Mirror Mirror on the Wall, Who are the Purists Among Us All?

[TEPaul]

Sheldon:

If this thread or all the other ones on purists and restorations have all devolved into personal acts and unintelligent discussion that post of yours (post #52) has made it all worthwhile, in my book.

That post is so good it's printable and that's what I just did with it.

Your thoughts are extremely well balanced and realistic, very fair to both sides of the issue. Frankly, I (the actor) would have no problem at all with the critic (Tom MacWood) no matter how purist he was if only he was truly knowledgeable on what he criticized. That's my problem with him really---if he wants to get into critiquing classic architecture and the restoration projects of them seriously and intelligently he or anyone, certainly me, has to get to truly know what he's talking about.

From where he sits I don't think he can to do that about a Merion East or a PVGC or even my Philadelphia region if he's never much been here,  anymore than I can with his OSU's Scarlet course or anything in his Ohio region.

I don't care who you are or how good you are that to me is just a must that can't be avoided.

Thanks for the wonderful post. Printable!

[TEPaul]

Mike Malone's posts on the top of page two are the way a quick and to the point response should be with these "so-called purists" who don't actually get involved in architectural projects, IMHO!

[Steve Lang]

 
TEP,

Have you morphed into Pat Mucci?  

[TEPaul]

Steve:

Why do you ask?

[mike_malone]

Tom Paul,
     
   Can I trust you and Wayne not to pummel me into agreeing to that PaulMorr bunker on #7 RG ? I think not

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I say we restore or reproduce "A Gentleman's Game" to its original intent and specifications as the writer Tom Coyne envisioned it......

Oh well, I tried!  

What a great club. One would never tire of being a member at Rolling Gree.....I mean whatever the club's name was in the movie!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Just went and had some sushi--a soothing meal that allows one to focus and appreciate the finer things in life. Sushi is art. Art is with-in. While having this meal, I contemplated the train wreck of threads regarding Puritism, took further deep breaths and came-up with this for all of the parties involved.

Repeat after me........

Gooosefraaabaaaa.........
Gooosefraaabaaaa.........
Gooosefraaabaaaa.........

Now sing the following words from West Side Story:

I feel pretty,
Oh so pretty,
I feel pretty and witty and gay,
And I pity,
Any girl who isn't me today.....

I feel charming,
Oh so charming,
It's alarming how charming I feel,
And so pretty,
That I hardly can believe I'm real.....

See the pretty girl in that mirror there?
Who can that attractive girl be?
Such a pretty face,
Such a pretty dress,
Such a pretty smile,  
Such a pretty me!

I feel stunning,
and entrancing,
feel like running And dancing for joy,
For I'm loved,
by a pretty wonderful boy!

GIRLS Have you met my good friend Maria,
The craziest girl on the block?
You'll know her the minute you see her,
She's the one who is in an advanced state of shock...
She thinks she's in love,
She thinks she's in Spain,
She isn't in love,
She's merely insane,

It must be the heat,
Or some rare disease,
Or too much to eat,
Or maybe it's fleas,
Keep away from her,
Send for Chino,
This is not the Maria we know,
Modest and pure,
Polite and refined,
Well-bred and mature,
And out of her mind!

I feel dizzy,
I feel sunny,
I feel fizzy and funny and fine,
And so pretty Miss America can just resign!

See the pretty girl in that mirror there
(deep voice)
What mirror, where?
Who can that attractive girl be?
Which, what, where, whom?
Such a pretty face,
Such a pretty dress,
Such a pretty smile,
Such a pretty me!

[paul cowley]

tommy.... great post , great movie .....now I'll be singing that all day !

[wsmorrison]

"Can I trust you and Wayne not to pummel me into agreeing to that PaulMorr bunker on #7 RG ? I think not  "


I'm gonna beat you senseless just for calling it a PaulMorr instead of a MorrPaul bunker.  Maybe when you wake up you'll finally see the light you dimwit!

Gooosefraaabaaaa.........Gooosefraaabaaaa.........

[TEPaul]

Mayday:

It seems like you guys are pretty violent over there at Rolling Green. I guess Wayne still wants to pummel you about that bunker situation on #7. Forget about him then, we'll just drop him from our date---I just want to get you on the inside of a booth in a diner so I can kiss and hug you for such pithy and poignant comments on this thread!

[TEPaul]

What the holy hell is gooosefraabaaa... all about? Is that some weird Left Coast chant you're supposed to do when you eat sushii while contemplating train-wreck purist architectural threads on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com? And what is Sushii out there anyway but the remains of some dead fish a Japanese-American found on the beach of the oil contaimenated waters of California?

That's a very strange place, that California----always was and I guess it always will be. If you want clarity and stability come back home to the East Coast where it all began.

Look at what happened to perhaps two of the best and certainly most talented architects of all time when they went to that West Coast and stayed too long.

George Thomas, perhaps the conceptual genius of all time in architecture leaves his comfortable home in Philadelphia, goes out there and builds a bunch of stunning courses, has them wrecked by that violent and fickle Left Coast weather, and what's left after that wrecked again by a pack of unintelligent yahoos, his wife ends up hating him for, well....., he quits golf architecture altogether and takes solace in his world class roses to the end of his days. He shouldn't have stayed out there in the dangerous land more than two weeks, a month tops!

Max Behr, unquestionably the greatest mind in the history of architecture if not golf itself, goes out there from a magnificent home in NJ (just went by it), writes a series of interconnected articles that are unquestionably the key to the secrets and mysteries of all golf architecture, perhaps the secrets of Nature, and even the fudamental mind of the golfer. But he stayed too long out there in that dangerous land and became afflicted by the most grandiloquently complex writing style ever known to man so that no one would ever possibly understand what he was writing about (except Geoff and me of course). And in the end he went insane out there over some personal religion based on numerology!

It's beautiful out there but for God's sake don't stay too long, two weeks, a month tops! Come back to the East Coast where it all began. Come back to clarity, civility, gentility and stability! Don't stay out there like those two poor and unfortunate East Coast geniuses did.

sushii and goooosefraaabaaa-----my ass!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Wayne,
 You got it! Just keep on reciting it--Gooosefraaabaaa-Gooosefraaabaaa-Gooosefraaabaaa......

Paul,
When I found out that Davis wasn't going to be playing at Riviera, actually skipping the event/actualy skipping the chance to play Riviera I had to rely on the phrase. It saved me from wanting to go attack a Ford Navigator with my sand wedge. Gooosefraaabaaa.....Gooosefraaabaaa....

(Someone tell T.E. that its a East Coast term; that's where Dr. Rydell practices, in New York.)

USGA--Gooosefraaabaaa.....Gooosefraaabaaa..... See, no problem!

Rees Jones--Gooosefraaabaaa--Gooosefraaabaaa--Gooosefraaabaaa--Gooosefraaabaaa--Gooosefraaabaaa-Gooosefraaabaaa--Gooosefraaabagotta stop desiging and building that shittttt! ! ! ! (Well, it works on almost everything!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dave Moriarty, TEPaul, et. al.,

One should approach golf course architecture with the heart of a purist and the mind of a pragmatist.

[RJ_Daley]

TEP says:

It's beautiful out there but for God's sake don't stay too long, two weeks, a month tops! Come back to the East Coast where it all began. Come back to clarity, civility, gentility and stability! Don't stay out there like those two poor and unfortunate East Coast geniuses did.

That sounds like the purist elitist confronting the effects of intellectual pollution in the purest sense....  

Shel, ditto on your summation.  Fine comments in deed!

Going way back to Dave's comments, put me down in the dumb ass category too.  These guys have applied too much thought.  A simple S.O.B. wouldn't ever think of all that...

But, kiss an make up Toms, we love you both...

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I think we should all get together and have a group hug.

[DMoriarty]

Shelly I agree with your Post 51, almost in its entirety.  Likewise I agree with some of the other comments above, such as those by Mayday Malone.  But unfortunately I think there are a few additional issues that are at the heart of this matter, as least as it has been presented by TEPaul.
First, TEPaul's rhetoric follows an all to common pattern in today's world-- he has thus far refused to let this conversation focus on real circumstances which might be too ambiguous to serve his purposes.  Rather, he created and argues against an easily defeatable straw-man with an absurdly extreme position--  namely his "'so-called' purist."  Yet in reality, while they may not express it as eloquently as you I suspect that those TomP considers "'so-called' purists" hold views very similar to the ones you expressed above.  

So yes, TomPaul is correct, "so-called purists"  don't know what they are talking about and are bad for golf design, particularly restorations.  My problem with TEPaul's rants is that the "'so-called' purists" are a figment of TomP's imagination.   I just dont think these cretins exist.  

Second, in order to keep the focus on this non-existent "'so-called' purist," TomP has refused to entertain or address the positions of those he considers unworthy offering such critiques.   His argumentative style has become one of attack the messenger and ignore the message.    
The most obvious example is his vitriol directed toward Tom MacWood.   TomM apparently touched a nerve by making some sort of comment about Gulph Mills, but instead of addressing the merits (or lack thereof) of TomM's critique (if there even was one) TomP has chosen to tear into TomM's credentials and qualifications, and even attack him personally-- calling him a liar, declaring him an enemy, and bringing up strange tangents which have nothing to do with the conversation at hand.   Essentially TEPaul is saying "how dare you think you are qualified to comment on my course."   His argument is one of self-righteous indignation, and such arguments very seldom advance any conversation.  

The last point is an offshoot of the first two.  As Shelly pointed out, a student of golf course design may well have different concerns than a membership, when it comes to certain courses.  Sure the membership is free to do whatever they want, but Tom's insistence on totally discounting the views of anyone outside the membership is myopic, at best.  

[Gib_Papazian]

I'm a great believer in lists because they are less time consuming to read than some of the meandering missives (read: tomes) that find their way onto these threads.

Now, I am with TE on most things and this is no exception. Come to think of it, I am almost always in the same corner with my favorite erudite curmudgeon Redanman,

Guess we are both purists. . . . .


BUT (my English teacher, Mrs. Baldus, taught me never to use the word "but." She thought "however" sounded much nicer.):

How about if we all conjure up a list of what EXACTLY constitutes a *purist.*

[TEPaul]

Gib:

We've all missed you. Don't be such a stranger!

To the relatively new GOLFCLUBATLAS.com contributors:

Do you know the way older people always say;

"It was better in the old days"?

Well, with Gib Papazian on here in the old days it really was better!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I too have missed Gib.
Hopefully, he'll return to being a regular.

Remember, the heart of a purist, the mind of a pragmatist.

[DMoriarty]

How about if we all conjure up a list of what EXACTLY constitutes a *purist.*

Gib,  a good idea.   I think that jeff warne's description, as quoted by TomP above, is a good place to start.  Paraphrasing slightly . . . .

Purists ideally want the course returned to the way the architect originally laid it out.

A good and concise description, certainly better than I could do.   Yet it unfortunately leaves a few questions open.   Two examples . . .

-- Should every course be returned to its original, or just certain select courses?  

-- What if the circumstance isn't "ideal" for returning the course back to the original, what should be done then?

To my mind it is questions like these which provide the fertile ground for worthwhile discussion.   Yet if we tried to answer these questions in the real world, I think we would find that tossing around rigid labels like "'so-called' purist" and even "purist" will obstruct the discussion, rather than advance it.   Worthwhile dialogue depends upon us moving beyond inane labeling, name-calling, and stereotyping which too often takes the place of  legitimate discussion.  

Even with all these threads, we havent so advanced the discussion thus far.  

[RJ_Daley]

A purist term could be substituted for a traditionalist.  Such a person is well studied in the historical aspects of the game and its fields of play.  Such a person prefers to play a traditional game on a traditionally prepared field that is not greatly altered in its design intent from the architect's original ideas if the course is old.  A traditionalist will make due with what he is presented in a way that when he is placed on a modern course, will still play with traditional or classic ball and impliments and will attempt shots that also involve traditional or classic strategies, like using the ground more, if the ground is prepared to accept the strategy.  A traditionalist will always choose the more classically or traditionally prepared field when given a choice of courses.  A traditionalist won't give two cents about distance and will have no discomfort playing a forward tee on long modern courses to be more compatible with his traditionalist equipment and game strategy.  I'm sure there are definitions of purist for every golfer that vary...

BTW, does the American cultural profile embrace "purist" definitions and concepts in general?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dave Moriarty,

I think "purists" accept elasticity as long as the design integrity or angles of attack are preserved.

So I believe that you would have to amend your definition.

In addition, I think "purists" accept modifications done by the original architect, however, I'd suggest a caveat based on the gap in time from the original work to the revised work.
20 years wouldn't fly, 2 years would.

Like another poster, I was going to suggest modifying the term from "purist" to "tradiitionalist" as I think the term allows for more flexibility.

I return again to the concept of having the heart of a purist, but the mind of a pragmatist.

[DMoriarty]

Patrick.  


I agree that the above definition is inadequate.   In fact any concrete definition that does not allow for some elasticity (in the broader sense) to adjust to real world circumstances will ultimately fail.   That is one of the points I have been trying to make.   Labeling people as purists really isnt that useful, except perhaps in relative terms.  

Traditionalist might allow for more flexibility, but I wonder if perhaps we will run into similar limitations.  

If I take my own views, for example,  I tend to favor what some would consider traditional courses, but for pragmatic reasons.  

Plus, whenever I hear "traditional" I think of how it is commonly mis-used.   I have repeatedly heard average golfers saying, 'I prefer traditional tree lined courses.'

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dave Moriarty,

I think WE understand OUR frames of reference, and each others definitions, conceptually.