[Jeff_Brauer]

In the Erin Hills thread, someone opined that golf course architects have conflicts of interest posting here.

Is that true, and if so, in what way, IYHO?  

Even if we promote our own courses here (within rules set by Ran, if any) where is the conflict?  That is what we are supposed to do, isn't it?

I would argue that critiques of others work is an ethical conflict, but know that others feel differently.

Frankly, I think I have stayed away from both of the above 99.9% of the time.  And I think most other gca's who participate do the same, no?

Anyway, just asking.......thanks in advance for any enlightenment.

[henrye]

I see no conflict in promoting ones own design or critiquing someone else's.  I think a dishonest bias will likely be exposed.

What would be more interesting IMHO, however, is a self critique or an explanation as to why a hole or course didn't work out as well as one had planned.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Henry,

Post that as a topic. I am sure most of the gca's here would at least define one hole they hoped would work out better.  Not sure if we would admit that an entire course was a stinker, though, even if we secretly believed it true!

[Richard Choi]

I have yet to see a post that condemns an architect from describing their own course, no matter how biased that might be.

The insight we get from an architect talking about his own design in his own word is a real treat and I doubt that anyone one this board is against that.

What people have objected to is Ron comparing his own design against what is arguably his greatest competition (both in ratings for new courses and possible future US Open). There is too many ethics gray area when you are part of the magazine and you are comparing your own work against someone elses.

[David Lott]

People throw around the "conflict" epithet mindlessly nowadays.

A conflict arises when you has a duty to one person or entity, and undertake a conflicting duty to another. GCA's posting here have a duty only to themselves. Yes, they have a self interest, but self interest isn't a conflict unless there is a duty to someone else. We are all big boys and girls (are there any girls here?) and can evaluate whether self interest affects the reliability of a statement.

[Phil_the_Author]

Jeff,

I think that opinion is quite mistaken.

Consider, where else can one hope to ask Tom Doak or Mike Young or Jeff or Kelly or Ian or any of the other architects out here pointed questions and even give critiques of their work, good or bad? And even consider that they will get an answer?

Having contemporary architects available to answer and comment in this manner is a first throughout the long history of the game. At no other time have those interested in the art form of golf course architecture been able to do this, especially on a world-wide basis.

Who on here hasn't played a certain hole and asked, "Why did so-and-so put that bunker here?" Did you get an answer?

Only in this type of forum is that possible. And that

[Matt_Sullivan]

David is right -- self interest is not a conflict of interest. I would expect architects posting here to be proud of their work and promoting it.

FWIW, where a conflict or potential conflict of interest is disclosed (as it was in RW's article) I don't have a problem with that either. The reader has the opportunity to make up his or her own mind about how much weight to give the potentially conflicted opinion

Matt

PS: David there are a few girls here, my wife (an occasional poster and pretty regular reader) being one

[wsmorrison]

The participation of all the classes of golf industry professionals, including architects, superintendents, construction team and golf pros benefit this site and are valuable assets.  I would not want to compromise their contributions with layers of constraints, but rather see open dialog.  Sometimes it may be best not to say anything, but honesty is supremely important from us all.

I did not read the Whitten article.  In fact, I don't subscribe to any golf magazines.  I only seem to buy them at airports.  I guess I'm in the minority there.  I don't understand why the comparison needed to be made whether or not it was disclosed that there was the potential for conflict.  Human nature being what it is, where there is potential there is often a realization of that potential.  Why couldn't he have simply written separate articles about the two courses and in separate editions?  

Is it customary for him to compare recent designs that are so closely matched in terms of target market and intent?  If not, he chose an awfully poor first step.  If it is his custom, he should have recused himself to avoid any perception of conflict.  The magazine should have insisted upon it independently of Whitten's decision to write the piece.  It seems like a lot of checks and balances went unused.  Too bad.  Is the value of the article worth compromising one's integrity?  It is small reward for giving up so much.

However, this is a discussion group.  We need to discuss openly and honestly.  I believe an architects, supers or construction professionals do not create a potential for conflict if they speak openly about their own work.  Comparisons between their work and others, where they are not intimately aware of the mandates, constraints on/in the ground and budgetary are meaningless anyway.  

I wouldn't think the folks at Chambers Bay would open themselves up to Whitten for his article if they knew he was comparing the course with his own in a feature article.  If he did go there to interview them and conduct research, did he disclose the fact that his article was such an analysis?  I just think the article crossed the line needlessly.  Could it possibly have been worth it?  I don't see how.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()