Architect bashing on this site....

[Mike_Young]

Recently there has been talk of how this site is not what it was.

In watching the "Art Hills" thread for the last few days it makes one wonder.  I have friends that have posted on that thread and IMO no harm was intended...just expressing opinions.....but what purpose does it serve and who ends up looking stupid?   This site is for discussing architecture not slamming architects/courses you dislike.  It is no different than a Toyota owner slamming Chevrolet or Ford or a Titleist player slamming Bridgestone.  I mean the guy has probably 200 courses and continues....come on....
Forrest Richardson wrote the other day of the ruthlessness of the business....I can assure you there is enough ruthlessness going on out there without an architect worrying about some website slamming him...
IMHO the only person that should be relyed upon to give a reference on an architect is the owner of a project that has signed the checks...most others are hearsay....
If a guy has been in business for more than 10 years..he is probably doing something right whether you like his style or not.....
As Satchel Paige once said" if they aren't talking about you then you aren't doing nothin"  JMO

[Tim Copeland]

Bashing an architect, or anyone else for that matter, speaks volumes about the person speaking the words.

[Glenn Spencer]

Mike,

I don't think saying that you don't like something or someone's work makes you look stupid. I would feel stupid if I played something that was supposedly good and said that I thought it was OK, if I didn't like it. When I say that I don't like a place, I am talking about the golf course, not the drainage or the gate receipts or whether the owner likes it. As a human being and a golfer, there is only so much land available and I don't like it being 'wasted', especially the great properties. Architects have a different eye and concerns when playing a course, for us golfers, having high expectations and being COMPLETELY let down is a certain degree of hell. I couldn't care less, what needed to be done for carts or drainage or owner concerns, if I hate the place. Lastly, the one guy that I have a problem with, well, there is no explanation for what he did at the courses that I played, so I don't care if he reads this or not. I look at it the other way, if one potential owner happens to read this site and decides to use you or someone else rather than the guy that gets my goat, well, it would be a grand day for me

[Mike_Young]

Mike,

I don't think saying that you don't like something or someone's work makes you look stupid. I would feel stupid if I played something that was supposedly good and said that I thought it was OK, if I didn't like it. When I say that I don't like a place, I am talking about the golf course, not the drainage or the gate receipts or whether the owner likes it. As a human being and a golfer, there is only so much land available and I don't like it being 'wasted', especially the great properties. Architects have a different eye and concerns when playing a course, for us golfers, having high expectations and being COMPLETELY let down is a certain degree of hell. I couldn't care less, what needed to be done for carts or drainage or owner concerns, if I hate the place. Lastly, the one guy that I have a problem with, well, there is no explanation for what he did at the courses that I played, so I don't care if he reads this or not. I look at it the other way, if one potential owner happens to read this site and decides to use you or someone else rather than the guy that gets my goat, well, it would be a grand day for me

Glenn,
I am not calling one stupid for disliking a course or an architect.....that is a personal opinion that happens with all courses and architects.  BUT IF THERE ARE ENOUGH PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT DO LIKE THE WORK and an architect keeps getting business,,,I think it makes the ones bashing the archie/course have less credibility.  
I think a good example would be one saying that a player on the PGA tour is not a good player or he has a lousy swing....
JMO
Mike

[ed_getka]

Mike,
   Thanks for expressing your viewpoint. Out of curiosity, how would you differentiate between character assassination and how most of what seems to happen here (it seems to me) is guys expressing opinions about what they liked and didn't like about a course? Are both not acceptable? The reason I ask is that there are things I learn about holes and courses from what I read here, and I would think architects could use some of this type of feedback constructively.

[Tommy Williamsen]

There is a fine line between critiquing a course and insulting the architect.  It is easy to go over the line.  Many of you know each other well and are at ease being frrank with each other as if you were in the same room.  The difference is that hundreds of people are overhearing the conversation.  I suspect that a thread entitled "Friends don't let friends play Arthur Hill's courses" was begun to have a little fun.  I can see saying something like that to a buddy.  The reality is that it can hurt both personanally and professionally.

Glenn, your post lacks any depth or common decency.  To say that it would be a "grand day" if someone who gets your goat didn't get a job bacuse of what you said on this site, is at best unkind and at worst cruel.

I have to say, however, that I have noticed that the discussions recently have been of a higher caliber than when I first signed up a few years ago.  I have learned volumes by the collected wisdom of the participants.

[Mike_Young]

Mike,
   Thanks for expressing your viewpoint. Out of curiosity, how would you differentiate between character assassination and how most of what seems to happen here (it seems to me) is guys expressing opinions about what they liked and didn't like about a course? Are both not acceptable? The reason I ask is that there are things I learn about holes and courses from what I read here, and I would think architects could use some of this type of feedback constructively.

ED,
IMHO, saying what you like or don't like about a course is good and I am sure considered by most architects.  It doesnt bother me.  What does bother me is character assasination because one does not like the playability of a course etc.....many times (not all the time) on the web passion and enthusiasm can be mistaken for knowledge when that is not the case....JMO

[Dan_Callahan]

How is criticizing an architect's work any different from going to a movie and telling your friends how bad it sucked and how crappy Keanu Reeves was? Of course, it would come as no suprise to your buddies since Keanu always sucks and hasn't made a good flick since Bill & Ted (Speed was okay, I guess), but you get the point.

Same is true about book clubs. Does anyone ever talk about the quality of a book without mentioning the author?

Doesn't mean you think the author or actor or architect is a bad person. Simply means you weren't impressed with their product.

By the way, I loved the one Hills course I've played.

[JLahrman]

I am not calling one stupid for disliking a course or an architect.....that is a personal opinion that happens with all courses and architects.  BUT IF THERE ARE ENOUGH PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT DO LIKE THE WORK and an architect keeps getting business,,,I think it makes the ones bashing the archie/course have less credibility.

Mike, all we're doing giving is an opinion of a course.  If the majority likes a course and I don't, how would I have less credibility?  I just have different tastes is all.  Billy Joel keeps selling out concerts but I don't like his music, do I have less credibility as a music fan?

[John_Cullum]

In watching the "Art Hills" thread for the last few days it makes one wonder.  I have friends that have posted on that thread and IMO no harm was intended...just expressing opinions.....but what purpose does it serve and who ends up looking stupid?   This site is for discussing architecture not slamming architects/courses you dislike.  

Mike

I respectfully suggest your premise is wrong. This site is all about slamming architects and courses we don't like. That is in fact a method of discussing architecture. There is a fine line between making it personal and saying it in fun as among friends.

We tend to get a little loose here on the site because we develop a cameraderie with one another. Its like hanging out in the grill room and bouncing from table to table injecting ourselves into the topic being discussed, its a form of entertainment.

The only drawback is we aren't in a grill room, we're putting out on the internet for all to see. We are all guilty of frogetting that at times, but I don't want to encourage people to do any differntly.

Architects who choose not to participate on this site need to develop an understanding of what it is we do here. We're just having a good time and generally nothing should be taken personally.

[JESII]

Frequently the commentary on here goes overboard in my opinion. I really doubt people would look the architect in the eye and make some of the comments made on here. that is where Mike is correct...it makes you look stupid (to me at least) when you get into that position.

By the way, Glenn, I think it should matter what ancillary considerations an architect had to consider. After all, does MacKenzie get credit for putting Cypress on the ocean?

[Adam Clayman]

Mike, My comments on the other thread could have easily been misconstrued. If they were, I'm sorry.

In truth, I haven't played too many AH courses. All solid products, with but few examples of greatness.

Greatness has always been the percieved goal here on GCA.com. Whether it's from Ran's reviews or from the real early days of spreading the word, here in the DG. There's an inherent bias towards a higher standard. That's been my perception. It often leads to generalizations and calling someone on the exceptions, is what makes the discussion great.

[Jeff Goldman]

Folks,

It seems to me that the heart of this DG is criticism, which is fair comment, both good and bad.  It also seems to me that, as the great and reviled critic John Simon once wrote, the purpose of criticism is to educate, which this site does pretty well a lot of the time.  However, at times it may be necessary to grab attention with some invective which may be seen as cheap shots, but may also have a point.  If something we regard as unmitigated trash is greeted with hoseannas in other quarters, how are we to respond?  I think that pointed barbs at well-regarded trash can be both an effort to raise awareness of the issue, and to express outrage that such trash is so well thought of.  

When a movie like The English Patient ("Toast Boy" as I call it)or Titanic wins acclaim, the only sane response may be outrage (I felt the same when I found out that Harvey won a pulitzer prize the same year that The Glass Menagerie was ignored).  And sometimes well expressed outrage can begin the education process as well as a 10 page analysis that no one will read.

Therefore, I regard Tiger's original statement about the Hills courses he played as an expression of sputtering outrage that could raise awareness and begin the education process.  He didn't insult him personally, or imply anything more than he is a lousy architect.  That has led to a more detailed discussion of Hills' courses, and some interesting stuff.

Jeff Goldman

[ed_getka]

IMHO, saying what you like or don't like about a course is good and I am sure considered by most architects.  It doesnt bother me.  What does bother me is character assasination because one does not like the playability of a course etc.....many times (not all the time) on the web passion and enthusiasm can be mistaken for knowledge when that is not the case....JMO

Well, I can't argue with that. I'm sure there are some who can though.

[Glenn Spencer]

There is a fine line between critiquing a course and insulting the architect.  It is easy to go over the line.  Many of you know each other well and are at ease being frrank with each other as if you were in the same room.  The difference is that hundreds of people are overhearing the conversation.  I suspect that a thread entitled "Friends don't let friends play Arthur Hill's courses" was begun to have a little fun.  I can see saying something like that to a buddy.  The reality is that it can hurt both personanally and professionally.

Glenn, your post lacks any depth or common decency.  To say that it would be a "grand day" if someone who gets your goat didn't get a job bacuse of what you said on this site, is at best unkind and at worst cruel.

I have to say, however, that I have noticed that the discussions recently have been of a higher caliber than when I first signed up a few years ago.  I have learned volumes by the collected wisdom of the participants.

Tommy,

Apparently, my post had just enough 'depth'. I said if one owner doesn't pick someone because of this site. Not because of what I said. I feel that AH has had his 200 chances and it brought a whole lot of below average. Let someone else have the next Bay Harbor or Longaberger. After seeing what Mike did with that Long Shadow, I can only imagine what he could have done at Longaberger, but we will never know because AH built us some more completely below average holes.

I think some of you are in different and more prestigous positions than others on this site. I understand this, but I don't have the same problem. I am a golfer with a non-industry job. I don't care what people think of what I say. I can't stand the guy's work and I would tell the Queen of England the same thing. My livelihood is not at stake when I post here. I do get out into the golf world when playing tournaments, but I have never run into anything because of this site. Some of you have interests and families to think about before typing and that is fine, but this is a discussion group and I don't think anyone should be judged for saying that they don't like someone's work. As far as I am concerned, this is the 19th hole and I detest Arthur Hills golf courses, so what?

[Glenn Spencer]

Mike, My comments on the other thread could have easily been misconstrued. If they were, I'm sorry.

In truth, I haven't played too many AH courses. All solid products, with but few examples of greatness.

Greatness has always been the percieved goal here on GCA.com. Whether it's from Ran's reviews or from the real early days of spreading the word, here in the DG. There's an inherent bias towards a higher standard. That's been my perception. It often leads to generalizations and calling someone on the exceptions, is what makes the discussion great.

Nice Post

[Glenn Spencer]

Frequently the commentary on here goes overboard in my opinion. I really doubt people would look the architect in the eye and make some of the comments made on here. that is where Mike is correct...it makes you look stupid (to me at least) when you get into that position.

By the way, Glenn, I think it should matter what ancillary considerations an architect had to consider. After all, does MacKenzie get credit for putting Cypress on the ocean?

JES,

You are 1000% right, it should matter. I am just saying that after playing some horrendous golf hole, the last thing that I am thinking about is, I wonder what the drainage issues were and what the owner wanted.

[RJ_Daley]

I have to agree that there is a fine line between character assassination and sharp criticizm.  In fact, it is a treat to read a post of a course where the author really didn't care for the architect's presentation, and used wit and humor to make his point as to what was sorely lacking in a particular archie's effort.  But, there in is the rub.  One can make a numeric criticizm and say they gave the shaping and grading a 1 out of 10 and be somewhat dispassionate and critical without saying something specifically about the archie, personally. (although a 1 as I stated on another thread is in and of itself indicative that the rater is possibly a goof).  But, that doesn't tell us much.  If that same person has any real knowledge and says that the bunkers are all placed at the bottom of long drainage runs, and are a nightmare to maintain and look poorly constructed... well then that is valid, IMHO.

We all have an opinion, and presumably others read our posts to see what we as individuals thought. When we make opinions, we too are subject to style points, and it is perfectly acceptable to slam the critic as a goof as well as the work of an archie as, not too good.

I haven't yet read the Art Hills thread, because I prioritized what I had time to read lately, and from experience on here, I sort of suspected it is a pile-on fest.  I have seen a couple of AH projects.  One is very acceptable (maybe not great) and one was fair, and the last remodel effort was poor because he didn't come close to the truly great original archie's classic style and blend in with the previous greatness of that particular design.  That isn't meant to bash AH, and it is my honest opinion, and why.  I know that isn't bashing his character, and if anyone took it that way, I'd say they can't read well.

[Glenn Spencer]

Mike,

I don't think saying that you don't like something or someone's work makes you look stupid. I would feel stupid if I played something that was supposedly good and said that I thought it was OK, if I didn't like it. When I say that I don't like a place, I am talking about the golf course, not the drainage or the gate receipts or whether the owner likes it. As a human being and a golfer, there is only so much land available and I don't like it being 'wasted', especially the great properties. Architects have a different eye and concerns when playing a course, for us golfers, having high expectations and being COMPLETELY let down is a certain degree of hell. I couldn't care less, what needed to be done for carts or drainage or owner concerns, if I hate the place. Lastly, the one guy that I have a problem with, well, there is no explanation for what he did at the courses that I played, so I don't care if he reads this or not. I look at it the other way, if one potential owner happens to read this site and decides to use you or someone else rather than the guy that gets my goat, well, it would be a grand day for me

Glenn,
I am not calling one stupid for disliking a course or an architect.....that is a personal opinion that happens with all courses and architects.  BUT IF THERE ARE ENOUGH PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT DO LIKE THE WORK and an architect keeps getting business,,,I think it makes the ones bashing the archie/course have less credibility.  
I think a good example would be one saying that a player on the PGA tour is not a good player or he has a lousy swing....
JMO
Mike

Mike,

Mike there are a lot of women that have had abortions. Do you think the woman that says, Hey, I don't think that is right, has credibility? A lot of people smoke cigarettes and drink too much, but the guy who doesn't still has credibility, right?

[Glenn Spencer]

I have to agree that there is a fine line between character assassination and sharp criticizm.  In fact, it is a treat to read a post of a course where the author really didn't care for the architect's presentation, and used wit and humor to make his point as to what was sorely lacking in a particular archie's effort.  But, there in is the rub.  One can make a numeric criticizm and say they gave the shaping and grading a 1 out of 10 and be somewhat dispassionate and critical without saying something specifically about the archie, personally. (although a 1 as I stated on another thread is in and of itself indicative that the rater is possibly a goof).  But, that doesn't tell us much.  If that same person has any real knowledge and says that the bunkers are all placed at the bottom of long drainage runs, and are a nightmare to maintain and look poorly constructed... well then that is valid, IMHO.

We all have an opinion, and presumably others read our posts to see what we as individuals thought. When we make opinions, we too are subject to style points, and it is perfectly acceptable to slam the critic as a goof as well as the work of an archie as, not too good.

I haven't yet read the Art Hills thread, because I prioritized what I had time to read lately, and from experience on here, I sort of suspected it is a pile-on fest.  I have seen a couple of AH projects.  One is very acceptable (maybe not great) and one was fair, and the last remodel effort was poor because he didn't come close to the truly great original archie's classic style and blend in with the previous greatness of that particular design.  That isn't meant to bash AH, and it is my honest opinion, and why.  I know that isn't bashing his character, and if anyone took it that way, I'd say they can't read well.

RJ,

Real knowledge? This would be a boring site if all we had was people posting that had real knowledge of where the drainage was running. I will take a good hole with bad drainage over anything that I have seen from Hills. The front page of this website says frank commentary and discussion about the world's best golf courses or something to that extent. I don't see where it says, let's talk about how to build them.

[Bob_Huntley]

Folks,

When a movie like The English Patient ("Toast Boy" as I call it)or Titanic wins acclaim, the only sane response may be outrage (I felt the same when I found out that Harvey won a pulitzer prize the same year that The Glass Menagerie was ignored).  And sometimes well expressed outrage can begin the education process as well as a 10 page analysis that no one will read.

Jeff Goldman

Jeff,

I thought "The English Patient" was the mosy hyper praised movie ever. After Fiennes hefted her up the hill and into the cave, left to get help in what seemed like a several week haitus, came back to find her quite dead and looking like she had just come from having a facial, the whole film became a joke. No ants, spiders or other insects on a dead body? Whoa, this is a place that would put undertakers out of business.

Bob

[Yannick Pilon]

Jes II,

I'm with you.  Anything you would not tell to someone's face should be seen as "over the line", especially in a public discussion group.

I don't have any problem with bad criticism, as long as the victim of it can actually do something with it to try to get better at what they do.  When that isn't the case, why bother to make such comments?

We all see things on golf courses we consider to be horrendous.  But the thruth is, the people who actually designed and built theses courses - beleive it or not - were doing their best.  A bit of help might be necessary sometimes, not a slap in the face.

I have always seen this site as a site that promotes good architecture.  Shouldn't it be about making courses better, as opposed to simply pointing out the bad stuff....  Some of the threads on here are just plain bad.  Thankfully, they only represent a minority.

YP

[Lou_Duran]

Jeff Goldman,

Your journey to the dark side is now complete.  Congratulations or condolences?

Mike Young,

Right on.  And though the other side of the coin may not be as onerous, it is nauseating to me.  A popular architect once remarked that "giving the time of day" to a participant here was all it took to get favorable treatment.  I guess that Art Hills, Nicklaus, the Joneses, and Fazio either have not picked up on that or couldn't care less (I suspect the latter).

No doubt that there are some folks whose primary objective for participating is to learn.   There are probably some Playboy readers who buy the magazine for the articles, but most go for the buzz and the T & A.

I am not picking on Tiger because when it comes to golf architects he is not prone to attacking character and motives.  His concept and example of "reverse strategy" was interesting and could probably be instructive.  I see nothing wrong with criticizing courses in some detail or making inferences about the architect's body of work based on a considered analysis of a representative sample.  On the other hand, the length required to do so is probably beyond the attention span of many here.    

[RJ_Daley]

Glenn, I take you point.  But, not so far as to give more or equal credibility to a critic that has little or no knowledge of several of the aspects of golf course architecture including construction techniques of grading and shaping and proper use of the earthmoving equipment, turf science knowledge, and irrigation and drainage knowledge that folds into construction techniques.  Then designing the routing of the course with all those considerations brought into relationship with strategy.  

Take out one or more of those components, and give them to incompetents, and you aren't going to get a good product.  You may like the course anyway - during a perfect weather period when there is just the right amount of precipatation, and drainage and irrigation are minimized, and you aren't made to walk through a bog, and turf is thriving, etc.  But, then you may just like going to the range and hitting balls as well.  

This isn't a boring site because many critics and people that like to discuss their likes and dislikes don't know that much about the nuts and bolts of construction and design, or turf.  It is always interesting to see what people think.  They have a take, and they are entitled.  

But, I am saying that many of us who have been on this site for a long time now, begin to know who really understands more than their superficial passion to bat a golf ball around a field of turf and bunkers.  When those less knowledgeable folks go particularly negative, I for one don't give too much credibility to their remarks.  When they go positive, I take it with an attitude that I'm glad they had a nice time at a particular golf course, but without more details, I'm still not convinced about that course's potential greatness.

But, a person that really has made a passionate study of these subjects of design, construction, turf, and knows their GCA history, and has seen plenty of examples in their travels... well like the old Merrill Lynch commercials, "when they talk, people listen".

[Bob_Huntley]

But, a person that really has made a passionate study of these subjects of design, construction, turf, and knows their GCA history, and has seen plenty of examples in their travels... well like the old Merrill Lynch commercials, "when they talk, people listen".

.  
 well like the old Merrill Lynch commercials, "when they talk, people listen".

Dick,

You have no excuse, you are not old enough to be forgetful.

It was E.F. Hutton, not Merrill Lynch, that had the best ad on Television.


Bob