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.


Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Digest's Best New Courses / 2001 Results
« Reply #50 on: December 04, 2001, 05:09:39 AM »
Adam,

Although I will be classified as a GCA "Newbie" to the left of this post ;), I recall running some similar math in a post earlier this year on this subject..... :)

Basically, if your revenues are $1.5 (about typical for a public course at moderate fees) this goes to (in order)

1) Course Maintenance ($500-800K),

2) Pro Shop/Cart Operations/Cost of Sales - F and B, Merchandise ($200-400K),

3) Debt Service ($400-640K, based on about $80/$1,000,000 annually and construction costs of $6-8 Million for the entire facility, and

4 (hopefully) profits, at a rate of 10-20%, depending on who spent the money!  If a management comany has spent the money, they may also have to send a certain percentage to the home office, which they would claim is offset in national purchasing power and/or reduced manintenance/operations cost.

Total it up, and annual operations costs are $1.1/$1.3 M at the low end, and $1.8/$2.2 on the high end, with and without profit included.  To paraphrase your comment, "Why build it without a profit?"

At $30,000 rounds, revenue must be $43-$73 per golfer. You get some help from average 60% cart rentals at $10/golfer,(average revenue $6 per round), F and B (national average $4-15/round) , range balls (national average $1-2/round) and merchandise sales,( really varies depending on golf experience and logo) of $3-10 per round.  Thus, of the total revenue generated, you can expect about $14-53 per round in auxillary sales, which means the greens fee can be lower than the $43-73 per round, usually $30-43.

If you are doing the math ???, I calculated the $43/30 using all the low figures and $73/43 using all the high ones.  Of course, most courses are somewhere in between.  The mathmatically astute among us will easily see that the per round figures drop 25% (or is that 33%?) if the course is of such quality that it produces $40,000 or more rounds! Building a course right now, at historically low interest rates has an obvious positive effect.  And as Lou Duran mentioned on another post, buying one of the courses for sale right now at $.25-50 on the dollar will also make these courses pencil much, much better!

BTW, as courses are coming on line and not experiencing as much play as they expected, I am hearing of some nasty lawsuits against companies that produce feasibility studies estimating revenue.  I should probably put a huge disclaimer in above that no one should build a golf course based on my post! ;D

It is hard (on typical sites) to produce a $73 golf course for a low budget.  Even when I do, it's the ambiance features (not important to this group, but it is to corporate outings, etc. that may pay $75 per head.  For that you need higher maintenance, nicer clubhouse, etc.  Clubhourses usually tend to be real money losers.

Cheers

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Mike Vegis @ Kiawah

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Digest's Best New Courses / 2001 Results
« Reply #51 on: December 04, 2001, 05:14:19 AM »
Oops...  I spoke to Brad Klein yesterday and he informed me that the tentative dates I mentioned for a potential Kiawah Rater's Cup won't work (the weekend of Sept 5-8 falls over Rosh Hashanah).  So, it's back to the drawing board to figure out which dates we'll submit for approval...  We'll keep you informed...
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Digest's Best New Courses / 2001 Results
« Reply #52 on: December 04, 2001, 05:37:36 AM »
I think this might be my first post on a ratings thread, but,alas, it's just with a question:

How does Avalon Lakes(OH) qualify as new? I know Pete Dye came in & made some changes/renovations, but does that mean it should be considered in the Best New stuff?

Adam -

I liked your point about riding vs. walking for memorability sake - I've had much the same experience. As far as your $$$ math goes, I think the reason the numbers don't work well for many daily fees has more to do with recouping $$$ spent on land acquisition & course construction. Even granted your operating numbers, 750K gross profit may not be enough when you spend millions to buy the land & build the course.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

John_D._Bernhardt

Re: Golf Digest's Best New Courses / 2001 Results
« Reply #53 on: December 04, 2001, 08:20:51 AM »
I feel better when we speak of hidden gems. To glorify the poor effort of the ranking crowd at golf digest speaks poorly of us and I am saying that noting many of the best writers on gca are on here. Look how many viewers this subject has gotten.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Matt_Ward

Re: Golf Digest's Best New Courses / 2001 Results
« Reply #54 on: December 04, 2001, 09:43:44 AM »
The idea that having more panelists produce a far superior result does not really add up.

You have to ask yourself how many people really do travel throughout the country in order to get a real assessment on what is taking place in any given year. Too many people are usually constrained by a variety of factors to stay near their home base -- in my mind, they are not national rating panelists but regional ones.

The other aspect deals with courses in high play areas. Again, how does Arcadia Bluffs get high marks (which I agree) when another top quality course (aka The Kingsley Club) just up the road does not? That's what's baffling to me and a quite a few others.

As far as when courses are operational for consideration I receive a complete listing of courses deemed by the magazine eligible for consideration for that particular year. I play those courses that are listed. If revisions occur I, as well as all other panelists, are updated accordingly.

The other element that I will say again that is baffling is the idea that 25 separate people will rate one course, another completely different grouping of 25 people rate another and then all of sudden you have some sort of determination -- even when there is no one who has played both. That's another confusing point to me!

When new courses are coming forward it is not that hard to hear "on the grapevine" what is happening within key areas of the country and which courses have developed some sort of "buzz." Granted, not all buzz is valid as I have found from so many actual visits.  

Many panelists, myself and others, do in fact criss-cross the country and see an array of courses (I usually see 40-50 new candidates plus a host of other notable recommendations). Yes, it's difficult to see all of them or an overwhelming majority, but some sort of revision to the existing system is needed that weighs voting in some sort of manner that is defensible and acknowledges that not all raters are indeed "equal" given the range others have in seeing courses versus those with a limited base of operations. I'm not advocating TKC should have won the category of Best New Private, but to be completely left off the top ten is beyond any convincing argument. I played five other private selections and in my mind TKC is easily ahead of three of them.

As far as Iron Horse in Montana is concerned it is dynamite golf course and worthy of even more attention. The site is simply an eye-opener and the holes are balanced for all types of golfers. Clearly, a tough course to get to but you won't be disappointed.

George Pazin:

When a course has a complete makeover and is deemed to be completely different from its original version it is then considered to be "new." I played Avalon Lakes years ago and would like to know from you if that has really happened with the latest version that's in place now.

Mike Cirba:

The answer to your question is yes and yes to Pine Hill and Carnegie Abbey.

Mike, believe me, if a course of any serious quality opens people will get there. The GD panel has people, no less than the other panels of different publications, who will trek to quality. As Costner said, "build a field and they shall come." Build one of superior quality (Pacific Dunes, Sand Hills, et al) and people will go there even if the road is a bit less travelled.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Doug Wright

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Digest's Best New Courses / 2001 Results
« Reply #55 on: December 04, 2001, 10:37:38 AM »
Glad to see Colo. weigh in with two of the top 10 New Affordables, including numero uno. Of course here I sit in the waning days of 2001 having played neither  :-/, though if the weather holds this week I'm gonna go see Murphy Creek and report back. I've heard mixed reviews about Murphy Creek but very good comments about Engh's Redlands. Unfortunately it's as close to Salt Lake City as it is to Denver. :-X

Matt, Have you played either?

Thanks for all the hard work on the new and improved site, Ran & Co., including all these groovy smileys... ;D
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Twitter: @Deneuchre

Rick Phelps

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Digest's Best New Courses / 2001 Results
« Reply #56 on: December 04, 2001, 11:09:49 AM »
Hey Doug, et al:

Also glad to see that Colorado is getting some attention, despite Redanman's insistance that you can't play golf in Colorado (just kidding, Bill  ;) )!!

I have played both courses and found them to be very entertaining.  For those who don't know, Redlands is in Grand Junction which is about a four hour drive from Denver.  You can fly there commercially through Denver or Salt Lake, but who flies anymore anyway. ???  

Murphy Creek has a good variety of holes with bunker styling that you don't normally see on a Municipal course.  Redlands is routed through an awesome site with rocky canyons and cliffs all over the place.  It is basically at the foot of the Colorado National Monument.  If you like Engh's stuff, you will undoubtedly like this course.

If any of you are going to make the trip to Redlands, drive 45 more minutes southeast to Delta and play Devil's Thumb.  Then let me know what you think.  It's a project I just finished that will hopefully be worthy of a review or two.  If someone could teach me how, I would love to post a few photos.

If any of you are coming in to the Denver area to play Murphy Creek, look me up, I would love to meet you, or maybe even play a round or two.

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

Doug Wright

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Digest's Best New Courses / 2001 Results
« Reply #57 on: December 04, 2001, 11:43:28 AM »
C'mon Rick, we've been trying to get together to play for months, and now you're inviting the rest of the world to join you? Is it something I said? ::) ;D

Love those smileys...

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

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Digest's Best New Courses / 2001 Results
« Reply #58 on: December 04, 2001, 12:27:10 PM »
This is strange, but I thought I already responded to this thread:'(...

Jeff Lewis:

I have to agree with you. Murphy Creek is wonderful.  For $32
you can walk anytime during the summer week and carry your
bag.  Tough to beat that deal.  But, when all the housing gets
built :( ....
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Matt_Ward

Re: Golf Digest's Best New Courses / 2001 Results
« Reply #59 on: December 04, 2001, 05:32:13 PM »
Doug:

Have not played either but I know two GD panelists who played the new Jim Engh course (Redlands) and were very enthusiastic about it -- one even liked it better than Sanctuary!!!

If I can recommend a course in the immediate area keep The GC at Thanksgiving Point (Lehi, UT) on your road map as a real go getter of a course.

The layout was designed with Johnny Miller involved and the course is really done well for a modern course -- although I'm sure a number of GCA classic types will scoff at it. Keep in mind the layout is closed Sundays in deference to the owners who are Mormons.

Rick --

Any details on the course you're doing -- yardage from the tips, par, course rating, slope, etc. I'll be in the immediate vicinity later in 02 and would like to know more. You can e-mail me at mattwardgolf@hotmail.com

Many thanks ... :)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Derek_L

Re: Golf Digest's Best New Courses / 2001 Results
« Reply #60 on: December 04, 2001, 07:44:29 PM »
Here is some general info on Shepherd's Hollow:

Art and the owner often battled it out regarding what one another wanted, case in point are the bunkers.  Art Hills style is normally a flat bottom bunker, however the owner wanted some slight flashing.  I can remember one week when the owner was out of town and Art came in and changed all the bunker edges, then the following week they were back to the owner's specs.  Same with the greens, from what I recall only one green barely resembled the original plan ideas. Plans?  What plans, that was the fun of this course, 100% custom without a budget, sometimes it was more of a headache.  Anyway, I will quit babbling for now.

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

redanman (Guest)

Re: Golf Digest's Best New Courses / 2001 Results
« Reply #61 on: December 05, 2001, 01:02:02 AM »
Hi Rick

Nice to see you here.

What I said is that it is a different game at altitude,  ;D , and it sure in hell is! And don't forget that I was pushing the front range as a cheap destination golf arena! I'm stuck on !!!!!!!!!!!!

Hope all is well with you.  Did the rolling hills project get done??
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Hidden Gem

Re: Golf Digest's Best New Courses / 2001 Results
« Reply #62 on: December 05, 2001, 02:38:42 AM »
Matt -

You raise some valid points about the number of raters, national vs. regional raters, comparing apples to apples, and the number of courses a particular rater evaluates in any one year......

I think it is unamamous that most who value the integrity of these rankings, are in agreement that some type of "overhaul" is required. The sheer number of very good courses delivered to market each year is without question, a daunting task to fairly assess in such a short time frame.

Posts made here have made inferences to how courses may receive unjustifiable rankings in comparison to other courses due to a number of factors. These factors include the marketing efforts of the individual club, (media hype), "marquee" value of the designer involved, "celebrity" treatment given to some raters by a particular club, (can't say I blame some of them), as well as other factors.

Does GD categorize raters as "national" or "regional?" If so, how?
Does a rater have to see a specified number of courses each year?
Can a course be evaluated by just walking or riding, or do you actually have to play the course?
Due to the sheer number of courses, logistics and time constraints, does one ever play a course more than once? Give extra weight here as well....

IMO, one should have to play the course to evaluate it. Not the best analogy here, but should Motor Trend be able to evaluate new autos by just looking at them and sitting inside? Of course not!

You mention using some type of "weighting" system that may more fairly rank courses. For example, more weight given to one who evaluates a greater number of courses on a national level.

Another question.......  How many other raters at GD do you actually know? Do you communicate with some of them?  I think you know what I am getting at here, but would it not be normal behavior for raters to Email each other to the tune of.... "Hey Joe - I just got back from (whereever), and I know that you are going to that area next month. Be sure to check out course (XXXX) if you have the time and have not planned it on your itinerary...."

No, it is not a perfect science. I applaud GolfWeek for at least attempting to differentiate courses from the "Golden Era" for the most part, and Modern Designs from the 80's to the present. It is getting to the point where there is so much good product out there today, that maybe there should be a list of 500 courses total, with no particular ranking given to any of them? This is the easiest solution and not the best one, but something must be done. I hope that you post your recommendations that you are drafting to GD, here.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Matt_Ward

Re: Golf Digest's Best New Courses / 2001 Results
« Reply #63 on: December 05, 2001, 09:47:22 AM »
Hidden Gem:

To answer a few of your questions.

All GD raters are "national panelists." Many years ago GD did have a national panel (most were big name types i.e. Sam Snead, P.J. Boatwright, Tom Watson, etc.) and they also had people on there respective state listings. Calling everyone a national panelist, in my opinion, is really a stretch given their lack of mobility and general expertise when compared to others who travel more frequently and are better able to make croos comparisons between courses from different regions of the country.

GD raters are asked to visit specific courses nearby to their home -- you can also play others that are listed. The listing of specified courses can vary in number -- in my case I believe it was about 7-10. As I said I annually do at least 40-50 per year.

I believe you can walk a course to rate it but I always play it. It's something I believe must be done to really see how the course handles real shots. I also try to visit many courses with non-GD raters who are higher handicap players to get their opinions as to the overall qualities of the course and not just how the course fits my game.

I have returned to see courses more than once during a review process. The most recent example is Wolf Creek at Paradise Canyon (Mesquite, NV). The course finished third in the upscale category -- although I believe it should have been second. The course was so good that I wanted to see it again to confirm my initial impressions. I also believe, as many on GCA do, that several visitis may be necessary to really get a strong impression one way or the other. However, given the number of courses that are eligible and because of magazine imposed time constraints it becomes difficult to go back and see a course more than once in most instances.

I do know a few of the GD raters. At one time the magazine actually published its list but many high end resorts actually began sending people information and other inducements that clearly were not proper (trying to buy support!) and it was stopped.

I discuss my thoughts not only here on GCA but with many people I respect in the golf industry. Yes, I do know about a dozen GD raters but I also know raters from other publications as well. Do I ever seek to work in conjunction with other GD raters in some form of collusion to either bolster or lower the assessment of any course. The answer is never. I have my opinions and I respect those who either agree or disagree with me. All I want to know is that people have a great passion for the game and are willing to go the extra mile and see the many wonderful courses that exist in the USA. For the record, I do not have a connection to any club so I don't face the obvious conflict of interests situation that many do.

Believe me -- there are many people with great passion for the game (i.e. to name just a few -- Mike Cirba, BillV, GeoffreyC, etc, etc.). I came on board to the GD panel in 1984 as a 27 year-old rookie -- one of the youngest at that time. I also believe rankings create general interest in the topic of architecture and a healthy respect for the game's origins and its future. Yes, people do get upset with rankings but that happens in all areas of life that we seek to quantify. Some will say how can you take a qualititative game like golf and seek to quanity it with some sort of rankings / ratings. To me -- getting opinions from respected people helps elevate my limited understanding of the game. And, since people clearly have strong opinions, the reactions will obviously be no less vigorous in reponse. In my mind, that's what makes life interesting is in comparing and contrasting.

I will be sending my comments to GD in the next few weeks on how to improve the system it has in place. I can certainly include these recommendations on GCA when time permits.

What I really think needs to happen is more information on places the non-affiliated golfer can play. Stories about PV, Oakmont, Merion, NGLA, SH, ANGC, et al. are great but for most people it's like looking at a Playboy centerfold -- it's more illusory than reality. I think the magazines are starting to realize that public courses are the driving force in building interest. Yes, we all love to play one of the great private name courses, but rating the public side of the ledger is something that needs more attention. I never to forget my public course roots and I get a real kick out of visiting such affordable gems as Paa Ko Ridge, Pinon Hills, Bethpage Black, Painted Dunes Desert GC, and a host of others like them.

At The Jersey Golfer we know the pedigree of many of the top private courses and we do highlight them (i.e. Plainfield in our most recent issue) but we also understand that public golf is where many get their first taste of the game and its something we try to keep front and center on our editorial docket.

Hope this helps ... :)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Doug Wright

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Digest's Best New Courses / 2001 Results
« Reply #64 on: December 13, 2001, 07:29:54 AM »
Bringing this back up for Mike C's benefit.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Twitter: @Deneuchre

Mike_Cirba

Re: Golf Digest's Best New Courses / 2001 Results
« Reply #65 on: December 13, 2001, 07:41:06 AM »
Thanks Doug! :)

I guess this thread tended to focus a bit once again on the rating process, and the deserving courses that got left off the list, but I wanted to spend a bit more time talking about the ones that are there, and hear people talk about them in terms of trends in architecture, and what they might mean.

Sounds to me that we're starting to see a lot more classically-oriented stuff than just a few years ago, in some pretty remote areas of the country.  

Thanks also for your detailed description of Ken Kavanaugh's course.  It certainly sounds appealing.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Matt_Ward

Re: Golf Digest's Best New Courses / 2001 Results
« Reply #66 on: December 28, 2001, 07:16:22 AM »
There have been ill-informed rumors spreading around that my unbridled support of The Kingsley Club is based on some sort of  attempt on my part to gain something from the club.

THAT IS COMPLETELY ERRONEOUS ... PERIOD!

I rate courses without any desire to curry favor from the club(s) in question. I belong to no club in order to prerserve my ability to reach decisions based on my what I see during a visit.

I was taken aback that a club of this quality did not fare better given the praise it has received from a variety of people here on GCA and in other media outlets.

Unfortunately, there are people (some in high places) who have taken my public support to mean that Matt Ward is looking to gain something or has gained something because of his support.

I AM NOT FOR SALE -- NEVER HAVE BEEN AND NEVER WILL !

As I said from the outset my enthusiasm for The Kingsley Club is based simply on the merits for the sheer brilliance of architect Mike DeVries and the sensational layout that makes up all 18 holes. It is a course that I believe offers the total golf experience for all types of golfers.

There is more to this story and I will be posting this info in the next few days.

To all who follow GCA and are avid golfers I wish you all the happiest of times in 2002 ...

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

A_Clay_Man

Re: Golf Digest's Best New Courses / 2001 Results
« Reply #67 on: December 28, 2001, 07:49:34 AM »
Jeff Brauer & George Pazin- Thanks for the real nuts and bolts of the working realities in high finance of the industry.
I suppose my numbers were based more on a mom n pop op, where the land costs were minimal and also the thrills and frills were somewhat limited. I guess my idealistic perspective comes from the knowledge that it can be done much cheaper with a huge amount of sweatequity. Not on a professional level with time constriants and  the principles barking down ones neck to finnish on-time on-budget and it better be good! Thanks for your input.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Digest's Best New Courses / 2001 Results
« Reply #68 on: December 28, 2001, 10:24:31 AM »
Matt:
 
Very good post in regards to your explanation of how
Golf Digest and its raters operate, especially from your
viewpoint.

Thanks for sharing. :)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

David Wigler

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Digest's Best New Courses / 2001 Results
« Reply #69 on: December 28, 2001, 11:13:23 AM »
Matt,

I would be very curious about what those rumors are and how you heard them.  The only downside I have ever experienced as a course rater is from ill informed associates who think that things such as the way we are treated affects our rating.  Shepard’s Hollow may have treated me better than any public facility I have ever been to (And that is saying something).  Yet, Barona is simply a better golf course.  

Like you (I think) I do not work in the golf business, so there is no one I owe any favors to.  I have absolutely disagreed with some of your assessments of golf courses in the past but I have never once felt that your assessments were based on hope of some gain.  I would be really surprised if anyone who spent time on this site had a different opinion.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
And I took full blame then, and retain such now.  My utter ignorance in not trumpeting a course I have never seen remains inexcusable.
Tom Huckaby 2/24/04

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Digest's Best New Courses / 2001 Results
« Reply #70 on: December 28, 2001, 12:45:15 PM »
Shivas:

I too enjoyed the 8th hole at Glen Club.  In fact the bunkering
short left is just spectacular.  It is a wonderful hole, as is
the short par 3 fourth, which may be one of the best short
three's in all of Chicago.

However, at $150, it's a bit pricey for the Chicago market,
for what you get.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Bill_Overdorf

Re: Golf Digest's Best New Courses / 2001 Results
« Reply #71 on: January 02, 2002, 07:05:36 PM »
Matt Ward:

I note with interest your "cool" smiley next to Aspen Lakes in Oregon. Needless to say, we are extremely pleased to find our project ranked at the No.8 position in the affordable category, especially when one considers that this 18 was developed within budgetary parameters of $1.5 million.

I wonder if you might enlighten me regarding your notation? I will be very appreciative.

Thanks, Bill  ;D
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mike_Cirba

Re: Golf Digest's Best New Courses / 2001 Results
« Reply #72 on: January 02, 2002, 07:52:16 PM »
Bill Overdorf,

First of all, it's really great to see you posting here!   ;D

For anyone unfamiliar with Bill, he is a rather accomplished architect working primarily in the Pac Northwest, and I'm sure his thoughts here will add considerably to the discussion.

But, Bill...one thing you should know about Matt Ward's post is that this is a relatively new format for this discussion group, and some technical glitch seems to turn the number eight into one of those "smiley" type figures.  Consequently, I don't think that Matt really intended anything at all by this...it was simply his attempt to list the GD "Best New" courses in numerical order.

By the way, congrats on the recognition that Aspen Lakes has been receiving.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Matt_Ward

Re: Golf Digest's Best New Courses / 2001 Results
« Reply #73 on: January 02, 2002, 09:51:04 PM »
Bill Overdorf:

The explanation put forward by Mike Cirba is a true one. I only intended to list the courses in numerical order. Nothing else was intended.

I had the pleasure in playing Aspen Lakes this summer and I salute you for your fine effort.

The course is neatly routed to take full advantage of the gorgeous property and I commend the ownership in providing such a fine quality course at such an affordable rate.

I played Aspen Lakes on my summer trip to the Oregon / Northern California area and I must say it was a real pleasure playing Aspen Lakes after playing Pacific Dunes because play at Aspen Lakes was like the Indy 500 compared to the creep 'n crawl pace at PD.

There are a good number of quality holes at Aspen Lakes such as the long par-4 5th and the extremely tight fairway on the par-5 6th, to name just two. On the back side the dog-leg left 11th is quite good -- as well as the dog-leg left 16th(?).

Any person venturing to central Oregon and the immediate Bend area (probably the best summer weather in the nation) is best advised to trek over to Aspen Lakes.  :)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Bill_Overdorf

Re: Golf Digest's Best New Courses / 2001 Results
« Reply #74 on: January 03, 2002, 03:01:51 PM »
Hi Mike:

My inquiry about Matt Ward's smiley face by Aspen Lakes prompted me to wonder if he had played the course and perhaps had found favor with the product. Although your comment dashes that train of thought it does make sense.

Not too many people frequent our courses here in the never- never land called the Pacific northwest. We are enjoying the notoriety, recognition, or whatever that's combines with this GD ranking.

We have another new track due for a spring start that presents a better site than Aspen Lakes, so with a little care- ful application perhaps we can generate further recognition. Hoo nose!

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