Mike H:
Let me straighten you out on something. My reviews on bunkershot.com are done without any payment. They are completely free. I also do not solicit or involved in any manner, shape or form with the drumming up of business for the site.
I do keep a wall between my comments and what the Website hopes to accomplish.
Do yourself a big favor Mike -- don't open your mouth until you know what the hell you're talking about.
This is the old turn around tactic. When a person raises a legitimate issue instead of dealing with the issue there are those who wish to turn it back on the person raising the point.
Mike -- send your vitae to Karl and the boys at 1600 Pennsy Avenue -- that style works great there!
Tom Doak:
Please -- enough of the Biblical references and all that other related BS!
My point was NEVER about the folks named -- Ron Whitten
included -- being anything less than honorable people. It's not about the person it's about the standing / credibility of the publication.
Tom -- Digest proclaims itself the key magazine in the industry. Let's accept that for the sake of argument. When people write under their banner I do think there's a responsibility to the reader that the people doing the reviewing have some degree of meaningful separation from those doing the designing, building of the courses.
When someone is "chief architecture critic" for such a publication I would like to get from that person the fullest range of comments without me, the reader, having to wonder has the critic actually been on the payroll of the people he is supposed to be reviewing. Even recusing oneself does not shake the possibility that a future review may be tilted or slanted in the favor of the relatinship that existed previously.
The problem in the golf industry is that sometimes people value the relationships more than the broader issues at hand. The average reader doesn't know who was holding a cocktail glass next to other key bigwigs in the industry.
I'm not naive or a fool Tom. I fully understand that relationships develop throughout one's lifetime. Nothing wrong with that. I do expect that people who critique keep a reasonable distance so that their professional standing -- whether directly conflicted or just the perception -- is not an issue.
I'll say this again -- if you want to be an umpire (critic) that's fine -- you can't play the game as a player at the same time.
Jeff B:
The issue has merit -- OK, so it's not life and death but for people who want their work assessed without complications it would be helpful if the magazines took a clear stand. If the issue of $$ then pay the critics more or simply tell them to take their pursuit of design / consulting totally outside the magazine.
Paul Turner:
Please help me understand how a 1-10 checklist equates with one's function as chief architectural critic, while at the same time, having a paid consulting role with active architects. Paul -- appreciate the sniping but you need to come up and smell the coffee.