News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


texsport

Re: Leading Contenders for Best New in 2002
« Reply #75 on: January 23, 2002, 01:57:59 PM »

Quote
To briefly supplement information about the GolfDigest "new" course ranking system,  a course must receive a minimum of ten (10) rankings to be eligible for consideration. Although panelists fill in a ranking for "condition" (from 1-10, with decimal points), "condition" does not count for ranking of new courses.  In 2001, about 250 courses were nominated for consideration (either by the architect and/or by the course), about 200 of which were public (either affordable or upscale) and about 50 of which were private.

I have a question about the GD rating system. Do they still award points for courses that allow walking? This has nothing to do with the quality or shotmaking values of any course. I think it just penalizes courses that are too spread out or have too much elevation change to make walking reasonable. I believe that the point totals are pretty close for a lot of courses and the walking points( or non-walking penalty) really skews the rankings. I've always thought that GD should publish all the ranking scores to be fair.

If you don't agree, look at GD's list of top 100 courses and count the number that don't allow walking. The effect is probably more dramatic when you look at Best In State ratings where really inferior courses sometimes make the top 10.

I've suggested this to GD in the past and pointed out to them that the guys who rate courses for them almost always ride a cart to do the rating. And the Senior Tour guys can ride too.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

texsport

Re: Leading Contenders for Best New in 2002
« Reply #76 on: January 23, 2002, 05:27:13 PM »
More on the GD rating system.

GD's ratings are published under the heading of the "Greatest" courses in the world, U.S. or given state. I don't think their system really gives us that.

 I think that most of the courses that benefit from the walking penalty are old courses that don't need help with their bottom line either. At the same time, most of the courses that are penalized are new courses that do need help with their bottom line. As the cost of new courses continues to escalate and the sites available for their construction get more and more difficult, carts and their revenue are practically required. That's the modern world.

As I said in my earlier post, in some states the effect is really obvious. In states with a shortage of quality courses you frequently see old courses, long revered for their history, but too short for modern tournament play ranked higher than brand new spectacular resort courses. The no-walking penalty levied against  the resort is what creates and perpetuates this. The new resort course is really better but the  playing field used for rating isn't level.

I'm not saying that walking shouldn't be allowed, I enjoy it myself, and feel it's the best way to play, but whether I walk or ride- the difficulty and pleasure of the next shot is what determines the quality of the course I'm playing.

While I'm at it, I'll also take a shot at GD's practice of awarding points to courses for their history. Is it fair to give points to an old, short, out of condition course that may have had a major tournament in 1920 when it clearly is no longer a
test of modern equipment? What has shot values in the hickory era got to do with today? Newer courses haven't had an opportunity to host majors and probably never will for a lot of reasons. They shouldn't be penalized for it.

Everyone knows that great holes are copied and updated on most new courses because classic design concepts are invaluable. Since we don't want to go back to hickory shafts we have to evaluate all  courses, even with their modern interpretations of classic designs, using modern equipment criteria. We should also realize  the fact that carts are a necessity at almost all new courses and stop penalizing them for a fact of modern life.

How about GD publishing all the ratings for each course or publishing a rating without the walking and history penalties. I'll bet a lot of state ratings would change dramatically.


















« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Walkin' Man

Re: Leading Contenders for Best New in 2002
« Reply #77 on: January 23, 2002, 06:53:16 PM »
The way the points work for "Walking" on GD's list is as follows there is a category that each panelist rates for each course for "walkability" regardless of what that courses cart policy is.  

That number (on a 1-10 scale) is then multiplied by a factor of 0 for courses who never allow walking.   1 for courses that allow walking, but only at specific times.  And 2 for courses that allow unlimited walking anytime.

So a course that is not very walkable and would score a 4 on the walkability scale which allows walking any time would get a point total of .8 (.4 x 2)in that catagory.

A course that is very walkable at say .8, but only allows walking some of the time would get the same number.  

And obvously for those non math majors out there, no matter how walkable a course is if they never allow anyone to walk their point total will be zero.

I love how so many people here pontificate about how "Critical to the essence of the game walking is", and "how it isnt golf when you dont walk" as I have heard people state here.  However when everyones favorite whipping boy GD allots some small measure of importance to walking suddenly gets collective amnesia and it "Walking now Has no place in the game, and no bearing on how good a golf course is"

Come on you cant have it both ways.  If skating is an integral part of the game of hockey then a brand new arena that has all the best luxury boxes and a TV above every urinal, but has crappy ice cant be considered one of the games best venues.  PS I still miss Maple Leaf Gardens, so I guess yes I do think that history has a little something to do with the overall enjoyment of either a sporting event, or a round of golf.

ps I vote dont publish all the ratings as someone stated above.  Why?  Because this isnt a senior design thesis in Metallurgical Engineering, it is an entertainment venue and designed to do just that.  As well as sell a few magazines in the process.  If you give some people all the data points they in all their anal retentiveness are going to pour through them and argue why number 87 and 88 in Montana are in their relative positions.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

JMD

Re: Leading Contenders for Best New in 2002
« Reply #78 on: January 24, 2002, 08:46:40 PM »
I'd add Red Tail Golf Club at Fort Devens in Massachusets.  www.redtailgolf.net.  The Redan (reverse, I think) from this course is pictured in the current issue of Links and the web site suggests that the course might be something special.  In any event, it may prove a contender in the upscale public category.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Daryl "Turboe" Boe

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Leading Contenders for Best New in 2002
« Reply #79 on: January 30, 2002, 07:50:00 PM »
John,

Survived Orlando, saw the show, and got to play Victoria Hills.

I enjoyed Victoria Hills.  Nice piece of property.  Great roll to the property reminded me of the terrain at World Woods, or the Ranch Course at Black Diamond.

Good stuff.  

ps that new Callaway C4 Driver looks interesting.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Instagram: @thequestfor3000

"Time spent playing golf is not deducted from ones lifespan."

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."

Daryl "Turboe" Boe

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Leading Contenders for Best New in 2002
« Reply #80 on: February 05, 2002, 06:22:40 AM »
Almost forgot to mention a hidden gem I stumbled across on my way down to Orlando last week.

Coastal Pines GC near  Brunswick, GA.  I think it opened around December 1, 2001

http://www.coastalpinesgolf.com/

The website appears to still be under construction, but the virtual tour of holes has about 75% of them done

I will go into more detalis later maybe on a new thread, but at $25 greens fees is affordable, it is eminanantly walkable, plays firm and fast, and was a nice layout.  It was designed by Mark Bennett and Augusta Golf Designs.  

http://www.digitalimpactdesign.com/augusta/

A pleasent surprise off the beaten path, but a fun golf course and a great value.  I would think it should be under consideration for Best New Course in the affordable category.

Has anyone else played or seen it yet?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:02 PM by -1 »
Instagram: @thequestfor3000

"Time spent playing golf is not deducted from ones lifespan."

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."

Geoffrey_Walsh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Leading Contenders for Best New in 2002
« Reply #81 on: February 05, 2002, 06:47:30 AM »
It was breifly mentioned before, but I have taken a walking tour of Trump National and I think it will be in contention for the best new Private category.  Fazio really utilized the property well and they added an additonal parcel with a large ravine which really adds to the strategic values of the course.  Trump actually bought the additional parcel in Westchester with house on it and knocked the house down (as only Trump can do...).  If any of you want further details on the course please let me know.

BTW - For the GD panelists out there, I didn't receive an additional packet for the Best New Courses yet.  I know they sent the Top 100/Best in State early this year (I received it around New Years), has anyone received the new courses packet as well?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

SPDB

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Leading Contenders for Best New in 2002
« Reply #82 on: February 05, 2002, 07:02:39 AM »
Geoffrey -

Just one - How many gallons does the waterfall pump an hour?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

SPDB

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Leading Contenders for Best New in 2002
« Reply #83 on: February 05, 2002, 07:03:02 AM »
Sorry meant to include these

 ;D 8) :P
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

corey miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Leading Contenders for Best New in 2002
« Reply #84 on: February 05, 2002, 08:50:26 AM »
I am going to stick up for Tom Fazio.  It was JIM FAZIO who designed Trump National with Mr. Trump.  Some of the artificial mounding on the course seems to be designed to block views of the surrounding residential housing.  Paul T do we have pictures?  would be very surprised if this made any top-ten lists.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Brad Miller

Re: Leading Contenders for Best New in 2002
« Reply #85 on: February 05, 2002, 09:08:17 AM »
Potential top 10 lists... money spent, earth moved, mounds built, gallons pumped, membership packages sent out cold (I've gotten 2) and most roads with traffic crossed per round of golf. :) :) :)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Guest

Re: Leading Contenders for Best New in 2002
« Reply #86 on: February 05, 2002, 09:20:31 AM »
Geoffrey Walsch

I'd really like to get more detail about Trump National Golf Course and its architecture?  I'd be shocked if it approached being within the top 20 or 30 courses in Westchester County yet alone be in contention for top new private course in the country.

Have you been toFriars Head yet and if so how do the two courses compare?

Thank you for details.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Geoffrey_Walsh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Leading Contenders for Best New in 2002
« Reply #87 on: February 05, 2002, 11:42:56 AM »
When I said "Fazio" I meant Jim not Tom (Jim was there when I walked the course).  I visited the course when it was about 3/4 of the way completed it I was impressed with a number of holes, particulary the par 3's (and I am not focusing on #4, the infamous waterfall hole).  #17 is a wonderful longer par 3 and I liked 15 as well.

For the course design, try looking at their website:
http://www.trumpnational.com/Pages/course.htm

I realize that Trump invokes certain connotations but I am merely stating an initial opinion about the course itself.  Will it be considered a top 20 course in the NYC area?  Probably not at first, but only time will tell.  It certainly will be one of the best maintained clubs in the region.


« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jeff_Lewis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Leading Contenders for Best New in 2002
« Reply #88 on: February 05, 2002, 01:29:38 PM »
Thanks for the web address. I thought it particularly interesting that Trump, in a letter to his members on the site, talked about his expectation that the course will be very highly rated. I think courses are more likely to be well thought of when the idea behind the course is to create an enjoyable experience for the members, rather than thinking about pleasing a couple of hundred strangers who rate courses. The fact is, many very good golf courses are not nationally ranked, but are still phenomenal places to be a member or guest. Should a club exist for its members' enjoyment or other people's perceptions?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

JakaB

Re: Leading Contenders for Best New in 2002
« Reply #89 on: February 05, 2002, 02:45:45 PM »
Didn't that guy on Saturday night use to say 'Its better to be rated good, than to be good'...this goes along way to understanding Trump's handicap of 5...I would bet a haircut to a shoeshine I could beat him straight up anytime anyplace.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Richard_Goodale

Re: Leading Contenders for Best New in 2002
« Reply #90 on: February 05, 2002, 04:05:51 PM »
"Should a club exist for its members' enjoyment or other people's perceptions?"

Jeff

The answer is A--members' enjoyment.  No question.

If people on this site and elsewhere understood this, we could release a lot of hot air and move on to issues of substance.  IMHO, of course.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Brad Miller

Re: Leading Contenders for Best New in 2002
« Reply #91 on: February 05, 2002, 04:09:12 PM »
Geoffrey Walsh, given that you have made it clear that you are a GD-Rater, and initially stated that this Trump Course would be in strong contention for best new private in year 2002, which good-great NY metro courses do you believe this will be better than? Do you have any personal connection to this project? If you are a member I do apologize, but please then don't give us your thoughts under the banner of GD-Rater.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Bill Wright

Re: Leading Contenders for Best New in 2002
« Reply #92 on: February 05, 2002, 05:18:38 PM »
Hokulea, Big Island, Hawaii.
Jack Nicklaus' finest course since Muirfield Village.
9 holes open now, all 18 by July.  Very private.  
Absolutely stunning.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Daryl "Turboe" Boe

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Leading Contenders for Best New in 2002
« Reply #93 on: February 10, 2002, 08:13:49 PM »
Anyone have any info on Anderson Creek in NC.  I believe it is supposed to be somewhere near the sandhills area of NC new Davis Love.

Has anyone played it?  Thoughts?

Who is the pro there?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Instagram: @thequestfor3000

"Time spent playing golf is not deducted from ones lifespan."

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."

Scott_Burroughs

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Leading Contenders for Best New in 2002
« Reply #94 on: February 11, 2002, 06:00:02 AM »
Daryl,
    I think Jim Lewis has played it and wrote a little about it in another thread.  He mentioned something about it in the encouraging young architects thread, I believe.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Geoffrey_Walsh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Leading Contenders for Best New in 2002
« Reply #95 on: February 11, 2002, 06:28:05 AM »
Brad,

I do not have any personal connection to Trump National, I am only speaking as someone who enjoys walking new courses and examining their design features.

I don't know why this particular project/course seems to conjure up so much emotion from the members here.  It is not a traditional design (with little earth movement), nor does it have a traditional owner, but that does not prohibit it from being a good course.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Brad Miller

Re: Leading Contenders for Best New in 2002
« Reply #96 on: February 11, 2002, 07:24:31 AM »
Geoff, maybe it's the manner in which the course has been marketed by Mr. Trump and his machine. "will be best course in Westchester" and this comes from a WF member! This is just one of many comments from reading materials regarding this course. By the way, you where the one that after walking the course stated that it will be in contention for GD best new private, I read that to imply that you thought it could be at least a top 5 new design?
There may be no other owner/developer that hypes his projects in the Trump manner, better to build a project for the right reasons and let your course do the talking, exactly what is going on out in Riverhead. If it's not clear let me go on record a saying that I would have loved for Mr. Trump to have built a great golf course, but having seen and walked about half the course that isn't the case. Just my opinion.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Geoffrey_Walsh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Leading Contenders for Best New in 2002
« Reply #97 on: February 11, 2002, 07:46:34 AM »
Brad,

I think you bring up some good points concerning the marketing of the course.  I would also prefer for an owner to let the course do the talking, something that the Golf Course at Glen Mills did quite well last year.

I am curious... what don't you like about the routing at TN?  With your help, I'd like to define some of its strengths and weaknesses.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Brad Miller

Re: Leading Contenders for Best New in 2002
« Reply #98 on: February 12, 2002, 08:28:45 AM »
Geoff, having not played and walked the entire course it's hard for me to comment on the routing, but I can tell you that I didn't like the shaping and massive mounding that I saw on a few holes." Over the top" doesn't come close. Further you have to cross two streets a total of four times on the back nine. If the marketing of this project had been low key I probably wouldn't have said a word, but just read the info from your link and the other marketing material that has been mailed to everyone :) in the NY Metro area and you'd think you had the coming of a modern day WF.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Donald Trump

Re: Leading Contenders for Best New in 2002
« Reply #99 on: February 12, 2002, 07:46:13 PM »
Here are a couple of photos of my new course.  I'm going to fire the photographer tomorrow.

You can see that the bulldozer did a great job of flattening those fairways so I get only nice level lies and I made sure to plant lots of nice new trees.

The mounding was really my idea. I didn't want views of the surrounding slums to bother my members.

I also wanted an alternate fairway hole on my course not that I wanted anyone to actually use it.  That right fairway  fits the bill perfectly.



« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »