[Tommy Williamsen]

The remodeling category is a little befuddling.  I played Saucon Old and loved it.  I just wish I knew what it was like before the remodeling.  I'm not sure this is a great category.  Maybe it would be good to highlight courses that have under gone significant work and do a story on them. 

There are a bunch of courses that have undergone extensive work.  The best illustration, I think, is Bedford Springs.  I would like to see GD do a monthly article on these courses as Links Mag does on certain courses. I think some of the most exciting work at the moment is in the remodeling category. 

[Kalen Braley]

These "other" categories are no different than all the extra categories they make up for stuff like the Oscars.  In 10 yrs wouldn't be surprised if they have  4-5 additional categories for courses.

[Tom_Doak]

Does anybody know who or what influences GOLF DIGEST in all of its changes to its criteria and to which polls it chooses to run in any given year?

I suspect a lot of architects (and perhaps the ASGCA) love the idea of the "Best New Remodel" since that is the only work available to some.

[John Handley]

The timing of the "Best New" is purely to get an editorial feature in a weak golf month, January.  GD is in the business of selling magazines and ad pages so they need something strong in months where many people are not thinking about golf.  I agree it would make more sense to run the feature later in the year but again, many magazines (not just GD) are trying to do special features in the weaker months.  And yes, I am in the magazine business.

[Tom_Doak]

John:

Understood.  I also understand that all these magazines are desperately trying to scoop each other to whatever extent they can, so they are all going to try to get their "Best New" list out before the other guys', so they're never going to put it back to March as I suggested earlier.  They are more interested in publishing a list, than in publishing a good list.

Unfortunately, that also means that whichever magazine does the LEAST homework is the MOST likely to recognize a good course first ... they will likely just recognize it at the same time they're also recognizing some courses they shouldn't.

[Tom_Doak]

Just occurred to me that our CGA project in Denver will be lumped in with the remodels, since there was a course there to start with.  That'll be comparing apples to apples!

[Matt_Ward]

John H:

There's no doubt Golf Digest and likely a ton of other magazines will run particular feature articles when their editorial calendar will permit. Wrap up pieces like Best New anything is better suited to keep the pages full with something in the off-golf months.

That doesn't give the magazine(s) a free pass to be less than thorough and complete when doing such features. Frankly, magazines of all types need to get a better handle on what the "real time world" is about because assuming that readers will stick around with any pub because of a past connection is an assumption that is fraught with risk.

Readers today need info that is timely, thorough and most of all complete. Long lead pubs like Digest and others could in the past rely upon such articles as filler and not be worried that various other info sources (e.g. blogs, Internet, etc, etc) would not be able to compete. Those days are long gone.

Candidly, if magazines assume readers will simply stick around for what they offer, even when it's been posted sooner and more complete by other sources, then their continued relevance will be something they really need to understand. Either way -- those interested in the game will make their final decision with their feet and go where the best sources of info reside.


Tom D:

Just a quick question -- is anything from the previous layout going to be retained with the new effort you are doing in Denver? If there's nothing at all -- then frankly I see that as a "new" course -- not a "remodel."

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

There is very little of anything from the old Mira Vista course that anyone would recognize.  However, because we started from the same clubhouse site, the positions of the 1st and 10th tees and 18th green are still relatively the same [we moved the 9th hole well off to the side to give more room between the other holes], and we kept a bit of the contour from the old 18th green though it has been completely rebuilt.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom:

From what you have provided - it's a new course.

A remodel means to me that a preponderance of what was there previously has been retained and simply improved -- such as adding a bunker or tweaking a tee or green complex.

Digest would best be served by a very clear definition of what constitutes remodel type work.

[Andy Troeger]

Matt,

If I remember correctly, Rock Creek wasn't included in the GolfWeek 2008 Best New listing either. Any thoughts on why you've crusaded against the Golf Digest policy without any comments that I've noticed regarding the GolfWeek omission?

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

I feel strongly on both fronts. The Digest situation in the "best new" arena has been around a bit longer than what you see w Golfweek.

Rock Creek should have been rated for this year -- no doubt about that.

Yes, it was not opened in May or June but key magazines need to be ahead of the curve -- not behind them.

When blog sites routinely are ahead of the so-called top info sources you begin to have serious credibility issues.

Golfweek lamely throws forward a top 50 listing but there's no separation between private and public. Candidly, I can't see what real purpose was provided by that listing.

Andy, if magazines wish to provide info for the lowest level person it's easy to do. That's not the bar for quality top magazines or other info sources. We live in a real time world and the key info sources understand that and those that do get attention paid to them.

[Andy Troeger]

Matt,
Thanks, just curious. What you said RE: GolfWeek jives with what you've said about GD. Just wanted to make sure 

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

Frankly the info you and others have shared with me on courses throughout the mountain time zone and other locations has proven to be much more relevant and helpful than what the magazines are providing now.

In years past -- prior to blogs and Internet -- the mags could be successful in holding off info on courses -- few really knew what was happening.

That landscape has changed dramatically.

Magazines need to realize that their place in line as a key information source is only as good as their wherewithal to keep those who follow the game with pertinent and timely info that is ahead of the curve. Those who do will continue with their lofty perch of respect - those that don't will be quickly forgotten.

[John Handley]

I can tell you that the only way to get your opinions heard would be to challenge via letter to the Editor.  I think Tom's points on the Best New criteria are valid.  Others have made similar points and the Editor should provide you guys an answer.

[Matt_Ward]

John:

I appreciate what you say but plenty of info that's been discussed here is either known to Digest previously or has been passed along in different ways over the years. There are plenty of eyes and ears that monitor what is said here.

The folks there can easily make needed adjustments.

Losing the affordable category, if that is so, will be a major setback because it's been a wonderful way for info on courses that are not private or charge a healthy amount of $$ for people to play.

[John Burzynski]

John:  I am sure you are right about that.

However, in a business where several architects' #1 claim to fame is how many Golf Digest "Best New" awards they have won, you can see why those of us whose livelihoods are affected care about it, and care whether the magazines are making their best effort.

Tom:

I mean this question quite sincerely, as I am not as familiar with the business side of golf.

Does getting a 'top 100' or 'best new' ranking in GD or a similar large scale golfing publication have a large difference or effect on the number of golfers who play a course in the first year or two of opening?   I understand that the ranking is in effect free advertising for a new course, but to what degree does it help rounds played in that first year of opening?  I guess the ranking could affect how an architect can advertise, as the more top 100 courses he or she has, the better their perceived value and I assume the more that can be charged, as well as the better land and opportunity an archtect can receive?

How can a course be rated before it is even opened, or as I have seen in the past, when only a few holes have been completed?   Is this really a fair judgment of the course's merit?   Is judging a course after one round the norm for these ratings, or are several rounds played to get a true feel for the course and its amenities?

I have always perceived these 'best' lists more as vanity listings, made to make architects and course owners / operators feel good, but I have always questioned whether the listings actually generate much concrete profit or many perceptible additional rounds played in the year or two after the ranking is attained. 

I would guess that most golfers' choices of where to take their next golf vacation are controlled by proximity, cost and established golfing locations reputations, less so by a best of listing.  Not all golfers, just the majority. 

Or perhaps I am entirely wrong, again, I have no experience in the golf business.

[Matt_Ward]

John B:

Although directed to Tom let me offer the following.

Winning such an award is not singularly related to just the courses selected -- but it also has a tremendous way to add visibility to aspiring architects for future work.

Keep in mind, the elimination of the "affordable" category. This category allowed lesser known architects who would design lower budget type courses to get a bit of fanfare and attention. The low cost to play category was also a boom to golfers who don't have deep pockets or the network of contacts to play the more exclusive courses that are awarded.

John, you asked if winning such an award has a "large" effect on overall play? That would depend on a few items. The first being how close to a major area of golfers is the facility located. For example, a course in high traveled Sunbelt areas like Orlando and / or Phoenix might benefit immensely as a way to differentiate themselves from others. No doubt the award's overall effect is also influenced by how skillfully the winning course (s) can market their successes. The wherewithal to do that well can mean a spike in business.

No doubt some courses and their ownership have seen fit to build the "pre" course hype so that they can garner as much attention as possible in the early stages of course construction. Credit groups like Kemper Sports can doing such a thing with the likes of Bandon Dunes. They made it a point to send out pre-course post cards to alert media and other interested parties on what is taking place. I see the pre-course hyping no different than the man-created buzz tied to what you see with movies, restaurants and other type of similar ventures.

John, the lists may be "vanity" in certain ways but one should not minimize the effect that Digest carries. The magazine is still seen by many in the marketplace -- as the "Good Housekeeping" seal of approval. Others may downplay it but it still has meaning -- much more than any other "best" list in the field today although others will likely opine differently.   

One other thing - most raters who are not local to a course will likely only be able to play one time. Those who are closest might be able to get in more than a single round. No doubt the issue of how many panelists play a course in totality will also have an impact.

Winning an award in and of itself will not alone transform a place to the head of the class in terms of total rounds played by visiting golfers. A wide variety of other factors play a role in that. However, winning does build awareness and the first rock in the pond can cause further ripples of attention down the line.

[Tom_Doak]

John:

The "Best New" awards have NO effect on a course's first year of operation, because they don't come out until the course has been played for 12-18 months.

By that time, there is quite a bit of word-of-mouth reportage out there about the golf courses in question, and most of the local audience has already played it once or twice and formed their own opinion.  If the course is in a resort area -- say, northern Michigan, or Phoenix, as Matt suggested -- then the rankings might influence how many people from out of town schedule to see it.  Otherwise, I think the rankings have a minimal effect on business.

The same is not true for how the rankings affect architects.  Our businesses are built almost entirely on the basis of name reputation, and rankings indisputably help those reputations, and help us attract more clients. 

We could have a very good esoteric argument about whether it's the rankings that have more effect, or the quality of the work we have actually done -- but to do so, we would have to agree on which rankings were justified, and which architects were screwed by the system.

More concrete, though, is the effect our reputation has on the value we are perceived to bring to the table.  Consider that my most recent design contract was for 20 times the fee of my first contract (20 years ago), and for 5 times my fee at Pacific Dunes (8 years ago).  That's why architects care about public perception, of which rankings are a part. 

However, if you look at our web site, you won't find much mention of those rankings.  Once your work is familiar to everyone, the rankings really don't matter much anymore, other than to people who need the ego boost.  Nobody remembers how many awards Jack Nicklaus or Tom Fazio has won in the past 5 years ... they're perceived as being at or near the top of the field, so it doesn't matter.

[Carl Rogers]

I wonder how this topic will be handled in not too many years from now when golf will be truly global.  How to compare golf from the Caspian Sea to the tip of Chile or the plains adjacent to Kilminjaro? 

If there is little agreement now, what is it going to be like then?

[Seth Berliner]

Here are the full rankings:

Best New Public

1. Chambers Bay- University Place, WASH.
2. PGA G.C. Coyote Springs- Coyote Springs, NEV.
3. Cougar Canyon G. Links- Trinidad, COLO.
4. Four Mile Ranch G.C.- Canon City, COLO.
5. Heritage Plantation Golf and C.C.- Laurel Hill, FLA.
6. Emerald Falls G.C.- Broken Arrow, OKLA.
7. Sevillano Links- Corning, CALIF.
8. Cottonwood Hills G.C.- Hutchinson, KAN.
9. Butterfield Trail G.C.- El Paso, TX.
10. Heritage Hill G.C.- Shepherdsville, KY.

Best New Private:

1. Gozzer Ranch G. and Lake C.- Harrison, IDAHO
2. The C. at Spanish Peaks- Big Sky, MONT.
3. Painted Valley Course- Park City, UTAH
4. The Ritz-Carlton G.C., Creighton Farms- Aldie, VA.
5. Juliette Falls G. & Spa C.- Dunnellon, FLA.
6. TPC San Francisco Bay at Stonebrae- Hayward, CALIF.
7. Sugarloaf Mountain G. & Town C.- Minneola, FLA.
8. Adam's Mountain C.C.- Eagle, COLO.
9. The Creek C. at Reynolds Plantation- Greensboro, GA.
10. The G.C. at Ravenna- Littleton, COLO.

Best New Canadian:

1. Tobiano G. Course- Kamloops, B.C.
2. Wyndance G.C.- Uxbridge, ONT.
3. Cobble Beach G. Links- Owen Sound, ONT.

Best Remodel:

1. Saucon Valley C.C. (Old)- Bethlehem, PA.
2. Sleepy Hollow C.C.- Scarborough, N.Y.
3. Haig Point C. (Calibogue)- Daufuskie Island, S.C.
4. Omaha C.C.- Omaha, NEB.
5. Montesoro G. and Social C.- Borrego Springs, CALIF.
6. Sedgefield C.C.- Greensboro, N.C.
7. Hawk's Nest G.C.- Vero Beach, FLA.
8. Cardinal G. & C.C.- Greensboro, N.C.
9. Sailfish Point G.C.- Stuart, FLA.
10. Mayacoo Lakes C.C.- West Palm Beach, FLA.

[Seth Berliner]

Has anyone played the PGA Coyote Springs course?  The pictures I have seen look interesting but as we all know, pictures only go so far.

[Andy Troeger]

I'm in Las Vegas now, but did not play Coyote Springs.

I put Chambers, Cougar Canyon, and Four Mile Ranch in the order of the rankings and think all three are deserving of being high on the list.

On the private side, I liked Adam's Mountain better than Painted Valley. Would have liked to have seen Ravenna but it didn't work out schedule-wise.

Anyone played Juliette Falls in FL?

[Mike_Cirba]

Wow...I really liked what they did at Saucon Valley Old, but I absolutely LOVED what was done at Sleepy Hollow.

Still and all, it's nice to see the work at both courses recognized.

[Matt_Ward]

Mike C:

Where is Essex County (NJ) on the remodel list ?

Ditto Plainfield ?

Andy:

I hear what you say -- but on the public side Four Mile Ranch would take my #1 position  -- the most fun and most creative for sure. I admit to not having played Chambers Bay and Coyote Springs thus far.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike C:

Where is Essex County (NJ) on the remodel list ?

Ditto Plainfield ?

Matt,

No clue...no clue.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()