[Tom_Doak]

Pat:

The rankings have created a medium for dozens of expert golf course ratings panelists to visit every good course in the world and tell them what they need.

How could that be bad for architecture?

[John K:  My "straight man" fees are very reasonable.]

[Joe Hancock]

[John K:  My "straight man" fees are very reasonable.]

Tom,

That could also be translated as "commensurate with experience".

Joe

[Jim_Bick]

Rankings (and let's not forget state-by state, which get way below the top 100) are a third-party opinion independent of a club's membership. Others can fight about whether it is more or less expert.  Declining rankings can be an important counter to the forces of the status quo or inertia, which are of course very powerful in all organizations.  They force everyone to admit that something has changed either in their course or in the courses which have passed it.

At that point, the rankings have forced a decision to be made as to whether or not there is a problem. This is the necessary first step (sounds like a therapy) towards improvement. Therefore, rankings do provide an important service in helping club memberships be good stewards of their courses.

This is true whether the club decides it doesn't need to make any changes (they've made a decision) or screws it up trying to figure out what to do.

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

SPDB,

I've already asked those questions.
You'll have to start your own thread.

Tom Doak,

I was shocked to learn that a rater, who had just finished playing a golf course for the first time, offered his opinions on what needed to be changed on the golf course to several members and committeemen.

Actually, I wasn't shocked by that.
I was shocked that they actually listened to him.

You wouldn't have believed his suggestions.

Fortunately, counter arguments, logic and vast amounts of alcohol cleared their heads.
But, it was a dangerous lesson learned.

[DMoriarty]

Patrick,

I agree with the others who have suggested that ratings and raters bring about changes, but not necessarily for the better.  

Similarly, the world loves Shadow Creek and I'm here to tell you 99.9% of the world's golfers would choose it in a heartbeat over Rustic Canyon if they had one and only one round only to play.

The problem is the other 0.1% are the regular posters here, led by Tommy.

So please don't ever think Shadow Creek is a bad golf course - it isn't.  It is a hell of a lot of fun to play, and beautiful in its own manufactured, over-the-top Vegas way just as are the showgirls who work in that town.  

So yeah, you don't marry Shadow Creek, you marry a girl/course like Rustic Canyon.

But that's not to say it ain't a hell of a lot of fun to fool around with a showgirl like Shadow Creek.

I first thought this was a silly analogy, but upon further reflection maybe it does say something about taste.    

I havent played Shadow Creek . . .  I'd like to see it some day because I hear that it is an engineering marvel and it was certainly an important course in the evolution of golf design, but to be honest I am not all that curious about the course nor attracted to the concept or the photos.  

But then I am not attracted to Cher either, nor any other senior citizen with a 20 yr. old's breasts and and more lifts than Squaw Valley.   Plastic surgeons can do amazing things, but their creations just dont interest me.  

[THuckaby2]

David:

Touche!  And well done.

But this isn't about you.  You are MOST DEFINITELY in the 0.1%.  In fact you have to be the absolute most solid person in that astute group.

TH

[Joel_Stewart]

HOW do the rankings encourage clubs to improve their golf courses ?

Pat:

Conditioning is one factor that courses and management consider.  I honestly believe a number of courses will look much closer now at changes that have occured over time.  Artifical lakes, bunkers that are tired or have been rebuilt, greens that have been modified and recently, trees and more trees and their elimination.   I personally have been asked by numerous clubs for off the record comments regarding changes and proposed changes and I know that my comments have gone to boards and green committees.

[DMoriarty]

David:

Touche!  And well done.

But this isn't about you.  You are MOST DEFINITELY in the 0.1%.  In fact you have to be the absolute most solid person in that astute group.

Well I have news for you, it isnt about them either.   It is about creating quality, sustainable golf.   The masses are not necessarily the best situated to make that judgment.

Also, even with the masses, you help yourself by manipulating  the question.   Not many courses make their living off of golfers who have "only one round to play."   Give them 50 rounds on each and my guess is the 0.1% grows substantially.   Hand them the tab, and your percentages just might flip-flop completely.  

[THuckaby2]

David:

Absolutely understood, and agreed.  It is a silly hypo not based in the real world.  But we've had a lot of those recently.  Good lord yes throw in cost and this gets turned on its head - absolutely.

My point was just that Shadow Creek remains a damn fun place to play - I think - and I do think a lot of people would agree with me.  Tommy did seem to paint it quite differently, and I just wanted young Kyle to know there were other ways to look at it.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

I agree with the others who have suggested that ratings and raters bring about changes, but not necessarily for the better.  

I would take issue with your point.
Do you feel that clubs making changes, in the context of the ratings, are doing so to IMPROVE themselves, or to WORSEN their golf course ?

While the results may not have produced an improved product, wasn't that the goal, the intent ?[/color]

Similarly, the world loves Shadow Creek and I'm here to tell you 99.9% of the world's golfers would choose it in a heartbeat over Rustic Canyon if they had one and only one round only to play.

The problem is the other 0.1% are the regular posters here, led by Tommy.

So please don't ever think Shadow Creek is a bad golf course - it isn't.  It is a hell of a lot of fun to play, and beautiful in its own manufactured, over-the-top Vegas way just as are the showgirls who work in that town.  

So yeah, you don't marry Shadow Creek, you marry a girl/course like Rustic Canyon.

But that's not to say it ain't a hell of a lot of fun to fool around with a showgirl like Shadow Creek.

I first thought this was a silly analogy, but upon further reflection maybe it does say something about taste.    

I havent played Shadow Creek . . .  I'd like to see it some day because I hear that it is an engineering marvel and it was certainly an important course in the evolution of golf design, but to be honest I am not all that curious about the course nor attracted to the concept or the photos.

So, you were equally turned off by LIDO ?[/color]  

But then I am not attracted to Cher either, nor any other senior citizen with a 20 yr. old's breasts and and more lifts than Squaw Valley.   Plastic surgeons can do amazing things, but their creations just dont interest me.

You can't be critical of Shadow Creek for it's manufactured or engineered existance and fawn over NGLA.

Shadow Creek is but an extension of NGLA on a more hostile site demanding more radical treatment.[/color]
 

[DMoriarty]

PM said: I would take issue with your point.
Do you feel that clubs making changes, in the context of the ratings, are doing so to IMPROVE themselves, or to WORSEN their golf course ?

While the results may not have produced an improved product, wasn't that the goal, the intent ?[/color]

You take issue, but not with my point.  I dont give a hoot about intentions, my point concerned results.  The cartpath to hellish golf design is paved [by JakaB?] with good intentions.  
 
PM said: So, you were equally turned off by LIDO ?[/color]  

You must have missed that thread.   Ask your buddy TomP about my thoughts on the Lido;  the topic seems almost as sacrosanct as . . . well, never mind.  

PM said: You can't be critical of Shadow Creek for it's manufactured or engineered existance and fawn over NGLA.[/color]

Sure I can.

PM said:
Shadow Creek is but an extension of NGLA on a more hostile site demanding more radical treatment.[/color]

This supposed "extension" is tenuous at best.   Moderate, sympathetic modification does not necessarily spawn radical, antithetical transformation.   It is perfectly logical to accept one and reject the other.

_________________________

Tom H.  

It may be a silly hypo to you, but it raises a red flag with me.  You are not the only rater recently to use the "if you only had one round to play" hypo recently.   A stupid way to evaluate courses, but apparently a popular methodology.  

. . . I remember Tommy's detailed post-Shadow Creek post, but I do not recall him badmouthing the course as you imply.   In fact I remember being surprised at the positive tone.   Does he have to gush like you before you will get off his back?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

You take issue, but not with my point.  I dont give a hoot about intentions, my point concerned results.  The cartpath to hellish golf design is paved [by JakaB?] with good intentions.  

Could you cite me five examples where a club, with the sole purpose of improving their course for ranking purposes, ended up with a worse product then they started with ?[/color]
 
PM said: So, you were equally turned off by LIDO ?[/color]  



Lido was as much, if not more engineered and artificial as Shadow Creek, and Lido was created in a harmonious environment, not a hostile one, like Shadow Creek.[/color]

PM said: You can't be critical of Shadow Creek for it's manufactured or engineered existance and fawn over NGLA.[/color]

Sure I can.

Not unless you're being intellectually dishonest or just cute.
Both are highly manufactured or engineered, given their respective sites.[/color]

PM said:
Shadow Creek is but an extension of NGLA on a more hostile site demanding more radical treatment.[/color]

This supposed "extension" is tenuous at best.   Moderate, sympathetic modification does not necessarily spawn radical, antithetical transformation.   It is perfectly logical to accept one and reject the other.

Not when you consider the sites, the respective environments.[/color]

______________________

Tom H

. . . I remember Tommy's detailed post-Shadow Creek post, but I do not recall him badmouthing the course as you imply.   In fact I remember being surprised at the positive tone.   Does he have to gush like you before you will get off his back?

I would hardly consider Tommy an impartial analyst.
He has a long history of Fazio bashing.  Giving the "Devil" a little of his due, when he may have been entitled to a lot of his due wouldn't be my idea of a credible review.

Shadow Creek is a good golf course.

Shadow Creek may have failed to remove it's already mature trees as they continued to mature.  Steve Wynn wanted instant maturity, which he got, but, a tree removal program needs to be instituted, otherwise the course continues to narrow.[/color]

[DMoriarty]

Patrick, all I said was that following raters' suggestions does not necessarily result in an improved course.   I dont think you disagree with this, so why argue about it?  

As for the Lido, remember the 'Jump the Shark' thread?  You are preaching to the choir. (Except that Lido did try to look like it was a natural part of its surrounds, while Shadow Creek apparently tried the opposite.)
 
No offense meant, but are you aware that you switch from talking about Lido to talking about NGLA mid-posts?    

I wasnt there for construction and grow-in, but I was under the impression that whatever the extent of the manufacturing at NGLA, it was a drop in the bucket compared to the manufacturing that went on at the Lido and Shadow Creek.   You apparently know differently.   Can you point me toward facts which support your conclusion?  

For example, how much dirt was moved at NGLA, compared to the other two?   How much man-made elevation was created at each?   How much did each cost, adjusted for the times?  How closely did the final result of each resemble the previous topography?   Did MacDonald view the Lido and NGLA as on the same scale with regard to the manufacturing.

____________________

As for Tommy, he apparently agrees with you that Shadow Creek is a good course.  Whatever his approach generally, his detailed post-round post about this course was positive and well-balanced as I recall.    So why pile on here?

Whatever the supposed "bias" of Tommy et al, It is the hypersensitive Fazio/Rees-Basher-Bashers who stop conversations dead in their tracks.

[TEPaul]

David Moriaty said:

"I first thought this was a silly analogy, but upon further reflection maybe it does say something about taste.    
I havent played Shadow Creek . . .  I'd like to see it some day because I hear that it is an engineering marvel and it was certainly an important course in the evolution of golf design, but to be honest I am not all that curious about the course nor attracted to the concept or the photos.  
But then I am not attracted to Cher either, nor any other senior citizen with a 20 yr. old's breasts and and more lifts than Squaw Valley.  Plastic surgeons can do amazing things, but their creations just dont interest me."

David:

Very well, done--I couldn't agree with your sentiments and sensibilities more. Tom Huckaby put a wonderful analogy on Shadow Creek up there for you and you described your feeling about the analogy really well. Cher is a beautiful analogy--she was, is, and probably always will be a big star but in the end she's all about "meretricious allure" to most of us!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick, all I said was that following raters' suggestions does not necessarily result in an improved course.   I dont think you disagree with this, so why argue about it?
Dave, clubs don't listen to individual raters, they listen to the numerical equivalents in each category.

A club that comes up short in one category may attempt to bolster that category, vis a vis improvements, in turn, hoping that the improvement in that category will catapult them into the top 100 or to a better ranking.[/color]

As for the Lido, remember the 'Jump the Shark' thread?  You are preaching to the choir. (Except that Lido did try to look like it was a natural part of its surrounds, while Shadow Creek apparently tried the opposite.)

Why would you want to look like a hostile, barren, arid, flat desert in a flash flood zone ?  Where's the appeal ?[/color]
 
No offense meant, but are you aware that you switch from talking about Lido to talking about NGLA mid-posts?
Both were manufactured, with Lido's being more extensive.[/color]

I wasnt there for construction and grow-in, but I was under the impression that whatever the extent of the manufacturing at NGLA, it was a drop in the bucket compared to the manufacturing that went on at the Lido and Shadow Creek.
You can't compare the sites.
If you want to see the extensive manufacturing at NGLA just walk the golf course backwards.  

If I gave those instructions to TEPaul, he'd start at the first tee and walk from the 1st tee to the 1st green, looking back at the first tee, tripping an falling into the bunkers along the way.

But, that's not what I mean.  Start behind # 18 green and walk back to the tee and so on and so on, and you'll see the extensive manufacturing that took place.

Lido and even Yale were manufactured on a much grander scale.[/color]

You apparently know differently.   Can you point me toward facts which support your conclusion?  

The facts are there, on the golf course, all one has to do is open their eyes, provided they've opened their minds.[/color]

For example, how much dirt was moved at NGLA, compared to the other two?   How much man-made elevation was created at each?   How much did each cost, adjusted for the times?  How closely did the final result of each resemble the previous topography?   Did MacDonald view the Lido and NGLA as on the same scale with regard to the manufacturing.
Dave, these are really dumb questions.

As I stated to you earlier, one must look at the finished product in the context of the original site, and the objective.

One only has to look at the 8th green and 9th tee to see how much man made elevation was created at NGLA.  That's a totally man made complex.

And, what difference does it make ?
If a good hole is created, is it to be devalued because more then 10 feet of elevation was added at the tee or green end ?

A flat golf course built in a flash flood zone would suffer the same fate as Rustic Canyon, frequently.

Was NGLA built on a flash flood plain ?

Shadow Creek was NEVER meant to resemble its previous topography.  To do so would be to court disaster.
You'd have to rebuild the golf course after every substantive rainfall.

Regarding LIDO, you should differentiate between basic pad fill and construction.  Lido was a massive project because of the fill, not the golf course.

Cost adjusted Yale might rival Shadow Creek, understanding that there were line items at Shadow Creek which don't exist at Yale.  The same could be said for Lido.[/color]
____________________

As for Tommy, he apparently agrees with you that Shadow Creek is a good course.  Whatever his approach generally, his detailed post-round post about this course was positive and well-balanced as I recall.

How would you be in a position to make that determination if you've never played Shadow Creek ?[/color]

So why pile on here?

Whatever the supposed "bias" of Tommy et al, It is the hypersensitive Fazio/Rees-Basher-Bashers who stop conversations dead in their tracks.

That's totally untrue.
If you recall, many bashed Rees and Fazio without ever having played the course being discussed.

There is work of Fazio's and Rees's that I don't like, but, it's based on my personal experience with the course/hole/feature in question, and not just piling blindly into the feeding frenzy without ever having seen or played the work in question.[/color]

[TEPaul]

"Whatever the supposed "bias" of Tommy et al, It is the hypersensitive Fazio/Rees-Basher-Bashers who stop conversations dead in their tracks."

DavidM:

What exactly are the Tommy Naccarato Fazio/Rees bashing conversations? Don't you think they could better be described as diatribes? And his proclamation that a guy like Buddy Marucci who's he never met is the closest thing to the devil incarnate?? What's that---a one way conversation on how to piss people off without really trying  or perhaps some strange attempt to win the all-time architectural passion award? Seriously, you tell me!

[THuckaby2]

David M:

Re your last comment to me above, well... I have no dog in this fight, as they say.  My apologies if my analogy, meant to be harmless and fun, raised a red flag for you.  

As for Tommy and Shadow Creek, screw it, it doesn't matter.  We've disagreed about the course before, that's all, the words did get vehement, and to be perfectly honest I don't remember Tommy's positive-toned review.  All I remember is the disagreement.  So when Paul brought it up, all I meant was to save him some trouble given the lengthy threads about it before.  I suppose I ought to have thought this through better before my attempt at good-natured peacemaking.

BTW, I played SFGC today.  It was fantastic.  Doak's changes are very cool.  I remember having a very fun round there before with some pretty cool guys.  Memories.....



 

[Mark Brown]

Overall, I think rankings have a positive effect, but the negative effect is also pretty strong. To high-end real estate developers rankings translates into too much landscaping, and decorative plants and lush green grass from tee to green, along with waterfalls etc.

And this leads to over-watering which produces fairways and greens that are so soft that they take the ground game away which to me is worse than having a some poor design features and brown grass - which can be beautiful.

Now that more golfers have crossed the pond to play links courses it may give them some appreciation for the rugged, less-manicured, and dryer playing surfaces.

In any event, rankings have created jobs that keep many of us in the golf business.

[DMoriarty]

Dave, clubs don't listen to individual raters, they listen to the numerical equivalents in each category.

Not so sure about this.  When they dont make the lists, they want to know why.  Some even sue over it.  If they know a rater they may ask, "Why didnt we make it?  What can we do?" and they may listen to the results.   Plus, they may listen to the mega-raters (Brad Klien and Ron Whitten) and change based upon their written reviews.

Patrick, I am with you on the Lido.  I see it as direct ancestor of Shadow Creek, with the above exception.  As for Shadow Creek's desert location, I am not questioning their motives.  Rather, I am just noting that they did not build a course which fit into the surrounds.  

Both were manufactured, with Lido's being more extensive.[/b]

This is the crux.   I've little basis for questioning your description of the dirt moved at NGLA.  And we agree that the engineering at Lido [and Shadow Creek] was "more extensive," and that Lido [and Shadow Creek] were "manufactured on a much grander scale."
   
As for your conclusion that it is hypocritical to like one praise one (NGLA) and not the others (Shadow Creek and Lido) as if they were one and the same;  Poppycock.  They differ in the magnitude of the manufacturing.  

I like a firm handshake, but I wouldnt like it if the handshake broke every bone in my hand.  Does this make me a hypocrite?   I dont think so.  

You can't compare the sites.

I am not comparing sites.   Except to note that some sites just arent very suitable for golf.   Justifying the manufacturing doesnt change the fact that it was much more extensive at Lido and Shadow Creek.

But, that's not what I mean.  Start behind # 18 green and walk back to the tee and so on and so on, and you'll see the extensive manufacturing that took place.  

While I would prefer to study the course in the more traditional fashion, I'd love to walk the course backwards in your company so that you can show me the manufacturing.   You can even bring TEPaul so long as he promises not to challenge me to a duel.

Dave, these are really dumb questions.

As I stated to you earlier, one must look at the finished product in the context of the original site, and the objective.


My questions are dumb because the magnitude of the manufacturing obviously differs at NGLA versus the other two.  

As far as looking at it in context, that is exactly what I am doing.   Given their original sites, I am of the opinion that Lido and Shadow Creek went too far, at least for my sensibilities.   In other words, I am questioning their objective.  

Regarding LIDO, you should differentiate between basic pad fill and construction.  Lido was a massive project because of the fill, not the golf course.

Hmmm, except for the massive fill, there was very little manufacturing . . . .

Isnt that ignoring the proverbial elephant in the room? Let's see, if you ignore all of her hideous features she is quite attractive. . .     Patrick, it is the enormous amount of fill which distinguishes Lido from NGLA.   Whatever manufacturing went on at NGLA, they did not have to create the entire landscape from scratch.  This has been my point from the beginning.  

That's totally untrue.
If you recall, many bashed Rees and Fazio without ever having played the course being discussed.

Really?  This is often said but seldom supported.  How about some examples?   Can you give me five specific examples of when this has happened in the past year?

[Jonathan Cummings]

I think Beverly is a good example of how rankings can influence the directions of a club...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Not so sure about this.  When they dont make the lists, they want to know why.  Some even sue over it.  If they know a rater they may ask, "Why didnt we make it?  What can we do?" and they may listen to the results.   Plus, they may listen to the mega-raters (Brad Klien and Ron Whitten) and change based upon their written reviews.

Dave, you have to understand the process and the time line.
A given rater only knows about his evaluation.
He's not privy to the others.
The ratings are published long after the rater has left the golf course.

After publication, I believe the numerical equivalent is available to the clubs, on request, assuming that they received the required number of ballots.  I do know that clubs receiving a ranking are given their numerical scores by category, which allows them to reassess their golf course in the context of the composite evaluation.  Clubs can then address their weak points.[/color]

Patrick, I am with you on the Lido.  I see it as direct ancestor of Shadow Creek, with the above exception.  As for Shadow Creek's desert location, I am not questioning their motives.  Rather, I am just noting that they did not build a course which fit into the surrounds.  

Why would anybody want to do that ?
You'd have to see the site to understand the above question ?

And, that wasn't Steve Wynn's intent.
He wanted to build a Shangri-La for golf.
He succeeded.[/color]

Both were manufactured, with Lido's being more extensive.[/b]
   
As for your conclusion that it is hypocritical to like one praise one (NGLA) and not the others (Shadow Creek and Lido) as if they were one and the same;  Poppycock.  They differ in the magnitude of the manufacturing.

With regard to magnitude, Lido and Shadow Creek, you're wrong, and with regard to NGLA and Shadow Creek, it's due solely to the respective sites.[/color]  


You can't compare the sites.

I am not comparing sites.   Except to note that some sites just arent very suitable for golf.   Justifying the manufacturing doesnt change the fact that it was much more extensive at Lido and Shadow Creek.

A hostile site inherently requires more manufacturing.
Lido and Shadow Creek were very hostile sites and as such the manufacturing had to be much greater for both sites.
It's interesting how most bash Shadow Creek but give Lido a pass.[/color]

But, that's not what I mean.  Start behind # 18 green and walk back to the tee and so on and so on, and you'll see the extensive manufacturing that took place.  

While I would prefer to study the course in the more traditional fashion, I'd love to walk the course backwards in your company so that you can show me the manufacturing.   You can even bring TEPaul so long as he promises not to challenge me to a duel.

You wouldn't need me to show you the manufacturing.
From the angle of approach I suggested, it's readily discernable, even to TEPaul and his faithful guidedog Coorshaw.[/color]

My questions are dumb because the magnitude of the manufacturing obviously differs at NGLA versus the other two.
Not when you factor in the respective sites.[/color]  

As far as looking at it in context, that is exactly what I am doing.   Given their original sites, I am of the opinion that Lido and Shadow Creek went too far, at least for my sensibilities.   In other words, I am questioning their objective.
The objective at Lido and Shadow Creek was to create a great golf course where none was feasible.  Both succeeded.
Are you suggesting that they shouldn't have been built ?[/color]

Regarding LIDO, you should differentiate between basic pad fill and construction.  Lido was a massive project because of the fill, not the golf course.

Hmmm, except for the massive fill, there was very little manufacturing . . . .

Isnt that ignoring the proverbial elephant in the room?
No[/color]

Let's see, if you ignore all of her hideous features she is quite attractive. . .

What hideous features ?
Both Lido and Shadow Creek were world class golf courses.    
[/color]

Patrick, it is the enormous amount of fill which distinguishes Lido from NGLA.   Whatever manufacturing went on at NGLA, they did not have to create the entire landscape from scratch.

Only because they had more to start with.
At Lido there was NOTHING and they created a great golf course.  At NGLA they had a far, far better site, a GREAT SITE and still CBM did MAJOR manufacturing.[/color]

If you recall, many bashed Rees and Fazio without ever having played the course being discussed.[/i]

Really?  This is often said but seldom supported.  How about some examples?   Can you give me five specific examples of when this has happened in the past year?

How about last month ?
How about Tommy's and that other fellows bashing of the Rees course in Arizona when neither had ever played it.
Is that good enough ?[/color]

[Gary_Mahanay]

Huck,

I just now read through all this and your post to young Kyle about the pretty woman-Vegas showgirl thing that Shadow Creek is and the good old hometown girl next door Rustic Canyon is, almost brought a tear to my glass eye.  You are so right.  The closest I ever came to seeing Shadow Creek, when it was ultra exclusive, was up in the Statosphere looking northwest through one of their telescopes and never really making it out.  Oh I bought the book at the Mirage that Mr. Wynn put out but it wasn't the same.  Kind of like that girl in highschool you could have never taken out and years later you see her at the reunion and know how shallow she really was.  I've read all this stuff you SoCal guys have written about Rustic, I guess I need to come see it sometime.  

Gary

[DMoriarty]

Look Patrick, this is silly.  You are simply ignoring half of what I am saying.  

Your point seems to be that Lido/SC manufactured to the extent that their site and objectives required, and that the NGLA site and objective required less.   I concede all of this.  Agree with it.   Do not question it.   But it is completely tangential to my point.

FOR WHATEVER REASON (even the reasons immediately above), Lido/SC were both much more heavily manufactured than NGLA.   In your terms, both were built on sites that required extensive manufacturing to produce the desired result.   I am questioning whether it is a good idea to build courses on sites where the desired result requires such extensive manufacturing.  

I know CBM manufactured NGLA and that they manufacture all sites.   It doesnt bother me a bit.   But SC and Lido are on the extreme of end of the manufactured spectrum, or at least they were when they were built.    Whether you agree with it or not, there is nothing hypocritical about accepting some degree of manufacturing while at the same time rejecting extreme manufacturing.  

As for Lido and Shadow Creek, being "World Class"  that is your opinion.   I havent seen either--  if I had, then I maybe I'd agree.    I once heard Tom Doak say that you cannot build a World Class golf course without a World Class site.   Based on my my limited exposure, I tend to agree with him.  

Some aside responses . . .

It is interesting how most bash SC and give Lido a pass.   Your argument makes a whole lot more sense if you stick to this and leave NGLA out of this.    But then I am not one who gives Lido a pass, so I guess you felt compelled to try to stretch your point past breaking I think.  

Of course the hideous feature comment was not meant to apply to the courses, but was returning the Yuckster's showgirl metaphor.   As I said, you cannot dismiss the obvious manufacturing then conclude that there was no manufacturing.  

As for whether courses listen to raters, oftentimes they only have explanations from one or a few that they know.   There is no way raters stick to their review when justifying ratings.   Raters may not see other's scores, but this site is proof that raters talk, form group opinions (supportable or not) and sometimes, one way or another, the course gets wind of these opinions.   May even by accessing this site.  


As for the Fazio/Rees business, I dont recall the example you mention.   Can you point to it specifically?  

__________________________________

Jonathon, I dont know much about Beverly.   I'd love to hear how the ratings influenced their direction, if you'd care to elaborate . . . .

[Patrick_Mucci]

I am questioning whether it is a good idea to build courses on sites where the desired result requires such extensive manufacturing.

Why isn't it a good idea and what difference does it make if the end product is a great golf course ?   [/color]

As for Lido and Shadow Creek, being "World Class"  that is your opinion.   I havent seen either--  if I had, then I maybe I'd agree.    

I once heard Tom Doak say that you cannot build a World Class golf course without a World Class site.   Based on my my limited exposure, I tend to agree with him.
I'm glad you agree with him because Tom Doak has personally expressed that Shadow Creek is a very good golf course.

But, he didn't stop there.
In his book, "The confidential Guide to Golf Courses", he lists Shadow Creek as # 29 in his "Gourmet's Choice" of 31 golf courses from around the world.  That's a pretty lofty perch.

But, he didn't stop there.
He called it, "one of the great man-made wonders of the golfing world.  Until I saw it, I never believed that money and GENIUS alone were enough to create a course that would RIVAL the greatest spectacles of Nature.  Now, I do."

But wait, there's more.
Tom Doak said, "The VARIETY of holes is outstanding by ANY standard....."

Then he said, "The VARIETY of landscapes Fazio managed to create for his short holes is ASTONISHING."

And, he came to a close with this statement.
"There isn't any objective way to evaluate the PERFECTION  of a work of art that's entirely manufactured, but Shadow Creek is now THE Standard by which all other works of this type will be judged."[/color]

As for whether courses listen to raters, oftentimes they only have explanations from one or a few that they know.   There is no way raters stick to their review when justifying ratings.   Raters may not see other's scores, but this site is proof that raters talk, form group opinions (supportable or not) and sometimes, one way or another, the course gets wind of these opinions.   May even by accessing this site.
The numerical equivalencies tell the club, by category, exactly how it was rated, dismissing individual assessments for the global result. [/color]

As for the Fazio/Rees business, I dont recall the example you mention.   Can you point to it specifically?.

It was about a Rees Jones course in Arizona, probably about a month or so ago.

In addition, did you see Tom Doak's repeated reference to VARIETY, yet, our friend repeatedly referenced repetition.
Their views seem at odds[/color]

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I've had a few people whose opinions on golf architecture I very much respect tell me Shadow Creek truly is something architecturally, and that's impressive what you just related there from Doak on the quality of the architecture of Shadow Creek. There remains something about the idea of it that sort of rubs me the wrong way although I should reserve my own judgement on it because I've never seen it. The photos I've seen, though, do depict artificiality, I think, despite the apparent beauty. But I believe in real difference in types and styles in golf architecture and tend not to support the opinions of those who advocate a single or limited amount of types and styles.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()