[Dan Kelly]

This is one Texan that is proud of Bush, and when you say you back the troops you have to back the commander or you are a liar.

Mr. Moran --

Nota bene: I am explicitly NOT commenting on your other remarks, some of which I agree with and some of which I do not. Please accept my silence on those unmentioned matters as neither endorsement nor rebuke.

But I cannot let this one line of yours go unanswered, because I'm hearing it often in these unhappy days, and, as one who came of age during the unhappy years of the Vietnam war, it's making me sick in my stomach.

It is ENTIRELY possible for a non-liar to back the troops and not back the commander -- if, by commander, you mean, as I presume you do, the commander's policies.

It is ENTIRELY possible to legitimately and honestly wish nothing but the best for our Armed Forces and for every member of our Armed Forces, personally and militarily, even as one continues to believe that the commander's policies are wrong-headed.

It is ENTIRELY possible to support the agents of the Government's policies even as one disdains the Government's policies.

An honest person can have ENTIRELY different views of President Bush and some 19-year-old grunt from Odessa.

Let's be clear about one thing: Opposition to the Government's policies is no proof of unpatriotism, just as it was no proof in the Vietnam years.

[A.G._Crockett]

Dan Kelly,

Well put, indeed.

I would add that opposition to the government's policies is not only not proof of unpatriotism, it is in fact the very ground on which Washington, Jefferson and the rest of the Founding Fathers founded this republic!  In our country, dissent is completely patriotic, and that's one of the things that makes us unique, as well as worth fighting for in the first place.  The height of "unamericanism" would be to undervalue the place of free expression in our democracy, and to attack others for expressing their opinions.

This country has never been, and will never be, weakened by dissent, debate, and discussion.

[Tim_Weiman]

Guys:

This thread has all it can handle without getting into current day politcal issues. If you want to discuss those matters, could you at least take the discussion to another thread?

Thanks.

Tommy N:

As I've already made clear, I think Jack Nicklaus is taking the more responsible position on this issue and wish Fazio would follow the example Nicklaus (and Pete Dye) have taken.

All three of these guys have a "bully pulpit" based on their prominence in the industry. They should use it for the good of the game. Tom Fazio is well known for his charitable efforts outside of golf. Joining the Nicklaus/Dye view on this issue would be an appropriate way to align his private and his professional activities.

[Jeff Goldman]

Does the set-up at Bay Hill say anything about these issues, at least as far as making courses obsolete for the pros?  My recollection is that it was set up last year to play very fast, and was one of the more difficult venues of the year, and a lot of fun to watch, despite not being that good a course to look at.  This year, the low score so far is -3 (Jack Nicklaus is +1 after 10 holes last I looked).  In any event, the players are evidently not happy about it.  Golfplus in SI said that a bunch refused to play it because of the set up, and it was no longer a "must play."  If the players won't accept a tougher set-up (which seems to be an example of the "maintenance meld", then what's the alternative besides -30 scores?  

Jeff Goldman

[Dan Kelly]

Last I heard, the rough at Bay Hill was deep, deep, deep and thick, thick, thick.

Who wants to play the US Open in March?

Give us a Competition Ball. Cut the rough.

More fun to play. More fun to watch.

[TEPaul]

"This country has never been, and will never be, weakened by dissent, debate, and discussion."

And that's the very reason why it's good to see Kelly Blake Moran air his feelings exactly how he did.

"The height of "unamericanism" would be to undervalue the place of free expression in our democracy, and to attack others for expressing their opinions."

I didn't notice Kelly Blake Moran attacking redanman for expressing his opinion he simply told redanman he thinks his apparent opinion about or in support of the foreign policy and diplomatic positions of France suck bigtime! Nothing wrong with that.

And I agree with him. I think redanman's opinion sucks bigtime too if he's implying France has done something admirable recently! But I'm not saying he shouldn't express that misguided opinion. As far as I'm concerned redanman has had a number of misguided opinions but I see no reason why he shouldn't express them anyway.

And France is going to have their opinion, and express it but that doesn't mean I'm not going to say I think they're about the most self-centered, self-righteous and selfish major Government I know of--I've always thought that about the French governement. Apparently Kelly Blake Moran does too.

What they've done recently, particularly in the last 48 hours is just classic French policy--seeming to think of very little else other than themselves. Their entire history in the last century is more of the same, in my opinion. Whoever came up with "Pride goeth.......before the fall" must have had France in mind.

Keep saying exactly what's on your mind Kelly. Of those in the business on this website there's no question you're the most forthright about your opinions on architecture (and other things) of anyone. That's great and shouldn't be discouraged at all. And if you feel like mentioning again what a bunch of jerks the French government is by all means don't hesitate.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kelly Blake Moran,

I was at a dinner meeting monday night attended by several board members from the same country club.  They indicated that at their next board meeting that they were going to pass a resolution or create an informal policy of not purchasing French Wine, Cheese, Water or any other vended product from France.

Getting back to the distance problem, and the question as to when it began, I feel it began with the Ping lawsuit, which paralzyed the USGA, in terms of taking agressive action against the manufacturers.  From that day on, high tech has run amuck, but, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[Jim_Kennedy]

I am giving up the notion of buying a BMW, Mercedes, or  Volkswagen. I'm not drinking any more Heineken. Altbiers, Berliner Weisse, Hefeweizen, Marzen, Oktoberfest bier, Kristallweizen, Munchner Helles, or Dortmunder. Weinerschnitzel, bratwurst, liverwurst, jagdwurst are out.

I am no longer buying caviar, borscht, pelmeni, or tushonka. It's over for Stolichnya, Russkya, Sibirskya, Moskvskya, or Pyatiszvezdnaya vodkas and big fur hats.

No more Lo Mein, Peking duck, General Fong Chicken, Bok Choi or powdered rhinocerous horn. There will be no more Tai Chi, Kung fu or ninja turtles for me. Acupuncture is a no-no.

And above all I promise to never buy another PEUGEOT!!!!

Ridiculous. We'll be sending back the Statue of Liberty next.

[DJames]

Business, politics and life, in general, make strange bedfellows   and IMHO, state legislatures and other organizations that want to pass resolutions to ban imports from France, Russia, etc., are making much ado about nothing -- while they are at it, why not ban Canadians?  I think it's all silly, but I respect an individual's right to express his opinion whether I agree with it or not.

Let's get back to Fazio.  I'm trying to learn and his mindset makes no sense to me.  

[Jim_Kennedy]

Jeff Goldman,
I think that Bay Hill had very hard greens and mushy approaches for last year's tournament. Not a good combination.

As for TF, I think he is right on about greens being where it's at but I don't think you should sacrifice strategies to get to them. Regular players benefit by having multiple ways to get on or near the green while better players will need/use fewer of these options.
Regular players aren't hitting 14 greens in regulation so tough pin locations on undulating greens are actually harder for the better players to stick from farther away than the poorer player with his chip or pitch.

Fazio said: "I think it's been exciting for golf. I think the public loves it. I think the public coming out here and watching those players on that practice tee and hitting those golf balls 280, 300 yards in the air, I think it's great for golf."
Well, he's right. People eat that stuff up. Count the heads standing around the practice range at the next Tour event.  
Consequently, there is a place for 7,600 yard courses, just not every place. The forgotten part of the equation is that most players don't need this much yardage. 6,600 yds. are enough to satisfy 95% of the golfing public and 6,000 would suffice if the greens were really tough. Build high quality courses at this length and people will play them. If you don't attract the "longballer" well, not to worry, you don't need him to make money and he's often too picky to please anyway.  

As for the classics, just leave them be. If you want to experience them at their best dust off your realwoods, polish up your musclebacks, regrip your bullseye and go out and enjoy. If you want to try and rip an oldie-but-goodie apart then fuel up your titanium rocket launcher, load up with wedges and put a branding-iron-mid-length-belly-putter in your bag and have at it. What is so hard about that?  
    

[ForkaB]

Jim K

You are unofficially on double secret probation for posting such a thoughtful and reasonable post on a thread which contains the word "Fazio."  The fact that you are right may be a mitigating circumstance when deciding on further punishment.

[Tim_Weiman]

Rich Goodale:

Fazio's position is like that of the Fed Chairman. What he says can have a great deal of influence. Fazio should not have said what he did about length being good for the game. When he makes statements like that it will be interpreted as an endorsement for the idea that every course should be 7600 yards.

Jim Kennedy's comments sound very reasonable, but Fazio's comment will only serve to further obscure what Jim calls "the forgotten part of the equation".

[ForkaB]

Tim

Fazio is more like the CEO of a largish sized multi-regional bank (BofA?) than Alan Greenspan.  You very much overstate his influence. The golf industry is highly fragmented (although Titleist is enforcing some consolidation in the golf ball segment).  Fazio is just one of the many serious competitors in the GCA segment, but he is in no way dominant in the way that Microsoft is in its segment, for example.  The fact that he is not particularly articulate further diminishes the impact of what he says and writes.  Don't get too hot and bothered about what he says.

[TEPaul]

Tim Weiman said:

"Fazio should not have said what he did about length being good for the game. When he makes statements like that it will be interpreted as an endorsement for the idea that every course should be 7600 yards."

Look--that's precisely the main point about Fazio and his approach to modern architecture and even the classic architecture of the older courses. Fazio is in a position to influence architecture and the immediate future of it. He has to know and understand that. And he has to understand how statements like these are influencing people.

Other architects that are as well known as Tom Fazio are just not taking his tact regarding this distance problem. Dye says he has to build longer courses today but he directly calls on the responsibiliy of the ruling bodies in golf to do something about it so that doesn't have to be. Nicklaus is saying the same thing. So are others in the business. Ron Prichard is incredibly vocal on this point and if you put him in a forum situation with the USGA, for instance, it's almost impossible to restrain his adamancy on this point. Obviously we can see how outspoken Kelly Blake Moran is on this subject.

That's what Tom Fazio is failing to do--he's sending the wrong message or mixed messages on this subject--I've seen it myself in public situations (forum).

There's nothing wrong whatsoever about calling him on that. This is not Fazio bashing at all---this is merely criticism of a position which many believe very strongly about.

Fazio can continue to say he's giving golfers what they want and in a way he may be right about that but many believe he has a larger responsibility to protect the future of architecture by attempting to use his position and his knowledge of architecture to lead and reform public opinion for the good of golf.

Can anyone really make a good case that yearly increases in distance and the need to design longer and longer courses is a good thing? Not a single thoughtful architect has EVER said such a thing. Not even close--exactly the opposite in fact. So what's Fazio doing by saying or even implying that distance is good for the game?

Could it seem that he might be calling the public wrong about what they want? Of course it could--but that's what leading and attempting to influence others in what preserving  architecture is all about. Others in the business are doing that without much hesitation it seems--so what's that matter with Tom Fazio?

Tom Fazio is all about business. The interesting thing is he doesn't even remotely deny that--matter of fact he brags about it in a sort of humorous and charming way in public forums. I know--I've seen him do it.

All in all it's just not a good message for the future of architecture or the architecture that's out there. Fazio, of all people should understand this better and change his position and the message he's sending.

But that might be bad for business--it might be unpopular in some circles. I can understand that but I certainly don't agree with it when the subject is the future of architecture and the future of those courses that are being now called obsolete.

[ForkaB]

TEP

Vis a vis, TF accepting the advances in technology, didn't your pal Flynn say something to the effect that 8000 yards courses might someday be "needed", and backed that up by promoting flexibility in design?  Did I miss the Flynn article where he advocated rolling back the ODS or COR? (Yes, I know these acronyms postdated his existence.  Try to think laterally here...).

You are famously (and rightly) on record as saying that GCA is a great big world and we ought to all learn to get along together.  Why can't that admirable world vision incorporate Fazio and Doak, 8000 yard courses and 6000 yard ones, "strategic" and "penal" holes and courses, Merion and the New Improved Torrey Pines, parkland courses and true links, and even exclusionary clubs and open ones?

As the AwsHuckster is often wont to say, (and I say now in trepidation of the rage of the opportunistically virulent anti-grenouille lobby) Vive la difference!

[TEPaul]

Rich, you know, in my opinion you really just don't get it!

Do you actually think what Flynn said was some kind of endorsement for increased distance? It was just the opposite. Flynn was not in any conceivable way saying that increased distance in architecture was a good thing (as Fazio appears to be doing).

Of course Flynn built "elasiticity" into his architecture. He thought, as does Pete Dye, that would have to be done to preserve their architecture from becoming obsolete due to the very thing they feared from the regulatory bodies (failure to control the ball). Does that mean they're advocating increased distance? Of course not!

But you somehow think that was some kind of endorsement for increased distance from them? It's unbelievable that you can think that or read that into their remarks. I really do wonder about your ability to read things properly sometimes, if you're reading them at all.

I do like difference in architecture but not something so  corrupting that it makes perfectly good architecture obsolete to the playing of the game at various levels.

Flynn and most of those architects back then were railing against increased distance and somehow you're failing to recognize that fact. The regulatory bodies should have listened to them more carefully back then and we wouldn't be in this present technological dilemma.

The regulatory bodies might be that much less likely to listen now with someone like Fazio actually saying he thinks increased distance is a good thing for the game.

He says he thinks it's a good thing but he doesn't know that it's a good thing for some of the older architecture. That's what he's said on the quotes from him on this thread. How in Christ's name can he say something that obtuse?

Isn't it obvious that the answer is to control the distance the ball goes? It is obvious. But he's advocating the opposite of what every other thoughtful architect advocated.

Perhaps, Tom Fazio wants to obsolete older architecture!! If he managed to do that this way by actually advocating longer and longer courses as a good thing where would you suppose hei might think that would leave his architecture in the future? Did you ever think of that Rich?

Obviously not!

[TEPaul]

"Did I miss the Flynn article where he advocated rolling back the ODS or COR? (Yes, I know these acronyms postdated his existence.  Try to think laterally here...)."

Rich:

You most certainly did miss them (they were in the USGA's own Green Section reports in the late 1920s!!). But that doesn't surprise me at all that you missed them. If you'd read them and understood them you could see what he was saying as clear as crystal. He even listed the numerous negative reasons and what would happen if distance was NOT controlled.

If there were enough people like you (and Fazio) around back then no wonder the regulatory bodies didn't listen to reason.

[ForkaB]

"I do like difference in architecture but not something so  corrupting that it makes perfectly good architecture obsolete to the playing of the game at various levels."

TomP

What exactly do you mean by this?  I can't think of any "perfectly good architecture" which is in any way "obsolete" for any "level" of the game.  Please enlighten me (and the rest of us) so we can avoid these "corrupting" places in the future.

Thanking you in advance

Rich

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I agree on everything you posted,
except the Fazio part  

[Doug Siebert]

Regular players aren't hitting 14 greens in regulation so tough pin locations on undulating greens are actually harder for the better players to stick from farther away than the poorer player with his chip or pitch.

That makes a lot of sense to me.  I really have never had a problem with playing to holes cut close to the edge, it adds a lot of interest to your shot, even when cut close to a fairly benign side of the green.  I wouldn't have a problem with golf evolving to consider a hole cut 3' from the edge of the green not being abnormal, so long as it wasn't cut where's a slope so it is too difficult to avoid running past the hole and off the green.  It'd even be a way of supporting slower greens, who needs a 12 stimp if you putt off the green when you roll it more than 3' by, when you cheat too far away from the edge on your approach and leave yourself a 50' putt it won't be made any easier on a slower green due to not wanting to make your second putt from out of the fringe -- I've never tried it, but I imagine a 3 1/2 footer through 6" of fringe is no gimme.  My dad hates putting through the fringe so much he'd probably chip it!

[TEPaul]

"I do like difference in architecture but not something so  corrupting that it makes perfectly good architecture obsolete to the playing of the game at various levels."

TomP

What exactly do you mean by this?  I can't think of any "perfectly good architecture" which is in any way "obsolete" for any "level" of the game.  Please enlighten me (and the rest of us) so we can avoid these "corrupting" places in the future.

Thanking you in advance

Rich,

What I meant by that remark quoted in the beginning of this post is the ever increasing distance the ball goes and Fazio's apparent condoning of it. Would you not agree that direction will "obsolete" architecture at some point at various levels--if it hasn't to a degree already?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()