[Kyle Henderson]

Was the "Renaissance Club" moniker derived (fully or partially) from the "Renaissance Design" firm that built it?

[Tom_Doak]

Was the "Renaissance Club" moniker derived (fully or partially) from the "Renaissance Design" firm that built it?

Yes.

The course is located in Archerfield Wood, but the neighboring course that was built a couple of years before had used that name, and the client didn't have one they liked.  They asked our permission to use the Renaissance name with the course.  My whole crew got nice Christmas bonuses from that deal!

[Niall C]

As someone rating golf courses I can tell you that "exclusive access" is indeed a problem. This does not necessarily have to do with the business model, there are other reasons why access can be confined to a few - such as a very remote location or a host of world class courses nearby that get all the play.

In any event, whenever I play a course that not many raters have played before, I am completely going out on a limb judging it. Suppose I played some hidden gem and proclaimed greatness, then maybe Tom Doak is going to seek it out and find it average and I'd have a lot of egg on my face. Conversely, if I grossly undersell the course. So any judgment tends to be "with a grain of salt". This is a normal human reaction and as such an integral part of the rating process (we do rate for humans!).

Again, this is not a function of how hard it is to get onto a course. I'd have no problem rating Augusta National or Pine Valley, because I can weigh my personal impressions against a huge body of reference material that is out there.

Ulrich

Ulrich

Your comments seem to me to prove what I've always expected about ratings and such like, and thats that the herd mentality rules. From what I gather individual ratings are just added into the mix with others so its not as though you are going to be publicly slated for not marking a course up to what everyone else thinks of it. As long as you provide a cogent argument for your rating then waht's the problem ? Unless of course it proves to be an embarrassment to the magazine with it having accepted a large amount of money from said course in advertising  .

Niall

[Ulrich Mayring]

Niall,

what you are calling herd mentality I am calling qualified opinions. If I have a bad day, then why should the course bear the brunt of it? Mostly these are hard-working folks, who deserve that I take the rating process seriously. I need to look at my own opinion critically and try to qualify it. And to do a decent job at qualification I need reference material. That comes in the form of other, similar courses that I played and rated. And it comes in the form of third party write-ups or talking to knowledgeable (and less knowledgeable!) people.

In the end it's still my opinion. But I believe it is more useful to others, if it is a qualified opinion instead of just a hunch. In the case of courses that hardly anyone has played or rated I am basically left with my hunch.

Ulrich

[Simon Holt]

I completely understand where Ulrich is coming from.  The fact that not enough people have seen the course works against it.

Mark- Of course I care somewhat but I honestly couldn't say exactly where it would be in a list because I have never bothered to write it down.  If I cared that much I would have completed that exercise, I can simply bracket it with other courses I like. 

I certainly think Renaissance is in the same company as Royal Aberdeen, Cruden Bay, Castle Stuart, Loch Lomond and Kingsbarns.  They are all courses I really like but I dont think are the best of the best.  As you can see they are all very different types of courses which is why its difficult for me to put one above another.  I find it hard to not let my experience outside of the golf course affect my rating. 

I played Cruden Bay on a pretty crappy day but played well and was with a really good friend; it was one of the most fun rounds I have ever had.  Of course I would rate it slightly higher than an equally good course I had a bad experience at.  That is why I like to group courses rather than just say X is better than Y, unless it clearly is in my mind.  Eg.  North Berwick is better than Gullane No.1 , which in turn is better than Kilspindie.

My favourite links courses are RCD, Portrush, Dornoch, Muirfield and TOC.  I find it really hard to separate them but I know they are better than North Berwick and Cruden Bay which I enjoy just as much, if not more, than my top 5.  I am not a fan of Carnoustie or Troon but know they are good courses as I can appreciate what others see in them.  I really enjoy Kingsbarns and Turnberry but if I am brutally honest I think they are probably slightly overrated...not by much though, literally 5-10 places which is why I stick by the grouping system as it allows for an emotional factor.  If I really tried I think I could just about separate a top 20 but emotion would no doubt still play a big role.

Going back to Ulrichs point I do think there are some new courses that you just know are better than X, Y and Z.  Streamsong is that place for me.  I was lucky enough to see the Blue course in January and its the best course I played in Florida by a distance.  I have seen most of the notable courses around Naples, Miami, Jacksonville, Orlando, Jupiter and West Palm Beach, bar Seminole and World Woods (I realise they are significant omissions)  It leaves the other Florida courses for dust....or maybe phosphate.

[Ross Tuddenham]

The greens this year were better than anywhere else I played in GB&I, including all of the usual suspects.  Richard Windows at the STRI says we have set "a new benchmark for links course conditioning."

A member kindly let me play as a guest at renaissance earlier this year and found the greens to be exceptional.  Their conditioning was undoubtedly great but in general they were just so much fun to be had on and around them. I really don't remember having a boring putt all day.

Re the new holes, I have no doubt that we will see an uptick in the rankings.  In a way that frustrates me though.  I will be annoyed when people say we needed those changes to take it to the next level or some BS like that.  Its a very good course now and I hope people remember that when we change to the new routing.  If people say 'it wasn't that good before' and believe me they will, I will find it hard to bite my lip...I will, but I will find it hard.   I really like the way the course flows at the moment, its very nicely balanced.

Of the GCAers that have played it I would be surprised if they didn't concur. 

If it is the first three holes that will be replaced then in some ways it will be a shame as I really enjoyed the start to the round, and again the green complexes were very interesting.  I don't see why you should hold your tongue if people claim the original set of holes were not very good because you would be perfectly correct to say the course is excellent as it is. 

[Eric Smith]

Here's a brief video I shot back in September with a view from the new tenth tee. It was quite blustery out there so unfortunately you can't pick up on the conversation between Simon and Chris, but you can get a feel for what it is like playing golf there along the Firth of Forth in 15-20 mph winds!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSoEECAax_U&feature=plcp

[Niall C]

Niall,

what you are calling herd mentality I am calling qualified opinions. If I have a bad day, then why should the course bear the brunt of it? Mostly these are hard-working folks, who deserve that I take the rating process seriously. I need to look at my own opinion critically and try to qualify it. And to do a decent job at qualification I need reference material. That comes in the form of other, similar courses that I played and rated. And it comes in the form of third party write-ups or talking to knowledgeable (and less knowledgeable!) people.

In the end it's still my opinion. But I believe it is more useful to others, if it is a qualified opinion instead of just a hunch. In the case of courses that hardly anyone has played or rated I am basically left with my hunch.

Ulrich

Ulrich

I'm not sure I'm with you. If you think a course isn't as good as everyone else thinks it is then have confiidence in your judgement and don't worry about offwending the greenkeeper or course manager or whoever. After all if you knowingly give a course a false rating that you don't believe in aren't you doing some other greenkeeper at another course a dis-service ? I take it also that you only rank courses that you've played. That being the case why do you need to confer with anyone ? Why not use purely your own judgement, after all if you alter your opinoion after conferring with someone, who is actually doing the rating. I would much rather have an honest assessment from you that was entirely your own opinion, even if that ssessment was out of kilter with other with others. That way you avoid the Emperors new clothes syndrome.

Anyway FWIW - I think the Renaissance course as it was originally laid out is mcuh better than other new courses much higher up the rankings. I've no doubt that the new holes will be better, or at least more spectacular than the ones they replace but will be interested to see what the do for the overall rythym and routing.

Niall

[Kyle Henderson]

Was the "Renaissance Club" moniker derived (fully or partially) from the "Renaissance Design" firm that built it?

Yes.

The course is located in Archerfield Wood, but the neighboring course that was built a couple of years before had used that name, and the client didn't have one they liked.  They asked our permission to use the Renaissance name with the course.  My whole crew got nice Christmas bonuses from that deal!

That being the case, I'll wager your associates were glad they didn't work for "Tom Doak Golf Design," as I suspect few employees at other firms recieve bonuses when a golf course is names the "Nicklaus" or "Fazio" course.

Aside from the commercial aspects of naming a course after its prinicpal designer of record, this practice must work well in preventing rival firms from being solicitied to renovate the golf course.

[Tom_Doak]

Was the "Renaissance Club" moniker derived (fully or partially) from the "Renaissance Design" firm that built it?

Yes.

The course is located in Archerfield Wood, but the neighboring course that was built a couple of years before had used that name, and the client didn't have one they liked.  They asked our permission to use the Renaissance name with the course.  My whole crew got nice Christmas bonuses from that deal!

That being the case, I'll wager your associates were glad they didn't work for "Tom Doak Golf Design," as I suspect few employees at other firms recieve bonuses when a golf course is names the "Nicklaus" or "Fazio" course.

Aside from the commercial aspects of naming a course after its prinicpal designer of record, this practice must work well in preventing rival firms from being solicitied to renovate the golf course.

Well, it was still up to me whether they got a bonus or not, as it is to the employers at other companies.  But I think we take the "team" thing a bit more to heart.

I am still uncomfortable with the idea of clients starting to name a golf course after me, whether they want to pay more for the privilege or not.  I've been trying to explain that to Chris Johnston for more than a year, to no avail. 

[Jud_T]

Sounds like a contract add-on.  "The names Tom, Thomas, Doak or Rennaisance shall not be used in the name of said course.  Any implicit or explicit reference to Mr. Doak, his firm or their involvement and/or methedology in the design or construction of the golf course, or to Mr. Doak or any of his crew personally or professionally, in printed material or website content shall be cleared by Mr. Doak or his appointed representative in writing prior to it's dissemination.  Any failure to do so shall be considered a breach of this contract and shall trigger penalties determined as delineated in section F, paragraph U."

[Ally Mcintosh]

http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/sport/golf/the-renaissance-club-ready-for-scottish-open-1-2994006

Looks like the new holes are open and they are ramping up the attempt for The Scottish Open next week when everyone descends on Muirfield.

[Tom_Doak]

I played the new holes the day after our 100 Hole Hike, on a perfect evening in Gullane.  The greens are just a tad slower than the rest of the course, but the golf is certainly ready to go, with the old 12th and 13th holes now taken apart and put back together into a single par-4 that plays to the old 13th green.

It really is a spectacular addition, and will probably move the needle in people's perception of the course.  The views of Fidra lighthouse from the 9th green, the 10th, and the 11th green are postcard material ... in fact, a photo of the 9th will soon be featured throughout the country as the face of golf in East Lothian.

The new clubhouse is also pretty amazing.  I understand that several Tour players will be staying there the week of the Open, including the defending champion.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Tom - how did the new par-3 15th turn out?

I never saw the land for that hole.

[Niall C]

I managed to get a sneak preview of the new holes a few months back courtesy of Mr Holt and they look spectacular but also look as though they will provide great interest in play. The par 3's in particular catch the eye.

Tom

I know you're not a fan of photo tours of your courses but any chance of posting some snaps of the new holes ?

Niall

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()