Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: David_Tepper on December 14, 2014, 11:09:05 AM
-
Here is your chance to review a review of a book of reviews. ;)
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/golf/top-stories/tom-doak-hands-top-marks-to-three-scottish-courses-1-3633824
-
;D
-
Very well written and pleasantly lacking in unnecessary tact.
-
Very well written and pleasantly lacking in unnecessary tact.
"The review of the Greg Norman-designed Doonbeg in County Clare, Ireland concludes as follows: “In the end, it’s a beautiful place and full of thrills, but like the rest of Norman’s career, a bit haunted by the thought of what might have been.” Ouch"
Ouch is right!
-
"The review of the Greg Norman-designed Doonbeg in County Clare, Ireland concludes as follows: “In the end, it’s a beautiful place and full of thrills, but like the rest of Norman’s career, a bit haunted by the thought of what might have been.” Ouch"
Ouch is right!
Is that really necessary in a golf course review book?
-
"The review of the Greg Norman-designed Doonbeg in County Clare, Ireland concludes as follows: “In the end, it’s a beautiful place and full of thrills, but like the rest of Norman’s career, a bit haunted by the thought of what might have been.” Ouch"
Ouch is right!
Is that really necessary in a golf course review book?
Perhaps not but I'm not sure you'd be complaining about similar comments about an English cricketer. ;D
-
Nice of him to misspell Ran's last name.
-
Perhaps not but I'm not sure you'd be complaining about similar comments about an English cricketer. ;D
I can only think you're referring to Gough, completely different.
Doak's is a personal attack on a rival architect in reference to a golf course, published in a book!
-
Perhaps not but I'm not sure you'd be complaining about similar comments about an English cricketer. ;D
I can only think you're referring to Gough, completely different.
Doak's is a personal attack on a rival architect in reference to a golf course, published in a book!
No, I was just messing and didn't mean to imply any defence of Darren Gough's insensitive comments. I was as unimpressed by that as you.
Please accept my apology for any offence caused.
-
I liked the article.
Re Norman and Doak being "rival architects". I don't see it.
Is there the slightest chance that an owner would interview both for a project? Maybe so, but there work is so different in almost all ways I don't see how they are rivals.
-
Why is this comment by Chubbychandler getting far more likes than dislikes?
"Doak is not as good as the hype with which he tries to surround himself.
His trademark huge, undulating greens with savage drop-offs are certainly not everyone's cup of tea.
Given the incredible blank canvas he was given at the Renaissance club, I don't rate what he did with it very highly at all.
Only one hole going towards the Forth, many unmemorable par 4's, very reachable par 5's and five mundane par 3's......
Add to that the many hundreds (or is it thousands) of trees which have been hacked down on the property. Why? He is supposed to be a 'minimalist' architect, who is against removing that which nature provided.... Laughable..
Try practising what you preach, Mr Doak.."
-
Why is this comment by Chubbychandler getting far more likes than dislikes?
"Doak is not as good as the hype with which he tries to surround himself.
His trademark huge, undulating greens with savage drop-offs are certainly not everyone's cup of tea.
Given the incredible blank canvas he was given at the Renaissance club, I don't rate what he did with it very highly at all.
Only one hole going towards the Forth, many unmemorable par 4's, very reachable par 5's and five mundane par 3's......
Add to that the many hundreds (or is it thousands) of trees which have been hacked down on the property. Why? He is supposed to be a 'minimalist' architect, who is against removing that which nature provided.... Laughable..
Try practising what you preach, Mr Doak.."
JK:
What stands out for me is that Chubby appears to be doing a review of the Renaissance Club golf course rather than the Confidential Guide itself, which obviously is the actual subject of the article/review.
I don't know why he would do that.
Also, Chubby appears to present reachable par 5s as something negative but doesn't explain why.
-
I liked the article.
Re Norman and Doak being "rival architects". I don't see it.
Is there the slightest chance that an owner would interview both for a project? Maybe so, but there work is so different in almost all ways I don't see how they are rivals.
They already have - at least twice.
-
Why is this comment by Chubbychandler getting far more likes than dislikes?
"Doak is not as good as the hype with which he tries to surround himself.
His trademark huge, undulating greens with savage drop-offs are certainly not everyone's cup of tea.
Given the incredible blank canvas he was given at the Renaissance club, I don't rate what he did with it very highly at all.
Only one hole going towards the Forth, many unmemorable par 4's, very reachable par 5's and five mundane par 3's......
Add to that the many hundreds (or is it thousands) of trees which have been hacked down on the property. Why? He is supposed to be a 'minimalist' architect, who is against removing that which nature provided.... Laughable..
Try practising what you preach, Mr Doak.."
Don't you recognise a contrarian when you see one?
AS the Renaisance Club is on the American model, there arn't that many of Huggan's readers who will have played it. Go figure.
-
Doak's is a personal attack on a rival architect in reference to a golf course, published in a book!
Or maybe it's Doak's honest appraisal of a course many people abhor.
What would you have him do with a course he believes merits a zero?
-
I liked the article.
Re Norman and Doak being "rival architects". I don't see it.
Is there the slightest chance that an owner would interview both for a project? Maybe so, but there work is so different in almost all ways I don't see how they are rivals.
They already have - at least twice.
Chris:
Three times, actually ... for The National and for another new project in Australia, and for the Rio 2016 project. Even so, I highly doubt Greg thinks of me as a rival architect, and I certainly don't think of him as one. Whatever Greg does think [if he thinks of me at all!], I'm fairly certain he doesn't feel he needs Mark Pavy to defend him.
However, Don's point doesn't really matter to this discussion. The point is, either I'm allowed to print my opinions of other people's courses, or I'm not ... whether the other architect is dead or alive, or a rival or not. It wouldn't make any sense that I was only allowed to print my honest opinions of SOME courses and was obliged to fudge others; if that was the rule it would be dishonest to write at all.
There are clearly some people like Mark who feel I shouldn't be writing at all. I understood that when I embarked on the project again. I just don't like it when people who don't know me at all assign motivations to my words that just aren't true. My review of Doonbeg was not a personal "attack" on Greg Norman.
-
Why is this comment by Chubbychandler getting far more likes than dislikes?
Because it's a lot easier to "like" or "dislike" something or someone anonymously, than it is to put your name next to it in print.
You frequently make the very same point.
-
Do we think that's really THE Chubby Chandler? I have to say I somewhat doubt it.
-
Tom,
I enjoy some of your writing, but, as you do understand already, there are problems associated with voicing your opinion..... you open yourself up for critique as an author and authority on the subject. Such is life.
-
The point of the original CG and the updated CG was/is to express honest opinions about golf architecture and architects. That was something new to the literature when the first CG came out. I see it still bothers people.
I take that as a sign that the new CG is off to a good start. Snarky has its place.
Bob
-
The point of the original CG and the updated CG was/is to express honest opinions about golf architecture and architects. That was something new to the literature when the first CG came out. I see it still bothers people.
I take that as a sign that the new CG is off to a good start. Snarky has its place.
Bob
Absolutely. I'd be very disappointed if Tom et al started to curtail criticism just to avoid upsetting certain golf insiders.
-
I can see the point of calling that passage as a personal attack on Norman. I don't know Norman, but the legendary tour pros I do know would probably cringe more at a mention of their playing failures than of their failed marriages. (Sort of the tour pro version of "you can criticize my wife, but never my golf club" sort of thing.
I think I have heard TD say its all about the golf and golf courses, and not about the architect, per se. After all, it is possible for architects with a wide body of work to have some courses you like, and others you don't. So, there is probably little need to generalize and/or get personal on any individual course review.
Anyway you cut it, it is borderline snark, and make of that what you will. Obviously, part of the sales point of the book.
-
For goodness sakes, it's a book. It is supposed to be entertaining and informative. If the book didn't contain anything colorful, it wouldn't be nearly as much fun to read or to own.
Bart
-
Do we think that's really THE Chubby Chandler? I have to say I somewhat doubt it.
I'm thinking it most likely is Chubby. I'm sure his clients didn't fare very well in the book. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chubby_Chandler
-
This is fascinating, sociologically speaking. Since the Golden Age, the world's population has quadrupled, the golf industry has grown exponentially in size and scope, golf course architecture has become almost wholly professionalized and institutionalized, and communications/media is global and instant and all-pervasive in ways undreamed of even 20 years ago, let alone 90. And yet, for all this momentus change, it seems that now -- just as in the 1920s -- there is still a "100 Club" the rules the roost. Then as now, there is just a very small group of top-flight architects and wealthy clients and prominent private club members and influential writers/critics and famous and accomplished golfers who all know eachother and work with eachother and support/criticize eachother and influence and/or compete against eachother. Then as now, these 100 people (at most, and mostly men) dominate and shape the prevailing ethos and attitudes of an entire game, for an entire generation of golfers. That this was true in the 1920s isn't so surprising to me, but that it should still be true today is, as I say, fascinating.
Peter
Time for a quote, but apropos of nothing save that it came to mind (as in: I guess it's always the Roman Empire):
Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world
Like a Colossus, and we petty men
Walk under his huge legs and peep about
To find ourselves dishonorable graves.
Men at some time are masters of their fates.
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars
But in ourselves, that we are underlings.
Brutus and Caesar—what should be in that “Caesar”?
Why should that name be sounded more than yours?
Write them together, yours is as fair a name.
Sound them, it doth become the mouth as well.
Weigh them, it is as heavy. Conjure with 'em,
“Brutus” will start a spirit as soon as “Caesar.”
Now in the names of all the gods at once,
Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed
That he is grown so great? Age, thou art shamed!
Rome, thou hast lost the breed of noble bloods!
When went there by an age, since the great flood,
But it was famed with more than with one man?
When could they say till now, that talked of Rome,
That her wide walks encompassed but one man?
Now is it Rome indeed, and room enough,
When there is in it but one only man.
Oh, you and I have heard our fathers say,
There was a Brutus once that would have brooked
Th' eternal devil to keep his state in Rome
As easily as a king.
-
Do we think that's really THE Chubby Chandler? I have to say I somewhat doubt it.
I'm thinking it most likely is Chubby. I'm sure his clients didn't fare very well in the book. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chubby_Chandler
John, I was thinking you were surely wrong, because the only client of Mr. Chandler's [former client?] who does much work as an architect is Ernie Els, and the only course I've seen of Ernie's is in The Bahamas. But, then I remembered his redesign work at Wentworth. Perhaps Mr. Chandler wouldn't have liked that review! Always better to attack the reviewer than mention what you're offended by.
-
Els split from ISM several years ago. Chubby's boy Westwood has been pretty scathing about Wentworth too so I doubt it on all fronts.
-
John Huggan has a responsibility to check if Chubby is an imposter. Not even Ran allows people to pretend to be public figures.
-
Darren Clarke has a couple of signature design deals on the go too, but nothing of any significance has been completed yet.
I've long been surprised that ISM hasn't set up a design operation along the lines of EGD, but have been told that Chubby isn't particularly interested.
-
John Huggan has a responsibility to check if Chubby is an imposter. Not even Ran allows people to pretend to be public figures.
Possibly the Scotsman does but I can't see that it's John's problem.
-
John Huggan has a responsibility to check if Chubby is an imposter. Not even Ran allows people to pretend to be public figures.
Possibly the Scotsman does but I can't see that it's John's problem.
Correct. Most publications review comments before publishing. That I know from experience.
-
There are 113 hits on a search for Chubby Chandler on the Scotsman website. @Chubby6665 has 15,000 tweets (a verified acct). It is very likely Chubby reads and comments on the magazine. The guy works the internet.
-
There are 113 hits on a search for Chubby Chandler on the Scotsman website. @Chubby6665 has 15,000 tweets (a verified acct). It is very likely Chubby reads and comments on the magazine. The guy works the internet.
GCA lurker?!
Atb
-
I liked the article.
Re Norman and Doak being "rival architects". I don't see it.
Is there the slightest chance that an owner would interview both for a project? Maybe so, but there work is so different in almost all ways I don't see how they are rivals.
They already have - at least twice.
Chris:
Three times, actually ... for The National and for another new project in Australia, and for the Rio 2016 project. Even so, I highly doubt Greg thinks of me as a rival architect, and I certainly don't think of him as one. Whatever Greg does think [if he thinks of me at all!], I'm fairly certain he doesn't feel he needs Mark Pavy to defend him.
However, Don's point doesn't really matter to this discussion. The point is, either I'm allowed to print my opinions of other people's courses, or I'm not ... whether the other architect is dead or alive, or a rival or not. It wouldn't make any sense that I was only allowed to print my honest opinions of SOME courses and was obliged to fudge others; if that was the rule it would be dishonest to write at all.
There are clearly some people like Mark who feel I shouldn't be writing at all. I understood that when I embarked on the project again. I just don't like it when people who don't know me at all assign motivations to my words that just aren't true. My review of Doonbeg was not a personal "attack" on Greg Norman.
Four
-
I've long been surprised that ISM hasn't set up a design operation along the lines of EGD, but have been told that Chubby isn't particularly interested.
Chubby's been there, done it. International Sports Management (Course Design) Ltd was set up in October 1995 but appears not to have been very active. The company's name was changed to The Champions Golf Club Ltd in 2006 and it was dissolved in February 2011.
When established back in 1995, ISM (Course Design) Ltd had two directors;
1. Andrew Haydn Chandler
2. Ian Scott-Taylor
Three months later Chubby was the sole director.
https://www.duedil.com/company/03109305/the-champions-golf-club-limited
I wonder why Chubby is apparently not particularly interested in getting back into the golf course design business...
;)
-
This is fascinating, sociologically speaking. Since the Golden Age, the world's population has quadrupled, the golf industry has grown exponentially in size and scope, golf course architecture has become almost wholly professionalized and institutionalized, and communications/media is global and instant and all-pervasive in ways undreamed of even 20 years ago, let alone 90. And yet, for all this momentus change, it seems that now -- just as in the 1920s -- there is still a "100 Club" the rules the roost. Then as now, there is just a very small group of top-flight architects and wealthy clients and prominent private club members and influential writers/critics and famous and accomplished golfers who all know eachother and work with eachother and support/criticize eachother and influence and/or compete against eachother. Then as now, these 100 people (at most, and mostly men) dominate and shape the prevailing ethos and attitudes of an entire game, for an entire generation of golfers. That this was true in the 1920s isn't so surprising to me, but that it should still be true today is, as I say, fascinating.
Peter
Interesting thoughts. You're probably correct at this point in time. The self perpetuating cycle of course architecture is a model that benefits the "100 club". Golf courses are forced into marketing strategies to give an indication of the quality/style/prestige of the course like:- 1. The name of the architect, 2. A rating from a magazine or so called reputable source and 3. A review from somebody whose opinion should mean something.
What the "100 club" don't realise is that last drinks are being served and the party is coming to an end. The present model increases the cost of golf and is largely not good for the the long term health of a great game.
Just imagine if there was a better way...... the 100 key opinion leaders might find out what their opinions are really worth when democratization occurs.
-
I've long been surprised that ISM hasn't set up a design operation along the lines of EGD, but have been told that Chubby isn't particularly interested.
Chubby's been there, done it. International Sports Management (Course Design) Ltd was set up in October 1995 but appears not to have been very active. The company's name was changed to The Champions Golf Club Ltd in 2006 and it was dissolved in February 2011.
When established back in 1995, ISM (Course Design) Ltd had two directors;
1. Andrew Haydn Chandler
2. Ian Scott-Taylor
Three months later Chubby was the sole director.
https://www.duedil.com/company/03109305/the-champions-golf-club-limited
I wonder why Chubby is apparently not particularly interested in getting back into the golf course design business...
;)
I designed the Colt Course at Close House for which Lee Westwood is the ambassador. I have briefly spoken with both Chubby Chandler and Lee about designing a course together. 2 years ago I don't think Chubby was too interested in Lee moving into golf course design as he thought the time it would take away from Lee would impact on his playing (earning) performance. Lee does have an interest in designing a golf course – an interest I think will grow over time. He would be selective about any project he took on, but I think he could make a positive contribution to any new design. I would certainly like to work with Lee on a design project. Chubby may be move happy about his stable of players collaborating with designers, other than him starting his own design practice.
Scott
PS- Well done to Lee for winning his second title in 2014 on Sunday.
-
"The review of the Greg Norman-designed Doonbeg in County Clare, Ireland concludes as follows: “In the end, it’s a beautiful place and full of thrills, but like the rest of Norman’s career, a bit haunted by the thought of what might have been.” Ouch"
Ouch is right!
Is that really necessary in a golf course review book?
It seems like the cheap joke to make. Ripping a golf course is fine, but Norman's playing career seems irrelevant to his design work. I have never heard golfers with better records than Norman make light of him. Reminds me of the "man in the arena" quote by TR.
-
Agreed.
It was a gratuitous comment but no doubt a memorable one.
Greg Norman's Golf Guide 2015
Streamsong: 'like the rest of his career, Tom Doak plays second fiddle to Coore & Crenshaw......'
See, it's easy to be disparaging, no matter how successful the subject. The Norman comment and the Castle Course review really do stick out amongst the rest of the book.
-
Agreed.
It was a gratuitous comment but no doubt a memorable one.
Greg Norman's Golf Guide 2015
Streamsong: 'like the rest of his career, Tom Doak plays second fiddle to Coore & Crenshaw......'
See, it's easy to be disparaging, no matter how successful the subject. The Norman comment and the Castle Course review really do stick out amongst the rest of the book.
Just remember to hold Greg Norman to the same standard now that he'll be on TV regularly with no filter for his opinions and producers egging him on to be "controversial".
-
The problem with writing is that some peoples opinion of what is funny and what is rude often is the same piece of writing. Most Jokes are about someone's misfortune. Doak's comment is funny IMO. Greg Norman may find it rude or see the funny side of it. Someone like GN will understand journalism far more than the *normals* on here so may shrug as say ...fair comment in relation to either or both.
One of the funniest things I ever saw written was 20-25 years ago and was in a boxing magazine a fight review by a chap called Jack Obermayer. His comment was something like " former super-middleweight (has not got any taller) Everett Martin, 235 droped a ten round decision to Michael Moorer 224 on all three cards "
A book of reviews with numbers and no biting comments would not be 'the confidential guide'. It is going to upset some people, maybe even TD could face a court case but it is what it is. The Castle Course comment I wonder if Tom might regret, I think it does him more harm than good and more likely to lose him a job than gain one but we all do silly things.
-
Taking a swipe at the successful or powerful is always seen as fair game. When the successful and powerful start taking swipes, people lose their sense of humour quickly. Thought DMK reacted perfectly, in public at least. Work hard in silence and let success make the noise springs to mind about him in recent years. Not sure whether Norman will see the funny side. Ouch from Huggan was about right.
-
You know the world is in bad shape when any criticism is questioned as an attack.
Almost makes me worry that Pete Dye is staying up nights worrying about my attacks on PDGC...
-
Almost makes me worry that Pete Dye is staying up nights worrying about my attacks on PDGC...
Actually he called me and asked how to get in touch with that know-nothing prick in Pittsburgh. Were I you,I wouldn't expect an invite to the Dye family Christmas party this year.
-
.
-
This is getting a little silly. Why has The Confidential Guide been so success? In fact, why has TD been so success?
-
Almost makes me worry that Pete Dye is staying up nights worrying about my attacks on PDGC...
Actually he called me and asked how to get in touch with that know-nothing prick in Pittsburgh. Were I you,I wouldn't expect an invite to the Dye family Christmas party this year.
He's right, George. You picked the wrong prickly, thin-skinned architect to mess with! Mr. Dye is like the Sonny Corleone of designers: he's gonna come at you with everything he's got. (It's not personal, mind you, it's just business.) Moving forward, i think you need me as your Tom Hagen...
-
:)
-
A book of reviews with numbers and no biting comments would not be 'the confidential guide'. It is going to upset some people, maybe even TD could face a court case but it is what it is. The Castle Course comment I wonder if Tom might regret, I think it does him more harm than good and more likely to lose him a job than gain one but we all do silly things.
Adrian:
It's funny, I get accused of writing something to gain work and then you point out that I might lose a job, both as a result of the same comment.
In fact, the intent is neither -- I'm writing my reviews as a reviewer, not as an architect looking for work. It's amazing to me that no one can take that at face value, and that everyone is always looking for ulterior motives. I guess that's a sad reflection on the way of the world nowadays. There have been a few attacks against me now cloaked as "defending" someone else; in fact, all parties are perfectly capable of defending themselves if they feel it is warranted.
I go back to Peter's comment about the 100 people. Certainly 25 years ago, I wasn't one of them. I don't know whether he meant to include me, or not -- I still think of myself as an outsider; at least I certainly don't get invited to the Group of 100 meetings :)
-
It's amazing to me that no one can take that at face value, and that everyone is always looking for ulterior motives. I guess that's a sad reflection on the way of the world nowadays. There have been a few attacks against me now cloaked as "defending" someone else; in fact, all parties are perfectly capable of defending themselves if they feel it is warranted.
I'm generally a cynic these days, but I think most will see your comment on Norman in the proper vein. To me, it conveys very clearly and concisely an idea that most who follow golf will understand.
-
I recall it being admitted on another recent thread that the original Confidential Guide and the Doak scale itself have, shall we say, an element of 'tongue-in-cheek' to them.
Atb
-
Hang on a sec...
First you say that you're aware of the problems with writing, now you want to have a whinge about criticism and blame it on the way of the world.
If you think I'm defending Greg Norman, you're dreaming...my comments are directly aimed at you- as an author. I have no idea why you continue to deflect the criticism and then profess that the supposed defended parties are "perfectly capable of defending themselves if they feel it is warranted".
You problem is this: you are 3 people, 1. Forum participant 2. Author and 3. Architect
Two of the three are fair game for criticism on on a golf architectural forum, wouldn't you agree?
-
Mark,
I'm not defending Tom as he is in the room.
When you think of Norman, do you not think of "what might have been?"
I think there are a lot of people who acknowledge GN's great golfing talent, but also because of that great talent think he should have won more.
Same with his architecture. He is world famous and earned many commissions. But did he ever reach the same level as other designers?
All this talk about Tom being critical of Norman, why no talk about what he actually wrote. I think it rings true with many.
-
IMO there is a lot of compliment in what TD said about GN. There is also a jibe that he had a great bit of land but cacked it. Everyone reads things differently though.
-
Don,
It doesn't matter, my criticism relates to the author comparing a golf course to a persons sporting career. Should we now all start using personal analogies when giving our opinion on golf course architecture?
-
I understand that TD needs to vary his comments, and for whatever its worth this quotable jibe at Norman livens up what would be a dull by the numbers read without some personality.
I got to thinking what other architects would really be offended by. I may not be the guy to wonder this, because from what I can see, I am generally a little harder to offend. I mean, hey, I participate here, where you treat architects not named Doak, Hanse or CC, about like a baby treats its diaper.
We probably want a fair review, and we probably think our work, flaws and all, deserves something more than a one PP sound bite, along with an number. In reality, most here would think the same, but the general public probably doesn't agree. This is still not aimed at this audience as much as a guy who wants to know in ten seconds whether veering off to see some lesser known course is worthwhile.
From an architects POV, if Tom gave some depth, like "The routing is good, except for holes XXX, but the feature design looks modern and the site calls for traditional" or something to that effect, most would probably accept a critique of certain features pretty well. (thinking of a course like Torrey Pines here) Hard to get mad at calling out the best holes, the lesser holes, etc. All courses have them. Perhaps covering basics like "it is a low budget country course" so you aren't comparing directly to Augusta would help both travelers and architect junkies.
And, for the most part, TD did that in the second edition. I also suspect an older wiser TD would do even more of the same now. I recall being surprised at how balanced it was, given all the press it had gotten. But I do recall some architects just thought (and even in the new media world, think) that no criticisms should be leveled by fellow architects, even if wearing a reviewers hat.
For the record, he only mentioned a few of my courses in the first one (only had a few to mention at that point) and I wasn't offended by his comments. Next year, of course, that might change...... ;D
-
What no one has said is that when you join the Architects association you agree to abide by a number of rules, one being you do not bad mouth another architect. TD is not a member so is at will to say what he wants. Others have to keep stumm. I would only say what I thought of another's work over a beer. TDs route of Author and Architect can do nothing but infringe the 'shut up' area if he is going to be honest. If the book is going to be good it has to have some chuckle. Chuckle means upset for someone.
-
A book originally written for just a small number of friends and family obtained cult status because of its wit and lack of concern for the establishment. Fast forward a few decades and that same guy has been rewarded for his placing conviction above easy money by finding himself at the top of the tree. Occasionally, just occasionally, authenticity still wins out in the long run. Would any of you be changing that winning formula now?
-
You problem is this: you are 3 people, 1. Forum participant 2. Author and 3. Architect
Two of the three are fair game for criticism on on a golf architectural forum, wouldn't you agree?
Mark:
You're welcome to criticize any of the three people you want.
Am I mistaken in thinking your critique of me as Author is that I should never be pithy toward another architect or course? If so, there would really be no book there that anybody would want to read. Plus, I would be pilloried for having gotten politically correct in order to protect my image, having set a different standard twenty years ago.
I was talking about it with Ran just this morning. He was amazed that so many people talked about "scathing reviews" when the vast majority of the write-ups are positive. I don't think the coverage shows the same balance as the book does, but I am quite used to that by now.
-
From an architects POV, if Tom gave some depth, like "The routing is good, except for holes XXX, but the feature design looks modern and the site calls for traditional" or something to that effect, most would probably accept a critique of certain features pretty well. (thinking of a course like Torrey Pines here) Hard to get mad at calling out the best holes, the lesser holes, etc. All courses have them. Perhaps covering basics like "it is a low budget country course" so you aren't comparing directly to Augusta would help both travelers and architect junkies.
And, for the most part, TD did that in the second edition. I also suspect an older wiser TD would do even more of the same now. I recall being surprised at how balanced it was, given all the press it had gotten.
Jeff:
I actually refrained from critiquing courses the way you suggest because to me the worst thing you could do is tell somebody what you would have done differently ... as if you know it all. Most of my reviews are based first on my emotional reaction to the work [which is what art requires] and second on details that I thought were really cool or really bad.
I think it's the emotional reaction that throws off so many architects; many think of themselves more as technicians than artists. [Especially the golf pros who judge the whole of architecture by what golf shots are asked for. They seem not to understand that they are asking different shots of different players ... I'm forty yards further out with a hybrid in my hand instead of an 8-iron.]
But it's the emotional reaction that resonates so deeply with most golfers. There are lots of perfectly sensible courses that I would never want to play, much less travel to see. I think that was behind the reaction from some of the old-guard architects who came into the profession from L.A. backgrounds; they thought they should be graded on technical merit only.
-
Don,
It doesn't matter, my criticism relates to the author comparing a golf course to a persons sporting career. Should we now all start using personal analogies when giving our opinion on golf course architecture?
Greg Norman's designs can't be separated from his playing career--his commissions are 100% dependent on it.
IMO,any former player would have the same issues.They're only "architects" because they could play. Not all former players are equally involved in the design,but none of them has his name on a golf course because he finished first in his landscape architecture class.
What if TD had said "the Bear's Club is a really OK course but,given Jack Nicklaus' career,it should've been great"?
-
What if TD had said "the Bear's Club is a really OK course but,given Jack Nicklaus' career,it should've been great"?
Can I use that? It would certainly be less controversial than my first draft.
-
What if TD had said "the Bear's Club is a really OK course but,given Jack Nicklaus' career,it should've been great"?
Can I use that? It would certainly be less controversial than my first draft.
Absolutely. I'll send you my mailing address for the royalty checks ;D.
-
Don,
It doesn't matter, my criticism relates to the author comparing a golf course to a persons sporting career. Should we now all start using personal analogies when giving our opinion on golf course architecture?
If it accurately conveys your opinion of something, I'd be shocked if anyone on here would have a problem with it. They might disagree with it, but I don't think they'd be nearly as offended as you seem to be.
I guess the standard you're proposing is any personal criticism is an attack and any response to your comment is whinging?
-
I am blown away how people get offended by mundane shit.
-
I was talking about it with Ran just this morning. He was amazed that so many people talked about "scathing reviews" when the vast majority of the write-ups are positive. I don't think the coverage shows the same balance as the book does, but I am quite used to that by now.
Tom, as one who used the phrase "scathing reviews", I think the thing you and/or Ran might be missing is that by breaking your project out into several volumes, some reviewers are more or less forced to make a part stand for the whole. The reason (for me at least) is that I know my editors will not be interested in my reviewing Vols. 2-5. Even if the GB&I volume is positive relative to others to come, I still know I only get one bite of the apple (at a limited word count, too), so I have to point out what makes this series different. The stock in trade of the CG is candor, and reviewers have to cover the basics. If I knew I'd get to review all the volumes as they came out, I'm sure my approach would be different.
-
Tom, as one who used the phrase "scathing reviews", I think the thing you and/or Ran might be missing is that by breaking your project out into several volumes, some reviewers are more or less forced to make a part stand for the whole. The reason (for me at least) is that I know my editors will not be interested in my reviewing Vols. 2-5. Even if the GB&I volume is positive relative to others to come, I still know I only get one bite of the apple (at a limited word count, too), so I have to point out what makes this series different. The stock in trade of the CG is candor, and reviewers have to cover the basics. If I knew I'd get to review all the volumes as they came out, I'm sure my approach would be different.
Tom: thanks for responding. I understand your point of view ... but you do understand that you are projecting what the subsequent books will be like, before they've been written?
-
I am blown away how people get offended by mundane shit.
Thank you for defending my writing as mundane shit. ;)
-
Tom, as one who used the phrase "scathing reviews", I think the thing you and/or Ran might be missing is that by breaking your project out into several volumes, some reviewers are more or less forced to make a part stand for the whole. The reason (for me at least) is that I know my editors will not be interested in my reviewing Vols. 2-5. Even if the GB&I volume is positive relative to others to come, I still know I only get one bite of the apple (at a limited word count, too), so I have to point out what makes this series different. The stock in trade of the CG is candor, and reviewers have to cover the basics. If I knew I'd get to review all the volumes as they came out, I'm sure my approach would be different.
Tom: thanks for responding. I understand your point of view ... but you do understand that you are projecting what the subsequent books will be like, before they've been written?
Tom, I guess, but your introduction to Vol. 1 is largely focused on highlighting the value of dead honest course reviews. When you write, "Volume 1 will be the least controversial of the set..." I'm inclined to take you at your word.
-
Some of the reactions to Tom's reviews may actually reflect the struggles in the game today.
We've become too sensitive and are pu$$ies about someone giving an honest thought.
Look forward to reading it.
-
Was it a calculated decision to release the "Great Britain and Ireland" volume first because the majority of reviews favored more of a positive tone? The courses in this part of the world, even in the most basic form, lean toward what many on this site would prefer to see.
There will certainly be more opportunities in the US for courses to get a 0 or 1 rating based on the excess demonstrated during our most recent course boom.
Ken
-
I really enjoyed the first book and this new edition. I like the style of writing, but lowly marked courses are bound to be offended. Negative comments obviously hurt if TD gave one of my courses a zero it would be like the end of the world. I don't know if Tom and David Kidd were friends or are still friends or even if Tom felt he could plant the zero because they were friends but I think the zero should be an asterisk or something as a doak 1 is a probably better course than a doak zero and I think its a bit confusing. Overall a great book.
-
I am blown away how people get offended by mundane shit.
Thank you for defending my writing as mundane shit. ;)
This is pretty funny, author/architect/Forum Guy.
-
Surprised Doak is complaining about the press for describing the book's "candor" and "scathing reviews." If I wrote a book and was able to control the content of its reviews in the press? Not sure I could do a better job of enticing people to purchase.
-
Is he complaining, Mark? I didn't notice.
-
Was it a calculated decision to release the "Great Britain and Ireland" volume first because the majority of reviews favored more of a positive tone? The courses in this part of the world, even in the most basic form, lean toward what many on this site would prefer to see.
I did think of that, but it was well down the list of reasons Great Britain & Ireland was first up. The two primary reasons:
1. It's the smallest book [most of the others will cover 400-500 courses each], so I wasn't overwhelmed with layout issues while I was still learning the software.
2. There were far fewer courses I wanted to see before I called the book complete, and work was taking me to Europe anyway so it was easy to find the time to be there.