Pebble Beach vs. Pacific Dunes (redux)

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul;

So, we're a "bunch of f****** dilettantes", according to a prominent architect?!

Hahahaha....I LOVE it!  

That's like Stephen Spielberg dismissing the criticism of "AI" because those same critics never created their own movies.  

[Scott_Burroughs]

Whoops, sorry about that, Paul!    I think I confused you with someone else...  I'll delete your name from the previous list.

Other folks "in the business" that contribute a lot include Gib Papazian and George Bahto.

Whitten has been AWOL here since a "heated discussion" over something like magazine ratings or the like.

[Mike Erdmann]

There is a lot criticism on this site of architects like Jack Nicklaus and Tom Fazio, centering around their arrogance, in JN's case for designing courses which favor his style of play, and in TF's case for his lack of respect for classic architecture and belief in his own style.

RA, I disagree with your premise, yet I appreciate the tone of your message.  Too many have popped on here in the past and taken cheap shots while hiding behing their anonymity.....I think (hope?) we'd all agree that your message was pretty respectful.  But, I think you mistakenly characterize this group.  The criticism on this site for certain architects including Nicklaus and Fazio has been centered on their architectural style, not their arrogance.  I just don't think you can make the case that this group castigates Nicklaus, Fazio et. al. for arrogance and gives Doak a free ride for what you perceive as the same thing.  Criticism and praise are dished out here for architectural merit or lack thereof.  Generally, people on this forum tend to favor the more classical, minimalist style of architects like Doak.  So the issue isn't arrogance, it's architecture.

[Paul_Turner]

Me an archie

A portent of things to come?  I wish!  First job would be out do Painswick on the cross-over front.

[Tom Doak]

Respectfully anon.:  Point taken.  I probably shouldn't have posted this myself, even though it follows up a discussion just a couple of weeks ago where several people said there was no comparison between the two courses.

I did make the statement in the previous thread that I found it amazing that my own work (or any modern course) would be ranked up with Pebble and Pinehurst #2, and I still do.  So, I think I'm taking a different tone than the unnamed architect who once voted for 40 of his own courses among the Top 100 in America (not realizing that his votes on his own courses didn't count).

My question of the day:  if Pacific Dunes is ahead of Pebble but behind Sand Hills according to GOLFWEEK, is Sand Hills therefore in their top 3 courses in America?

P.S.  I have no idea how they came up with this ranking; the magazine really didn't say.  But, as I've posted before, ranking the best RESORT courses could produce a different list than ranking the "BEST COURSES."  Pebble is undoubtedly a better test for a U.S. Open, but I'm not sure what that has to do with its being a great resort golf course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

While I have no doubt that you would conduct yourself  properly, do you really think that this site is perceived as friendly or hostile by REES, FAZIO and NICKLAUS ?

If you feel as I do, that it has been historically hostile, why would they want to come on ?  What benefit is there to them?

[Nick_Ficorelli]

Speaking of golf resort courses:
Bandon is Pac Dunes and Bandon Dunes.
Pebble would be Pebble Beach and Spanish Bay.
Which two would you play?

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

When it comes to Jones, Fazio and Nicklaus etc on this site, I'd say the tenor of this site towards their work generally is cool not warm--but that certainly doesn't mean even their harshest critics on here have not said some positive things about some of their work when they think they deserve it. And when they do recognize it and think they deserve it they explain why in detail.

That to me is nothng more than good honest analysis of architecture.

If I was any of those architects and I came on here and read this site concerning some of my work what I would see is far more arguing about the fact that there's bias on here towards me than honest discussion and analysis of my work.

And those constant nonstop accusations of bias and predisposed bias come from just a few regular contributors to this site certainly including you!

As I've said before, I'd definitely suggest you stop posting threads on here when the names of Jones, Fazio and Nicklaus come up claiming "bias" or "predisposed bias" and then maybe we all could have more productive discussions of their architecture and the overriding perception of "bias" on this website toward some architects would at least begin to mininize!!

Again, in a nutshell, the primary reason there's a PERCIEVED bias on Golfclubatlas toward JONES, FAZIO and NICKLAUS is not because there is, it's because on almost every thread that mentions their names you and some others keep CLAIMING there is!

If you truly want to see the perception of bias minimized on this site just stop using that word on here all the time.

[Tim Weiman]

Tom Paul:

I agree with your comments to Pat Mucci regarding Jones, Nicklaus and Fazio. The time Pat spends claiming "bias" is really a turn off. If Pat (or anyone else) likes the work done by these architects, the best thing is just to explain why. That's far more effective than telling someone else they are biased.

My experience at GCA makes me skeptical about all these bias claims. Playing out of a Fazio club (Sand Ridge), I do take note of criticisms of the Fazio organization. The most serious criticism of my home club came from Tom MacWood, a person sometimes accused of bias.

However, I found Tom's comments about Sand Ridge generally fair. Sure, there were parts to the story that Tom missed. But, with my knowledge as a member, I could share more information, i.e., what I knew about the design/construction process, and the discussion comes away pretty fair and balanced, in my view.

I tend to believe that any industry professional who joins our discussion will be treated with respect. People would be delighted to see Nicklaus, Rees Jones or Tom Fazio participate. However, they must also be prepared to accept criticism - sometimes very strong criticism. Anyone who can't handle that should probably stay on the sidelines.

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

I'm sure Brad Klein can confirm this but I think this article is just filler to make we in the resort world happy with another hit (and hopefully have us buy more ad space!).  All of the "moderns" are in the same order as the March "Best of" listing as are all of the "classics."  I'm sure they just got the raw numbers of the two lists and intermixed the modern and classics accordingly...

Can you believe the picture they used of The Ocean Course!! .  It's a 1991 shot with newly planted sea grass in No. 13's greenside bunker (with the evenly-spaced "hairplug" look).  I mentioned it to Brad and he said it's their art department.  So guess who's getting a CD with some great images of the current Ocean Course for Christmas...

[THuckaby2]

Purposefully vague... somehow this makes this whole thing make more sense to me.  So call it what you will, make of it what you want.  I believe it we asked for a definition of a "resort course" we'd get quite a few different takes...

Ranking Pacific Dunes above Pebble as a resort course can thus mean many things.

Tom Doak summed it up well, again.  PD ain't hosting a US Open any time soon (no matter how much we'd love to see it), and PD is definitely more fun as an experience most of the time these days, given the huge price and long rounds at Pebble.

Obla dee obla dah, life goes on.  I still say good for Pacific Dunes, but let's not make too much of this!

TH

[TEPaul]

Tim Weiman:

For Golfclubatlas to be as good as it can be analyzing architecture, following what you said in your last post would be about the best way to do it, I believe.

Your comments about the analysis by various people of your own Fazio course is the best example we could have and to point to.

I'm not real sure why we have to deal with these claims of bias on here all the time but clearly if they'd stop this would be a better and fairer site.

The supreme irony is those very same architects that some on here are constantly claiming this site is biased towards are also praised on here for some of what they've done, namely Fazio for Galloway and others certainly, and Rees for a new course like Old Kinderhook that was praised on here by some of Rees's most well known critics.

Why don't those who are always screaming this site is biased notice those things? It's almost like the ones who seem to take it upon themselves to protect certain architects from bias on here can't even stand to hear a single legitimate negative thing said about those architects.

Or else those that keep screaming bias think this site should allocate a certain quota of praise and fairness in the same proportions to any architect and his work. What kind of crap is that?

[Ran Morrissett]

Tom,

After your post from last year, I am delighted to see that you have renewed faith in Golf Week's rankings.  Do you also agree with GW's other rankings which include such revelations as Fishers Island ahead of NGLA and Shoal Creek ahead of Lost Dunes?

Cheers,

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul & Tim Weiman,

Before I posted on this site, I lurked.

Go back and read the posts about Fazio and Rees before I came aboard and tell me that there was no bias.

People were being critical of golf courses that they had NEVER played, NEVER even seen, such as Shadow Creek, and noone defended them, or pointed out the absurdity of criticizing a course WITHOUT seeing it, until I stepped forward.

It took Tom Doak to chime in and say that evaluation without first hand experience was without much substance.  
And I know you don't want to quote Charles Blair Macdonald and page 295, who said the same thing.

When someone posted, that, "Rees Jones's courses don't make you think", NOT one of you guys objected to the absurdity of that statement, and therein lies the bias.

Your contention, that bias has never existed on this site,
with only people like myself saying bias existed,
is either a measure of naivete or denial.

You can keep repeating, "there is no bias" as much as you like, it's not going to eradicate "the reality".

By the way, I too have my biases.  It's okay to admit to it TE.

[TEPaul]

Ran;

I haven't even seen the lastest GW rankings but from the little you said above I would say this about agreeing with them;

My own personal opinions about quality architecture are my own personal opinions but it sure looks like my personal opinions and some of the things GW seems to believe in with their latest lists are coming very much into line!

I'm a big believer, though, in "difference" in architecture! Even vast difference!

I recognize that my own personal opinions about golf architecture may not be the same as someone else's and that our opinions and preferences might be, can be and even should be miles apart. That's why I think "difference" in golf architecture is a very good thing--maybe even the ultimate strength of it all!

I think it's important to recognize that, for all of us but it's just as important to both make known and keep known the distinctions between the vast differences in golf architecture and never let things like a "one size fits all" mentality enter into any of it!

I was always only half kidding when I used to say:

"Golf and its architecture is a great big game and there's room in it for everyone."

I really believe that!

[SPDB]

Go back and read the posts about Fazio and Rees before I came aboard and tell me that there was no bias.

People were being critical of golf courses that they had NEVER played, NEVER even seen, such as Shadow Creek, and noone defended them, or pointed out the absurdity of criticizing a course WITHOUT seeing it, until I stepped forward.

It took Tom Doak to chime in and say that evaluation without first hand experience was without much substance.  
And I know you don't want to quote Charles Blair Macdonald and page 295, who said the same thing.

When someone posted, that, "Rees Jones's courses don't make you think", NOT one of you guys objected to the absurdity of that statement, and therein lies the bias.

Pat - don't hurt yourself trying to pat (pun intended) yourself on the back.  

you're not the only one who thinks a bias exists on this site, many do, and have said as much, myself included, from the moment i began posting on here 1.5 yrs ago.

Don't alienate your allies, you can't fight this battle alone.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

SPDB,

It's TEPaul's fault, he brought up the issue.  

From everything I've heard, Pacific Dunes is a spectacular golf course on a spectacular site, and Tom Doak has every reason to be proud of his accomplishment and the recognition it and he are getting.

But, you can't bash Trump and praise Doak for doing the same thing, "TOUTING THEIR WORK", it's disengenuous on your part and a double standard at the least.

Take 6 lashes with a dirty ball washer towel and try the objective pie at the halfway house.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

I think the difference is that Pacific Dunes has been almost universally hailed by "others" besides Tom Doak.

I'm not sure who is screaming the praises of Trump International besides the owner.  

That doesn't require bias...only discernment.  

[George Pazin]

But, you can't bash Trump and praise Doak for doing the same thing, "TOUTING THEIR WORK", it's disengenuous on your part and a double standard at the least.

Finding equivalence in the two statements between Tom Doak & The Donald shows me where the real bias lies.

Thanks for doing your best to keep the rest of us honest, though.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Nice try in attempting to lay the groundwork to keep this website roiling in argumentation by defending your constant accusations of bias on here!

The last sentence in your last post about says it all. If you have biases (which you just admitted you do) towards certain architecture or architects by all means lets hear them. I'll certainly do the same and hope I have.

What you refer to as bias is probably just about totally synonymous with what most of us call on here call their "opinions".

Big time architects like Jones, Fazio and Nicklaus don't really need to be defended on here constantly by you exclusively. Again, they're big boys and will all sleep just fine at night regardless of what's said about them on here whether you feel the need to defend them against what you see as unfairness or not! And I'm sure their architecture will make out just fine too without your defense of them.

As for C.B. MacDonald's quotation on p. 295 of "Scotland's Gift Golf";

"I do not believe any one is qualified to pass on the merits of any one hole, let alone eighteen holes, unless he has played them under all varying conditions possible---varying winds, rain, heat and frost, etc."

Charles MacDonald certainly has a point with that quote, but obviously that would be in the ideal, as who among us has played the things we can comment on, want to comment on, and to hear the opinions of others on to that extreme extent? Very few have including yourself.

If this website had to conform to something like that to comment on and discuss golf architecture, clearly there would not be a Golfclubatlas, or one so limited as to be useless.

It's good to play golf courses, it useful to view photographs of them too, and it's wonderful if anyone can come to know a hole or a course to the extent of that quote but few ever will and in the meantime there's no reason at all for you or anyone else to carp on others, to stifle their thoughts and opinons and posts until you feel they've lived up to C.B. MacDonald's quote.

This is just a discussion group, not some official fact finding investigation or some courtroom and one of these days you should come to realize that your harping on the subject of "bias" all the time does no one any good--not Golfclubatlas, nor those very architects you think you should defend. All it does is create far more arguments over their names--not less!

So at the least you should think about seriously minimizing your constant use of the words BIAS and PREDISPOSED BIAS on here--or better yet just canning it altogether.

And don't forget what you seem to think is bias is what other people think is their opinion--big deal--it's just a discussion group!

[Tom Doak]

Part of the mixed reception for my post is that it's being taken two different ways by two different groups.

Many of the people here are personal friends of mine, and many others are at least friendly acquaintances (to satisfy those who may think I'm assuming too much).  In that vein, I was sharing happy news with my friends ... much like those who congratulated me on my marriage (even though I didn't post that myself) or other friends here who share their life events.

However, there are also some people here who do not count me as a friend, and I guess they would prefer I'm held to the same standard as Tom Fazio or Donald Trump, "industry people" who spend no time here at all.  Sorry to have offended you!

What exactly is "self promotion" anyway?  Am I not supposed to be enthusiastic about the projects we're working on?  Should I really avoid talking about them altogether, like Kelly Moran or Rod Whitman or other designers out there who ought to be better known but aren't, in part because they are too modest?  This is a competitive business, and I noticed years ago that none of the big names were too shy about promoting their own work ... whether it's C.B. Macdonald, Alister MacKenzie, Robert Trent Jones, Pete Dye, Tom Fazio, Jack Nicklaus or Rees Jones.

As for Donald Trump, the other difference between us is that I have to stand in here and get bashed if anything I say doesn't hold out to be true or defensible when the job is finished.  Donald Trump just says whatever he wants, and doesn't take feedback from us.  (And, so far, my credibility on golf courses is a lot stronger than The Donald's.)

[jim kennedy]

Tom,
I fall into the camp of those who have never made your acquaintance and I say keep posting. I wish more of the architects who  visit this site would share their experiences. I had the chance to spend time with George Bahto when he  was doing work at Hotchkiss and also at Essex CC. I was  amazed to learn what I did not know!!!!
I consider myself lucky to have had an opportunity like that and I don't think enough of us get them.  By having posts from architects we can vicariously be "on site".

[Dan Kelly]

(And, so far, my credibility on golf courses is a lot stronger than The Donald's.)

Talk about BIAS!  

[bakerg (Guest)]

Tom,

I hope that you continue to post here and weigh in on subjects.  I think its great that we are able to post questions to you and you are willing to take the time to awnser them.  Plus, like you said you have taken praise and critiscism.  So, I have no problem with you starting your own posts or telling us what you are working on.  I think we are lucky to hear what is going on in the industry for those on the outside.  And, for those that think that all Tom gets is praise just look up his post on Waterfalls.  I don't think many had good things to say about his plan to use one in Palm Springs.

Gary

[Tim Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

Almost every person I meet has biases on many different subjects. The bias could be about golf architecture, wine makers, artists, social issues, international politics, etc.

When confronted with bias, I've found it makes a lot more sense to simply share my alternative view than preach to that person how he or she is biased. Perhaps working in France taught me that.

Take the subject of Rees Jones and golf architecture as an example. Time and time again I've seen you express that you think people have a bias against his work.

Guess what? I can't even recall one example where Pat Mucci said: "I like the work Rees does......specifically, the following courses.......for the following reasons.....".

Indeed, for all I know, you actually think his work is pretty mediocre!

Tom Paul is right. This is a discusion group, not a court of law. People have preferences; they don't come here to prove facts. If you think one of Rees' projects is worth going out of my way to see, I'd much rather you tell me and tell me why. A lecture on how I might be biased against Rees doesn't motivate me one bit, except perhaps to not even bother seeing his work.

Pat, imagine if you were a personal friend of Rees or any other architect. Do you think he would like having someone always complaining about how people were biased against his work? Or do you think he would prefer someone who proudly described what they found appealing about his courses?

I'm guessing Rees and most practicing architects would prefer the latter.