hundred plus potentially worthy courses along a scale that's then designed to statistically measure and weigh among another 99 other sets of eyes, minds, and behavioral biases. When done well by experienced (having seen larger #'s of work) folks, the freedom of subjective opinions tends to vastly outshine the handicap of imposed guidances, categorical or geographical. You've as much said so multiple times over your history of participation. Surely, such a system will produce anomalous outliers from time-to-time, but again, that's the beauty of subject freedom over the handcuffs of predetermined and prescribed guidances.

  Personally, I have real trouble believing your missive: "wondering (sic) if Streamsong Blue and Red pulled each other down...." Behavioral babble aside, I so strongly doubt any panelists (at least all those I know and have talked with) "decided in advance that they wanted to rate one of the two in the Top 100...." I don't believe I've ever even remotely sensed such a predisposition from anyone engaged in the art of ranking. Perhaps both may well blow away some others on the list, but that seems to be a function of time and exposure....an equation that remains neither static nor guaranteed.

  I agree the mental game of sub-ranking the course among other works by the same architect does come into play, but only amongst the most facile of minds. A good eye and critical mind rarely ignores the unique and ever-present variables (land, economics. weather, restrictions, prime intention of use, etc..) that influence a design.

  Getting back to the "Big Three," it'll be difficult given the large width of the explicit geographical spectrum separating these exciting new courses to see them in near time and I imagine anyone lucky enough to play all three won't be able to resist the sub-cranial dilemma of looking at them through the prism of a related trio. It's neither wrong, nor right, but the experienced panelist will immediately begin the exercise of comparing and contrasting to other, similarly-sited venues. I know that's the mental lens myself and others used recently at Cliffs. Funny thing is no one among 14 raters for various publications vocalized comparisons to Highland Links, Banff or Jasper, but instead thought about the likes of Pebble, Pac Dunes, Alisa, etc...much better comparative sets IMO. I suspect all these folks would do the same with Tara Iti or Cape Wickham.

 

[/size]

[Tim Gallant]

Steve,


I take your point, and see your logic. Indeed, it is easier to rank courses within a closely defined geographical location than, for example, the GM World Top 100. I agree trying to compare Royal Liverpool to Sunningdale Old can produce little valuable insight. Instead, this is where a loose guidance (and experience) must come into play to help determine which course should be ranked higher.


However, for the new 'big three', I suppose I would think of Cabot Cliffs first to Cabot Links, before then making judgments to PB or Turnberry. The reason being is that the similarities in variables as you list (economics, weather, restrictions, etc) will almost certainly be more objectively quantified given their close relationship. I have not played either, so I am speculating here, but I imagine they share the same coast line, same soil-type, same maintenance. Comparing the scenery from the Ailsa to Cabot would just be subjective as you can't quantify beauty.


That being said, if an assessment is made of a course, and it is determined to be superior (or not) to those within a geographical proximity, you must then look further afield at those courses that you feel has similar qualities. For example, if you felt CC was a top 25 course, when you are submitting your rankings, you will need to weigh-up the position against those similarly ranked (i.e. Pacific Dunes, PB, Ailsa). In this respect, I agree.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()