[Don_Mahaffey]

Don

Yes, first impressions are important, but conditioning should be a secondary issue for ANY rater popping into town for a game unless they are exceptionally good or poor - by normal course standards - not high end country club standards.  The best courses I know of get away with average conditions and may in fact only shine very briefly each year.  For instance, my games at Formby three or so weeks ago will likely be the conditioning highlight of the year for me.  Does that mean I think the the course is any better than last year?  No, of course not unless I see it in superb condition for at least a few more visits and even then I would wonder about the weather VS green keeping changes.  I can put up with an awful lot in conditioning if the design is in some way superior, otherwise I wouldn't have been a member at Pennard for so many years.

Ciao

Sean,
You know it, and I know it, but unfortunately conditioning is and always will be a huge consideration for most golfers. What Bandon has done so well, I think, is to down play conditioning when opening up, while most courses take the route of super hype and that can backfire.
Mike Kaiser seems to know just how much to say, just enough for a good tease, then let anticipation take over. Most decision makers are way to hyper to have the patience to let a good thing slowly evolve.

[John Kirk]

I will point out that the two courses with the smoothest greens (at the Bandon Dunes Resort)  are Old Macdonald and Bandon Trails, the two youngest.  Old Mac's greens were very nice during two visits last August, velvet smooth roll, maybe 9.5 feet most days.  That's an all-fescue surface.  I believe Mr. Keiser was able to limit play until the course was at least a year old.  I have also heard that the course took a bit of a beating the first full summer, and needed some extra TLC last winter.

In Oregon, poa infestation is inevitable, so the best years are the first eight or ten, followed by a fifty or sixty year transition period where the greens are pretty good within three to five years.  After sixty or so years, your greens can roll like Oakmont's.

Tangent.  Sorry.  Congrats to Don and Tom on the great new project.

[Joe_Tucholski]

Joe,

First of all I have met hundreds of raters in my travels and find them to be thoughtful and generous people.  I consider many my close friends and would love for them to see my new course as it evolves.  From what you say above I should expect them to give poor ratings for the first year or so until conditions are perfect.  

1)  If there are conditioning issues I would expect the rating in the conditioning scores to reflect the issues.  Some courses have the luxury of a longer period of time before they "open" and based on the rating criteria as I understand them this is definitely the optimal route to obtain a high ranking shortly after the opening.

Is that really fair to the owners and other members?  

2)  My thought is what is fair is to let the owners/members know the standards before they decide the timelines for their course opening and then rate the course on those standards when it opens or the course allows raters/panelists.  Is it fair that the weather over a period of time can negatively and dramatically impact the grow in and potentially delay opening - no, but it is a fact.

Until I feel the course has reached its maintenance potential should I insist that all my guests and friends disclose if they are a rater or not?

3)  I'm not sure what the procedures are for a panelist/rater but if they must rate every course they play and the course does not want to be rated it seems logical the course would ensure no one who is a rater plays.  How that occurs is up to the members and the course.

Should the members of the course who are raters, Golfweek allows members to rate courses where they are members, mark down the course during grow in to protect the public?  

5)  I think the member who is a rater if they must rate the course should rate it how they would rate any other course based on the guidelines set for each category regardless of how new the course is.  This is not for the public but to follow the guidance of the organization they are serving.  The organization likely has the public in mind for their rating (not sure if it is to provide real insight to the public or to sell the public magazines).

What do you suggest?
6)  My only suggestion would be to decrease the length of time a rating stays in effect for new courses.  For example ratings made within the first or second year of opening are discarded after one or two years.

Realized I didn't answer your questions.  The above answers are my opinions and I am open to being persuaded that my opinions are wrong with an explanation of why.  My biggest concerns with a free pass for grow in is the length of time for the issues to resolve and the fact that there is a possibility they will not resolve (I feel the possibility they won't resolve is significantly higher than the possibility that aerating greens will cause permanent damage).

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()