[Tom_Doak]

I've been told on another thread that my participation here, and especially on threads about my own work, discourages frank and honest discussion about those courses.

I know that there are a handful of posters (and presumably more lurkers who don't participate in the forum) who agree with this.  They're the guys who call out anyone who says something positive about my courses as a "butt boy", and try to chill one side of the discussion themselves.  I've tended just to dismiss their complaints, because it seems personal and I don't understand what's behind it.

However, if there were 25 or 50 regular posters who felt that my presence and participation stifles frank and honest discussion, I would consider that much differently, and alter how I participate on the site.  So, please let me know.  And those who don't feel this is the case, do not need to reassure me or defend me against what the others post.  It's better if you stay out of the way, otherwise you'll only be contributing more evidence to their side of the argument, whether it's valid or not.  Thanks.

[Chris Johnston]

+1

I'll make the same offer, Tom.

[Dan Kelly]

When practicing architects and superintendents and builders and owners bow out here, the site dies.

At least the Discussion Group does.

I have no idea if your presence here, Tom (or Chris), chills frank and open discussion. I'm pretty sure it won't chill mine, once I've played one of your courses. But that's me. Others are better politicians than I am; such is life. We all know that, and there's nothing we can do about those who will kiss ass for their own benefit.

The virtues of your presence here outweigh any "chilling effect" it might have. End of story, for me.

Not that he asked, but ... if I were Ran, I would change my mission statement from "frank and open commentary" to "honest and cordial commentary and discussion." And I would find some way to insist on it -- even at the risk of chilling, permanently the people who can't or won't live up to that mission.

Dan

[John Kirk]

When I saw the title of the thread, I was hoping for some "chilling" news, one that would make my skin crawl, some shocking revelation I was not previously aware of.  Like how "news" shows grab your attention as you wait through three minutes of commercials for medicine you don't need.

"Next on GCA, a chilling discussion that may shock you!"

[Tom_Doak]

Yeah, it's not the best title I've ever come up with ... I was trying to quote from the source on the other thread.  I'll change it.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom,

The site is much better with the participation of people in the business, yourself included. I don't say that to defend you, it is just a fact.

That said, I have experienced people in the business trying to stifle criticism. In one case, I was told I would only be welcome to visit the club if I promised not to say anything at GCA. Personally, I was fine with that. My interest in golf architecture well proceeds the Internet and GCA.

On another occasion someone with a well known club was very nasty in a private email that I even mentioned anything about the golf course here.

So, stifling does occur. But, I don't think that means people in the business shouldn't participate here. That would be a real loss.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

The site is much better with the participation of people in the business, yourself included.

Tim:  I agree generally, but my question was more specific.  Does my participation in discussions of MY OWN courses stifle discussion about them?

I'm sure it shortens the discussion sometime ... there is no need for twenty guys to wonder what I was thinking when I can answer that.  So, that's fewer posts, but I would think that HELPS the level of discussion, instead of lowering it.

[Josh Tarble]

I sent this message to Chris a while ago after a poster kind of offended me, insinuating none of us appreciated Chris's contributions on the DG. He told me to post it there, but frankly I don't like stirring the pot. Anyway, I think this is a more appropriate place to post my message:

"I think that you have a very interesting perspective and add many unique comments. I've never felt you are "trying to sell" anyone or anything.   Please continue to participate and add your perspective.  I personally think someone who has maintained and built 2 courses is far more valuable than someone who has done nothing and operates in theory. We need owners, architects, players and all types."

Thank you to all who post here. I enjoy reading all opinions, even when it sometimes ventures into meaningless arguments.

[Josh Tarble]

And Tom, to directly answer your question...the only time I think yours or. Any other "insiders" opinion stifles discussion is when it's something along the lines of:

"That's not what happened/is going on/etc. I have some inside info but I'm not at liberty to say"

[John McCarthy]

I've never played any of your courses (until Medinah's thaw out this year). 

That said, when I came here I thought I knew a lot more than I do.  Long and short folks around here make their living and feed their children in this game.  It is easier to throw spit balls when the target is not around to complain. 

[John Kirk]

Alright, sorry.  I was just trying to be funny, and you're trying to be serious about this.

Tom, you are very resilient when negative commentary about your courses appears.  I know I can make the occasional criticism without consequence.  I believe that is true because your focus is on being the best you can be, without worrying about what people think.  So you encourage debate, you listen, you take what you want from it and discard the rest.

I think this is generally true for the architects who participate regularly.  These are the guys who like to sit around after the ball game and talk about all the plays that were made.  The architects who take offense to criticism eventually get angry and leave.  I remember one that flamed out in spectacular fashion.

Your courses are now well known, and they generate a lot of discussion.  You could not be more accommodating in the way you participate and respond.  You are very generous with your time, but frankly I think that's because you like to talk about golf courses.

[Joel_Stewart]

I don't think so.  I've seen a lot of people discuss they like the Red better than the Blue at Streamsong.  I personally have mentioned 1 of your courses which I disliked immensely.

There is another web site with a discussion group that worships Gil Hanse.  Say something controversial about Gil and you are banished. Say something good about your work and you are lambasted.  Free speech is encouraged as long as you agree with the moderator.

The main problem with honest discussion about your work or other architects is most, including myself are really amateurs when it gets down to the core.  

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom,

The site is much better with the participation of people in the business, yourself included.

Tim:  I agree generally, but my question was more specific.  Does my participation in discussions of MY OWN courses stifle discussion about them?

I'm sure it shortens the discussion sometime ... there is no need for twenty guys to wonder what I was thinking when I can answer that.  So, that's fewer posts, but I would think that HELPS the level of discussion, instead of lowering it.

Tom,

I don't know. Friendship does mean that if I thought you were mistaken on some design issue, I might prefer to express it privately. But, that would also apply to others in the business I have met via this website.

I just don't feel that private conversation means the discussion is "stifled". For example, I was once introduced to a CEO who was a member at Augusta. We had a lengthy private conversation in which I was critical of the club on an architecture related issue. He mostly agreed or at least he said he did.

Now, that wasn't a license to come to GCA and say this Augusta member disagreed with the club. No way.

So, some discussions can be private.

Don't get too hung up on everything being perfectly open all the time. Lord knows you've done more than just about anyone to encourage open criticism. I only put Geoff S and Tommy N in the same league.

[DMoriarty]

Tom,

Isn't this thread a bit like your wife asking you if she looks fat?  We all love our spouse and don't want to tell her even if she does look fat, and it is sort of hard to believe that she wants an honest answer anyway.  Nonetheless, given that I am the source of the allegation, I'll answer frankly and honestly with another way of looking at the question . . .

Anyone one actually who wants to answer this honestly should ask themselves whether they have ever said or heard anything negative about one of Tom's courses in private, with the express or implied proviso that it was not for print here.

I cannot imagine there is any active poster who can honestly say that they haven't been in that exact situation.  How could your participation not chill criticism of your courses? You are Tom Doak! They are your courses!  I've always tried to be honest and frank with my assessments, moreso in person, but even I have also been careful about the way I have presented my thoughts because of your presence and your reputation, and because they are your courses!

On the other hand, the amount you have contributed over the years and continue to contribute is immeasurable.  And this applies to your courses as well as others.  I look at it as a balance between the great value of your contributions, on the one hand, and the chilling impact and Doak-worship culture that your presence engenders, on the other. The positive greatly outweighs the negative, for me at least.  That said, a little discretion now and then might go a long ways toward fostering honest discussion.  Just my opinion, of course.

Also, Tom, I think you need to reconsider the context of my comments. We were talking specifically about Dismal River, and you have lost your temper about that course in the past, and you must also know that Chris Johnston has been absolutely overbearing with the course.  I have great respect for both you and Don, but you guys have put yourself in a position to defend him, and I don't envy you in that position.  

It is the cumulative, tag team nature of the defenses of Dismal, where all the principals and a number of members seem to be prowling the site and controlling the message.  You play a relatively minor role in that, but when you speak it is heard by all.  Like how you shut down the pillow fight thread.  

You send a PM, and the thread ends.   What could be more chilling than that?

[Ben Sims]

Yes it does. When an authority on anything steps into a room, they are automatically extended courtesies that others in the room are not. That's just basic human nature. This unconscious human behavior alone should tell you that it does affect how your courses are discussed on this website.

My opinion outside of that observation is that your input quells most forms of bullshittery. That is to say, those of us not an expert cannot BS our way through a discussion of one of your courses precisely because you are here. This more than offsets whatever affect your mere presence causes on discussions of Renaissance courses.

And seriously, what else are you going to do with all that free time?

[Mike_Young]

Tom,
Yes, I think it probably does.  
BUT, I DON'T THINK THAT MEANS YOU SHOULD NOT PARTICIPATE...even if you did not participate it would not change since people would know you were reading the post.  It's human nature .  If Tom Fazio were to begin commenting on this site as much as you do the comments regarding his courses would be completely different.  Same for any architect that catches hell here.
So many in this business have made it part of their image to be stand offish, pompous and aloof when it is not needed.  
Just don't let it bother you.


 

[Bob_Garvelink]

Tom,

No I don't think having you on this forum prevents any of us from criticizing your work.  I'm a Tom Doak fan and love golfing your courses but I'm not afraid to criticize your work.  Keep up the good work and can you please tell us why in the Hell you buried a dead elephant under the #18 green at Black Forest?     

[Jim Thompson]

Tom,

I know how you feel. I think sometimes, those who are not in the business, don't understand all the trade offs or ramifications that come with each and every decision made in designing, building or operating a course.  I also don't think most appreciate the level of directness and honesty that exists on a project and that, despite emotional words, we all leave as friends and have a few beers after the decision, whatever it may be, is made. I don't think you being here has ever hurt, but I certainly don't think everyone 'gets it'.

Cheers!

JT

[Chris Johnston]

Looks like one vote for me. by Mr. Moriarty.  No surprise there.  

24 to go and I'm free!

Tom, you and your wisdom are a gift to this site.  Your candidness and suffering (sometimes) of fools make it even better.  Without guys in the battle, it all becomes theory.  You can buy theory in a book.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom - two points, interrelated:

1. I tend not to criticize architects or courses. But it's not because I want to curry favour or gain access, and it's not because I'm being dishonest or politically correct. It's because it's clear to me that it's totally unnecessary. No one is asking for my opinion-criticism, no one is paying me for that opinion, no one in the world is hurt by me not offering my opinion, and no one in the world benefits if I do share my opinion. So: why would I want to publicly criticize anyone when I gain nothing by doing so? Why would I want to risk hurting/offending someone for no purpose whatsoever? Well, I wouldn't, or at least I'd try not to.

2. Given what I've just written, I guess my answer would be "Yes, your presence does indeed stifle frank, i.e. sometimes critical, discussion". But, and this is the key, for me so too does the presence of Mike Young and Ian Andrew and Joe Hancock and Mike Nuzzo and Jeff Brauer and Don Mahaffey and Mike Devries and every other working architect/associate/super who posts here. If they are here and they might read what I write, I'm simply not going to post something critical about their work; again, because my silence does not cost me anything, while my criticism may cost them a great deal. The 'problem', if there is one (and for me there isn't) is not with your presence, it's with my approach/personal guidelines.

So, I'd forget all about this, Tom, and just continue on as you were. Besides everything else I've written, I say that because I believe that asking someone to examine/question not what they say or how they act or what motivates them but how their presence affects others is asking too much, or maybe something too personal. 

Peter

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

No I don't think having you on this forum prevents any of us from criticizing your work.  I'm a Tom Doak fan and love golfing your courses but I'm not afraid to criticize your work.  Keep up the good work and can you please tell us why in the Hell you buried a dead elephant under the #18 green at Black Forest?     

 I might get to rebuild that green one of these years, now that the original owner has it back.  We were trying to tie it in to a small knob in the back and the ridge on the right, and there was just too much elevation change to make that work.

Note that I could have blamed it on one or the other of my associates on that job, who are even more Teflon than me on this site ... Gil Hanse and Mike DeVries.  But the decision rested with me.

[Jeff_Lewis]

Hi Tom.   Of course it does.  But so what?   That negative is overwhelmed by the positive of sharing the unique insights of a top 3 architect in the world 

[Tom_Doak]

There is another web site with a discussion group that worships Gil Hanse.  Say something controversial about Gil and you are banished. Say something good about your work and you are lambasted.  Free speech is encouraged as long as you agree with the moderator.

Thanks for mentioning this.  Honest discussion of my work is equally discouraged there, where I don't participate at all.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom,

Yes, and no.

I think most, if not all, appreciate your participation and contributions to GCA.com, and as such they don't want to be critical and/or offend you.

To a degree, I think that's good manners.
Sort of like not telling the hostess that the food wasn't up to par.

Yet, if you don't tell the hostess that the food was mediocre, you reinforce her belief that she prepared a delicious meal, hence she'll not make any improvements in the kitchen, so it's a delicate balance between good manners and honest CONSTRUCTIVE criticism.

Secondly, most are afraid to offer a candid opinion due to your credentials and track record.
They don't want to become the slain messenger.

Third, would you view a critique as constructive ?
No one likes criticism, yet, without constructive criticism, progress is impossible.
Can you, upon reading a criticism, take a step back and evaluate the remarks objectively, without immediately getting defensive ?
It's not easy to do, and anyone who's been married for a few years clearly understands the difficulty and the dilemma.

The fact that you raised the question leads me to believe that intellectually, you understand all of the above.

The other difficult aspect is the "unknown" aspects of your work.

For example, I'm no fan of the second green at Sebonack.
I've never experienced a dire event on that green, but, I believe it's "excessive" in terms of concept and play.
However, any criticism I'd offer might be misdirected.

I'd love to engage in discussions about specific holes or features, but the data base I have is limited, and as such, without knowing all the facts, I'm reluctant to engage in discussions, and I would imagine that most feel the same way.

[Mike_Young]

Hi Tom.   Of course it does.  But so what?   That negative is overwhelmed by the positive of sharing the unique insights of a top 3 architect in the world 

Gee...he's top 3 and some clown from the DRS once told me there were 17000 courses in the US better than anything I've ever done......I guess my participation didn't affect that dude....shucks...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()