Whitten on the 25 year history of best new courses

[Joel_Stewart]

http://www.golfdigest.com/rankings/courses/new/2008/bestnew_whitten

This is a well written article and a certain modern history lesson for those interested in recent architecture and ratings.

[Tom_Doak]

The administrators at my alma mater will love his lead.

Separate from the fact that it is very flattering to me, I really liked the article.  He suggests that the results do not follow any particular pattern and may even get it wrong sometime, but that they are symbolic of the business as a whole because they veer off in a bunch of different directions.

He also suggests that "a guy with a lot of money" is often in the best position to make an impact, and that is the truth ... though he doesn't mention that the panelists themselves seem even more impressed with money than the public at large.

[Jerry Kluger]

Tom: I am not a rater but I find your statement that raters are more impressed by money than the public at large rather intriquing.  Please explain how you've come to that conclusion.

[John Mayhugh]

Thanks for posting this link.  I've forwarded it to a couple of friends who aren't quite as into GCA as I am. It's a pretty good overview of modern design.

[Brett Hochstein]

TD,

For strong personal reasons, I sure hope the administrators and committee love his lead.

For all the past 6 years or so my family's been to Carolina, I've need played or walked Oyster Bay.  While driving by, it always seemed to at least have a better look it than the surrounding courses, which may not say much.  I know it's listed in the appendix of *The Anatomy of a Golf Course*, but what are its best qualities?

Thought the article was well written and very fairly included all styles from the past 25 years.  Great little read.

[Tom_Doak]

Jerry:

How about Rich Harvest National, for starters?  Or Flint Hills National?


Incidentally, I know I've told Ron Whitten this story, but just before I started my trip overseas I met with Bill Davis, the founder of GOLF DIGEST.  He had read my first big piece in GOLF Magazine and wanted to talk to me about writing for his publication instead.  Among other topics, he asked me about his idea of rating the Best New Courses every year.  I replied that it would be great for golf course architects, but that the results would probably be very uneven, because you'd be comparing the votes of twenty people for course A in Michigan with the votes of twenty different people for course B in California.  And I still think that's the case, whether my courses win or lose.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom Doak itemized the key reason why consensus voting show really little value for a great number of people -- including myself.

When you have 20 or separate people voting for "A" course and a completely different 20 or so people voting for "B" course you get this hard to fathom result. Then by some magic formula you get the final consensus which makes the bold statement that those which emerge at the top are truly the best of the nation. Really?

Without having sufficient people who travel and are truly "national" in scope and at the same time can provide cross-comparison assessments the net results are nothing more than a hodge-podge of people scattered about. You then need to take final results with a bit of careful reflection.

The other statement Doak made also bears thought. No doubt the big ticket courses have gotten their share of attention and I can only surmise that a number of people who do rate may get caught up in all the hoopla tied to such creations. What's amazing is that often times the publications themselves through their own editorial efforts will make announcements about forthcoming projects and with all that hype / buzz / pr, you condition a number of panelists to jump on that bandwagon.

There are quality courses that often fly under the radar screen and many of them are far from being "big ticket" items. The issue becomes one of the panelists truly keeping an open mind and in visiting some of the more unknown or under-appreciated areas of the USA.

[Adam Clayman]

Tom Doak, Did you cringe when you read this?

Those that were knockouts even in dirt-- the risk-and-reward, par-4 fifth

[Tommy Williamsen]

I read the article last night and thought Whitten said numerous things that should resonate with most of the folks here.  

[Jim Franklin]

Well written and an interesting perspective.

[Tom_Doak]

Adam:

I actually missed Ron's use of "risk-and-reward" as an adjective, because I was too busy wondering how he thought that hole was a knockout in the dirt.  It was the most boring part of the entire property and we had to do a lot of strategizing back and forth to make something of it.  It's one of my favorite holes on the course, because it is way better than I imagined at the start.

[Andy Troeger]

I would agree that I thought it was a good article and interesting look at some of the different trends of recent times. I do think it seemed like it was closer to some GCA thoughtlines than many here would be willing to admit.