Is playing a vast majority of an architects designs necessary to judge his work?

[Patrick_Mucci]

AG Crockett,

For a bright guy, that's one of the dumbest remarks you could make.

If I remove or add a sentence to any document or statement, you can change the intent.

But, he didn't.

He typed it as it appears, and thus, I can't guess at what interpretations might exist had he removed or added a sentence.

Please tell me that your young children purloined your computer and posted under your name.

[A.G._Crockett]

I quit...

[JakaB]

Is RTJ the king of 4's and 5's (on the doak scale that is!)?

Sam,

No it's Ross...

[T_MacWood]

Pat
Back to the subject at hand. You never did answer my question. I've played NGLA, Yale, Chicago, St.Louis and Old White. Walked The Creek and  Piping  Rock.

Based on your numbers I'm at 70% (you are at 40%). I reckon I've read more books and articles on Macdonald as well...I think even you would concede that. Am I more qualified to judge Macdonald than you? Why or why not?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Talking to you is like talking to a wall.  You still dodge the intent of my post by spinning it into what you want it to mean.

INTENT ?  Who knows what your intent was ?
I can only be guided by what you wrote.
And now you want to claim that that's not what you meant.
How convenient.[/color]  

Giving an opinion about a golf architect is not nuclear science.  I don't need to go to ClinicalTrials.gov to find out how much "research" I need to do to form a qualified opinion on an architect's work.  This isn't science, it is art to me.  It is a craft, not an operation.  If you think of golf course architecture as a science then I could see how you like the formulaic works of some of the modern wanna-bees.

In case you didn't know it, Medicine and the practice of Medicine is not a science, but an art.  [/color]

When you CAPITALIZE my words you give the words a different tone, so just try quoting me instead of CAPITALIZING which makes it seem as if I am yellling those words.  You should know what CAPITALIZING words means on an internet discussion group by now considering you have a billion posts on here.

No it's not.  That's just your opinion.
Capitalizing them just made them more evident to AG Crockett.  The words you typed speak for themselves, despite your attempts to change their meaning and intent.[/color]

You said...

"n keeping with your thinking, one with little or no experience at playing an architect's work has equal weight with one who has played the VAST MAJORITY of the architect's work.

Does that sound logical, in any evaluative process ?"

I have consistently said that I do think playing more courses CAN and MOST LIKELY will help one come to a more sound conclusion on an architect's work.  WHat I have been saying repeatedly, is that I disagree with those that try to diminish a person's opinion based on the amounts of courses one has played alone.  Why can you not get this?  I have said it over and over.  

Then, I'll try to explain it to you, since you have no concept of a particular being erroneously expanded to become a global tenet.

How can you see 1 % or 2 % of an architect's work and based on your extremely limited observations make global, finite statements, evaluating and qualifying the other 98 to 99 % of his work you haven't seen ?  Tell me you understand that.
Failure to understand that will tell me all I need to know.[/color]

Common sense?  Wow, coming from someone that can't think outside of their own box is pretty comical.  If it doesn't fit in your frame of thinking then it must be destroyed.
That's what you'd like to believe because you can't grasp the fallacy of taking a minute sampling and expanding it to make finite broad based evaluations and conclusions on the entire body of work.  I'd have a battle of wits with you, but I won't engage an unarmed man.[/color]

I challenge you to find where I said it was ALL about access and funds.  Seriously, show me where I said that.  You can't, because I never said it was ALL about access and funds.  I said that it plays a part in one's ability to see courses in their lifetime, I never said this topic was ALL about it.
Which part, 1 %, 2 %, 10 % or the vast majority ?[/color]

Playing 1 %, 2 % or 10 % of an architect's work is too narrow of a data base from which to form finite general conclusions regarding his entire body of work, especially when the architect's body of work spans 50-60 years.

Do you AGREE or DISAGREE with that statement ?"

Obtuse?  Wow, this is a lot of name calling for an adult with "common sense".

You may want to reread your posts to see who began the name calling.[/color]  

I DISAGREE with that statement.  It is not too narrow if one has WALKED or SEEN, or WATCHED a golf course in person as well.  

Oh, so now you're going to conveniently amend your statements and your position to include other factors.
How disengenuous is that ?[/color]

I also consider if they have studied the writings and opinions of experts of their work.  These are aso factors.  So it depends on the individual.

And, how would you know what they've studied ?
Sounds like you're beging to try to squirm out of your position.[/color]

That is why I do not choose to publicly shame people for not playing as many courses as I have.  Maybe, just maybe, they might notice something or learn something from a discourse that isn't seeped in forcefeeding agendas that you and other spew at them.

Would you cite where people were publiclly shamed ?
You keep refering to it, but can never provide examples of it.
Perhaps that's your spin.[/color]


You didn't ask any questions I posed in my last post, nor do you answer many other people's post on this topic.  You want to do all the questioning and seek to destroy and spin people's opinions that don't jive with your line of thought because it obviously makes you uncomfortable.  I personally have had enough of it and will do my best to hold my tongue out of fear of joining your namecalling fiasco.  I have gone down this road with you before and it's all too obvious that you are still as closed minded about things as in the past.


That's right Jeff, you keep insisting that posting the words you typed is SPIN.  You typed them, not me.  
Now stand behind them or admit you're wrong.

Again, look and see who began the personal tone first.
Are we to be so obtuse as to not see to whom you directed invectives toward ?[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Pat
Back to the subject at hand. You never did answer my question. I've played NGLA, Yale, Chicago, St.Louis and Old White. Walked The Creek and  Piping  Rock.

Based on your numbers I'm at 70% (you are at 40%). I reckon I've read more books and articles on Macdonald as well...I think even you would concede that. Am I more qualified to judge Macdonald than you?

Why or why not?



First, I wouldn't place walking in the same category as playing
Second, how many cummulative rounds of play do you have at these courses ?

Is your walking The Creek once, equivalent to playing it a dozen or more times ?

Is your playing NGLA once this September equivalent to my playing it 100 times in all conditions, under all circumstances, over many years ?

Is your walking Piping Rock equal to the times I've played it ?

Perhaps you can logically answer your own question.[/color]

[SPDB]

Pat - my response slipped to page 5, please note.

[T_MacWood]

Pat
So another words its not the percentage of courses after all, but the total number of rounds? Very interesting. I would concede you have a much better understanding of Piping Rock and the NGLA. My advantage is being exposed to nearly twice as many Macdonald designs as you...as well as a better understanding of his thoughts and ideas, and lost designs, and the thoughts and ideas of his mentors. Advantage MacWood.

[JakaB]

Mucci is far too modest to toot his own horn...so I will add that Mucci is a far better ball striker thus allowing him to both see and feel a greater shot selection...Advantage Mucci..

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Nice try, but, it doesn't work.

You haven't played twice as many MacDonalds as I have.
That's another example of your intellectual dishonesty.

When two people have played approximately the same number of courses, if not the same courses, the number of times one has played them becomes a material factor.  It's called.....
Experience.

You again, avoided my question.

Who's more qualified to evaluate NGLA the individual who plays it once, or the individual who's played it over 100 times ?

Who's more qualified to evaluate The Creek, someone who's walked it once, or someone who's played it dozens of times ?

Who's more qualfied to evaluate Piping Rock, someone who's walked it once, or someone who's played it numerous times ?

[Joe Hancock]

Who's more qualified to evaluate NGLA the individual who plays it once, or the individual who's played it over 100 times ?

Who's more qualified to evaluate The Creek, someone who's walked it once, or someone who's played it dozens of times ?

Who's more qualfied to evaluate Piping Rock, someone who's walked it once, or someone who's played it numerous times ?

Pat,
Just because one has played a great deal of rounds at a particular course doesn't mean they have the mental capacity to be evaluative in a meaningful manner. Perhaps the one that has seen less has actually learned more because of superior mental capabilities.

Perhaps,

Joe

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joe Hancock,

Who's more qualified to evaluate NGLA the individual who plays it once, or the individual who's played it over 100 times ?

Who's more qualified to evaluate The Creek, someone who's walked it once, or someone who's played it dozens of times ?

Who's more qualfied to evaluate Piping Rock, someone who's walked it once, or someone who's played it numerous times ?

Pat,
Just because one has played a great deal of rounds at a particular course doesn't mean they have the mental capacity to be evaluative in a meaningful manner. Perhaps the one that has seen less has actually learned more because of superior mental capabilities.

Then again, the one who has played more rounds may be the one with the superior mental capabilities, exponentially increasing his evaluative skills and credibility.[/color]

[Joe Hancock]

Joe Hancock,

Who's more qualified to evaluate NGLA the individual who plays it once, or the individual who's played it over 100 times ?

Who's more qualified to evaluate The Creek, someone who's walked it once, or someone who's played it dozens of times ?

Who's more qualfied to evaluate Piping Rock, someone who's walked it once, or someone who's played it numerous times ?

Pat,
Just because one has played a great deal of rounds at a particular course doesn't mean they have the mental capacity to be evaluative in a meaningful manner. Perhaps the one that has seen less has actually learned more because of superior mental capabilities.

Then again, the one who has played more rounds may be the one with the superior mental capabilities, exponentially increasing his evaluative skills and credibility.[/color]

I realize that. I was pointing out the flaw with your premise. A solid argument shouldn't fail so easily.

Joe

[T_MacWood]

Pat
I'm just josh'in you. The position you and Matt Ward have argued is pretty humorous. Matt has seen more golf courses than Gene Sarazen and thus argues he is uniquely capable of judgement based upon heavy lifting...unfortuantely he has difficulty putting together or articulating any judgement. You prefer the percentage of designs measurement...that is until you are subjected to your own criteria.

I say we are all entitled to our opinions and judgements....even JB Kavanaugh. We can then agree or disagree, and support our positions or not.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Pat
I'm just josh'in you. The position you and Matt Ward have argued is pretty humorous. [/color]

My position differs from Matt's.  I'm surprised that you've chosen to lump our diverse opinions together.

Matt has seen more golf courses than Gene Sarazen and thus argues he is uniquely capable of judgement based upon heavy lifting...unfortuantely he has difficulty putting together or articulating any judgement.

You prefer the percentage of designs measurement...that is until you are subjected to your own criteria.

That's not true, I never advocated a minimum finite number or percentage of courses.  What I did say is that you can't play a very limited number of an architect's courses, 1 %, 2 % or 10 % and from that limited sample, make a definitive statement that applies to the 98 or 99 % of the courses you haven't played.  That you can't generalize on the entire body of his work based on such a limited amount of information.

I say we are all entitled to our opinions and judgements....even JB Kavanaugh. We can then agree or disagree, and support our positions or not.

I agree with that.
Especially when it applies to a specific golf course under discussion.
But, to apply one's opinions to golf courses that they've never played, seems dubious at best.[/color]

Joe Hancock,

There are no flaws.
The position remains solid.

Only the objector's are flawed and shakey  

[Joe Hancock]

Joe Hancock,

There are no flaws.
The position remains solid.

Only the objector's are flawed and shakey  

Well argued, counselor!

Joe

[SPDB]

Pat - I worked hard on composing my list, and, accordingly, I think I deserve a response to the point I made in post #96. I can understand you not wanting to address it as it removes the veil, but try your hardest.  

Also, what would you say if the evaluator who has played the course a number of times starts talking about features that don't exist.

To take a purely hypothetical example. Suppose this evaluator talked about a skyline green, when the green was backdropped by 150 ft trees? Would that give you reason to doubt this person's evaluative ability or, more bluntly, would that disqualify the person from talking about the course and/or architect?

[Patrick_Mucci]

This is a post I made last week:

The problem I've always had with RTJ courses is that they are so mindless. There is little I've found in his architecture that is really thought provoking.

These are your words.

Would you show me where you EXCLUDED any of his courses ?

Now, could you provide us with a list of the RTJ courses you've played ?

Thanks[/color]

[SPDB]

Pat - You're really grasping at straws now. If you can't respond to post #96 with a reasonable answer, just say so instead of making yourself look foolish.
Please look to the previous page, where I listed the RTJ courses.

[Matt_Ward]

Mr. MacWood:

What's "humorous" is your inability to read what's been mentioned countless times by my previous postings.

You are incorrect on what I said -- again -- please re-read what I actually wrote -- not what you spin. I said playing courses AND cogent analysis must go hand in hand. You are quite good on analysis based on the comforts of your living room -- let me know when you do the former and "hit the road."

I've offered my reasons in serious detail numerous times on the nature of Tom Fazio and his architectural contributions / style / patterns. My "judgements" have been made -- it is YOU who have either failed to comprehend them or simply ignore them.

Classic MacWood-itis -- turning around a situation from what was never said then claiming it was and as predictable as the sun rise proclaiming the non-answer as some sort of proof.

Fantastic gift you have.

Tom -- enter the political arena -- you're wasting your time here!

[Norbert P]

 "Is playing a vast majority of an architects designs necessary to judge his work?"

No, but it would be desirable.

  I think it comes down to how much thought goes into the examinations.    

  If I say a *waterfall is beautiful, isn't it more beautiful if I understand the processes of how that waterfall and its surroundings were created by nature?

 (* I mean a natural waterfall; not a schlockerfall.)

[Jeff Fortson]

I say we are all entitled to our opinions and judgements..... We can then agree or disagree, and support our positions or not.

Pat,

It is as simple as the above statement.  I am done with the back and forth because it is going nowhere.  I have never changed positions or "spun" my own words, you have.  

I have always enjoyed your insights on NGLA and some other great gems.  I'm sure your vast experience in playing them has helped you draw some conclusions on those courses that others haven't come to due to your experience.  But using that to discount others opinions is where I disagree with you.

I want to read things here that I can enjoy and learn from.  I don't care how many courses SPDB has played of RTJ's, nor do I think he needs to name them all to have his opinion matter or be heard.  (By the way, he did name them all and I can't believe that what he posted isn't enough for him to have a valid opinion by your standards; MINDBOGGLING!). You can go ahead and ignore whatever he or others have to say if you aren't learning anything.  Interrogating others about how many courses they played and then accusing them of not playing enough courses to offer an opinion is not in the spirit of free discussion.  Why not ask the poster why they fell that way, instead of asking how many courses they have played?  Then you could try to set them straight with your own vast experience.

I don't have the patience to continue this charade so I'll leave on a note of goodwill.  I hope you have a healthy, wonderful holiday season and that the golf gods treat you nicely in the upcoming year.  

Take care.


Jeff F.

[Patrick_Mucci]

SPDB,

From memory - no doubt leaving out some.

Bellerive, Old Warson, Spyglassmindless?[/color]
Edina         not a RTJ design[/color]
Hazeltine, Mauna Kea, Black Hall
Broadmoor not a RTJ design[/color]
Carambola, Seven Oaks, Incline
Celebrationnot listed[/color]
Grenelefe     routing only[/color]
Palmas Del Mar not an RTJ design[/color]
Eisenhower Pk (2)
CCNC not an RTJ design[/color]
Firestone which one ?[/color]
Rockrimmon, Heron Lakes, Duke, Sugarbush, Tuxedo,
West Point, Elkhorn, Turnberry Isle - 2
Green Spring VHCnot an RTJ 18[/color]
Lyman Orchards, Montauk Downs
Midvaleco-design, Stanley Thomson[/color]
North Hills, Patterson, Cornell, Ponte Vedra Inn
Whatever Crystal Springs is called nownot an RTJ design[/color]
Port Royal, St. George's, Half Moon

W/Rulewich
Metedeconk, Crumpin Fox, Fox Hollow

Isn't Metedeconk recognized as strictly RW ?
You're down to about 30 courses.
As they teach you in law school, false in one, false in many.[/color]

Not to mention courses that bear his indelible mark (many of which should properly be referred to as his):

Upper Montclair,,Baltusrol, CCof Fairfield, Oakland Hills, Firestone,  Ponte Vedra Inn, Mid Ocean, Riddel's Bay
Castle Harbour, Congressional
Green Spring valley (noted above), The International

I suppose these too are mindless in your esteemed opinion. You're either joking or just don't get it, perhaps you need to go back and play these courses again, if you've ever played them to begin with.[/color]

Now address my post please.

I did several times, and I'll do it again.

When you say: "The problem I've ALWAYS had with RTJ courses is that THEY are so mindless.  There is little I find in HIS ARCHITECTURE that is thought provoking."

You haven't excluded any of his courses, you've lumped them all together.  The word, "THEY" conveys a generic sense.
The word, "COURSES" conveys a plural or all encompassing sense.  

When you say that there is little you find in "HIS ARCHITECTURE, it conveys a global meaning, all of his architecture, not a small portion, not some, but all of his architecture.

You wrote the words, now stand up and live by them,
or recant them, if your ego permits such an admission.

If you want to try to Clinton your way out of this by telling us it depends upon what the definition of is, is, or what the definition of they, is, or "his architecture" is,  then I  understand you're trying to get out from under your own words.

I guess "his" courses were so mindless that you didn't even know you weren't playing them.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

jeff,

I have always enjoyed your insights on NGLA and some other great gems.  I'm sure your vast experience in playing them has helped you draw some conclusions on those courses that others haven't come to due to your experience.  

But using that to discount others opinions is where I disagree with you.

I've asked you numerous times to CITE exactly where I said that, and you continually fail to answer the question.
Yet, you continue to repeat your allegation.
Either provide a quote where I stated what you allege, or recant your allegation.  That's fair, isn't it ?[/color]

I want to read things here that I can enjoy and learn from.  I don't care how many courses SPDB has played of RTJ's, nor do I think he needs to name them all to have his opinion matter or be heard.  (By the way, he did name them all and I can't believe that what he posted isn't enough for him to have a valid opinion by your standards; MINDBOGGLING!). You can go ahead and ignore whatever he or others have to say if you aren't learning anything.  Interrogating others about how many courses they played and then accusing them of not playing enough courses to offer an opinion is not in the spirit of free discussion.  Why not ask the poster why they fell that way, instead of asking how many courses they have played?  Then you could try to set them straight with your own vast experience.

It would appear that SPDB has played fewer courses then you stated, which was 50 I believe.  What you continue to fail to understand is, how can you play 6-8 % of someones work, work that spaned 60 years and make finite judgements about the other 92-94 % of the work that you've never seen ?

It's foolish at best.

Had SPDB rendered his opinion on specific courses that would be valid commentary, but to render his opinion of 420 courses that he's never played is ...... absurd.[/color]

I don't have the patience to continue this charade so I'll leave on a note of goodwill.  

Because you don't understand the logic of it, don't call it a charade.[/color]

I hope you have a healthy, wonderful holiday season and that the golf gods treat you nicely in the upcoming year.  

The same to you and your family.[/color]

[George Pazin]

So 7 pages of arguing could have been avoided if Sean had simply inserted "I've played" in his statement about RTJ?