[GD Rater]

Friars Head will win but I guess we will have to wait until it's announced next Thursday. However, I did hear the voting was real close. As far as the members, yes they do care.  

Black Mesa should be a slamdunk in the best new public.

[GeoffreyC]

Tommy Naccarato as a stealthy, quiet and undetected squatter on the Friar's Head grounds  


Nah- I don't think so.  

[tonyt]

Anyone keen to throw up solid candidates for international category?

[texsport]

As per Ron Whitten, the Best New Upscale Public/Resort Course must surely be The Quarry At Giants Ridge.

http://www.golfdigest.com/courses/critic/index.ssf?/courses/critic/giantsridge.html

How many reviewers will get to northern Minnesota?

Texsport

[GD Rater]

It only takes 10 raters! Seems way to low.

[Joel_Stewart]

Black Mesa should win in a landslide! In fact, I think it's a cut above Friar's Head!!

GD Rater:  Shut the F&*K up.  I'm a GD Rater as well (except willing to use my name) as your comments only give a bad name to all panelists.

Please send me a private email to discuss.

[Jim_Michaels]

Would somebody answer the darned question! Does this award matter. Have these courses, other than Sand Hills, stood the test of time? Have there been courses that were slighted by this panel, who have?

By the way, all you westerners. Who says the East is not a YEAR ROUND golf mecca? What a day up here in NY!!

[Robert Thompson]

Not sure of the "international category," but the Canadian options are largely between Taboo, a Ron Garl course in Muskoka, and Copper Creek, a Doug Carrick design with assistance by GCA's Ian Andrew. Both are good courses and I had a hard time determining which was better. Taboo has a dramatic setting, but some average holes; Copper Creek has a strong valley setting and a couple of great holes (10-11, 15,16,17). Hard to call....

Robert

[hp@hc]

I could be off base on this one, but I think a course has to be open prior to May 15th to be included on the GD best new listings.  didn't FH open later, like in July?

Perhaps a GDRater can let us know if FH was even on the list of candidates

[Happy Gilmore]

Yo Boys..

      GD Rater has no clue! He don't even know da boys over at Friars Tuck....dey don't care much about anything but making der leader play a little faster

[Robert Thompson]

hp@hc: Friar's Head was on the list....

[hp@hc]

Thanks Robert

[Lou_Duran]

I have no idea why my name got tossed in here, but I would take it as a compliment if Matt, Tom, or my pro-bono orthopedic consultant, Redanman, would rate me an 8.  However, having shot 91 (89 adjusted for handicap purposes) just this past week at Spanish Oaks near Austin, I will need more than one or two aside from these fine gentlemen.

If Friar's Head outranks Dallas National on DG's "Best New" list, I can't wait to play the course.  I am a homer of sorts, but I simply love DN.  Hopefully, Ken Bakst will take pity on this quality golf-deprived soul and maybe let me sneak on during a caddy day.

Ken and the principals at FH may not be seeking the accolades (sometimes this is a very effective strategy).  Being in the midst of the finest golf in the world, any favorable comparisons to its neighbors is sufficient validation of its standing.

Dallas National on the other hand was built to make a national statement in an area that the developer felt lacked world-class golf.  He has welcomed raters of all stripes and been accesible to ensure that the information disseminated about the course is accurate.  Personally, I find this approach totally above board.

FH has chosen to provide only very limited access to raters, mainly to acquaintances of the principals and members.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with this choice, particularly if the rating is not meaningful.    

The concern that I have heard mentioned ascribes a different motive to FH's principals, i.e. that they have in fact narrrowed rater access to folks who would tend to be more glowing about the course.  From my knowledge of Ken and the course, I have tried to dissuade this line of thinking.  I have also pointed out that whoever gets the nod, it is only an opinion which is most likely incomplete (how many raters have played all the nominees to make a meaningful comparison?), and not all that important to the people who really count (current and prospective members at clubs whose memberships are at or near their stated capacity).

Not having played Friar's Head, Dallas National is my pick.  However, for some unknown reason, Mr. Whitten has not provided me with a Golf Digest ballot.  Perhaps it is being delayed with the holiday mail.    

 

[A_Clay_Man]

I CAN"T TAKE IT ANYMORE

The link above takes you to RW's reviews. I read about five of them and I am naucious from the odor. If facts weren't wrong the focus was. Is RW the self proclaimed most respected critic in the industry? There's that word again, INDUSTRY.  Which industry? Journalism? HA! Facts are wrong everywhere and he even admits he doesn't make it a habit to interview archies when reviewing their course.

I'll stop my rant now, but I sure am thankful I have only read one GD this year. I will never read it again even if I'm forced with nothing else in a waiting room but GoodHouskeeping!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Lou,
From my knowledge of the matter, you'll be safe to know that any rater or panelist is a welcomed guest at Friars Head when they are a invited by a member. Its as simple as that.

Any thought of narrowing or choosing of specific panelists or raters is laughable at best, and I equate it to the same as Martians landing in a field outside Grovers Mill, New Jersey or finding the hidden treasure of Al Capone's vaults.

[Lou_Duran]

Tommy-

You did note in my reply that I defended FH when I've heard these comments.  I've had some correspondence with Ken Bakst on another matter, and I sensed that he is not the type who would try to fix the ballot nor necessarily care greatly about how well his course fared in the rankings.

Having said this, as a student of human nature, I think that you would agree that having your close rater friends evaluating your course might lead to a less than objective concensus.   I am sure that most raters seek to be unbiased.  However, it is probably difficult to keep warm friendships and fine hospitality from seeping into the experience and the rating.   In any event.  Who cares?  We've heard time and again that ratings don't mean anything.

Concerning the Martians, I agree that you won't find them in NJ.  They're in L.A.  And Capone's treasure?  I was under the impression that it was found some 15 years ago and used to finance the proliferation of $1MM+ design fees, exotic water features, and CCFADs.

Redanman-

My game is not as bad as the 91 would indicate, nor as good as the par 71 that I posted the week before on my home course.  Unfortunately, the average of the two is probably pretty representative, which, for a guy in relatively good health who plays as much as I do, is pretty depressing.  Typical of a golf addict, I do think that I am on the right track and look forward to a metamorphosis of a new Lou in 2004.      

[Patrick_Mucci]

Slapper, et. al.,

I too know some members, and they do care.

Human Nature hasn't changed much in the last 2000 years.

Almost every member of every course I know takes pride in their golf course, and cares about its perception in the golf world.

Members of FH have no reason not to feel proud of their golf course and to see it receive recognition amongst its peers.

Let's not go overboard with extreme nonchalance.

Kelly Blake Moran,

Were you indicating that certain golf courses, architects and viewpoints enjoy "most favored nation" status on  GCA.com ?

[Steve Lapper]

Pat,

     "Extreme nonchalance" aside, it is a uniform consensus among my FH friends that they couldn't "give a hoot, or a damn" whether they are the best new private course this year or any. Yes, pehaps they would like to see FH elevated EVENTUALLY to the similar staus of their nearby neighbors...but all I've spoken to think the course has so much more maturing to do before it earns those accolades.

    Their esteemed leader (and his great head pro)has avowed to several here in the treehouse, as well as myself that he could give "a s..t." He well knows what he has and what he hopes it grows into. My hats off to him for his well founded self confidence.

   I think even a rater or two who are members hope the place doesn't attract any more attention than it already has!

Simply put, everyone I know there just doesn't want the attention. No "human nature" other than preservation of simplicity is at work here.

    Maybe those you claim who do care are motivated by need for attention and backslaping. Those traits are indeed human nature, but mostly among toddlers through teens. Pride and recognition are characteristics that have double edges to them. Nearly all the time they are best served with maturity and no one can argue this golfing version of 1959 Bordeaux has done its share of aging quite yet. Hell, the rough hasn't even grown in!

[Nigel_Walton]

Gents, I have heard that there are several changes in progress at Friar's Head with regard to tees, hazards, trees and beyond. Perhaps the course should be "rated" when it is finished, which ought to be in about ten or fifteen years. Apparently, according to my American friends, (and fortunately), this course is not yet completed, and will not be for quite some time. I say "bravo" to the proprietors for their patience and their vision. Perhaps the course should be evaluated when it is finished, in 2015!

[Matt_Ward]

Nigel W:

When is ANY course truly ever "FINISHED?"

Gentlemen:

The rating process is best served when you get "random" visits by "disinterested" parties. When a club / architect / vested interest is able to "steer" the appropriate party to a club for a rating one might have to wonder if the final tally is indeed free and clear of any quid pro quo -- real or otherwise.

Forgive me -- it's the Jurseeeeeeeee penchant for being somewhat cynical that matters like that could even remotely happen.  

P.S. What's amazing will be to see how good the level of design can continue if GD continues to use the $50 threshold for affordable golf. I commend the magazine for keeping it at that level simply because rewarding design for "affordable" golf is still important and worthy to highlight. However, I can't imagine any future course having the affordability of Black Mesa coupled with the on-and-off-course topography you find there.

[Steve Lapper]

All interested,

     I'd listen to Nigel for his ear is a good one! He has good stateside buddies who have a knack for knowing and the patience that makes the pudding tasty!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Slapper,

Why did your friends and acquaintances join Friar's Head ??

Perhaps you haven't noticed the logoed belts, socks, shirts, sweaters, vests and golf bags on members of Pine Valley, Seminole, Augusta, Merion and other great courses.

You've also probably seen a good number of non-members wearing or displaying logoed paraphenalia from those places as well.

What causes members and guests to adorn themselves with logoed clothing that identifies a golf course ?
Human Nature ?  Pride   Attribution

Anyone who says that they don't care what everybody thinks of their golf course is ........

Shakespeare had it right in Hamlet, Act I, scene iii

[Steve Lapper]

Pat,

   They joined because it was/looked like a great looking course/facility with a promise of becoming a wonderful place for them to belong! None joined because they thought it would be highly ranked in any fashion.

    As for logos and assorted badges of wonderful clubs, that is about "association, style, prestige, etc..." all things Friar's Head has without being ranked anywhere! All of the places you mentioned represent a fantastic golfing experience and most of the members at those places summarily dismiss their respective rankings. NONE, I would wager, cared a damn about whether a magazine or touter rated them "best new course of 19??."
    Mucci Question: Slapper answer...perceived association...not care about rank or awards.

     People may well care about how others perceive them to a certain limited degree...but most great people/places/institutions are stout enough in their own level of self-confidence/appreciation to not care much about whether others recognize them as earning some bs-given reward.

     This thread is about "Best-New blah-blah..." and again, I reiterate....Nobody I know at FH cares one iota about winning it! Only others with varying agenda's give a damn.

     I, for one, hope they give it to another over-the-top mondo $$$ private Fazio/Jones/Nicklaus joint so the trend stays in place. I'd like to root for Dallas National as John MacDonald is a passionate and worthy man...but I remain ambivalent because he and his members would likely become insufferably obnoxious with such a vapid title. Those Texas boys aren't shy about crowing about awards and such !

   

[A_Clay_Man]

Seems like nobody, and I mean nobody gives a damn, except those managers and principles at courses who usually don't win it. I guess it extends to municipal governmments who have only the failed model to strive for.

 

[GD Rater]

I know as many obnoxious Yankees as I do obnoxious Texans. Personally, I could do without both. Anyone who thinks Friars Head didn’t know what they were doing when they allowed only raters that were friends of members is kidding themselves. I'm surprised that Golf Digest allowed this.  Everyone seems to have forgot that Hidden Creek is up for this award as well.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()