I received about a week ago the Sept / Oct issue of Links and on the cover is a superb picture of Cape Kidnappers in New Zealand.

The issue provides no less than 10 full pages to an article by Jeff Neuman -- a former editor with Simon & Schuster of his trek to that very special island in the South Pacific.

Mr. Neuman accounts his one month journey to New Zealand and frankly I was taken aback by the scant two paragraphs he devotes to his narrative on Cape Kidnappers.

Here is a course that has literally put New Zealand on the golfing map -- with no disrespect to the other layouts like Kauri Cliffs and Paraparaumu, to name just two.

In his assessment Neuman is appreciative of what Kidnappers represents, but he does say the following, "The course is intended to play firm and fast, and errant shots quickly find thick knee-high rough, which makes ball-spotting difficult and recovery nearly impossible."

He then proclaims that the "CONSENSUS" of visiting golfers "SEEMS" to be the exact quote I used at the top pf this thread.

I mean who represents the "consensus" -- is this the author's way in encapsulating his own personal feelings? Or if there are such people why not a direct quote or comment with some of the holes mentioned on where the so-called desire not to return can be substaniated.

There is little real analysis -- no real pin pointing of certain holes and other unique features beside saying the wind at the site will "HOWL (his emphasis) a good percentage of the time."

Frankly, if I wanted "a what I did on my golf visit to New Zealand" and how I can provide so very little golf course detail I would think I would have find out in another generic travel / leisure publication -- not Links -- which incidentally has had a good run in its most recent issues.

Cape Kidnappers is clearly worth more than just two limited paragraphs and I would dare say that Links need to understand that its core readers are very much attuned to getting such info and not worrying about reading where the author slept and who he met with and if his play was so-so or otherwise. If you don't cover the former point -- the main course(s) then truly the latter is clearly inconsequential.

Be interested in other comments from those who may have read the article.

Yes it didn't seem he was a connoisseur and he seemed entertained by some meager courses and he didn't give you what you wanted....

I didn't read every word, but those that I did I appreciated, especially his depiction of how friendly everyone was.
to paraphrase:
"If you've been there for any period of time, and you haven't been invited into someones home.. there must be something wrong with you"

Golf writing isn't personal enough for me, and that bit was, and made me want to go.

(I already know enough about the courses from here)

Have not seen the article.  I seldom read LINKS anymore, actually.

Jeff is a great editor of books, but not a great golfer as I think he would be the first to point out.  He was at Cape Kidnappers in the windiest conditions I've seen there (in about 45 days on the hill), so I'm not surprised he had this view of the course ... others who played in our event did also.  Luckily, there are also a lot of people who have a different view of it!

Too bad they did not have him write about going on to Tasmania, because I think he enjoyed Barnbougle far more than Kidnappers.

Put New Zealand on the golfing map? They're not even on the New Zealand map yet.

Matt,
I think you hit two nails on the head here, the first being your main point.
But you also said:

I would think I would have find out in another generic travel / leisure publication -- not Links -- which incidentally has had a good run in its most recent issues.

And I would agree wholeheartedly--I think Links has been terrific the last 6 months or so, with their looks at classic courses, older British Isles courses and new 'classics'.  And the photography that accompanies those writeups has always been very good.

Reminds me of the Bandon episode of "The Wandering Golfer".  He playes Bandon Dunes, and wanders up to Sunset Bay GC in Coos Bay with his caddie.  Says something to the effect, 'there's nowhere else in the golfing world than I want to be than here (at Sunset Bay) right now".

Sunset Bay???

Shivas:

Wake up partner -- this isn't about me -- I love when you turn things around. I expect better from a magazine that touts itself as the definitive word on what is happening within golf. These are the same folks who feature a profile on courses in the UK and Ireland -- quite well in fact most of the time -- and also do one for modern courses in the USA -- a bit less in overall quality there though.

Thanks for your insightful comment that future articles will be written. Really? Geeze, I would never have guessed -- I appreciate your insightful crystal ball gazing.

But the focus of GCA is to critique courses and when articles from major sources -- I consider Links to be one -- decides to take a bite out of the apple I would hope they would do a bit more than the amateurish "what I did for my summer vacation" type writing.

Matt,

Since you're counting votes, I have to side with Shivas here.  While LINKS does have some articles about golf architecture, even those are intertwined with history and local stuff.  They had The Old Course on the cover last month and basically nothing about the course.  They had an article about James Dodson hanging out in the Pinecrest Inn.  So believe it or not, it's not all about GCA.  

So ultimately this is about you, and your belief that there are parts of the world that are seriously screeeeeeewwwwwwwed uuuuuuupppppp because they don't agree with your opinions or don't know as much as you.  

There is an old saying that goes something like, "if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all."  So maybe instead of constantly bashing GD or GM, or now LINKS, maybe you ought to just talk about the good things you do in Jersey Golfer and let it at that.  


....or are you just pissed that they published this article?
http://www.linksmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=8D280B6878F74944A6800F1C2104A146

A.G.

You'd put your two sense with Shivas if I said the sky was blue and he said it was red.

Nice try on your feeble attempt for Grand Strand linkage -- I answered all of your questions and provided the kind of balance regarding the idea that the Grand Strand is the place with the most amount of good courses stakced up in a 60-mile location. You are the one who staked the claim of Myrtle Beach on the Digest poll of top 100 public courses. Wow -- what a source to base things upon.

I was hoping that Links would have gone into a bit more depth on Cape Kidnappers -- it would be no different that covering golf in Oregon and only having the same amount of space dedicated to Bandon Dunes and its superb three courses.

Sandbox:

Love the name -- maybe you ought to return to the location your name means. Take heart -- it was a joke so don't get sooooooo defensive.

When you get an opportunity try to read what someone like Jim Finegan writes. Well done essays on the nature of courses and he doesn't skip a beat on the details. The Links article was fluff and more suited to the Conde Nast empire of travel pieces with golf one small part of the reason for going to Kiwi land.

If you think that's being overly negative than we agree to disagree.

Shivas:

Medinah is like Michael Jackson -- a forgotten place / person not worthy of more commentary. I'll be sure to take a long snooooooze when next year's PGA Championship comes to town. We should hook up for a few brews during the event. It might be worthy of Point / Counterpoint on CNN.

Let me repeat something again for your benefit -- I have no issue with consensus when it comes from sources that truly have done their homework. The folks who bitch and moan to me about my comments on Grand Strand golf have not played the other more noteworthy courses that have been sidelines for the likely reason they don't have the massive amount of ad and mktg $$ behind them.

The Digest ratings of America's top 100 public is simply a waste of time once yo get beyond the usual and easy subject to name (e.g Pebble Beach, Bethpage Black, etc, etc). The panel for Digest is really nothing more than a glorified Gallup poll of interested observers -- there are a few really qualified people who assist them -- but over the course of time the Digest polls are beginning to wear thin for their real beef on results.

Shivas -- you can argue and pontificate (you certainly do that so well) all you want. The fact is -- Links could have provided a more detailed report. The article decided to dedicate two paragraphs to a course that has provided a mega impact on the golfing world. It would be no different that going to Rome and giving the Sistine Chapel a mere two paragraphs and devoting more than to how good the quality fo the pizza is right down the street.  

One last thing -- I don't have a JD -- but clearly I am beginning to think you can handle David M as king of contrariness on GCA. Now that's a title to have.

Keep the brew cold when the PGA comes to town next year partner.


 

Gracely:

Just a quick question -- have you personally played Lakota Canyon Ranch?

If so -- I'd be interested in YOUR comments / reaction, etc, etc.

Frankly, the info posted on Lakota on GCA has been quite comprehensive.

Clearly, there are separate opinions on the overall impact of the Jim Engh design style. While I don't find all of his designs to be superb -- I have to say I found Lakota Canyon Ranch to be one of the most scenic and overall fun public layouts one can play. It's certainly worth a look for anyone treking through the I-70 corridor from Denver to points west or vice versa.

If CK only took up two paragraphs, which New Zealand courses did the guy write about?