[Chip Gaskins]

Take a wild ride down Tobacco Road

Ten years ago this summer, a billboard went up on U.S. Route 1 south of Sanford, N.C., proclaiming the arrival of something totally different. “Tobacco Road: A Whole New Playing Field,” blared the ad. For those of us used to turning right just beyond the sign to go to Pinehurst, word of architect Mike Strantz’s latest creation was reason enough to have a peek.

The look and feel of the place would prove unlike anything ever seen in golf. If the asphalt plant at the entrance wasn’t enough, there was the rustic cabin behind a green to the right and an overblown shed that looked like a halfway house until you realized it was, in fact, the clubhouse.

But that’s nothing compared to the view from the first tee. Here, the player looks out upon a 558-yard par 5 that weaves and bobs through massive dunes that narrowly pinch the fairway landing area. Most courses shun blind shots entirely. By the looks of things, Tobacco Road had three on the first hole. It’s a good indication of the ensuing walk on the wild side. Make no mistake about it: This is a scholarly golf course, though the esoteric allusions are enhanced by sex, drugs and rock ’n’ roll. There’s a Biarritz green (No. 3) on LSD. A reverse Redan with the amp juiced to “11.” And a Dell hole green on a par 5 (No. 13) that makes one feel like a Pinball Wizard.

more in article here: http://www.golfweeksbest.com/GolfweeksBest/article.asp?ID=404
• • •

RATER'S NOTEBOOK
Tobacco Road Golf Club


1. Routing: 5

Feels slightly cramped at times, with a few switchbacks and the occasional sense of exposure to shots on adjoining holes. If the space between No. 12 green and No. 13 tee had been used for a par 3, it would have eliminated the disappointing short par-3 17th and several problem areas.

2. Quality of shaping: 10

Mike Strantz and his associate/shaper, Forrest Fezler, a former PGA Tour player, have achieved something new in bulldozer work – what Duke University anthropologist Orin Starn has suggested is a surrealist painterly quality.

3. Overall land plan: 9

....
Rest here: http://www.golfweeksbest.com/GolfweeksBest/article.asp?ID=404

[John Kavanaugh]

What is the date of this article?

[Tony_Chapman]

JK -- My guess is it's fairly current, though I can't be certain. I played it in December 1998 and it hadn't been opened a year yet I don't believe.

I think this best sums up my feelings on TR:

"Tremendously entertaining. Note: Half of what you see here is fictional and the other half is exaggerated. For all of Strantz’s classicism, the game here is entirely aerial and thus stressful on mid- to higher-handicappers. It belongs on our top-100 list, though it’s perfectly plausible to dismiss it as a monumental joke the first time you play it. It’s much more rational the third or fourth time around."

[Brad Klein]

Published April 11, 2008, based upon my fourth trip there, mid-March 2008.

[John Kavanaugh]

Glad to hear it is a recent review.  Excellent article that captures the spirit and the worth of the course perfectly.  Thanks.

[PCCraig]

I enjoyed your review Brad, are there others like it on the Golfweek website? I couldn't seem to find any at first glance.

[Phil Benedict]

Played TR for the first time in April.  Easily the most polarizing course I've ever played.  Half of our group didn't see the point of the course and have no desire to go back, while others liked it.  I thought the 13th was one of the worst par 5's I've ever seen.  There's no room to land a driver, so it's a layup to a layup to a short iron.  What's the point?

The round was on a Saturday and took about 5.5 hours in pretty harsh weather.  The course is a real problem for high handicappers because of the forced carries and long grass. 

Ran told me TR is the only course built in the area in the last 20-years that makes money, so it must be doing something right.

[Brad Klein]

Pat Craig, I've written 8-10 of these formatted reviews a year since the first one in jan. 2003. If I can't get them all up on Golfweek.com I'll just publish them in book form.

[David Schofield]

If you ever print the The Confidential Guide, by Brad Klein, could you print enough so my copy won't cost me upwards of $1,000?

[Dan Herrmann]

If you care about golf, a subscription to Golfweek is a great move.   

[RSLivingston_III]

Pat Craig, I've written 8-10 of these formatted reviews a year since the first one in jan. 2003. If I can't get them all up on Golfweek.com I'll just publish them in book form.

Sign me up for a copy.
Reading through the thread I had that thought about 5 posts before you mentioned it.

[Jim Nugent]

Brad, I'll buy your book, too, if it's under $100.  Will you include photos?

Golfweek ranks modern and classic courses separately.  Any chance you will also have a combined list, in addition to these categories?  I'm interested to see how GW raters feel the modern courses stack up to the classics and vice versa.   

[John_Conley]

Jim, Brad does show the scores so you may be able to do such a comparison yourself.  I think the general sentiment is that Great-to-Good falls off rather slowly on the pre-1960 side, but the tremendous number of excellent new courses helps the Modern catch up to the point that the borderline Top 100 compare very favorably to their counterparts on the Classic.

[John_Conley]

I enjoyed your review Brad, are there others like it on the Golfweek website? I couldn't seem to find any at first glance.

Pat, be sure to read Brad's first golf book "Rough Meditations" for similar discussions on courses he's seen.

[Jim Nugent]

Jim, Brad does show the scores so you may be able to do such a comparison yourself.  I think the general sentiment is that Great-to-Good falls off rather slowly on the pre-1960 side, but the tremendous number of excellent new courses helps the Modern catch up to the point that the borderline Top 100 compare very favorably to their counterparts on the Classic.

If I understand the ratings system right, modern and classic are completely separate.  i.e. the scores for the modern courses are only in comparison to other modern.  Same with classics.  In particular, I thought the scale works as follows:

Rating  Classic      Modern

10        1-5            1-5
9          6-15          6-15
8        16-40          16-40
7        41-100        41-100
6        101-200      101-200
5        201-500      201-750
4        501-1500    751-2000
3        1501-3000    2001-5000
2        3001-6000    5001-9000
1        6001-7000    9001-10,000

This means that to get a 10 in the classics, the course must be rated among the top 5 classic courses.  Moderns also must be among the top 5 to get a score of 10, but only compared to other moderns.

To do a combined ranking, GW raters would have to compare courses with ALL courses.  i.e. for Sand Hills to get a 10, it must be among the top 5 of all courses in the U.S., both modern and classic.  Right now the scores don't let us mix and match. 

I still think this ranking system is flawed, though.  Raters cannot reliably say a course is top 5, if they haven't played all the other courses that reasonably contend.  And very few raters have played all those courses. 

[cary lichtenstein]

Glad to see Brad acknowledging the fine work of Michael Strantz.

[Adam Clayman]

Jim Nugent, inherently flawed because they have not seen every course? That's 17000 courses. Since we can go in and change the rating once we experience a better course we can tweak our version of what is what we think is best. One aspect that I can't get my mind around is when someone says they have never given a 10

[Chip Gaskins]

Adam-  Your point raises a good issue.  A 10 for one person may not be a 10 for someone else solely based on their perspective (i.e. what other great courses they have played).  I assume someone that plays locally and then plays say, Pinehurst #4 may give it a 10 where someone who has played Cypress, Seminole, RCD etc would give it a 6...it all depends on where you are coming from.  By no means am I advocating for a system where only people that have played all the best courses are qualified to rate, I am just saying its all about perspective.

[John_Conley]

Adam-  Your point raises a good issue.  A 10 for one person may not be a 10 for someone else solely based on their perspective (i.e. what other great courses they have played).  I assume someone that plays locally and then plays say, Pinehurst #4 may give it a 10 where someone who has played Cypress, Seminole, RCD etc would give it a 6...it all depends on where you are coming from.  By no means am I advocating for a system where only people that have played all the best courses are qualified to rate, I am just saying its all about perspective.

...which is why Brad should be commended for advancing the area of 'rater education' with his frequent gatherings featuring both his presentations and invited luminaries.

Honestly, the criticisms get old because they've all been addressed.  Chip, do you feel not enough has been done to address your issue of perspective?

[Jim Nugent]

Jim Nugent, inherently flawed because they have not seen every course? That's 17000 courses. Since we can go in and change the rating once we experience a better course we can tweak our version of what is what we think is best. One aspect that I can't get my mind around is when someone says they have never given a 10

If I haven't played CPC, Pine Valley, Shinnecock Hills and Merion, and I give Pebble and ANGC a ten, there's a huge flaw in my ranking.  IMO that ranking is close to worthless. 

Some similar analogies:  if I haven't heard Mozart, Bach or Beethoven, how can I say Tchaikovsky is one of the three best classical composers? 

If I haven't seen any Doak or C&C courses, how can I say Nicklaus and Fazio are among the top three modern designers?

If I haven't seen a single Mackenzie course, how can I say Ross or Tillie or anyone else is the greatest golf architect of all time? 

If I haven't seen GCA.com, how can I say Bombsquadgolf is the best golf website on the net? 

Obviously it's impossible to play 17,000 courses.  But if you haven't played, say, what are usually considered the top 25 or so, how can you say what is the best?  Or 2nd best or 10th best or 100th best?  I'd be real interested to learn how many of the top 20, top 50 or top 100 courses each GW rater has played.  Bet few to none have played them all. 

I prefer giving absolute numbers to each course.  That, too, has problems, but they seem to me more manageable.  The real problem is that we are trying to objectify a subjective topic.  Who is the greatest composer or artist?  The greatest athlete?  The best restaurant?  It comes down to taste.   

[Chip Gaskins]

John- 

Hopefully you didn't take what I was saying as I had an issue.  I don't. 

All ranking systems have issues, golf, restaurants, wine, hotels, etc.  Anything that is based in subjectivity has these same issues.  Some systems have large databases of rankings to try and statistically solve for the subjectivity and some systems almost celebrate the subjectivity...either way they both are just a bunch of opinions (some more informed than others) versus measurable facts. 

Again, I have no issue concerning perspective. 

The novice wine drinker may like Kendal Jackson and be very happy with drinking it where as the French wine collector only drinks 1974 Bordeauxs to be happy.  Both wine lovers are happy so how can the expert call the novice wrong...

Clearly we all learn from people with more informed perspectives, but it would be a pretty closed system if that is the only group we ever let rate something.

[John_Conley]

If I haven't played CPC, Pine Valley, Shinnecock Hills and Merion, and I give Pebble and ANGC a ten, there's a huge flaw in my ranking.  IMO that ranking is close to worthless. 

Of all the criticisms I've heard, yours is a new one.  Now you're saying the GOLFWEEK list doesn't accurately recognize courses at the TOP of the list.    Wow.

Has anyone ever listened to the music of everyone that ever made out a treble clef?  No.  But it is enough to rely on the beliefs of others to get a short list to listen to and evaluate.

Jim, given the myriad shortcomings of exisiting lists, it seems the opportunity exists for you to clear things up once and for all with the ideal rating system.

[John_Conley]

All ranking systems have issues, golf, restaurants, wine, hotels, etc.  Anything that is based in subjectivity has these same issues. 

Chip, I don't think anyone has ever argued otherwise.  Which is why efforts are taken to address the areas that are addressable and at the end you still have the inherent issues you mention.  Seems easy to me...one kind of has to accept them, right?

Portfolio managers deal with systematic and unsystematic risk.  They can diversify all they want but at some point further diversification won't help.  They'll still be affected by the risk you can't eliminate.  Isn't the same phenomenon at work here?

Brad has:
* added panel members until there is enough 'coverage' so that all worthy courses garner enough visits
* held mandatory gatherings where panel members advance their knowledge of both architecture and the ranking methodology
* highlighted the process for all - panel members and magazine readers alike - in his periodic "Golfweek's Best" magazine features
* willingly accepted all input from people like yourself and Doug Ralston (that doesn't mean he changes the approach every time he hears a comment, but the comments are received and he works hard to implement them when it will improve the product)

There's right,, wrong, and different.  Seems to me anything 'wrong' was addressed a long time ago.  What's left may be different than some other way of doing things - Matt Ward's "one rater" ideal is an example - but certainly isn't wrong.

Want to see great golf architecture?  Do you grab Brad's list to see if you can travel to see something on there or go by the TV ads for the Trent Jones Trail or glossy advertising used to promote the Grand Strand?  Seems like a no-brainer to me.

[Adam Clayman]

Another thing Brad has purposely done is to embrace the diversity of opinion. 
 That aspect alone guarantees and encourages subjectivity. However, as votes for any given course increases, the subjectivity of a single vote is mitigated. The resulting database, with age (allowing newer courses to filter through the system) will read like a fine wine.

[Chip Gaskins]

All ranking systems have issues, golf, restaurants, wine, hotels, etc.  Anything that is based in subjectivity has these same issues. 

Chip, I don't think anyone has ever argued otherwise.  Which is why efforts are taken to address the areas that are addressable and at the end you still have the inherent issues you mention.  Seems easy to me...one kind of has to accept them, right?

Want to see great golf architecture?  Do you grab Brad's list to see if you can travel to see something on there or go by the TV ads for the Trent Jones Trail or glossy advertising used to promote the Grand Strand?  Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Yep, I think we are on the same page.  I have no issues with the methodology.  And, yes, I grab Brads (and GCA's) list when I am seeking out new courses

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()