[JakaB]

"Ideal core routing, with contiguous, returning nines, short walks between greens and tees, and no crossovers along the way.  Greens and tees are clustered on natural rises."  

contiguous, returning nines...

short walks between greens and tees...

Greens and tees are clustered on natural rises...

Besides this sounding like a Suttonesque description of a formulatic Ross routing.... are contiguous, returning nines and greens and tees on rises....natural or not....really ideal...

[Brad Klein]

Natural, no - if it were entirely natural it wouldn't be a golf course. But it makes for an easy walk that works well at Oakland Hills, which is why I gave it that score - which doesn't mean it's some ideal or model that should always be copied.

[JakaB]

Brad,

Do you see the danger in the simplistic manner your Rater's notebook is presented.....when one of the most respected architectural critics of the modern era says that contiguous, returning nines is a formula for a 10....I fear it can only lead to the same weaknesses we see in so many routings that force the ninth hole back to the clubhouse.  Is one third of a page really enough to educate not only the masses but your own raters......On the Walk in the park test...the cliche of "they got the most out of the setting" was classic...all that was missing was the ten gallon hat.    

[Brad Klein]

John, I wish one of my columns was 1/3rd as influential as you think they might be. I've praised out and back routings, as well as returning nines. It depends on how the site works and how well the resulting holes fit. There's no formula there. A links style continuous 18 on that site would have felt like hopeless meandering. What counts is that many of the greens are on natural rises and that the nines each occupy their own contiguous ground. It also is not stretched out but intimate.

By the way, John, knowing how closely read my work is by architects everywhere, if you get a microscope and examine the sand particles in the bunker on the 17th you'll see how conniving editors and writers can be as they (we!) construct subliminal messages that convey our real thoughts to the design world.

[Michael Dugger]

John,

I have one question for you, and I am speaking honestly.

Do you have any room in "your world" for golf course raters?

How about food and beverage critics?
How about those guys who write for auto mags?
How about Siskel and Ebert?

I'd love to hear you give a critique of something, a golf course, the Mona Lisa, etc.  

It seems you are quite adept at poking fun and pointing out where someone has failed to meet your standards, yet do you have the "goods" yourself to back thids up or are you just a shit talker?

Really??  Will you please give me your "review" of your home course, that Fazio one built in a quarry.  

Actually, nevermind because it is not my point.  My question is.........is there room in John Kavanaugh's life for critics and reviewers?  

Simple yes or no, please

[TEPaul]

Brad:

You showed great restraint in that last post in not using a smiley face. You have far more trust in this website to undertand satire or even humor than I do!

Now what was it you wrote in that bunker on #17? If you don't tell me I'll hound you to the ends of the earth!

Now you've apparently gone and changed it! What, are you nuts??

[Brad Klein]

TEP, I got you covered - re-changed it just for you.

[JakaB]

Brad,

Your first response was on a level of wit that warned me to tread carefully....but now that you have changed it.  I wouldn't underestimate your value as "the ticket" as you are so affectionately known by your fellow raters.....The concept of the Rater's notebook being published in Golfweek in such a hap hazard manner may not affect archictects but surely affects raters who aspire to reach your level of understanding.   Much like rating steroids don't you worry that anyone who may find Hidden Creek to be below the 8.5 you published will be inkleined to raise their own rating so to look like the "get it too"...and with this Oakland Hills rating isn't every Ross formula for a routing a 10.    

[TEPaul]

Thank you--I feel much better now and if and when I get to Detroit I'll schedule at least a day in that Oakland Hills bunker. Have you left any secret design messages anywhere a little nearer the City of Brotherly Love, though? That way it would give me a better chance of spending more time researching it.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

T Paul,
Try reading the article in a mirror!  There should be a congressional investigation!

[Brad Klein]

John Kavanaugh asks: "Is one third of a page really enough to educate not only the masses but your own raters......"

No, you dope, of course not. But that's more space for architecture (along with a monthly column) than any other  magazine devotes to the subject in print. I'm proud that Golfweek allows me that much room

As for your worry about the impact such praise for Oakland Hills' routing has, I wish architects read me as closely as you worry they might. And yes, I wish I had stuck with my original post instead of taking you seriously and literally. At a certain point (now reached), your harping, contrarian tone isn't worth answering point by point. Eventually I'll learn that.

[A_Clay_Man]

Blarney- Just seeing Brad's numbers broken-down, are educational. As one of those "uncertain" or "unsure" raters, I look forward to seeing what I may have missed. i.e. UNM south, The Championship course. I was gratified to see that Brad and I gave it the same overall rating. But it was his beakdown that showed me I was just lucky. Specifically, the Landscape and tree management number, illustrated to me that I needed to learn more about trees. Not to mention my midwest up-bringing, which may have had a deep seeded effect on my ability to dispise them.

I hope I never become one of those sure raters. Unless I do actually get to visit all 17k+ courses.

[JakaB]

Ouch...now that I'm sitting out in the wood shed I need to know...so I can be a better boy.   What is the contrarian tone I am always being acused of....Does anyone really believe the Rater's notebook is about architecture....is that really a standard to be proud off....I know Joe Sixpack and he is not that stupid...he deserves better than...greens and tees are close...and they got the most out of the setting.   You can't fault Hal Sutton on one hand and type that simpleton drivel on the other.....Me, Hal and the rest of the golfing world ain't that stupid.    You got the forum...do better my friend.

[TEPaul]

"....I know Joe Sixpack and he is not that stupid...he deserves better than...greens and tees are close...and they got the most out of the setting.  You can't fault Hal Sutton on one hand and type that simpleton drivel on the other.....Me, Hal and the rest of the golfing world ain't that stupid."

Barney:

It seems the thing here that's stumping you is apparently you think someone is constantly trying to put something complex or abstruse over on you, Joe Sixpack and Hal.  

Golf architecture, even very good golf architecture, just ain't all that complicated and it sure never was rocket science. Things like close greens to tees and 'they got the most out of the setting' just ain't all that complicated to understand---so try not to read more into something than really is there! I mean, come on---close green to tee! What does that sound like to you but a short walk? Do you, Hal or Joe Six Pack think somebody is trying to tell you perhaps you can find 17 vestal virgins between a close green to tee expanse if you look real hard?

[JakaB]

Blarney- Just seeing Brad's numbers broken-down, are educational. As one of those "uncertain" or "unsure" raters, I look forward to seeing what I may have missed. i.e. UNM south, The Championship course. I was gratified to see that Brad and I gave it the same overall rating. But it was his beakdown that showed me I was just lucky. Specifically, the Landscape and tree management number, illustrated to me that I needed to learn more about trees. Not to mention my midwest up-bringing, which may have had a deep seeded effect on my ability to dispise them.

I hope I never become one of those sure raters. Unless I do actually get to visit all 17k+ courses.

Adam,

After reading your opinions for close to three years I doubt you got lucky at all....The rater's notebook is so crystal ballic that I don't see how a Landscape and tree management number can have any bearing on the final outcome anyway....Oakland Hills achieves an 8.3 average for a 9 rating....must have got .7 Golf Digest bonus tradition points.   Funny thing is I would have got lucky too as my rating of Oakland Hills would have been a 9 without even playing it.   My question is.....Will knowing that Brad thinks Hidden Creek is an 8.5 and said in his review that the raters that have already seen it and given it around a 6.7 might not get the subtleties of "classic architecture"...will your numbers be influenced more towards the 8.5 than the 6.7.    Knowing that your answer will be yes....because you are an unsure rater and you have great respect for Brad......I must really ask....Don't you wish the Rater's notebook was a private source that you could reference after you had seen a course and developed your own rating so you could form your own opinion without bias.  

[A_Clay_Man]

John- Perhaps you missed it, but I do, and did, form my on numbers/opinion. So, being influenced, no matter who is influential, doesn't really work on a stuborn Taurus, such as myself.

As for your apparent hang-up on the close proximity of tee to green, I can only offer this; This small aspect of gca goes along way to create intimacy. Places like SFGC and CPC exemplify this intimacy. Even Baxter Spann's "Great 28", an executive course in Santa Fe has that intimate feeling. Maybe the word intimate can be replaced with efficeint? I know I respect anything, a whole lot more if there's an emphasis on efficeincy during the design phase.

One detail I thought of while watching the Ryder cup was this green to tee relationship. I loved how the players were immediately on the next teeing ground. How often do we see that? But what really struck me, was the longish walk to 18 tee. Perhaps that longer walk, is critical to match-play. Allowing the guy 1 down a few extra moments to summon his ball sack.

[JakaB]

Adam,

I don't have a hang up on close tees to greens...as an overweight walker I think they are mandatory....my issue was the simplistic nature of a perfect 10 write up based on an obvious formula of close greens to tees, returning nines and elevated greens and tees.   I just felt like Brad was holding back due to his perceived stupidity of Me, Joe and Hal....I'm sure the routing of Oakland Hills is a ten....I just would like to know the real reasons why.. not the simplistic formula that produced them..

Out of one third of a page of a Major Publication.....touted as the only architecture ever printed anywhere....we learn the following interesting tid bits.

The clubhouse is the second largest wooden structure in Michigan...

The greens are slower than what the members play...

The greens have a subtle tilt to the southwest...

The 10th and 11th fairways are snaky...

You can't tell me that is not dumbed down architectural analysis....I apologize to anyone who is offended by this thread but this is an excellent chance to read something interesting about some of the great courses in the country twelve times a year and it falls short or what it could be....kinda like a wasted piece of land...we just deserve better..

There is an unspeakable grove of arborvitae on the seventh hole..sorry forgot that jewel that deserves a space all of its own..

[Brad Klein]

John, if you really knew me as well as you pretend, you'd know it wasn't dumbed down; in fact, I was stretched to the limit and in over my head, grasping for straws and out of my element. I was trying to go outside the box. I know with readers like you I have to talk the talk, not just walk the walk. Inquiring minds like yours deserve to learn something you can chew on every day. That's why I went out on a limb. I gave it 110 percent. It's a tough job, but somebody has to do it.

[John_Conley]

I'm just wondering as I read this little pissing match, "what is it like to be the child (or spouse, or friend) of JakaB?"

Does it mean that even your most well intended comments and gestures are always questioned?  

Seriously, I don't think Brad could write anything to escape the questioning from an eternal skeptic.

[JakaB]

John,

This site is open season for architects and players but don't dare touch The Ticket.....How is me questioning Brad's use of his architectural forum in Golfweek any different than someone else questioning an architects use of a piece of land.   It is all in good fun...isn't it..  

[John_Conley]

Is it in good fun, or is it to go out of your way to be antagonistic?  Good fun is a cartoon with big ears on Bush or his eyes too close together - even closer than they already are.  Antagonistic is fabricating damaging documents, purporting them to be authentic, and then sharing them with people of influence.  I've missed the good fun in any post you've made.

I thought Brad Klein was a golf journalist who focuses on design.  Now I've learned he is Barney's jester.

Have you noticed that not one other person makes it their place to touch people's buttons in this collegial forum?  You, sir, stand alone.

[Mike Hendren]

I'm just wondering as I read this little pissing match, "what is it like to be the child (or spouse, or friend) of JakaB?"

John,

I cannot speak for the other FOB's, but I suspect we are generally secure, right-minded individuals who can easily laugh at ourselves, who don't take ourselves too seriously, who enjoy a good hosing even if we're the target, and who enjoy the occasional round with a guy who loves playing golf more than anybody I've ever met. A few are even raters.

Mike

[JakaB]

Is it in good fun, or is it to go out of your way to be antagonistic?  Good fun is a cartoon with big ears on Bush or his eyes too close together - even closer than they already are.  Antagonistic is fabricating damaging documents, purporting them to be authentic, and then sharing them with people of influence.  I've missed the good fun in any post you've made.

Of all the things the above is....I have to admit...It isn't another dumb question..

This is a late modification...but I don't feel like bringing the thread back up to the top.

Dear John,

I like every rater I have ever met....I have not met redanman but I even like him (that hurt).....now get over it and go look on ebay for your Solheim tickets..

[Lou_Duran]

I've had the good fortune of spending a little time with both, John Kavanaugh and Brad Klein.  Both are highly intelligent, witty, and entertaining.

So, when I first saw this thread, I thought that maybe Brad had a bad day when he penned the OH analysis.  Having reread the article, I have to wonder what John's real motivation for this post is.  At the least inocuous, John's comments clearly show that no matter how well something is done, there is no way you can please everybody.  I won't speculate as to any possible darker motives.

Not having played OH, I nonetheless feel that partially as a result of Brad's contribution and watching the tournament, I have a good understanding of and appreciation for the course.  Certainly, I didn't see anything in the article and accompanying "Rater's Notebook" which I considered wacky, off the wall, or "dumbed down".

One can disagree with raters, ratings, and/or critical analysis.  But GW and Brad should at least be given some credit for trying to make the process transparent.  Ratings by their very nature are highly subjective, and differences of opinion are inevitable.   These can lead to great discussions that are often interesting, educational, and entertaining.

John, rather than trying to antagonize ("The Ticket"), why not take Brad on in detail regarding his evaluation of the routing?  Tell us how the word "snaky" does not properly convey the movement of the fairways on 10 & 11, then upgrade the discussion through a better characterization.  Tell us how the inclusion of interesting information such as the type of clubhouse and tilt of the greens dilutes or cheapens the discussion, and what other more deserving details are left out as a result.

Personally, I appreciate when someone uses precise language, even if I have to go to Neil Sperry's "Complete Guide to Texas Gardening" to learn more about arborvitaes.  That is one important way we learn.
     

[John_Conley]

I find it an insult to KG that anyone is calling Klein The Ticket[/b].

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()