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

[SPDB]

Why is this never an issue when somebody expresses a positive opinion of an architect based on 1-2 courses played?

[Matt_Ward]

SPDB:

Because the folks who opine on the big three -- Mr. TF, JN and Rees are the loudest moaners on that group's collective failure to design any dynamic courses.

Let me ask you a question -- why is it that people who play so little have a major league hard on against those who do?

One further question -- why is that people who play so little believe they and they alone can provide cogent analysis from such a limited sample size?

[SPDB]

Because the folks who opine on the big three -- Mr. TF, JN and Rees are the loudest moaners on that group's collective failure to design any dynamic courses.

Surely the opposite has happened, but perhaps you missed it, or weren't sensitive to it?

Let me ask you a question -- why is it that people who play so little have a major league hard on against those who do?

I've asked you this before, can you cite me, anywhere, where this has manifested itself? I'm certain that what you perceive as a "major league hard on against" you, is really just their frustration at being told their opinion is somehow invalid based on their experience with the architect. You've done a fairly good job illustrating contradictions in peoples posts. But the assumption that they would feel differently if they saw architect "A's"  work in Utah might just be wishful thinking. It helps to illustrate a point based on what the critics announce is a shortcoming, rather than say they'd feel differently because you do.

One further question -- why is that people who play so little believe they and they alone can provide cogent analysis from such a limited sample size?

Another generalization that I'm not certain I can respond to, simply because I think, while it may be true (though not to the degree you express), it is more likely  a) deliberately exaggerated, and b) a threat to your vast storehouse of experience.

Who has expressed this view that "they and they alone" can provide analysis? Please no exaggerated abstractions.  

[T_MacWood]

Would playing Notre Dame only, give one a sense of C&C's work ?  Yet, it represents about 10 % of their work.

I’m not crazy about ND, but based on ND, Sand Hills and Friars Head I hold C&C in high regard.  We don’t live in a vacuum…if I had only played ND would my desire to play the world renown Sand Hills and Friars Head be dimished?

Would playing Crestmont only, give one a sense of Ross's work ?

If you were a numbskull and weren’t aware of the existence of Pinehurst #2, Seminole, Inverness, and Oakland Hills you might underestimate his talent.

Would playing North Jersey and White Beeches, only, give one a sense of Travis's work ?  Yet, it represents about 10 % of his work.

Not much, seeing that both have been altered. I’m not sure there is anything of Travis left at White Beeches and Ken Dye has worked his magic at North Jersey.

Would playing Alpine, Shackamaxon, Forest Hills, Suburban and Brook Hollow, only, give one a sense of AWT's work ?
Yet, it represents about 10 % of his work.

If you were living under rock and not aware of Tilly’s resume of great designs and not aware of the changes to these courses you might be fooled.

Would playing Spring Lake, only, give one a sense of Thomas's work ?  Yet, it represents about 10 % of his work.

You should put Spring Lake up with your Tilly list. Little Marion would be a better example for those who have never heard of Riviera, Bel-Air or LACC.

Would playing Kentucky Dam Village, Palmetto and Bayou de Siard, only, give one a sense of Perry Maxwell's work ?
Yet, it represents about 10 % of his work.

No, but maybe a sense of Press et al.

Would playing Everglades and Roselle, only, give one a sense of Raynor's work ?
Yet, it represents about 10 % of his work.

Before or after these courses were remodeled?

What about who is doing the heavy lifting? If the person seeing a high percentage is an inartistic dumb dumb who cares how many courses he sees? There are some evaluators I trust implicitly, others I take with a large grain of salt. Should we also consider those who play so many courses (and far too many mediocre courses) that their senses are dulled?

[Patrick_Mucci]

SPDB,

Pat - Your lost. You've shifted the argument in order to (try to) support the error in your logic. You've now brought in competency as an factor independent of quantity, and in doing so have confused your own premise.

Once again, you're wrong.
AG Crockett and BCrosby brought up competence.
Sorry to let the air out of your balloon, but you need to read these posts more carefully.[/color]

I may play 2X the courses of Doak, Klein and Crenshaw, put together, and still not be as competent as they are.  These men have studied golf course design, its history and its architects.

They studied by exposing themselves to as many golf courses as possible, especially those of the masters.[/color]

Before you changed the topic, we were talking about the ability to express an opinion based on levels of experience of a particular architect. You've introduced an appeal to authority, where none is needed. In such a subjective art as golf architecture there is no such thing as an "expert." And so introducing Mssrs. Doak, Klein and Crenshaw as such is irrelevant to our discussion.

No it's not, it just exposes the foolishness of your position.

You've devined that in playing less then 10 % of RTJ's courses that his courses, meaning all of his courses, are
"so mindless".   It's one of the most ridiculous and reckless posts I've ever read.   And, you continue to sit their defending your assinine statement and position.  

The words past your lips and you can't retract them so you're trying to justify them, but, you're not going to win this debate.[/color]

Furthermore, no one (except you) has mentioned anything about an "architectural eye" or ability to spot characteristic features. It has nothing to do with the argument.
Of course it does.
It has everything to do with the discussion.
It's a critical factor.

And, I didn't bring it up.  Go back and reread AG Crockett's and BCrosby's posts.

You don't possess the architectural eye or the talent to examine 10 % or less of an architects entire body of work and devine everything about the architect's entire body of work.

Had you said, " I played ABC golf course 1 time or 10 times and I think the following,.... okay, that's your opinion, but to play an extremely limited number of the architect's golf courses and make a quantum leap extrapolating and evaluating the entire body of his work based on your limited exposure is ludicrous, and you know it.

You just want to win the argument, and ......
It ain't gonna happen.

You've got egg on your face, just wipe it off and let's go to the next topic.

[/color]

Tom Macwood,

So predispositon, rather then the ability of the examiner are the critical factors in your mind.

Do you know that there are people who don't know a thing about Seminole.  Never heard of it, don't know where it is.

It's nice when all of the answers to the test are supplied to you prior to the test, but, isn't that being intellectually dishonest,.... cheating ?[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

if I had only played ND would my desire to play the world renown Sand Hills and Friars Head be dimished?
Possibly.[/color]

Would playing Crestmont only, give one a sense of Ross's work ?

If you were a numbskull and weren’t aware of the existence of Pinehurst #2, Seminole, Inverness, and Oakland Hills you might underestimate his talent.

Tom, lot's of people never heard of those golf courses.
Two friends of mine joined Inverness and the members at their home course didn't know a thing about it.  You're talking about predisposition and not personal experience
[/color]

Would playing North Jersey and White Beeches, only, give one a sense of Travis's work ?  Yet, it represents about 10 % of his work.

Not much, seeing that both have been altered. I’m not sure there is anything of Travis left at White Beeches and Ken Dye has worked his magic at North Jersey.

How would a golfer know that ?
How do golfers know what's been change, when and by whom.
You can't detail the changes that occured to every feature at Hollywood over the years, how would you expect others to know every detail of every golf course ?

Do you think every golfer researches, to the nth degree, the golf course they've been invited to play.[/color]

Would playing Alpine, Shackamaxon, Forest Hills, Suburban and Brook Hollow, only, give one a sense of AWT's work ?
Yet, it represents about 10 % of his work.

If you were living under rock and not aware of Tilly’s resume of great designs and not aware of the changes to these courses you might be fooled.

A great number of people playing Alpine don't know who designed it.  You continue to make lofty assumptions regarding the data base and knowledge that people possess.
You're out of touch, but can't see it.[/color]

Would playing Spring Lake, only, give one a sense of Thomas's work ?  Yet, it represents about 10 % of his work.

You should put Spring Lake up with your Tilly list. Little Marion would be a better example for those who have never heard of Riviera, Bel-Air or LACC.

Spring Lake is a Thomas golf course.
Tell me the exact extent of Tillinghast's remodeling work at Spring Lake, and have you ever played it ?[/color]

Would playing Kentucky Dam Village, Palmetto and Bayou de Siard, only, give one a sense of Perry Maxwell's work ?
Yet, it represents about 10 % of his work.

No, but maybe a sense of Press et al.

I'll guarantee you that you couldn't tell who did what by playing one, or all three of them.[/color]

Would playing Everglades and Roselle, only, give one a sense of Raynor's work ?
Yet, it represents about 10 % of his work.

Before or after these courses were remodeled?


And, how would the golfer know they've been remodeled, and exactly where they've been remodeled ?

With all of your expertise and all of your research, you can't tell when and where, when and by whom, specific features at Hollywood and other courses have been remodeled, so how is the average person, or even a skilled person supposed to devine what's been touched, and what's been left intact ?
[/color]

What about who is doing the heavy lifting? If the person seeing a high percentage is an inartistic dumb dumb who cares how many courses he sees? There are some evaluators I trust implicitly, others I take with a large grain of salt. Should we also consider those who play so many courses (and far too many mediocre courses) that their senses are dulled?

Didn't SPDB just object to that argument in his above post ?

In the real world do you think that's the norm or the exception ?

Chances are that if a person has seen all of Banks's, Raynor's and MacDonald's work, they're a pretty astute individual and architectually savy.[/color]

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Forston, my friend . . .
So . . . you think you are qualified to start a thread about posters who use their extensive experience as if it were the ultimate rhetorical trump card?   And to base your profoooooouuuund opinion on nothing more than a few comments you've read in the LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS.  Well, my amigo . . .


You've perfected the "spin" on what people have said.

What I take offense to is when people simply read three or four hundred (300-400) posts when it the poster has posted 4486 posts and counting.

I have a problem with posters who opine from a scant and narrow base of posts . . .  Such opinions IMHO are worthless because they show no effort on doing one's homework from more than just a narrow base of rhetoric and from a limited time.  

Let me also mention that it's no less important for people to state if they have read posts from a wider period of time since the unnamed poster in question may have evolved or written some unique posts over their time at CGA. If someone says I have read 150-200 of poster ""A's" posts from 2 years ago and 50 or so from current times then their opinions are no less limited for obvious reasons. Rhetorical styles can evolve -- both up and down.

I don't doubt people may opine based on a lesser number of posts PROVIDED the subject poster has a limited number of posts in their total portfolio.

Let me also mention that just because a person has a greater base of posts to call upon it's no less important to have cogent and clear analysis. Both elements are essential IMHO.

If people choose to read far less for whatever the reason it is quite annoying and frankly insulting to say that the person doing such heavy lifting is "brag(ging) about the exploits of their gca posting conquests." That's not the case and I think you would know that.

Look . . .

I don't have a particular point of view until I do the legwork and read the posts in question -- that's a novel thought right? I don't think it's unreasonable for people to go out and do the heavy lifting before they blop in front of their computer and write that person "X' does get it or doesn't get it because their sampling size of posts is completely inadequate.

If you've only read three or four hundred (300-400) posts from an poster of 4486 posts I would say such a analysis is limited. Are the 300-400 posts about one topic-- are the 300-400 spaced out during the breath of the entire existence of GCA.com? Explain to me how you extrapolate anything from such a small base of posts on the rhetoric of the poster in question?

If you take the time to read what I said -- I never opined that simply reading posts ALONE (my emphasis added AGAIN!) provides the person with some sort of gold card status. The person must also provide cogent analysis on what makes the rhetoric good, bad or somewhere in between. Analysis is no less a part of the situation.

[A.G._Crockett]

DMoriarty
This is brilliant, but you'll never get away with it!

[Jeff Fortson]

The logic Pat is using is basically saying that if you have played 50 RTJ courses then you haven't experienced enough of his designs to form a valid opinion on his work because it is only "10%", which I think is total bull.  I think the over-the-top argument of, "If you have only played ND, then are you qualified to comment on Coore/Crenshaw?" is ridiculous.  Of course only playing one course isn't enough!  But playing close to 50 is, even if that is only 10%.

It just blows me away that people on this thread are derailing the message of it.  Don't try to diminish a person's opinion when they've played what is obviously enough of an architect's work, such as 50 RTJ courses, even if it is only 10% of his work.  I think a vast majority would agree that playing 50 courses of an architects work is sufficient in forming a valid opinion on that architects work.

Let's stop spinning the reality of what the intent of this thread is.  Thank you.


Jeff F.

[Jeff Fortson]

David,

That was beautiful.


Jeff F.

[T_MacWood]

Pat
I suspect this excercise or question was designed for modern architects....and I think Bob Crosby makes the most eloquent arguement on evaluating modern architects.

I'm sure there are lots of people who have never heard of Pinehurst #2, Sand Hills or couldn't recognize the elimination of Travis at White Beeches but are you going to really put much stock on their evalation of Donald Ross?

I remember Matt Ward praising the work of Tom Bendelow after playing Skokie. We all make mistakes but i'm not sure I'd be turning to Matt, despite his heavily lifting, to get an opinion on a historical architect.

I have not played Spring Lake, but it is my understanding Tillinghast redesigned that golf course. I think if you look into, you'll find after the redesign it became more or less his golf course.

Regarding Kentucky Dam Village, Palmetto and Bayou de Siard you said
"I'll guarantee you that you couldn't tell who did what by playing one, or all three of them." I'll take your word for it...I haven't played any of them...were you uncertain after playing them?

[TEPaul]

DavidM:

Post #58 should win the post of the year!

[SPDB]

You just want to win the argument.

Pat - The argument is already won, it's just the matter of you accepting the inconsistencies in your logical framework. The sooner you stop throwing red herrings out to try to salvage the argument, the closer we'll be to resolving the errors in your logic.

You've devined that in playing less then 10 % of RTJ's courses that his courses, meaning all of his courses, are
"so mindless".   It's one of the most ridiculous and reckless posts I've ever read.   And, you continue to sit their defending your assinine statement and position.

 

Once you emerge from your hyperbolic chamber, we'll be able to discuss these things like rational men. I've asked you this before, but not surprisingly, you offered no answer - Where did I express an opinion of RTJ's entire body of work?

But, I'd like to you to address what I brought up in an earlier post.  Previously you said that 10% is insufficient to form a basis on an architect's work. As a corollary to that statement, you said the ability to express an opinion on an architect also depends on what courses of his you play.

So, please answer these questions:

What if I play 90% of the architect's courses, but I don't play certain ones on which, according to you, an ability to offer an opinion requires I play? I've satisfied your quantitative requirements but not your qualitative ones? Do I lack credibility? And what if I only play these courses you deem crucial, but they only constitute 10% of the architect's work. Credibility? Who determines these courses, the playing of which is the sine qua non to credibility?

I want to have credibility with you, I just want to have a clear idea of what it takes.  

[Matt_Ward]

SPDB said:

Quote from: Matt_Ward on Yesterday at 07:37:47pm
Because the folks who opine on the big three -- Mr. TF, JN and Rees are the loudest moaners on that group's collective failure to design any dynamic courses.
 
Surely the opposite has happened, but perhaps you missed it, or weren't sensitive to it?

*****

SPDB: Here's the reality you may not be aware of ... There are people on GCA who simply can't stand anything Rees Jones, Jack Nicklaus or Tom Fazio have done -- that's not a major revelation -- it's simpy true! Some have more of a hard-on against one versus say the others. I have read their comments time after time after time. Where have you been when this has happened? Where have you been on saying to them -- point blank -- how many courses have most of these people played to draw such a specific and lasting conclusion? Where is the personal research and analysis to support such statements?

I guess personal research doesn't matter -- someone can play a scant collection of a person's portfolio and then pronounce to the world that architect "A" is clueless when it comes to designing courses. Or the flip side happens -- if the architect is on the "most favored listing" anything they design is forever deemed great.

*****

Quote:
Let me ask you a question -- why is it that people who play so little have a major league hard on against those who do?
 
I've asked you this before, can you cite me, anywhere, where this has manifested itself? I'm certain that what you perceive as a "major league hard on against" you, is really just their frustration at being told their opinion is somehow invalid based on their experience with the architect. You've done a fairly good job illustrating contradictions in peoples posts. But the assumption that they would feel differently if they saw architect "A's"  work in Utah might just be wishful thinking. It helps to illustrate a point based on what the critics announce is a shortcoming, rather than say they'd feel differently because you do.

*****

Pardon me -- When you say people are "frustrated" they are told their opinon is invalid in their experience with an architect in question -- I say this to you -- I never said there opinion of an architect dealing with a SPECIFIC COURSE they may have played is invalid -- although I might still disagree with
it -- I draw umbrage when these same people then extrapolate that isolated and limited example and then broaden that to say that other courses in an architect's portfoilo are likely to be the same and therefore a waste of time to play. See comments made by Bob Crosby earlier in this thread as an example when he says that he finds no reason to play other Rees Jones or Tom Fazio courses because of what he has experienced from the small samlping of courses already played. Might it be possible that others who have played a far greater pool of couses have clear examples that demonstrate that such a conclusion is not only premature but also wrong?

Tell me how "iinformed" and "well reserached" the opinion is of someone who plays 6-7 courses in a person's portoflio compares to those who have a much deeper roster of courses to base their conclusions upon? I often ask people who do find such courses lacking how many has that person played -- at what time frame in that designer's portoflio did you play the courses in question and are the courses described simply from one area of the country. In my mind -- all valid quesitons to be answered. Of course -- many with scant portfolios don't like being put on the hot seat to answer and turn it back on the person asking the questions. How convenient and utterly predictable.

There are quite a few people here on GCA who want to pronounce their conclusive evidence that architect "A" is incapable in designing quality courses -- clearly as it applies to TF, JN and RJ -- simply because they have played 5-6 courses from a portfolio of 75+ courses. Hello anybody home?

When you say it's "wishful thinking" to think that people might change their minds if they saw a course in Utah you have simply stated the obvious factor in the person's inherent
bias -- no example of an architect's work that disproves their initial observation from a scant base of courses would EVER convince them that they in fact might be wrong and that there are courses in which the design is truly above and beyond the limited base of courses they have played to date. What's "wishful" is that certain people are determined to maintain their erroneous conclusions even when courses have been designed by the folks invovled. Nothing like being open-minded -- huh?

Look -- let's cut to the chase -- there are people on GCA who simply can't stand the fact that others may have played more layouts than they have AND have also provided clear examples in which the architect in question has done some outstanding design work. I mean how would they know. These same people are stuck on the fact that they can give a broad thumbs up or down on such a limited base of courses. I want to hear for the upteeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenth time how it's so difficult for them to do such research but yet they still have demand the bully pulpit to say such personal research is not necessary because they can't or won't do it and / or the people who do it are the ones who are mis-informed -- what a major league crock!!!

*****

Quote: One further question -- why is that people who play so little believe they and they alone can provide cogent analysis from such a limited sample size?
 
Another generalization that I'm not certain I can respond to, simply because I think, while it may be true (though not to the degree you express), it is more likely  a) deliberately exaggerated, and b) a threat to your vast storehouse of experience.

Who has expressed this view that "they and they alone" can provide analysis? Please no exaggerated abstractions.  

*****

Anyone who opines on the vast portfolio of courses done by Nicklaus, Rees Jones and Tom Fazio who has failed to do a bit more personal research than simply playing 6-7 courses in an architect's portfolio is being unfair to what that architect has collectively produced.

I have never said every course produced by the aforementioned gentlemen is a home run. Far from it. I have been a critic on quite a few. I have also stated that architectural styles can evolve and that there are examples in which the named architects may have done a home run with one effort and a dog with the next or vice versa.

The issue I raised is not some "generalization" as you say. The fact is there are people who believe their opinion is more valid coming from a scant collection of courses actually played. They believe it. They don't like it when they are challenged.

Let me state this again -- I never said playing courses is the only issue -- you still need to provide cogent analysis of what has ben played. Both together provide a much more rigorous analysis and, I believe, a much better overall sense of what the architect has designed.

[RJ_Daley]

Wow, I haven't been able to read much GCA lately, but I sure am glad I read #s 58 and 65!  A lot of smart stuff said in those...

[DMoriarty]

Three blind men are tasked with examining an elephant. . . . While none of them could identify the elephant by feel alone, they all agreed that it really stunk.  

If it smells like an elephant, it is most likely an elephant.  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

"F" Matt Ward and Sean Berry who don't have the balls nor the decency to call me out by my name.  

If you can't call a spade a spade then your worthless!

BTW, Jees Rones sucks and so does Fom Tazio!

[TEPaul]

It seems to me, on this website anyway, some of those who rate golf courses are rated just as critically as the courses or the architects they rate!

Is playing a vast majority of an architect's designs necessary to judge his work? Sure it is if someone wants to judge an architect's career inventory but most people don't do that and the rest probably don't care. What they do seem to care about is his best work, perhaps even his very best---that's what most people seem to care about.

The best courses of the best architects are pretty well known---at least they are on here---most on here have seen them or played them, and that doesn't necessarily mean they have to be old. The older courses that are well known and highly ranked are obviously there for a reason---they are standing up to the test of time. The newer highly ranked ones have to do that too. It seems to me that some of the newer courses like Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes are standing up to that test so far.

It may be interesting to a very few, perhaps only on here---what the quality is of an architect's entire inventory but what probably 99.9% of golfers seem to care about is the best courses. That's what seems to create the perception of what it takes to make an architect a great one. Every so often a golf course sort of pops out of the shadows after being virtually overlooked and shoots up the ranking but that's very rare. That would be the case of Crystal Downs---but then once out in the open others rush up there and confirm or deny that conclusion.

So Matt, maybe it's important to you to get all over the place playing all the courses of so many architects but in the end it probably won't matter very much and your constant refrain that most on here haven't gotten out there and played all those courses either probably will never make much difference either as you keep saying it does. You use that reason all the time to virtually discount what some think of some architects. I don't think that particular reason of yours is every going to really have much validity (although I have no doubt whatsoever that you'll keep right on using it---to little effect, I might add!   ).

It'll always be the best of any architect on which that architect will be judged and most on here are probably fairly familiar with those golf courses of any architect.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

Nobody [even Mike Fay] has played the "vast majority" of Donald Ross courses, to my knowledge, and yet everyone has an opinion of him.

It's okay to form opinions about an architect's work on a limited basis ... most people do it after just one or two experiences with one's work.  However, it does bother me when people GENERALIZE about my work based on just one or two courses, because I think my style changes for different projects and over time, and I'm sure that's true of most good architects as well.

In fact, as a general rule, I think people should refrain from making any statements about golf course architects and stick to analyzing their courses as individuals.

[T_MacWood]

My concentration is on older courses and older architects...although I have been very fortunate to play a good number of outstanding modern courses.

I don't really get into rating architects...putting them into some kind of order. I'd rather identify a select number of exceptional designers and then attempt to identify their design practices...principles...aesthetics, and how these things may have evolved over time. Renovations and restorations make this study a little more complicated....you have to rely a lot historical information, including old photos. And obviously not everyone has access, or even interest, in something like that.

Regarding Ross...if the restoration trend continues, pretty soon, the study of his work will become ultra-simple.

[BCrosby]

Tom D. states - "In fact, as a general rule, I think people should refrain from making any statements about golf course architects and stick to analyzing their courses as individuals."

A comendable idea. It ain't gonna happen. At least not in the universe I live in.

Matt -

Let's say I go to dinner with Pat Mucci four or five times.

Tom Paul then asks me what I think about Pat.

According to many on this thread, I am NOT permitted to conclude that "Pat's a good guy." Why? because of all the evenings Pat has passed in his life, I've only spent four or five with him. A tiny fraction of Mucci's evenings.

According to these folks, what I AM permitted to conclude is that last Thursady evening between 7 and 11 pm Pat was a nice guy and the food was good. That's pretty much it.

Because, heaven knows, none of us can sure that the next day Pat might turn into drooling, fanged monster. Or whatever.

I would humbly suggest that things don't operate that way.  Architects don't either. People and architects have personalities and styles that stay - more or less - predictable over time. Both evolve and grow, but slowly and gradually and rarely in a way that makes them unrecognizable to those acquainted with them.

We are all forced to make choices every day based on limited data. It's a fact of life. It is necessary to navigating through the world. These choices may not all be 100% right every time. But they are usually right enough for us mere mortals.

Why we should have different rules for gca?


Bob

[Matt_Ward]

Bob C:

In all fairness and due respect -- you're the guy who proclaims to have an open mind, but then says just a few sentences later that if you see one Michael Moore film all future ones from him will be the same. Hello? Where's the so-called open mind you profess?

Bob -- you did say that. I think it's quite clear your approach to the architects I mentioned -- specifically Rees Jones and Tom Fazio is quite clear. If you want to modify what you originally said be my guest -- but please spare me the inconsistency in terms of the approach.

My only point was that the greater the sampling size the more one as a golfer / person has to go with in terms of fully understanding what the person is capable in designing. Bob -- it's no different than one's life experiences -- those with fewer have less to go on than those who have sampled more. I never said Rees Jones or Tom Fazio hits home runs with every design -- but neither does Tom Doak or anyone else for that matter. I also said that given the vast number of courses I have played from Rees Jones and Tom Fazio the bulk of their designs would not rise to the level of "must play" status. I believe I can say that because I have played no less than 50 of their respective designs.

That doesn't mean either of these two men is incapable in designing courses worthy of acclaim -- no less at a level than any other architect practicing their craft today. And, there designs IMHO that do reach that status and I have IDed a number of them.
 
I'm opposed to people applying "tags" because they fail to do what Tom Doak explained -- look at specific works that comes forward and see how they individually hold up.

Where do you get this idea of "predictability?" It's "predictable" to you given the small number of courses you have personally sampled.

Bob -- you said ... "We are all forced to make choices every day based on limited data."

I don't doubt that. But realize that certain people opt personally for the limited data. They should try to keep their overall assessments of that architect in tune with the small sampling base they base it upon.

"It's a fact of life. It is necessary to navigating through the world. These choices may not all be 100% right every time. But they are usually right enough for us mere mortals."

Bob -- my issue with your last comment is some sort of resignation that the architects you avoid are incapable in "delivering the goods." That's unfortunate but you are certainly entitled to that opinion.

I go back to my original point -- the person who has played a greater sampling of courses has a greater likelihood in determining if the designs coming forward offer any differences in terms of originality / creativity. You may not wish to "waste your time" in seeing if what I said is true. That's your prerogative -- but at the same time I would hope that you keep an open mind -- as you have professed -- that those who do sample a far greater allotment of those designed by the two might be able to inform you of layouts worthy of your time. Isn't that what GCA does or is supposed to do?

At the end of the day people are free to avoid playing whatever courses they wish, but I believe the notion of applying fixed "tags" to any person is really unnecessary and fails to delve deeper into what they are capable in producing. Actual field research has a value -- at least to me it does.

[DMoriarty]

Matt,

What do you say that we quit with the "certain people" bit?  If you have specific examples and specific people in mind, then why not be specific and give them a chance to defend themselves.  

Imagine your reaction if I said:  I've played certain Jim Engh and Tom Fazio courses and I found them to have many flawas and therefore horrible but then I refused to name the courses and the flaws?   Boy would your panties be in a bunch!

I'll start.  You, Matt Ward, repeatedly use your vast experience (and the lack of experience of others) to summarily dismiss opinions and even questions without considering their basis or their merit.  For example, go back and take a look at my thread on Fazio's principles as set out in his book . . .

[Added Later:   Actually I think it may have been Barney's Fazio Society Thread:  http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=13038]

[SPDB]

"F" Matt Ward and Sean Berry who don't have the balls nor the decency to call me out by my name.  

Tommy - What are you talking about? Where am I referring to you? If anything my position would tend to support you, not criticize.

[Matt_Ward]

David M:

Point blank -- I never said someone's opinion on a certain architect or course played doesn't mean a thing. Obviously, it means something to them. When you say the word "dismiss" their opinion -- I'm free to disagree with them on their take on the course(s) in question no different than anyone else.

I laugh at the word "dismiss" because it's the reaction you take with whatever I often say. Nothing like the pot calling the kettle black.

The thing is I can comment only when I have played the course in question and frankly because I have played a very deep array of their designs (Rees Jones / Tom Fazio / Jack Nicklaus -- over 50 each) I believe I am in a better position to assess what, if any, patterns or evolutions of design have taken place. Even with that said my opinion is simply that -- my opinion.

What I did say is that people who have sampled a far greater array of courses from a particular architect AND CAN provide cogent analysis are in a better position to make comments on the relative merits / lack thereof of what that respective architect is capable in putting forward.

End of story ...

Tommy:

Why all the hyper ventilating -- everyone knows where you stand concerning Rees Jones / Tom Fazio. No secret there -- right?