Just wondering if anyone knows about a new golf course Hurdzan/Fry are building out in Wisonsin.  I know LUI is doing the construction.  I hear that it might host the US Open in 10 years.  I don't know about that.  

Chris Munoz

I did a search through a newspaper database and found nothing. Troy Burne is certainly not the course as it has been open close to a decade.

I pray they do it WITHOUT their infamous "bunkerwol" product....a real disaster waiting to happen.

Maybe someone can convince them to build bunkers without 30 degree faces?

You haven't seen Shelter Harbor Golf Club in Charlestown Rhode Island yet.  After you see it or play it, get back to me.  And tell me what you think.  Or what about Hamilton Farms in NJ.  

Who is doing the bunkering work at Erin Hills?  Is Jeff Bradley's name going around.  He did a awesome job at Shelter Harbor.....

Chris

Was this the site that Tom Doak almost got but was beaten at the wire by Hrdzan and Fry?

 

I'm just curious but how does the chief architecture critic for Golf Digest -- the most circulated magazine in the industry -- become a consultant to actual projects?

Isn't that a conflict of interest and minimize his function at the magazine?

At the very minimum does it not run the risk of causing issues relating to the perception of a conflict of interest even if fully disclosed.

I mean how can one be an umpire and baseball player at the same time?

Jeff B:

I'm glad they think so.

I'm not so sure.

Let me give you an example -- not too many years ago Frank Rich did the reviews of Broadway shows for The New York Times. His comments could affect the nature of which shows stayed on Broadway and those that closed -- sometimes the next day after the review appeared. His reach was indeed a powerful presence. Rich also had no connection to the development, production or any other aspect of the Shows he was reviewing.

The position of chief architecture critic for Golf Digest is a bully puplit for Ron to provide his no-holds-barred comments and frankly I think he does very well even when I disagree with his assessments. Ron is extremely knowledgeable and is well respected.

Nonetheless, when someone holds that position you can't be a "player" in the design field while also holding to a chief architecture position as umpire without compromising yourself -- even unintentionally in some way. I don't doubt Ron has fully disclosed the fact, but that doesn't square the reality of what takes place and the lingering perceptional questions that logically flow from it.

There are architects who may wonder if Ron will speak favorably about those architects he has consulted with even if those courses he is involved with are not eligible for "Best New" annual awards. I'm speaking about future projects he may not be involved in reviewing because of a relationship with the principles from work he did with them as a consultant.

Such situations may cause the kind of compromises a full fledge no-holds-barred review needs to be for the benefit of the reader.

The issue fundamentally is giving the readers a balanced and independent assessment without wondering -- even if it's disclosed -- whether or not the critic is indeed a player in the industry.

Like I said you can be an umpire or a player --you just can't be both at the same time IMHO -- particularly with a forum as powerful as what Digest provides.

Matt,

I specifically replied that "they" think this adequately distances them, anticipating I wouldn't change every mind here.  

Perhaps "they" also take some comfort in the fact that Geoff Shackelford and Brad Klein both review golf design and designs for different magazines and are involved in consulting.  And, of course, the grandaddy of them all - Tom Doak writing for Golf while breaking into the industry set the standard for this crossover.  He certainly did show that he could do a "no holds barred" review of other architects, no?

I think Ron and Brad do the same, if in a different style. Geoff wrote a pretty complimentary article on using architects for renovations in this month in Golfdom, which I appreciated.

So, with every major critic jumping over to supplement his income, avid readers of such critiques simply need to factor this in to their personal reviews.  

You are right Matt.  I have heard another writer/architect go out of his way to praise an architect, and a casual reader would not know that they had collaborated with that architect on previous projects.  It certainly diminshes their position as a critic I think.

Dave,

In chasing this babe you said you never got a squat from her.  What exactly is involved in getting squatted by a girl?

Jeff B, et al:

My point is not about the honorability of the aforementioned people. That's not the issue.

It's also not relevant that person 'X' at another publication does the same thing. Two wrongs don't square the reality of the conflict that exists -- real or perceived.

Conflicts of interest do happen. When there's a perception of a conflict and even when the person discloses the nature of the relationship that doesn't mean that that person is now OK to write a "clean" course review. How does the reader begin to decipher the nature of the relationships involved -- in fact, why should the reader have to do this at all? It's up to the publication to ensue a clear separation exists.

Just like I said before even if a person recuses himself from a review of a course he was involved with ... that doesn't mean the same person will recuse himself from future works by that architect does it? What does that say about the process? How independent and credible can future reviews be? Why should the reader even begin to ask these questoins?

I work in the media field -- I know good friends who work in PR and marketing. You can't do both job at the same time because it does play a major role in diminishing what you do. Those in the media may have to write a critical investigatory article and if the primary thrust in the PR / Mktg arena is the advancement of the client and their service / product you undercut your own credibility no matter how insightful the analysis is.

The first thing any publication needs to have is a wall between who and what is written and the people within a given industry. If people need to decide what field they wish to go in the publication should either pay them more $$$ to stay as an independent critic or wish them well in their new profession. J D Powers & Associates -- likely the most prestigious reviw companies -- understands this very well and doesn't have conflicts of interest -- real or perceived that undercut their clout and respect.

When people say person 'X' is honorable and can easily shift between the roles I don't see how one can do that. The isue is not their honorability. I've never questioned that.

Like I said -- if you want to be an umpire -- then call the game. If you want to be a player then play the game and allow someone else to call balls / strikes and safe / out. You can't hop scotch between the two as the game goes on and presume you are capable of independent analysis. There is a taint when you try to plant one foot in one column and one in the other at the same time.

One last thing -- if a person has to recuse himself to such a degree then the whole point of being a critic becomes self-defeating. As a reader I should not have to figure out the dancing ball of various mechinations taking place. That's something the publication should be thinking about.

John B;

How much better than Fazio do you think Hurzdan and Fry are?

John:

I now serve as Travel & Architecture Editor for a blog called bunkershot.com. I also contribute to a wide range of publications -- many of which are regionally based. I also do the course ratings for Jersey Golfer -- a publication I started with my good friend Lowell Schmidt 14 years ago.

As you likely know I served for 17 years as a Digest panelist and now do likewise for GolfWeek.

John -- as a full member of the Golf Writer's Ass'n of America and the Met Golf Writer's Ass'n my network of contacts in the golf industry is quite deep and varied. Frankly, my ability to access key sites doesn't require my connection to GolfWeek although clearly it doesn't hurt. The old line of six degrees of separation is certainly true in the golf industry.

John -- you're point about the "consensus" nature of ratings has been stated by me and no less than Tom Doak agrees provided the person has a keen pair of eyes and can provide frank and insightful analysis. As you know few people can do this because their portfolio of courses is quite small and it's quite hard for them to stack courses against each other with some meaningful analysis applied. Many people may know their own turf / neighborhood but stack them further up the food chain with courses from across the country and it's a far different story. Unless you stay active and current the assessment of courses can easily become stale and tired. Info, as you well know here on GCA, is a 24/7 operation.

Frankly, the magazines choose to enlist raters because it costs them nothing. I believe, if memory serves, Dan Kelly opined it might behoove the overall process / credibility to simply pull the plug on all raters and do al the reviews in-house. That's a strategy no doubt but I don't see any takers.

As my involvement deepens it's likely the independent route your mentioned will take place. It's already happening now. Maybe I'll start something akin to what J.D. Power & Associates does now. !