[quote author=Tom_Doak link=board=1;threadid=32458;start=0#msg640344 date=1197589602

Tommy W:  Your last couple of paragraphs are honest, but also disturbing.  A personal relationship with the architect should have no bearing on your votes, even though we all know they do.
 

I think that it is hard to separate feelings from objectivity.  I really try. Sometimes I wonder if it doesn't work against an architect, I know in my profession, that my assistant may have a great sermon and mine can me a dog that just came in from the rain.  Most will like mine better because of the relationship I have developed with them for 25 years. This being objective stuff is hard.  I just do the best I can and hope i did it well.  I realize that some folks are impacted by the ratings.  That is  why I take them so seriously.  That is also why I am a member of this board.

I gather that if we were really trying to design for raters (and I guess we are, subconsciously or not) and knowing that they rate based on one visit only, then the big scale and wow factor are logical choices over subtle nuance in design for ratings.  And, as Andy mentions, I think the thing that I try to provide is variety in green size, bunker patterns, clearing widths, etc. to help make each hole stand out a little bit.

I'm not sure I wouldn't do that anyway!

Sometimes SI will do a five year later evaluation of the draft class of "XX" for the NHL, NBA, or NFL.  The gist is that they re-order them based on actual success as they hit the prime of their career.

I can't recall any of the mags doing this, except in passing on a few courses.  I wonder if they could add a follow up piece on past winners as a regular feature, or at least highlight movers up and down a bit more.

TePaul,

I think you are in the minority.  Most of us like to rate anything from chicken soup to golf courses.  Especially golf courses!

I have oft said that I think the national pastime is rate and debate.....we just take up other activities to give us something to argue about.

Make it a great weekend!

Andy,

A tongue in cheek look at the architects perspective on awards and review, from a long ago cybergolf.com piece by yours truly.......

Most architects will tell you that reviews/award don't affect their designs, because:
• Design is site-specific, so if your design is what's best for a site, it will be good. What you did on the last course doesn't matter.
• Combating past criticisms is akin to generals "fighting the last war."
• Critics really don't know what goes into design, or what the owner wanted.
• Critics are out there to, well, criticize, so you can't let it bother you.
• Critics have a point of view, so you must take the review in context.*

They would say that, but they would also be lying! We all live and die with reviews. Good reviews please us. Bad ones infuriate us.

Actually, few reviews are totally negative. Reviewers have ways to subtly pan a course** with double-entendre phrases, including:

• "You'll be lucky to enjoy this course." (It would depend on something besides design.)
• "I would like to enthusiastically recommend this course to you." (But I can't.)
• "Best of its kind." (The bad kind.)

• "Never seen anything like it." (And hope not to again.)

• "He designed a course like he's never designed before." (How do you mean that?)

• "Now, that's a golf course." (What kind?)

• "I had a hard time believing what I saw."

• "It redefines the meaning of a place to play golf."

• "It had it all" (tee markers, flags, ball washers, the works).

• "I don't usually write about clubhouses, but this one is the club's focal point."

• "It's always interesting to see a designer take chances."

• "I understand the architect turned over all responsibility on this job to an associate."

• "It proves you can build a golf course just about anywhere."

• "Years from now, golf course architecture students will visit this course just to study it."

Reviews do serve a purpose, and can affect both general design trends and specific architects. Golf design isn't immune from the popular culture mentality of looking for the "next big thing," and reviews can spur that.

One review affected my general design theory. TangleRidge in Grand Prairie, Texas, got favorable press, but one reviewer noted that all its par-3s were of medium length. I purposely did that, feeling that public players liked such holes. But that comment made me think about creating different length par-3 holes for variety. In newer designs, like my current renovation of Indian Creek in Carrolton, Texas, a similar public course, I have par-3 holes of 130, 180, 205 and 270 yards, which provide great variety.

The "illegal" full-driver 270-yard hole and the partial-wedge 130-yard hole, with a deep swale in the green, are memorable and different. Since these sit just two holes apart on the back nine, I doubt any golfer will forget them as they review their round.

So, I will live with reviews good and bad, and use them as one source to further my personal education in golf course design.***

* Some magazines exist to promote, others to create controversy, etc. Few have in-depth golf course design reviews.

** That's what I understand from other architects. Naturally, I’ve never had a bad review!

*** All I ask is they spell my name right, something a recent GOLF magazine review couldn't do. Who would name their kid "Keffrey"?

If panelists represent a cross section of golfers, and GCA's design their courses for golfers, aren't all courses then designed for panelists?

Greg:

We have done some subtler courses over the past 5 years ... St. Andrews Beach and Tumble Creek are two of them.  They didn't do as well in the rankings as Barnbougle or Sebonack, but we are still very happy with both.  (For that matter, I don't think we really went over the top in building Barnbougle; it's just a spectacular piece of property.)

John,

All 3 courses out there are on multiple lists including best modern, best new, etc, etc.

Do you really think they sat around and thought, "You know what, Bandon isn't getting much exposure, lets bring on Brad Klein as a consultant so we can get some publicity on the resort and our newest edition"

John,

All 3 courses out there are on multiple lists including best modern, best new, etc, etc.

Do you really think they sat around and thought, "You know what, Bandon isn't getting much exposure, lets bring on Brad Klein as a consultant so we can get some publicity on the resort and our newest edition"

Follow the money.  I hope I am wrong and ratings never cross any developers mind.

Brad,

You had told me before that you were not getting any fee at all.  Congrats on the excellent choice of charity.  I don't see how your payment affects your tax return has any bearing on the quality of the architecture that will result because of your participation.

What I find interesting as a member of the Raynor Society is if the general public will accept a Macdonald template design unless they are convinced it is great architecture.  I do not believe the templates are capable of standing on their own any more than a plate of broccoli in a school cafeteria.  It is my opinion that this is why Keiser did not feel that Doak could carry this project on his own...Purely spin in an attempt to not end up with another course that is only overflow management.

Let me add that I lost respect for the Digest system when Erin Hills was banned from the list because of the Whitten participation.  For one, I trust raters enough to know the difference.  For two, it is clearly a top 100 course so the list is now moot. For three, if I believe the Golfweek guys the Digest is so scientific it can not be comprimised though bias.

John:

When you get tired of talking to yourself, send me an e-mail and I'll get back to you with an answer.

If Brad brings up ANYTHING about his raters handbook he'll be off the job.  The only thing I care about is whether we are building a course that's worthy of Macdonald's name.  If we manage that, I think we'll be okay.

John:

I use "we" a lot because I've got seven associates working their asses off, too.  And we've got a bunch of projects to do by ourselves the next few years, so don't worry.  Maybe you should get out to see your brother's work in Wyoming, and then come on up to Montana next summer.

This topic makes me howl with laughter.

I agree 100% w Kelly regarding the fact that of the architects I have ever spoken to the most important consideration they take to heart is designing a course that is acceptable to the person who owns it. End of story.

I don't know how you design a course specifically for raters or such other group of people. No doubt whoever owns the course wants it to be successful and liked by the customers who will ultimately play there.

To think you can build a course to some sort of "standard" that will automatically garner national acclaim is preposterous.

Look at the situation from another side. In any given year the competition for attention can vary greatly. If you do come forward with a "new" course you'd have to face competition from others. In some years the competition is incredibly high. No matter what -- you are still faced with any number of outside factors that can only be left to chance.