Pat,
Ah yes.....
I recall our discussion of GCA in some parking lot where you described your vision of the typical poster here as sitting in a darkened computer room in his bathrobe, eating rice krispies, and busily typing posts! That still sticks with me!
Like Tommy, I think I owe Ron a lot, and I think he owes me nothing. And, in fact, his reviews of my courses have been mixed, but I don't go off the handle because of it. I try to learn what opinions are out there. Who else has actually seen the work we talk of here more than Ron? Not many.
That interview, and this regurgitated thread introduced me to golf club atlas! We were talking one day, and he told me he was being flamed here, so I checked in to see what it was about. I didn't post on this thread, but jumped in soon after.
I owe him for the Architects of Golf highlighting my craft. Are there flaws? Yes, but I think anyone here who has actually tracked down long ago forgotten info would cut him some slack for his "guesses based on a few documents or childhood memories, etc. - when he started, it was a tough subject to research) there is the fact that he tries to give an honest opinion about the course, regardless of who designed it.
He has flamed big names like Nicklaus (a digest editor) and Fazio as much as Doak and C and C. How about this quote from his interview under discussion here, which takes to task both the "hot architects" and the general tone of this site:
"But the tone of your question implies that there's something wrong with the Trent Jones style of the 60s and 70s. What's wrong, I ask you, with the Jones style of that era? Too predictable? (Unlike Dye, Fazio or Nicklaus of today, who build their pet favorite holes ad nauseam?)"
He has promoted work of relatively unknown architects.
He invented or reinvented the genre of golf architecture critic, probably paving the way for others like Geoff, and possibly even this website.
He has been honest in critiquing other writer/architect works, giving both Geoff and Tom Doak their due when warranted.
He does believe in finding the good in any architecture, while softening his critique of most flaws, except when they asked him to write his architorture column, which must, by definitions highlight flaws. He called me once to tell me the footprint bunker at Giants Ridge was scheduled as an architorture item to let me know it was coming. Its a delicate balance, being friendly enough to get necessary quotes, but distant enough to write honestly about what might be better.
Was he defensive in his interview? Maybe not enough. He got called on the carpet for using profanity in that interview, which is beneath GD and most peoples standards.
Was he unfair in his review of Geoff's book? As one of the 3500 people worldwide who bought Geoff's book, I enjoyed it, but I understand Ron's points that it didn't really have the drama and plot necessary to make it stand up as a well written piece of fiction. Hey, Dallas took a hit for having Bobby reappear in the shower, why shouldn't it be fair game to take a hit for the good doctor to return in a dream?
When I read Tommys reply a few years back, I thought it was the arrogant, inflammatory writing! (I think at one point, I even compared someone here to a nazi, thereby contributing to the squalor, so we all get out of hand sometimes) He may have softened somewhat since then, and having met him, I know he isn't at all like his writing back then was. But it really did seem then that he was offended mostly that someone could disagree with his point of view. Even the fact that he uses the word "purist" shows that he has only one view of gca and none other will suffice.
Ron has the opinion, like Tom Paul, and expressed in the interview that there are many good ways to skin a cat, which is far better than a narrow view, at least in my book.
And, IHMO this site IS too politically correct about what constitutes "acceptable" architecture. In essence, thats what got this web site started, the question of why modern architects seemed to have too similar styles, and why couldn't we explore a different style?
Its a shame that so much energy is now devoted to trying to keep us in one "preferred" style only, trying to replace one "convention" with another. It can only stifle creativity. What if we lost the best design concept ever because some designer was afraid to go against this new convention?