It's a pretty long story for any of the golf publications.  But I enjoyed it, which I would not have expected.

Ha! Everyone knows you're driven in your Rolls; you drive your Bentley.

What fraudulent enterprise is it that suggests anything like a golf course to be considered "greatest" 100, or greatest anything if it is largely the mere application of enough money and manipulation to pound the ground and curry those that evaluate it.  Pound the ground long enough and hard enough, with all the change orders it will take and if you can't get something playable, you have to be a f***ing idiot.  Go out and create something good in harmony with nature, tread lightly via intelligent design, craftsmanship and vision, with modesty and respect and then I might respect you.  

Dick,

Big ego behind the course, get a popular name architect of the day to design it, the most expensive course ever built, pound and blow up dirt and rock and woodlands on an difficult piece of land......... You just described the Yale University Golf Course in 1925.  I don't think you have played Yale, but if you had, my guess is that you would be entering the GCA Double Standard Hall of Fame with Doak, Jaka, Sweeney and now Trump!

Similar to Tom and Paul, I found the article interesting and balanced, especially where Bamberger and Mike Donald prefer Westchester over Bedminster. I have not played any.  

That is one helluvan article.  Bamberger can really think and write (most writers can either only do one or the other or not both at the same time).

Well written and revealing

Face it...

if any of you had the resources and pull Trump had... you'd be doing the same thing.

My respect for the man grows each day and it seems like he is slowly learning.

Mike,
The GCADSHofF?  I'm in it?    
I'd like to thank my wife (who recognised this quality early in my career as a know-it-all), my readers, my fans, but most of all, The Donald, who has been my constant inspiration.  

While I don't know all the history behind the impetus to create the Yale University golf course,  I am fairly certain it wouldn't resemble the impetus and motivations behind any Trumpy project.  Was there a central personality that decided to take on nature to whatever extent it took, to pound a trophy course out of a piece of land at all costs, and then go about declaring it the finest course of its time, with some ancillary motivation to further inflate the Yale prestige (since Yale is not a brand name like Trump only prestige will serve to compare).  Where was any outrageous marketing scheme at Yale to sell equivalent 350K memberships and 20K yearly fees to personally agrandize anyone?  

I just don't think Yale applies, though I don't really know the specifics.  Maybe Lido was more on track as a comparison, as it was a Long Island "project" with housing or resort component to it as a profit center to feed off the course, big ego project, push engineering/construction to an extreme, same designer stable, etc.

But, maybe the observations about LA National Trumpy thingy is the best of all.  Steal the mantel of visionary developer buy buying it, (all the design work was basically the Dye's including the floating out to sea and rebuild of the 18th hole).  Trump comes in and builds a "Pirates of the Carribean" water world that has nothing to do with golf design, hold a made for TV superficial faux golf event with the big break stuff there, and brand names it after himself and declares it great under his name.

When one considers that Trump and his "vision" will have anything to do with a great piece of land like the Scottish venue, and consider that side by side with perhaps one of the most moving essays I can think of (Thanks to Peter Pallota posting it as I've copied it below) it almost makes me sick to think Trump can be allowed to get his hands and name on such a property.  the horror... the arrogance... (no icon available for puking)

 
"Nature was gracious and kind when it spread before our forefathers that peculiar undulating ground known as linksland which the receding sea had left, as it were, especially designed as a playground for golf. Even the rabbits which infested its sandy soil and the sheep which roamed its hills and hollows were put there, it would seem, to crop the grass which throve so delicately in this newborn soil. The softness of the sea air, the purity of vegetation, the distant horizon and spring of turf under foot, all went to present a beguiling aspect of Nature in its vastness and its simplicity. And the idea that man projected into these surroundings was as simple. To strike a little ball and consecrate the task by playing it into a little hole was as naïve an enterprise, and yet as ominous, as the patient struggle of vegetation to conquer the white army of the booming deep among the dunes.

So lovable was this adventure that man was not content to pursue it apart in its natural habitation, but must needs transport it to situations unaccommodating to its playing. But to transport it he had to commit sacrilege – he had to analyze it, tear it to pieces the more easily to pack it in his mind. And, in so doing, he did not realize that what he carried away with him was the letter only, and that he left behind something intangible, that property of unsullied nature, innocent beauty undefiled as yet by the hand of man.

It was inevitable that his first review of linksland golf should have engendered a type of architecture which disclosed a conscious adhesion to a formal order of things. It was not to be expected that the mind would immediately seize the sensuous appeal of native golf. Hence, it was not considered in the construction of our first inland courses. The natural architecture of linksland, passed through the sieve of the mind, came out utilitarian in aspect and mathematical in form. The novice at landscape gardening cannot see the planting of trees otherwise than in rows, nor the lawn in front of his house otherwise than in a series of terraces. The conscious mind delights in the fitness of things, in the easily comprehensible, and thus dwells on the surface of phenomena.

Indeed, appearances are never transferable. They are always the produce of certain relations which exist once, and are only appropriate to a certain condition. Hence, the impossibility of transferring the aspect of linksland. This had to be left behind. But that which in linksland appealed unconsciously to the golfer was the absence of any evidence of man’s handiwork. He was in the presence of Nature unstained by artificiality.

The merit of this gradually came to be realized. Its recognition is revealed in the efforts now being made to achieve naturalness in construction of the various features that go to make up a golf course. The straight line has well-nigh disappeared from out bunkers, tees and greens. They are acquired curves. Without doubt this phase is more pleasing to the eye. But the arbitrary manner in which we continue to deal with these components makes them manifest an individuality apart from their surroundings. We have succeeded in prettifying them, but we remain under the delusion that what is pretty, or picturesque, is beautiful."
Max Behr

Mikke

Wasn't it Alan Robertson who was quoted as saying:

"This is the finest Road Hole Bunker that anybody has ever created."?

Rhic (patent pending)

Trump creates his own reality. He's certainly not the first successful person to do that, is he?

Quote from: Kyle Warren Harris on June 06, 2007, 08:03:09 AM

Face it...

if any of you had the resources and pull Trump had... you'd be doing the same thing.

My respect for the man grows each day and it seems like he is slowly learning.

I'd prefer to think I'd at least try to emulate Mr. Keiser, who seems to share little with The Donald (circle R, don't know how they do it).

Funny, my respect for the man shrinks every time he opens his mouth, or pops up in the news. The only thing he's learning is the P.T. Barnum may have been right.

I dunno George. He obviously wants a different thing than Mr. Keiser, so I won't make that comparison. Another is he can afford to make expensive mistakes and let his pull make up for them financially, many on here have sung the praises of Trump Bedminster.

Let's let history decide down the road and see if he figures it out. Perhaps in 50 years, his authority will have rendered a lot more good than bad.

The article was sure comprehensive. I even felt endeared to the Donald when the writer described him as just reguar folk from Broklyn.

However, The meat of the GCA illustrates how anyone can make a golf course hard. And, considering this...

We have succeeded in prettifying them, but we remain under the delusion that what is pretty, or picturesque, is beautiful."

allowing the Donald to determine tastes (aestheics etc) will be a hard pill to swallow for all but the dumbest of the wealthy.

mmmm,
now don't hold my feet to the fire as to the totally accurate accounting of the costs of the 5 or so Trump golf course properties that are among those mentioned in the article, but I'm "guessing" that the total cost of about 5 of his golf properties runs north of a 120 million $$$!  Is that fair?  Probably not even the accountants know for sure...  

Now, if I were going to go partners with the Donald in that enterprise with the express desire that he produce a significant # of his courses to be of a high quality that they would be regarded as consensus rater rankings of top 100, I'd feel like I got screwed.  If I were going to pony up what they say are the membership fees and yearly costs, and I were in that dumbest of the wealthy, I'd also want the course to be regarded in the top 100 of rater rankings, and actually be all that on their merits.

Not that I give a tiny tooot if the Donald finds said suckers by influencing said raters, intimidates or overwhelms said writers and golf association officials, or just totally P.T Barnums everyone.  

I'd rather invest with Keiser who has a much higher batting average of producing top ranked courses, with what I'm pretty sure is way less $$$.  And, he seems to also be able to charge what the market will bare based on the public's acceptance of their high quality.  At least Keiser's are all open to whoever wants to plunk the $$$ down purely as a willing public consumer and his success is based on ongoing and repeat acceptance of the quality of the product.  

I think the Donald hooks his members on the joning hype and then holds them hostage to their own impulsive egotistical expenditure, and fools them into thinking they are discriminating connoisuers by conning them into thinking what is prettified is beautiful and 'greatest'.  

The question in my mind is; will the wealthy and conned keep coming forward and continue to gravitate to the overly marketed Trump (tm), or will they tire and bail out as further time proves them not so top 100y.  If so, what happens to the Donald properties?  Do they waste in asset value like so many overhyped and overreached golf course projects before?

Mike, I'm not saying MikeC, Redanman, or Mark C are dumb for liking the New Jersey course.  Apparently Mike Donald liked it second best.  I don't remember the jest of the article as to whether only Westchester or also Bedminister are holding in the top 100.   I'd only think they were dumb if they ponied up that kind of money for a membership on the premise that it was a bullet-proof top 100 and as time went by, it slipped precipitously because it might have been a bit 'oversold' to the powers that be in the begining.

Then again, I picked Ottawa all year...  

Mike, One course that gets a passable grade from some our respected contributors here, wasn't the basis for my criticism of his sensibilities. It was seeing his tastes, in his homes, flaunted every Sunday night on NBC during the airing of the now cancelled "The Apprentice".