[TEPaul]

Paul:

That's a damn fine imitation of Max Behr's writing. Good for you. I'll let you know in a couple of years if I've figured out the meaning.

".....wefnil;kwen;wfdWEefslnbwvbedwef,"

At first glance, though, I think I might be a bit suspect about that kind of conclusion.

[Geoffrey Childs]

It may have had "some" influence but there are what some 300 or so GW raters.  How many tune in here on GCA?  What % of the votes come from here on GCA?  

I think this is a good question relevant to the topic. I believe that 100% of Golfweek raters know about Golfclubatlas.  I would then say that 99% have logged in at least once and looked around.  I would guess 66% lurk on a regular basis and 33% of the votes are influenced by what is discussed on GCA or carried onto discussions at your rater camps....

sidenote:  I love you guys and I think you love me.

John - Your spy network disappoints me.  While you seem to have a comprehensive network checking up on PaulT's whereabouts you need to focus your phone wiretaps and satellites a bit more on the rest of the GW panel and perhaps get an undercover man or women at a rater retreat or two.  If you did that you might learn just how ridiculous your figures are relative to reality.

Just so your head explodes today, you are growing on me.  I would not call it love just yet but keep courting me an your never know.

What about those other questions I asked you?

[Geoffrey Childs]

It would seem from this thread that the rater community are the largest buyers of pro shop merchandise in America.  Thanks for the support guys.  I wonder if a better, more telling rating system would be for each rater to submit how much  money they spent in each pro shop rather than a number rating for the course.  It may in fact yield the same results.  

I believe the study and understanding of architecture is furthered much more by Mr. Klein writing a comprehensive article than the 300 others submitting numbered opinions in his publication.

Does any rater who is a frequenter of this site think their cumulative efforts leads to a result anywhere as educational as the reviews on this site by Mr. Morrissett?

Hammy

I think this is a sly attempt at better ratings for your home courses as they must be the ones overcharging for cool logos.  Good try too!

I don't believe there are more educational reads then Brad Kleins reviews in Golfweek and Ran's course reviews here on GCA.  I also don't believe that the annual Top Whatever Issues that rater's contribute their work towards are geared to the same end as Brad and Ran's writing.

[Jonathan Cummings]

Barn - 100% of GW raters know of gca.com???  I'm lucky enough to know and have played golf with the majority of the 400 on the panel and let me assure you half of them have never heard of gca.com.  Sorry to disappoint.  JC

[Brad Klein]

John, the percentage of GW raters who are GCA registered loggers is in the single digits. As for awareness of GCA, like too many others here you assume there's a firestorm of interest in the subject out there. At every rater event when I give a talk, a reference to GCA.com elicts more frowns and questions to the tune of "what's that?" than laughs or nods of recognition. I get the same response from meetings of superintendents.

I have no expectation that raters should be conversant with this Website, and when a GCA regular tries to get on the panel I take a more than usually close look for any bias that is discernable in their postings. You might be hearing more from some disgruntled ex-raters who are no longer on the roster and took offense at being rotated out. You have an extremely small universe here, and while the percentage of raters who are aware of GCA and log on or lurk is certainly higher than among any random group of avid golfers, it is nowhere near the dominance that you conspiracy theorists suspect.

[TEPaul]

"Barn - 100% of GW raters know of gca.com???  I'm lucky enough to know and have played golf with the majority of the 400 on the panel and let me assure you half of them have never heard of gca.com.  Sorry to disappoint.  JC"

Well, then Jonathan, that's just another great reason why at least half of those 400 GW raters are just a bunch of no-nothing chumps.

If they have never even heard of the great and almighty GOLFCLUBATLAS.com they do not even deserve to use the words golf course architecture.  

[Jonathan Cummings]

RJ Daley -  I just heard a funny story about Doak.  You are quite right - he has come a long way (now Tom, I've known you for damn near 20 years so don't get pissed when you read this).

My superintendent (Dennis Ingram) worked for Pete Dye at Austin CC and Long Cove.  We were talking about Doak yesterday on our practice green and Dennis smiled and shook his head.

"I remember Pete calling me up and sayin 'Dennis, could you pick up a kid at the airport and put him to work, not sure what he can do?'" said Dennis.

When Dennis got to the airport and picked up a young Tom, Doak immediately told Ingram, "I don't rake and I don't shovel".

"That so", replied Dennis.

When they got to Long Cove, Dennis handed Doak a shovel and pointed to a pile of dirt.

Doak went off and shovelled.

What an image!

jaycee

[Jonathan Cummings]

Tom P - you may or may not be right, I just couldn't let an exaggeration of that degree pass.  J

[TEPaul]

"Tom P - you may or may not be right,"

Jonathan:

I believe I would not hesitate to say that there surely is supreme truth in that remark.

[TEPaul]

"When Dennis got to the airport and picked up a young Tom, Doak immediately told Ingram, "I don't rake and I don't shovel".

"That so", replied Dennis.

When they got to Long Cove, Dennis handled Doak a shovel and pointed to a pile of dirt.

Doak went off and shovelled."

God, is that disappointing to hear. If anyone was willing to stick to their principles I really thought it was Tom Doak. If that Dennis guy had half a brain he should've made little Tommy Doak the head foreman right then and there. Some people just don't recognize true talent even when it smacks them right across the chops.

[John Kavanaugh]

Barn - 100% of GW raters know of gca.com???  I'm lucky enough to know and have played golf with the majority of the 400 on the panel and let me assure you half of them have never heard of gca.com.  Sorry to disappoint.  JC

JC,

I'm not sure exactly when but I have to assume that at some point in your discovery of a rater not knowing about GCA he learns about GCA.  You guys constantly sell the golfing public on how much better educated architectually you are than any other panel and now you tell me that few of your corp have even heard of this site or the fantastic course write ups and interviews by Ran...I hope the single most important factor in an architectural education is not solely based on the ownership of a Ross biography....You may have me on that one.

[Brad Klein]

John, we emphasize rater education at rater events through my lectures as well as through architecture/development talks by the likes of Pete Dye, Tom Fazio, Rees Jones, Fred Ridley, Herb Kohler, Tom Marzolf, Steve Smyers, Tom Doak, Mike Keiser --  all of whom have addressed our events. The extremely low signal-to-noise ratio of GCA (in no small part thanks to you) would only be one element, but by no means the chief or priority component, of an architecture education.

[Geoffrey Childs]

I'm not saying you are entirely wrong but there is a lot more to your "buzz" theory.  What about a marketing campaign like you see in every magazine for Reynolds Plantation and other high profile new courses?  Do they influence?

I don't read any magazines...I only read Golfclubatlas so they do not influence me and I don't believe influence people on here in a positive way.

John

So this place does not influence people in a positive way?  

Why then are you on here so much?

You don't think that promoting affordable public golf at Rustic Canyon, Wild Horse and new places like Angel's Crossing is not good for golf in general?

Not all the talk here is about Merion, Pine Valley and NGLA and yet even that is a positive exposure to great architecture and to elements that make a golf course great.

[John Kavanaugh]

Geoffrey,

I was talking about the high profile ads in magazines not having a positive influence on the people of this board.  I think Golfclubatlas does a nice job of getting people on and to courses they otherwise would not have seen.  This is a positve thing.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Geoffrey,

I was talking about the high profile ads in magazines not having a positive influence on the people of this board.  I think Golfclubatlas does a nice job of getting people on and to courses they otherwise would not have seen.  This is a positve thing.

Thanks for the clarification - To mess with you - we seem to be on the same page again  

[RJ_Daley]

Brad, how much time do your lecturers spend on the construction aspects of their golf course design work?  I'm guessing a fellow like Dye must offer a great deal of insight to your attendees about the actual process to build the course.  

Do you consider the topic of design and construction techniques as the sme subject or do you tell the raters to consider construction aspects, as a separate issue to consider, if at all?

Then, the same questions about the maintenance and turf demands to meld with the design aspects.  

Can a course be deficient in certain construction aspects and IMM, yet have redeeming qualities of design ideas that overcome the other issues to encourage you to suggest they get consideration in the rating?

[Jim Thompson]

Brad,

I think having some sort of document that went out to new course projects would be great idea.  Particularly if the piece addressed what the rating process is and, more importantly, what it isn’t.  Sadly, I think most developers are to some extent misguided by regional marketing and promotion types looking to justify a fee and sell a contract.  Not that I blame them for doing that, but there really is no place to go for a new developer to get and idea of this entire process.  Owners tend to have to rely on others in the industry and how they viewed the whole experience and the benefits.

Questions that come to mind:
What are the benefits and risks of being rated?
How do you get on a list to be rated?
Who do you contact?
How should these raters who visit be expected to conduct themselves?
What recourse should an owner take if there is a problem?
Do external marketing projects play a role in the process?

Stuff like that.

Let me know if I can help.

Thanks!

JT

[George Pazin]

Mike,

They don't owe you for their success...you had zero to do with it...get over yourself.

John,

I might as well be talking to the wall because you missed my point by 500 miles.   No, none of those architects owe me or anyone else for their success or failure, and that's my point.

Their work speaks for itself and that's why they are now recognized.

Another gold star.

John, you have an amazing ability to twist words, you should consider switching to politics. Obviously you lack the tact to be one yourself, but perhaps you could get a job spinning.

[Brad Klein]

RJ,

I spend 2/3rds of my talks on design / construction / maintenance and the rest of it on how the course plays. A poorly built course by definition is a lousy one; and a poorly grown in course has no chance. Apologists who like to overlook one element for the sake of valorizing "architecture" make for lousy raters and worse critics. That's just an excuse for being lazy as a students of design and not doing one's homework.

[RJ_Daley]

Brad, how would you approach a rating of Apache Stronghold?

I have not seen it but for pictures.  I have listened and read discussions about it, and they always seem to get down to the idea that the course is architecturally very good, and conditioning wise, often poor.  

I can understand that one without the other isn't going to get any serious consideration in actual placements in ratings.  Yet, a serious architecture fan might overlook that and enjoy dem ol bones of the course.  

Before Ocean Trails fell into the drink, there was already spec about the soundness of the site on a fault line, construction wise.  Maybe a better example is of courses I have heard actual construction guys say are great, beautiful, very strong strategically, and built in a manner of construction technique (particularly bunkers and drainage around them and into them from above) that they are going to go to ruin or cost so much to maintain, that they won't be viable over the long haul.  Are your raters trained to see such things, and should they concern themselves with those matters if it might be highly evident that the course isn't viable as a long term prop?

[Adam Clayman]

Brad, Clearly Mr. Daley is more than interested in the process and his devotion to all the details involved. Not only GCA, but how it closely relates to maintenance costs and practices. If my posting this is in anyway improper, I will delete it as soon as I hear that from you.


Dick- Here's my breakdown of how I viewed Apache Stronghold. Complete with the definition of the separate categories.

Remember, the overall number is not directly related to the separate categories. It is a value all on it's own allowing the panelist some poetic license to value(or devalue) other intangibles. (Not whether we were offered a comped round, John)
 

Ease & Intimacy of Routing:
-extent to which sequence of holes follows natural contours and unfolds in an unforced manner 7.00

Quality of feature shaping:
-extent to which the land’s features that have been enhanced through earth-moving and shaping form a landscape that suits the game and has aesthetic/thematic coherence  6.00

Natural setting and overall land plan:
-quality and aesthetic relationship of golf course, clubhouse, cart paths and other facility features to surrounding structures and native scenery 8.00

Interest of greens and surrounding chipping contours:
-shot-making demands on and around the putting surface  9.00

Variety and memorability of par 3’s:
-different clubs hit; different terrain; different looks  6.00

Variety and memorability of par 4’s:
-extent to which angles of play, varied terrain and left-to-right/right-to-left shots create interesting and varied playing options 7.00

Variety and memorability of par 5’s:
-extent to which holes offer variety of options form the tee and on the second shot as well risk/reward possibilities  6.00

Basic Conditioning:
-variety of playing textures; extent of turf coverage; consistency and quality of bunker sand; delineation of tees/fairways/roughs/collars & chipping areas (beyond day-to-day changes due to weather, aerating, over seeding or repairs)  1.00

Landscape and tree management:
-extent to which trees and any floral features complements or enhances rather than impose and intrude upon the ground features and playing conditions of the course 5.00

“Walk in the park” test:
-degree to which the course is ultimately worth spending half a day on as a compelling outdoor experience  7.00

Overall Rating 5.50

[Brad Klein]

Thanks, Adam, that's very illustrative, esp. the "Basic Conditioning" vote.

RJD, precisely because of the paltry maintenance conditions out there in Globe I generally approach Apache Stronghold with trepidation.

A few years ago some raters pretended it wasn't an issue or that the architecture overrode it, but it clearly became an impossible situation, to the point where we actually "suspended" the course from consideration until it was minimally playable and I did an agronomic autopsy in Golfweek. I tremble every time the issue arises anew because I feel I need to have a trusted correspondent out there telling me what the conditioning is really like and whether its design features are (again) negotiable.

[RJ_Daley]

Brad, all fair enough answers.

But, I want to pursue one last point using Adam's rating sheet protocol.

Quality of feature shaping:
-extent to which the land’s features that have been enhanced through earth-moving and shaping form a landscape that suits the game and has aesthetic/thematic coherence  

I'm going to use Cuscowilla as my example.  I find the golf course exciting, great strategically, aesthetically, and not to list each rating criteria that Adam mentioned, I would be placing it consistently in the 7.5s-8 even up to 9 perhaps in areas.  Yet, from a technical construction side of things, I have had a very well respected architect, who I am confident is not just dissing the C&C reputation, and a super say that the bunkering is nearly disfunctional in maintenance and performance.  That it is a nightmare to maintain.  Frankly, since I don't work on that crew to maintain them, and don't see them frequently, I can't imagine that it is that bad of a situation, overall though daily routines.  I assume other raters may not be keen enough to pick up on that criticism (if it is valid) either.  

But, say it is.  Say the rater knows and understands that the drainage into the bunkers is not well handled given the flashed up sand and its texture, and rolled over turf, and slopes into the bunkers not being intercepted in surface and ground water drainage creates a consistent costly problem.  

Taken on its face, I'd give the criteria as stated above in the quote an 8.5-9 at Cusco.  But, going by the critical eye of the archie and super as to the technical side of the construction (if valid), one might think of it as < 5.

What are your thoughts?

[Greg Tallman]

RJ,

Who is teh target if said rating?

Is it intended as a guide for the golfing massses?

Is it a critique of the design and construction teams?

Is it a platform from which to profess one's superior knowledge of all things related to designing and constructing a golf course?

Is it a meshing of all of the above? If so where is the weighting placed? A poorly constructed drainage system that is compensated for by talented hardworking staff is a consideration(black mark) or no?


Brad - As related to my questions above what are your marching orders to your team?

[Adam Clayman]

The breakdown of criterion is not intended for general use. It's my understanding that it assists Brad in evaluating our level of understanding and can help teach us where we might need further study or understanding.
 Take for example a recent opinion posted here on Chapparel Pines. It was completely contrary to a personal comment I overheard Brad make after our visit there. So, if that rater is interested in learning where he/she might have an area that needs work, they could learn about through this breakdown.

I may have over simplified the scenario and certainly Brad can't spend all his time baby-sitting, BUT, when he does do an analysis of an individuals ratings, these breakdowns help immeasurably.

Please do not jump to the conclusion that Brad is telling us what to like, or not like. He guides and educates us by pointing out where we might need it.
 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()