Slapper,

I never stated that members joind FH because it would be highly ranked.

When Shadow Creek debuted in the Top Ten, displacing several "name" clubs, there was a big uproar amongst some of those clubs that were displaced.  One club wanted to be removed from the ratings.  One club indicated that they would no longer let raters play the golf course unless sponsored by a member.

What you're saying is akin to someone telling alumni of University's that the college ranking polls don't matter.

If you don't think the members of the clubs I mentioned, and others, don't care about the perception of the golfing world, relative to their golf course and others, then you don't know enough members at those clubs

Why do you think "association" is important to those members ?  Because it identifies them with a top notch golf course, one that has been determined to be amongst the elite, relative to others, vis a vis, rankings and general perception.

Do you see a great number of people displaying the logo of a club ranked 974th in the country ?

But, you can go throughout the country and see golfers wearing logoed shirts, hats, etc., etc., from a "name" club that they are not a member of, that they have played, or had a friend who played and brought them a logoed item.

Southhampton is a pretty good Seth Raynor golf course, it sits immediately adjacent to Shinnecock, which sits immediately adjacent to NGLA.  How many shirts and hats bearing the logo of Southhampton do you see ?
How many golfers even know Southhampton exists ?

As in life, the pecking order in golf is a material factor with members, perspective members and non-members.

If Friars Head did not allow unacommpanied raters to play that is one thing.  If they cherry-picked raters and either allowed them to play alone or paired them with  members, that is another.  If someone has some sort of evidence of the later please state.  Otherwise shut up.  

I would like to know if C&C will be involved in the changes Nigel mentioned or is it mostly Mr. Bakst?

Sorry if any of my thoughts are repetitive and were stated by someone else above.  BUT, I DIDN'T READ THE 4 PAGES ABOVE!  

Every year we have the same boring rating discussion.  There are the same old rivalries between ratings panelists of the various magazines.  There are the same arguments about pre-judging and the methods of how the courses are scored, and the perks given to raters.  Now, we have a thread that is 4 pages long that is a "coming soon" argument.  I would estimate that you go back the 4 years or so that this discussion group has been around and you will find yearly threads at ratings time that all run about 6-10 pages and usually wind up with one rater calling the other rater a dirty low down rater.  blah, blah, blah.

So with that in mind, what is the best new public affordable course for 2003?

Just a thought for all of you FH "groupies".  If National Golf Links of America were in the running for this year's Best New Private, would it win?  should it win?  National and FH seem to be very similar in many many ways.............hmmmmmmm.

This thread has been pissing me off all weekend, thinking about it, I felt it was neccessary to address a few items.

As a rater, we are asked to not disturb the really special classic courses, and are asked to play them and rate them when invited by a member. For instance, if a rater calls any one of NGLA, Shinnecock, GCGC, Pine Valley, Cypress Point, etc. etc. etc., what do you think the chances are for me to get  on?  Most of the time, I would say, the head professional would laugh at you, so, it is avoided, as it is by most if not all others.  So isn't this a double standard?
 
Then you have Kelly Blake MorAn who says,

FH being the declared preference on GCA, or the clear favorite by many here, but how many of you willing to declare them the winner, and ready to pounce GD if it is not the winner have actually played, not just walked, but played the course.  Is there a dark horse out there that might actually be a worthy competitor?  How can you declare it the best if you have not played many of the new courses?  Since when did ignoring official recognition by your peers become cool?  As unseemly as blatent promotion is, is it not equally unseemly to think of yourself as above judgement, criticism, and recognition?  This all seems very distorted.

Who ever said that Friars Head was above peer review?  And, if so, who are Friars Head's peers?  The raters?  Personally, I don't think so, but if Kelly thinks so, then which ones should be given access?  

I got to visit Friars Head as a guest of a member and never once was I ever ask if I was affiliated with a magazine panel, and I never offered it either. To announce that at a classy place like Friars Head would almost be--an unclassy act in itself! Matter of fact, there was not one place throughout my trip I told any of the places I visted that I was a rater or panelist. (This is from the viewpoint of a rater, so excuse me if I'm being a bit brash! )

Another thing, is I want to challenge someone to prove to me with FACTS that Friars Head is manipulating the ratings. I will guarantee a years wages it will come-up goose eggs. Prove it to me skeptics, prove it to me!

Another little fact is that if Friars Head was being selective, why would they have to be? If anybody can't look at the pictures of Ran's write-up on the course and not be able to tell that this is a MOST SPECIAL place, then you should never waste your time or money trying to gain access there.
 
Friars Head is a private club and only members and their guests will be permitted to play the golf course--SIMPLE AS THAT! But I guess some people, GD Panelist in particular, just doesn't accept that fact either.  
 
I'll submit that I think Friars Head is the greatest modern classroom for golf architecture. Why? Because there are so many different types of architecture going on there. You can see natural stuff, and man-made stuff, and never know the difference between the two! It's actually more then a classroom--it's more like a laboratory!

So in closing, drop the silly notions of feeling Friars Head should win in a lock, brecause they don't care, and they really have no thought about it. Why would one want to waste their time on something so foolish, while the golf course sits out there ready to play!

Thanks Tommy.

I tend to agree with Pat and Kelly. Of course Friars Head wants the recognition, its human nature. Why else would they have let Ron Whitten play the course, knowing he would write a review of the course in GD.com? Really, the proof is in the pudding, and "the we could care less" attitude is simply an insurance policy in the event they finish second to Black Mesa.

All this business about ballot manipulating sounds a bit absurd from someone like Ken Bakst. Seems like the guy has been the picture of rectitude this far.

Sean,


    Whitten played there as a guest of Bill Coore. He was NOT invited there to publish any rating, anywhere. Your "insurance policy" idea is mostly absurd.

   Ken and his FH members really don't care about recognition in the golfing magazine forum..perhaps the human nature element here is mislaid....It is human nature to seek some recognition or reward, but most accomplished people do not seek such recognition in any news print (unless of course they are drug-addled or pedophile celebrities or politicians). Golf mag ratings just aren't the forum that FH members care about.

    Tommy's summary is spot on....especially if you haven't hung out or played FH multiple times and thus unable to compare the reality of the culture of the place to the perception of those looking in from the outside.

"a proud papa is a proud papa and he does not enter his kids in a beauty contest".  this says it all and I am sure Mr. Bakst and the members are very proud, as they shoud be.

I will say I am getting a little confused though in that we keep hearing only raters are allowed that are "guests of members".  Yet in this thread we have Mr. Whitten and Mr. Klein playing with arguably "non-members".

I suspect that members and the powers at the club do care a little about ratings,  but are unwilling to do anything to influence ratings because they are more interested in creating the best golf club atmosphere possible.  I also believe this is the case at many of the top 15~20  clubs in the country.  I would include FH In this group.

Mr. Klein.

I would suspect many of the powers at all the new clubs have sought fit to become "members".  That is why I used the term "arguably". Mr. Bakst and Mr. Coore are more than members.

I don't know Mr. Bakst and I highly doubt I know any member or potential member, but from what I have read here and seen here, it is as obvious as the balls on a tall dog that Mr. Bakst followed the only prudent model for building a successful golf course. He loved it. He still loves it and he allowed those he trusted to take the time to create what is undoubtedly a thoughtful design.

As Dr. Klein points out, I shouldn't be able to tell, from photos about the quality of the course, but with the information and the knowledge of the process of how the project was approached, I know alot more than I should, having never been within 2000 miles of the place.

Hopefully FH's example will teach the era of the "other" ways to approach projects that they need to be diminished, since they have been proven to have less potential than the 'thoughtful and loving' approach.

Adam, EXACTLY!

Personally, when I travel to play golf, my password is "Tommy Naccarato".  Little else needs to be said- doors fly wide open without having to present some unseemingly green card.  I hope that it works at Friar's Head when I head up there next summer.