Scott,

I certainly raised the issue because I believe the slow greens could have been a factor against Ballyneal achieving a higher ranking.  Everybody likes fast greens, and Ballyneal's greens were much slower than the typical golf course this year.

I've never heard of a panelist sharing his specific votes.

To do so, with a member is very odd, indeed. Especially when it's an extremely poor rating.

Should behavior of this type, by the panelist, be singled out as an example of what not to do?

Yes, I received the information second hand, and debated whether to share it online.  The point is not to chastise the individual rater.  He made an honest assessment of the course, and had no agenda as far as I know.  Ballyneal's atypical appearance will not always appeal aesthetically when all appropriate assessments are added.  How's that?  

Quote

Yes, I received the information second hand, and debated whether to share it online.  The point is not to chastise the individual rater.  He made an honest assessment of the course, and had no agenda as far as I know.  Ballyneal's atypical appearance will not always appeal aesthetically when all appropriate assessments are added.  How's that?  

How's that?  Sorry John, that is not good, IMHO.  The information being second hand does give pause that it may not be true.    But, if it were true... then atypical appearance may be reason to lower a rating to 'some' extent.  But, a "1" is not rational.  It signifies that there is slightly next to nothing aesthetically pleasing.  A "0" would mean a blank canvas in my view.  It would be a square flat and uncovered piece of ground in the middle of a similar featureless expanse.  It would be less than a field of wheat as far as the eye could see to an equally featureless horizon.  Even that might have a scintilla of aesthetic appeal in "amber waves of grain" and merit a "1"

To say that BallyNeal is next to nothing in aesthetics should be reason for whoever oversees the selection of panelists to remove a guy for such a blatant statement of negativity.  Everyone is entitled to their opinion.  But, if you are being given the responsibility to fairly rate the work of various practioners of GCA, you need to have a rational basis and not an agenda, which that fellow clearly had to say the chop hills and a course routed among them is a "1".  

Cary,
 Perhaps Whitten was miffed Tom's crew didn't run out and dig bunkers on the rightside of the 18th fairway as he suggested in his review?


Here's one I don't have permission to post, but for you guys... and in the search for knowledge... here goes...







Adam,

       Be expecting a call from a blocked number Monday morning... Just Kidding of course.  
       I don't have much to add because I have not been to a Jim Engh course, but Ballyneal is one of my favorite places on earth.  Equal parts awesome playing characteristics and very natural design/aesthetics.  
        I have to think the only reason it was slighted in the Rankings is because the harsh summer led to young grass that was not totally established and mature yet, causing a small letdown on a few fronts (which will get better every day).
        If that is not the reason, then Rankings are Dead To Me.  And I could care less.
        By my own admission, the painting Adam showed of Hole 3 is a different perspective than most see and perhaps not the best one to represent the playing characteristics of the hole, I painted it from a photo before having been on the property.  After having been there now, I am excited to do some more originals that will reflect what I really loved about Ballyneal.  
         If you go to my website, perhaps the part that I am most excited about now is the intro page, the rest of the site is still taking shape.  www.joshuacfsmith.com

RJ - John's quote is accurate as I was the one who had the first hand encounter at the GD panelist summit last weekend. The conversation went like this:

ME: You're from Denver, did you play Ballyneal?
HIM: Yes, I hated it.
ME: Why?
HIM: No trees. I like a golf course to have trees. I gave it a 1 in Aesthetics. What did you think?
ME: I thought Ballyneal was the Best course I saw this year. I gave it a 9.5 in Aesthetics. And after I turned in my evaluation, I joined.
HIM: Oh.

I was aghast. I'm still shellshocked that Ballyneal was not higher in the final tally, especially given the accounts of some of the panelists who have posted and some others with whom I have talked about the lists with. I did not see courses 1-5 on the Private list, so I can't say that they might not be deserving.

I keep wondering though if some of the "oddities" in the results are driven by the fact that most of the votes that a course gets are Regional. What I mean by that is when a course asks to be considered for Best New, an assignment is sent out by GD to the panelists in the area. They are required to fulfill all of their local assignments, but they can play any others that are on the national list of courses asking to be considered. What that means is that most of the evaluations that a course receives are from those in the area. There are some from panelists who stay current with what's going on and will travel to see as many new courses as possible, and some from those that are in the region for some other reason and are looking to see what's in the area. But mostly, the votes are local.

I wonder if what we should do is have Topsy Siderowf, who is in charge of the panel, keep track of what courses are showing the highest ratings, say at the halfway point of the rating period, and then send a blast email asking that as many panelists as possible see these 30 to 50 courses. No one would get to all of them, but you certainly would pick off a few. In the end, you would have a much thicker sampling and 1 course would not be as vulnerable to a bad or good evaluation, and you would have the viewpoints of those from around the country included as opposed to a heavy dose from those that are from the area, who might be biased to a certain type of golf.

Thoughts?