[Patrick_Mucci]

CBM,

I've never seen Easthampton, so I'll accept your categorization that it's penal.

I'm forced to call Easthampton an exception  because its form doesn't appear in appreciable numbers throughout the golfing universe.  It is rare, not common.  

In the golfing universe of 1920-1930, penal courses and penal features were more common than rare.

Pete Dye was known for his penal designs, but perhaps he benefited from timing, when developers asked him to design very HARD golf courses like TPC and PGA west.
It's not that the cadre of designers who worked for and were influenced by Pete can't design a penal golf course, it's just that developers aren't requesting it, the market's no longer there.  New penal golf courses are "Mostly Dead".

I can't tell you the time line or the architect responsible for the demise of penal architecture in America.  Those with the time and research resources could probably establish a time line, and the roots of a cultural or philosophical change away from penal design, manifested through a number of architects, or a generation of new ones.

I don't think one cataclysmic event or architect eliminated penal design, I think it may have just been evolutionary.

I've attempted to answer your questions, but, you've avoided answering mine, which are material to my position.

Name just 10 penal golf courses designed and built between 1950 and 1990, a forty (40) year period, in each of the following categories.

Resort
Residential Community
Country Club - Mixed

Would you agree that you could name an overwhelming number of non-penal courses in those same categories within the same time frame ?

Let me know if you feel that the vast majority of courses renovated (worked on) since 1950 have been hardened or softened for their members.

Let me also know if you feel that the percentage of Penal courses in existance today is equivalent to the percentage in existance in 1920-1930.

I think that one can prudently conclude that the design and use of penal architecture, penal features doesn't exist today, as it did at several points in the past.

But, that's just my opinion, and we just disagree.

[Dan King]

C.B. Macdonald writes:
What would be the unethical reason for advocating a position that golf architecture is not ruined?

I can't think of a single one.

Please re-read my above post and notice I wasn't talking about your opinion, but rather your use of a pseudonym.

Dan King

"If we had no fault of our own, we would not take so much pleasure in noticing those of others."
 --Duc de la Rochefoucauld

[ForkaB]

Dan (and TomP)

Why are you unwilling to respect CB's privacy?  I assume that he'll let you know who he is if he wants to.  And Dan, what is unethical about anonymity?  If CB turned out to be Charles Manson or Tom Fazio or Bill Clinton or even Lyndon Larouche (if he is still alive), would that make one damned bit of difference to the meaning of the words that he writes adn the opinions he expresses?  I think not.

[TEPaul]

Rich:

Jeeesus Christ, you're getting a bit weird about this. I'm not disrespecting anyone's privacy. I don't care about anonymity at all. I don't care who C.B. Macdonald really is. I just want to talk to him by email and maybe discuss a few things that he said that aren't that apropos to this thread. If he wants to call himself Mickey Mouse or Minnie in an email that's OK with me.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich Goodale,

Perhaps the answer to your question lies in the following example.

If an anonymous poster advocated tax relief on dividends and a reduction in capital gains, and that anonymous poster happened to be George W, you would have a broadened perspective of their views.  Likewise, if an anonymous poster took a position that Mr Lay was really behind every effort to smear President Clinton, that he did nothing wrong, and that poster presented a passionate case, I think you would also look at their presentation in a different light if the poster happened to be James Carville.

Since this thread has been rather mild, with various posters putting forth their thoughts, one would have to believe that an anonymous poster is posting as such, amongst other reasons, because their identity may reveal more about their position, or it may taint their position, or they may not want to publicly oppose a position espoused by another individual.

I think anonymous posts create an unlevel playing field, and generally cultivate irresponsibility,  But that's just my opinion.

[C.B. MacDonald]

Pat and Dan,

I guess I don't see how I might stand to benefit from using C.B. MacDonald's moniker to basically ask for a more balanced study of golf architecture, but it apparently bothers you. I did not mean for it to be an issue. I assure you, I am not a stock holder in "GOLF IS A GREAT GAME, EVEN TODAY, LLC".

At any rate, there is one problem with posting anonymously and that is that it gives you a way to deflect attention away from the concepts being discussed. I would rather you just focus on what C.B. MacDonald and Donald Ross and Pete Dye have to say about architecture, since it is they and others like them that you are judging. So I will stop posting.

Pat, I will not spend the time it would take to fulfill your categories of penal courses. I am sure if I did that you would call them all exceptions and probably then tell me that I had the wrong definition of what a penal golf course is. And you would no doubt want me to list at least 14 courses from 1972-1974 that are New Age courses that have bermuda fairways and sand greens and chocolate drops for hazards...It would not be worth my time. Plus, as I have said a couple of times, this website lists courses by architect and country and feature interviews that will show you many, many penal golf holes, if you but just look. (Yes, Pat, I know, THOSE courses don't count. Got it.)

The truth is you don't even need my posts here in this thread. Doug and Rich both said it all basically in two rather short posts.

Here's hoping that Matthew and others like him read as much as they can about golf architecture and in the end come away LOVING the game of golf and not discouraged by it. Fair enough?

I am on to more productive things. And this time I mean it!  

[ForkaB]

Pat

Thanks for the reply.

I personally think that the "playing field" on GCA is biased strongly against anonymous posters, since many "regulars" disparage them for choosing to post anonymously and tend to not respond to their ideas with the same degree of passion and care as they do to the ideas of "regulars."  This is a pity, since many good ideas and good potential "members" of the "treehouse" get lost in the shuffle.

I also don't really agree with (or even understand, quite frankly) your examples from the political world.  To me, at least, it's the message that is important, not the messenger.

Of course, as Tom Paul says, I may be weird.......

[TEPaul]

Rich:

I'm right with you on this. I only said you were a bit weird because you said asking C.B to email me was an invasion of his privacy. I can't see how asking if he would email me invades his privacy since he can always say no dice and leave the site as he's apparenly gonna do. That's OK too.

That's the only reason I said you were a bit weird. But on second thought, allow me to amend that. You are a bit weird anyway--everyone knows that. The question is are you weirder than me or not. You're definitely not as weird as Pat, though, and everyone knows that too. Either am I!

I agree with you about the message. Let's say James Carville posts anonymously and says a bunch of things that Pat agrees with. But Pat doesn't of course know it's James. Then Pat finds out it was James afterall. What's Pat gonna do then, disagree with the anonymous post's message since it's James?

Probably!

[Dan King]

Rich Goodale writes:
Why are you unwilling to respect CB's privacy?

I'm not.

Some people post anonymously so they can hit and run, not taking responsibility for their posts. This week he might be C.B. Macdonald, next week he might be George Thomas. I'm not saying C.B. shouldn't post anonymously, just that if he does there are some people here, including me, who are going to be reluctant to respond to his posts.

If Macdonald wants to post anonymously, I'm not going to do anything to try and stop him. I was just letting him know that there are repercussions when posting under someone else's name.



Dan King

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet"
 --William Shakespeare (Or possibly someone writing using a nom de plume, or was Willie a front? -- from Romeo and Juliet)

[ForkaB]

Dan

"Why Not?"

"Because!"

I think I've heard that one before.....

BTW--great self-deprecating irony in your Shakespeare quote and in the fact that you did respond to old CB!

Keep on studyin'

Rich

[Seth Raynor]

CBM,

You've asked questions but are careful to avoid answering them.

Rather than trying to avoid a response by predicting what Pat Mucci's response will be, why don't you just answer the questions honestly,  like he answered your questions.

When you're anonymous it's easier to hit and run, and not be accountable.

[TEPaul]

Dan King:

Everybody knows William Shakespeare was the Duke of Norfolk. That's why anonymous posting on here has never bothered me--I know who they all are anyway!

[Matthew Mollica]

C.B.Mac,

I think I speak for many on this board, in thanking you for your effort, and thoughts in your posts.  Although the idea of Charles’ ghost moving in our midst is appealing, it’s very obvious that more than a few wish you used your real name….

As you rightly pointed out, I asked (more like stated) if shot swinging holes, or different styles of golf holes, were designed more frequently in times past, and if so, was the difference due to different forms of the game and their prevalence in different eras… I purposefully put a contentious flavor to my post, as it seems such messages elicit the biggest number of replies, and often the best replies. It has been great to follow the twists and turns this discussion has taken.

You are right in that there was an assumption made in my statement. I think that we tend to assume a reasonable amount in the discussions on GCA, on some posts anyway.

I agree with you in that there is penal and not so penal golf in both eras (however defined). I didn’t think that there would be as much opposition / resistance to a well-worded, and well-thought out defense of such a position, as you've presented.

You said – “I used to blindly think that the golden age guys were all minimalists and would not do anything that did not strictly further their art. But I think I was naive. I have looked through / read a lot of the older books and the newer books. There are architects today who are just as much concerned for the strategy and art of golf holes and there were architects in the past…”

I see a lot of my own thoughts in that comment, and have enjoyed reading your posts, as they have been thought provoking, and anchored in fact – a hard thing to do. They have changed the way I think. Relax - I have never harboured bad thoughts about current day architecture. I just hope there is space in the profession for me one day.

I agree with Pat’s philosophy in part, and much of what you say – much more than I thought I would at the start ! You’ve added a lot to how I perceive this issue. Hope you keep posting, under any name if need be.

Thanks

Matthew

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()