[RJ_Daley]

Sir Boab.... oops!

[Dan Kelly]

Jes II,

I'm with you.  Anything you would not tell to someone's face should be seen as "over the line", especially in a public discussion group.

Without seeming to endorse character assassination -- which I most assuredly do not -- I disagree with this view of things.

One valuable thing or another will die, if this prescription is followed: honest *criticism*, or politeness.

In the interest of politeness, I would never, ever tell an architect, to his face, that I dislike one of his courses.

But in the interest of honest criticism, I would say so here.

This may be hypocritical -- but I think a civilized society demands such hypocrisy.

[Glenn Spencer]

Glenn, I take you point.  But, not so far as to give more or equal credibility to a critic that has little or no knowledge of several of the aspects of golf course architecture including construction techniques of grading and shaping and proper use of the earthmoving equipment, turf science knowledge, and irrigation and drainage knowledge that folds into construction techniques.  Then designing the routing of the course with all those considerations brought into relationship with strategy.  

Take out one or more of those components, and give them to incompetents, and you aren't going to get a good product.  You may like the course anyway - during a perfect weather period when there is just the right amount of precipatation, and drainage and irrigation are minimized, and you aren't made to walk through a bog, and turf is thriving, etc.  But, then you may just like going to the range and hitting balls as well.  

This isn't a boring site because many critics and people that like to discuss their likes and dislikes don't know that much about the nuts and bolts of construction and design, or turf.  It is always interesting to see what people think.  They have a take, and they are entitled.  

But, I am saying that many of us who have been on this site for a long time now, begin to know who really understands more than their superficial passion to bat a golf ball around a field of turf and bunkers.  When those less knowledgeable folks go particularly negative, I for one don't give too much credibility to their remarks.  When they go positive, I take it with an attitude that I'm glad they had a nice time at a particular golf course, but without more details, I'm still not convinced about that course's potential greatness.

But, a person that really has made a passionate study of these subjects of design, construction, turf, and knows their GCA history, and has seen plenty of examples in their travels... well like the old Merrill Lynch commercials, "when they talk, people listen".

Great post. Thank you for taking the time to write it. I imagine that I fall into the category of not knowing the ins and outs, pretty easily. I couldn't care less. If I go to a restaurant and don't like the food, I don't want to know how they made it or why they made it that way. Do you think that a golf course is a good one if it drains well and never becomes bogged down, even if it is not any good? I am sure that there are people out there that know more about architecture than I do, probably one living on my street, but there is nobody that knows more about what I like and what I don't like about certain golf holes or courses. I know shoddy attention to detail when I see it. I know when someone has done a great job and given a whole lot of effort to something. My overall knowledge of golf, golf's history, courses and players does not have to take a backseat to anyone. If people want to listen to what I think they can, if they don't, that is fine as well. Nobody is going to convince me that Hills is a good architect and that I need to play any of his courses though.

[Jim Thompson]

For me, one of the most interesting components of reviewing any project is what we DON’T know.  More times than not we will never be privy to the information we don’t know either.  Specifically, and I think it is even more prevalent regarding golf architecture, we don’t know what limits were placed on the architect by the developer; be it budgetary, routing, or even pet issues.  I think many assume that being a golf architect is the opportunity to freely design and move lands to the fulfillment of one’s vision.  I dare say to many times it is the art of maximizing impact within a framework of constant on-site compromise.  I think those architects that are slugging it out on budget driven projects really need to be given an incredible level of benefit of doubt.  Using Art as an example, I can tell you that one of his courses is one of my very favorite places to play and another I doubt I will ever play again and from what I know of the industry both cases fall back to the actions of the developer not Art.  In all of our pontificating about what we know or what we would have done, occasionally we have to be reminded that architects don’t build courses with their own check books and don’t always get everything they want out of a piece of property either.

Cheers!

JT

Glenn,

If you ever get to my neck of the woods, I'll take you to one of Art's courses you would enjoy.

[Glenn Spencer]

Jes II,

I'm with you.  Anything you would not tell to someone's face should be seen as "over the line", especially in a public discussion group.

Without seeming to endorse character assassination -- which I most assuredly do not -- I disagree with this view of things.

One valuable thing or another will die, if this prescription is followed: honest *criticism*, or politeness.

In the interest of politeness, I would never, ever tell an architect, to his face, that I dislike one of his courses.

But in the interest of honest criticism, I would say so here.

This may be hypocritical -- but I think a civilized society demands such hypocrisy.

Just as I would never tell a woman that she has a great chest, but I would certainly tell my friends.

If Hills asked me what I thought of 18 at Fox Run, I would not hesitate to tell him that it was the worst hole on a golf course in America that was calling itself a good place to play golf. I would also ask him if he would ever step foot in Miamisburg, Ohio, unarmed, after Pipestone.

[BCrosby]

Dan has it about right.

Complete honesty at all times and in all circumstances is - to paraphrase Oscar Wilde - is not a virtue.

But too much deference can be equally bad.

We should be careful not to attack an architect personally. But the quality of his architectural product is fair game.

Bob  

[Glenn Spencer]

For me, one of the most interesting components of reviewing any project is what we DON’T know.  More times than not we will never be privy to the information we don’t know either.  Specifically, and I think it is even more prevalent regarding golf architecture, we don’t know what limits were placed on the architect by the developer; be it budgetary, routing, or even pet issues.  I think many assume that being a golf architect is the opportunity to freely design and move lands to the fulfillment of one’s vision.  I dare say to many times it is the art of maximizing impact within a framework of constant on-site compromise.  I think those architects that are slugging it out on budget driven projects really need to be given an incredible level of benefit of doubt.  Using Art as an example, I can tell you that one of his courses is one of my very favorite places to play and another I doubt I will ever play again and from what I know of the industry both cases fall back to the actions of the developer not Art.  In all of our pontificating about what we know or what we would have done, occasionally we have to be reminded that architects don’t build courses with their own check books and don’t always get everything they want out of a piece of property either.

Cheers!

JT

Glenn,

If you ever get to my neck of the woods, I'll take you to one of Art's courses you would enjoy.

Sounds good, I am in GR a couple of times a year. I am skeptical, but I very much appreciate the offer.

[RJ_Daley]

Of course Jim, you are very correct in your observations of an honest criticizm needing to take into account, the process. And, of course we can't always or usually know all those compromises that the archie was forced to make.

It is interesting that AH criticizm is at the base of most of these threads, and the concept of fairness of criticizm of AH.  Here is one gentleman archie that really does have a roadmap or prism of sorts to understand his "process".  John Strawn's very important book "Driving the Green" from the late 80s, about AH and his design and the planning and construction process of Iron Horse in Palm Beach, and the contrast and commentary of what many say is one of AH's finest, Seville near Tampa, is one such "in-depth" insight into the architect and the process that we rarely get to see.  

Glenn, the only real issue I have with your last post is the foreclosure to say no one will ever convince you to play an AH course.   I really think that you do a disservice to the architect and yourself to foreclose that possiblity.  What if one of you most respected GCAs told you that AH's course at X, is a fine course  - constructed well and plays fine and you ought to give a try?  Are you that entrenched by bad experiences on his courses not to give that recommendation consideration?

[Paul Payne]

Mike,

I agree with you and here is why.

I don't think there is anything wrong with opinions or harsh criticism, it can serve to educate all of us.

What I don't like is when people criticise an architect or course but leave their comments in vague generalizations. I for one usually like to understand why someone does not like a specific course or hole yet most the time when I ask for the details there is no response or it ends up being a threadkiller.

I am just scratching the surface learning the history of GCA but I have played a number of courses and know what I liked and disliked. (...I don't know art but I know what I like!). Usually I'll ask for someone to defend their comments when it involves a course I am familiar with. I wish people would not shy away from this, when they do their criticisms ring hollow and it does begin to seem personal.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

I don't think the site has gotten better or worse.  Since becoming a moderator, Tommy N has generally become quite reasonable!  And he probably personified the try to be humorous but bait them and let it fly mentality when I started.  (Sorry TN, but its true)

In any event, you seem to have become one of the more favored gca's here, so you can't really sweat it that much.  As for me, being Mr. Mainstream, ASGCA means I won't ever be top dog here.  I still participate, so what does that say about MY intelligence? (Rhetorical question, please don't answer.....)

I figure that bashing has always been around, and the net is a new and highly efficient way to do it.  If Ross did a bad course, by the time the carrier pidgeons or even Railway Express delivered the news around the country he may have had another 20 jobs.  For that matter, I think they all benefitted from a less cynical press and public, which is a(nother) cross we modern gca's have to bear.

More on point, Owners aren't dummies, and there are a lot of factors going into their selection decisions.  Assuming Owners read here, and I suspect that very few do, well reasoned comments here might be pushing work to a particular gca, I doubt the typical rant we read here would.  Typically, Owners seek out the opinions of other Owners who have the same experience of building a course to make a decision.  I think Mike is overly concerned there, but I could be wrong.  

As to bashing, there is a perception difference in "I" statments and "they" statements, and I believe we would all be better off sticking to the former.  If you say "I", we can disagree with reasons you give without getting personal.  That is if you give them rather than just make a broad brush statement of your opinion and ask the reader to accept it as unquestionable fact.  That always rankles the feathers.  

If you make assumptions about what "they" did, you open yourself up for a lot of grief.  


Glenn,

If you didn't like a course, and it means that much to you to only play courses you like, perhaps you didn't do enough research into it before playing?  Even so, is a day on a course you don't like as well as others really a slice of hell?

For that matter, gca's are "human beings and a golfers" and we have the same, but more concerns you do. I am sure most of us have high expectations when we play golf, even on our own courses.  And I would bet that a gca NOT considering the details of design leads you to not like courses, even if you don't realize it.  The devil is in the details, as you know.

As to your statement "there is only so much land available and I don't like it being 'wasted', especially the great properties." - How could you possibly know that about a design?
 
Actually, there is always an explanation for a less than stellar course - from budget to pushy owner, to the gca got kicked off a job, leaving when he didn't get paid, inherited a bad routing, to the fact that he/she isn't as talented, or too busy, etc.  It would seem that discussing of same on a website devoted to golf architecture and not just golf courses would be appropriate.

There are other sites devoted to posting short version golf course - and golf experience - reviews.

[JESII]

I'd like to think I could develop an opinion, educate myself thouroughly on the subject, consider different perspectives pertaining to the subject, and lastly, have a critical discussion with the creator of the subject without offending them or patronizing them.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I'd like to think I could develop an opinion, educate myself thouroughly on the subject, consider different perspectives pertaining to the subject, and lastly, have a critical discussion with the creator of the subject without offending them or patronizing them.

Well, you would think, wouldn't ya?  But somehow, it doesn't always happen.

BTW, I guess we all have to remember that the strength of an internet discussion is that it can go in unintended directions.

The weakness?  Internet discussion can go in unintended directions.

[JESII]

That's my point Jeff. That post was supposed to be a reply to Dan Kelly suggesting criticism to someone's face is impolite but on here it can and should fly. I have no problem with criticism flying on here, but Dan was responding to a post of mine suggesting that criticisms should be couched in terms you would make to the architect directly and in person if given the chance.

[Glenn Spencer]

Of course Jim, you are very correct in your observations of an honest criticizm needing to take into account, the process. And, of course we can't always or usually know all those compromises that the archie was forced to make.

It is interesting that AH criticizm is at the base of most of these threads, and the concept of fairness of criticizm of AH.  Here is one gentleman archie that really does have a roadmap or prism of sorts to understand his "process".  John Strawn's very important book "Driving the Green" from the late 80s, about AH and his design and the planning and construction process of Iron Horse in Palm Beach, and the contrast and commentary of what many say is one of AH's finest, Seville near Tampa, is one such "in-depth" insight into the architect and the process that we rarely get to see.  

Glenn, the only real issue I have with your last post is the foreclosure to say no one will ever convince you to play an AH course.   I really think that you do a disservice to the architect and yourself to foreclose that possiblity.  What if one of you most respected GCAs told you that AH's course at X, is a fine course  - constructed well and plays fine and you ought to give a try?  Are you that entrenched by bad experiences on his courses not to give that recommendation consideration?

I would play an Art Hills course that came recommended from someone like Jim, if I thought I would have a good time and enjoy the company. NEED is the word I used though. I DO NOT believe that I am missing anything, if I never play another Hills course. Nobody can convince me that I NEED to play a Hills course, whether it drains well or not.

[George Pazin]

There is a huge difference between bashing an architect's personality/business and bashing his work/designs/skills/etc.

While I would condemn the former and not necessarily endorse the former, I think we are running into a really really really really (repeat as many times as you'd like) dangerous area by telling anyone - poster or otherwise - that they can't bash someone's work. One person's criticism is another's bashing. I can't tell you how many times I have been accused of bashing when I meant nothing of the sort. And there's probably people who have felt the same way about something I've said to them as well.

Some people are blunt, some more circumspect, some more eloquent, and some just plain over the top. It's up to the poster to evaluate and place the proper amount of weight on another's criticism. Calling for that person to hold back, rephrase, whatever is tantamount to thought police work to me. Ask them to explain themselves, sure, but I don't think anyone should ask anyone else to stop (in general).

And, as an aside, I would attach little correlation to the amount  of business a course or an architect sees, and the credibility of someone who chooses to criticise it.

[John_Cullum]

Nobody can convince me that I NEED to play a Hills course, whether it drains well or not.

I think everyone needs to play Dunes at Seville, especially Glenn.

[Glenn Spencer]

Mike,

I don't think the site has gotten better or worse.  Since becoming a moderator, Tommy N has generally become quite reasonable!  And he probably personified the try to be humorous but bait them and let it fly mentality when I started.  (Sorry TN, but its true)

In any event, you seem to have become one of the more favored gca's here, so you can't really sweat it that much.  As for me, being Mr. Mainstream, ASGCA means I won't ever be top dog here.  I still participate, so what does that say about MY intelligence? (Rhetorical question, please don't answer.....)

I figure that bashing has always been around, and the net is a new and highly efficient way to do it.  If Ross did a bad course, by the time the carrier pidgeons or even Railway Express delivered the news around the country he may have had another 20 jobs.  For that matter, I think they all benefitted from a less cynical press and public, which is a(nother) cross we modern gca's have to bear.

More on point, Owners aren't dummies, and there are a lot of factors going into their selection decisions.  Assuming Owners read here, and I suspect that very few do, well reasoned comments here might be pushing work to a particular gca, I doubt the typical rant we read here would.  Typically, Owners seek out the opinions of other Owners who have the same experience of building a course to make a decision.  I think Mike is overly concerned there, but I could be wrong.  

As to bashing, there is a perception difference in "I" statments and "they" statements, and I believe we would all be better off sticking to the former.  If you say "I", we can disagree with reasons you give without getting personal.  That is if you give them rather than just make a broad brush statement of your opinion and ask the reader to accept it as unquestionable fact.  That always rankles the feathers.  

If you make assumptions about what "they" did, you open yourself up for a lot of grief.  


Glenn,

If you didn't like a course, and it means that much to you to only play courses you like, perhaps you didn't do enough research into it before playing?  Even so, is a day on a course you don't like as well as others really a slice of hell?

For that matter, gca's are "human beings and a golfers" and we have the same, but more concerns you do. I am sure most of us have high expectations when we play golf, even on our own courses.  And I would bet that a gca NOT considering the details of design leads you to not like courses, even if you don't realize it.  The devil is in the details, as you know.

As to your statement "there is only so much land available and I don't like it being 'wasted', especially the great properties." - How could you possibly know that about a design?
 
Actually, there is always an explanation for a less than stellar course - from budget to pushy owner, to the gca got kicked off a job, leaving when he didn't get paid, inherited a bad routing, to the fact that he/she isn't as talented, or too busy, etc.  It would seem that discussing of same on a website devoted to golf architecture and not just golf courses would be appropriate.

There are other sites devoted to posting short version golf course - and golf experience - reviews.

Jeff:

I don't understand the question, 'How could I know that it was wasted?

Longaberger is a waste. I don't care what the owner wanted, the drainage or anything else. Pipestone, 1-18 is a WASTE. Fox Run #18 is the worst use of 556 yards in the history of the game, unless #2 at Pipestone beats it.Shaker Run, #3 and #6 give absolutely no respect to how the game is supposed to be played or the golfer. #9 at Shaker Run has some of the least thought of any golf hole that I have ever played. The guy has my 3 WORST holes ever played on his list and about 13-17 of the top 20 worst. If that doesn't qualify me, then I don't know what does.

[Dan Kelly]

That's my point Jeff. That post was supposed to be a reply to Dan Kelly suggesting criticism to someone's face is impolite but on here it can and should fly. I have no problem with criticism flying on here, but Dan was responding to a post of mine suggesting that criticisms should be couched in terms you would make to the architect directly and in person if given the chance.

JES II --

I didn't mean to suggest that it's IMPOSSIBLE to politely criticize a person's work to his face.

I was suggesting that unvarnished, unbowdlerized, no-punches-pulled criticism (of golf courses, or of any other art/craft) -- criticism that some (I'm included in that group) would consider nasty and impolite -- has a useful place in this world ... and I don't think that place is directly to the face of the architect in question.

Dan
 

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Jeff Brauer,
I've been moderating the site way before you even started participating on here in 2001. So how would you know how or what has changed?

So much for expert opinion I guess....

The point is I can't, nor do I have the time to go through each and ever post made on GCA but rely mostly, just as Ran does and OTHERS (hint hint) who moderate it with me, as well as others who will inform me of posts made that might be questionable. If you don't like the way I moderate, well then you'll have a few others to blame also.

You see, I'm not the only one that moderates, but the way Ran & Ben have it set up is that there are in fact others that do moderate the site--not just them. (Once again, so much for your logical thoughts and opinions! But go ahead and still blame me for anything you think can or should be deemed unfair. It's O.K., I can handle it! Your very easy to deal with!

The point here is if your an architect and your doing some crummy work out there and think you can get away with it, there is an outlet for those that don't care for crummy work and want to expose the impropriety--because after all, the gift and the ability to design a golf course takes talent, time and passion. Anything less then that, well then you of all people Jeff should be outraged! I know I am everytime I think of Cross Creek, where Hills, Forrest & Associates completely took a magnificent place for a golf course completely for granted and built a mailed-in design that may have been on land capable of being one of the great modern course sites in California, and it didn't even need an ocean to emphasize or hi-light it.

I could go on and on about all of Hill's courses here in California. I have played all of them, and with the exception of HMB's Ocean Course, which may partially be because Art himself was involved, I think the rest of them, done by associates are somewhat exactly as Steve Hufstutler--someone I assume that doesn't even live in California has most accurately described:

it almost always consists of a birthday cake green surrounded by bunkers neccesitating an aerial approach.
That being said, I still enjoy playing them as much as I like a bottle of 2 Buck Chuck.

So why is this critique so common in Hills designs in California, wherever Steve Huftstutler is located, and wherever Tiger John feels was unstately for the Hills he knew?

You see Jeff, I think this is an accurate portrayal of really uninspired, unimaginative, repetitious, flagrantly careless, lousy golf architecture and I don't even know the names of the courses he's relating that quote too, but, it describes four of the five Hill's courses to a tee here in SoCal.

So as far as I'm concerned critical comments of this nature are always more then welcomed here on GCA. Of a personal nature, well it is true I am a person of immense passion when it comes to great golf and it's grounds. Sometimes I have taken it way too personal, but rightfully so. Just go look at the recent pictures of Riviera and the work being done there by your 2005-2006 ASGCA President.

I shudder to think of a world where mediocrity ruled the day, but then again, especially in golf--you know, just like the dark ages of Robert Trent Jones and the 40's-80's. It was like 40 years of the worst taste imaginable. Judging by some of today's architects, especially the mediocre ones, the formuliac ones, well, then is Golf Club Atlas a place for these types of architects to hang around and discuss architecture?

Sorry, I just don't think so....

The fact is, and you can go back and see for yourself, long before you even participated here. Golf Club Atlas has always been a place to discuss, vent, praise golf architecture, bad, mediocre and GREAT. I hope it continues to do just that.

Have a great day!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Jesse,
 Do you still have the Longaberger bag tag or did you send it to Glenn?

[JESII]

Fair enough Dan,

I hadn't realized unvarnished, unbowdlerized criticism was useful.

Just out of curiosity, has there been a recent example of useful unvarnished criticism on here?

[Dan Kelly]

Fair enough Dan,

I hadn't realized unvarnished, unbowdlerized criticism was useful.

Just out of curiosity, has there been a recent example of useful unvarnished criticism on here?

JES II --

I don't know if there has been, or hasn't been. Someone in the business might be able to tell you if he's found anything useful in any of the harsh criticisms leveled here.

Dan

[tonyt]

IMHO, saying what you like or don't like about a course is good and I am sure considered by most architects.  It doesnt bother me.  What does bother me is character assasination because one does not like the playability of a course etc.....

The point you make is sound. What I disagree with is that in many instances, the "character assasination" isn't always taking place. One person's innocent viewpoint is another's victimisation. I think your definition takes an honestly expressed "gripe" of someone's, and reads into their minds enough to wrongfully transform it into character assasination.

When true character assasination takes place on here, it is transparent enough. I think archies are caught on the hop on here a lot more when someone has a respectful and well meaning negative point to make than when someone comes out swinging, and the posts and responses over the past few years on here back that up.

[JESII]

Which is good, don't you think Tony.

[tonyt]

Exactly my point!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()