Architect bashing on this site....

[Jeff_Brauer]

Glenn,

Your use of "its a waste" implies you don't like the design, which is fair.  However, it implies that you have studied the land, and determined the the gca made wholesale mistakes in routing, which IMHO, is not, given you don't likely know the wetlands issues, budget, and whole host of other concerns that you admit you don't care about.

My only point is that kind of phrasing is, IMHO, a bit overblown.  I have relatives in Ohio, and they say you can hardly get on the place, so there are obviously differences of opinion.  Using strong declaritives makes it seem as if there could not possibly be any other opinion.  If that were the case, then we would have very short discussions, no?

Tommy,

I was only aware that you were a moderator when someone posted that last year.  In any event, it does seem you have become more polished (perhaps from hanging out with Forrest?) over the years, while retaining your passion.  Of course, that is from memory, which as always, could be faulty.  

BTW, its easy to date my particpation - I discovered this place through Ron Whitten, who was lamenting using some foul language in his site interview, which is listed as Feb. 2000, so I have been here a year longer than you recall.  Funny, but I would have thought that my presence here would have seemed LONGER to you, rather than SHORTER!

I have no disagreement on the idea that this site is to discuss and critique the good bad and ugly of gca.  I think its a matter of degrees, and I don't think that many black and white statements made are as completely true as their originators presume (not just here, but in general)

I disagree that all Art Hills courses are bad architecture. I have played four Hills courses in Texas, two in Michigan, and two more in Ohio and probably a few others that I can't recall right now.  I have seen Black Gold.  That is what I base my opinions on, not "All Hills Courses."  They may vary in quality, but a broad brush broadside isn't an accurate assessment on your, or anyone else's part.

At least I don't find rants as credible as critiques with specificity, which I have seen here.  You can say whatever you want, I just think people listen more when posts are brief rather than rambling, and factual rather than rant.

As always, JMHO.  Make it a great day!

[George Pazin]

I disagree that all Art Hills courses are bad architecture. I have played four Hills courses in Texas, two in Michigan, and two more in Ohio and probably a few others that I can't recall right now.  I have seen Black Gold.  That is what I base my opinions on, not "All Hills Courses."  They may vary in quality, but a broad brush broadside isn't an accurate assessment on your, or anyone else's part.

And this makes a far stronger and more effective rebuttal than telling/asking someone not to bash an architect, imho.

 

[Glenn Spencer]

Glenn,

Your use of "its a waste" implies you don't like the design, which is fair.  However, it implies that you have studied the land, and determined the the gca made wholesale mistakes in routing, which IMHO, is not, given you don't likely know the wetlands issues, budget, and whole host of other concerns that you admit you don't care about.

My only point is that kind of phrasing is, IMHO, a bit overblown.  I have relatives in Ohio, and they say you can hardly get on the place, so there are obviously differences of opinion.  Using strong declaritives makes it seem as if there could not possibly be any other opinion.  If that were the case, then we would have very short discussions, no?

Tommy,

I was only aware that you were a moderator when someone posted that last year.  In any event, it does seem you have become more polished (perhaps from hanging out with Forrest?) over the years, while retaining your passion.  Of course, that is from memory, which as always, could be faulty.  

BTW, its easy to date my particpation - I discovered this place through Ron Whitten, who was lamenting using some foul language in his site interview, which is listed as Feb. 2000, so I have been here a year longer than you recall.  Funny, but I would have thought that my presence here would have seemed LONGER to you, rather than SHORTER!

I have no disagreement on the idea that this site is to discuss and critique the good bad and ugly of gca.  I think its a matter of degrees, and I don't think that many black and white statements made are as completely true as their originators presume (not just here, but in general)

I disagree that all Art Hills courses are bad architecture. I have played four Hills courses in Texas, two in Michigan, and two more in Ohio and probably a few others that I can't recall right now.  I have seen Black Gold.  That is what I base my opinions on, not "All Hills Courses."  They may vary in quality, but a broad brush broadside isn't an accurate assessment on your, or anyone else's part.

At least I don't find rants as credible as critiques with specificity, which I have seen here.  You can say whatever you want, I just think people listen more when posts are brief rather than rambling, and factual rather than rant.

As always, JMHO.  Make it a great day!

Jeff,

I do care about those issues, but I don't let an architect 'off the hook' because of them. This is 2006, I would imagine things can be done to avoid building the 8th hole at Longaberger the way it is. I take it that you haven't been out there. Well, even for a dummy like me, it is VERY easy to see that it is a FABULOUS piece of land. To build a pretty course (given) that has some of the stupidest shot asks and mismatched greens and Nascar style fairways is a waste to me.

The clubhouse and the practice facility are completely wonderful, so are the people. The golf course isn't. I can see most people enjoying their day there, but nobody is EVER going to say the place is underrated or that Hills got the most out of the property. Pretty typical of AH, actually. Are you under the impression that Hills was under supreme budget restraints and not able to do better? I am not. What AH courses have you played in Ohio?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Jeff,
The only reason why I keep on reminding you of this is because you seem to be always conveniently bringing it up! (the moderator thing)

As far as me becoming polished, I would probably equate that more to  recovery in my 12 Step Program and being fortunate to be able to hang out in Long Island for two months, which I think has really changed me on a maturity level. (Yes, I'll admit that immaturity might have played a part of it, but show me an old man and I'll show you a true child anytime!)

I can assure you Forrest is not responsible for any of it other then a pat on the back the last time we talked about a year ago. I don't think I've seen him in person in over a year and a half. A lot has changed in my life in that time.

[John_Conley]

Sarge is right, Glenn should play the Dunes before painting with this broad of a brush.  It seems that he's too narrow minded for that.  

For all the grief Hills took by some that played Fiddler's Creek, Renaissance wasn't anywhere close to as bad and seemed to get lumped in to the same boat.

I actually found several things about the facility at Fiddler's redeeming, although there was some scratch-my-head architecture.

Golf Club at Cypress Head isn't bad, and neither is his course at LPGA International.  Want to bash someone, how about Rees for his effort there?  And the Dunes is terrific.  Plus I've always liked the courses at Bonita Bay.

[Brian Phillips]

Jeff,
The only reason why I keep on reminding you of this is because you seem to be always conveniently bringing it up! (the moderator thing)

As far as me becoming polished, I would probably equate that more to  recovery in my 12 Step Program and being fortunate to be able to hang out in Long Island for two months, which I think has really changed me on a maturity level. (Yes, I'll admit that immaturity might have played a part of it, but show me an old man and I'll show you a true child anytime!)

I can assure you Forrest is not responsible for any of it other then a pat on the back the last time we talked about a year ago. I don't think I've seen him in person in over a year and a half. A lot has changed in my life in that time.

Tommy,

Both you and I must have matured in the last year or two...we haven't had a dig at each other for about two year...

Happy Christmas...

[Dan Moore]

I found this apropos to the discussion.  It is from the New York Times where the editor of the book section responds to a readers question about the "nastiness" of some recent book reviews.  


An an interesting perspective on the critcal process, responsibility and accountability.  



Getting Nasty

Q. Since you took over as editor of the Book Review, I have been struck by the number of vicious reviews you have published, most notably Leon Wieseltier on Nicholson Baker's "scummy little book" ["Checkpoint"]. A number of others spring to mind, including a recent review of Laura Kipnis's "The Female Thing" and Daniel Mendelsohn's review of Jonathan Franzen's "The Discomfort Zone."

— Barbara Wansbrough

Sam Tanenhaus, editor of the NYT Book Review
A. We have indeed published some strong-minded and sometimes harshly worded reviews - the consequence of our preference for reviewers who take books seriously, as the best critics have always done. Taking books seriously means reading them closely and responding forcefully. Samuel Johnson did not mince words. Neither did Oscar Wilde, Edmund Wilson, Cyril Connolly or Mary McCarthy. A fiercely negative review, if it's well thought out and intelligently written, reflects the critic's deep involvement with the work in question and so is kindred in its enthusiastic spirit to a rapturously positive review. The civil, polite, or "nice" review often springs from detachment or even evasiveness and, in our view, doesn't serve readers especially well.

This isn't to say reviewers shouldn't be responsible in their appraisals and reasoned in their prose. Of course they should be. But a review can have both those virtues and also be negative and even fierce. The greatest danger facing literature today is the steady devaluing of the published word, a decline characterized in the culture at large not by "nastiness" but by indifference and disengagement. And this is what we at the Book Review wish to combat. At the same time we don't consider our reviews the last or most definitive word, and we regularly publish letters from authors and readers who strongly disagree with our reviewers. Often we disagree with our reviewers, too. But it is their call, not ours. We avoid trying to influence reviewers in any way and select them not because we think they will like or hate a particular book, but because we think they'll have something interesting to say.

I should add that I'm an author myself and know what it's like to have my work treated roughly by reviewers. In one instance, I sent a note to the editor of the publication where a negative and, I thought, unjust review of my work had appeared. The editor replied that as an author I had offered my work up to the public and had no business complaining because I had been criticized. It was good advice.

[Andy Troeger]

Jeff,

I do care about those issues, but I don't let an architect 'off the hook' because of them. This is 2006, I would imagine things can be done to avoid building the 8th hole at Longaberger the way it is. I take it that you haven't been out there. Well, even for a dummy like me, it is VERY easy to see that it is a FABULOUS piece of land. To build a pretty course (given) that has some of the stupidest shot asks and mismatched greens and Nascar style fairways is a waste to me.

The clubhouse and the practice facility are completely wonderful, so are the people. The golf course isn't. I can see most people enjoying their day there, but nobody is EVER going to say the place is underrated or that Hills got the most out of the property. Pretty typical of AH, actually. Are you under the impression that Hills was under supreme budget restraints and not able to do better? I am not. What AH courses have you played in Ohio?

Glenn,
I think the conflict with some of your posts like the one above is that you don't seem to give any consideration that people might disagree with you on some of these things. I think your passion for the subject is impressive, but believe it or not I would have to say quite a number of people actually LIKE Longaberger.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=24309

There's the thread of our discussion in July. Its fairly evident that of the GCA crowd the approval rating is less than stellar, however there are those of us who thought the course was worth an afternoon to see. If you want to look at the rankings, LB is #65 public by Golf Digest and #17 in the State, GM has it at #47 public, and GW has it as the #1 public in the state. There are quite a few impressive designs behind it as well. Does that make it overrated? Depends. It certainly means somebody out there must have enjoyed it!

[Gary Daughters]

Novelists, playwrights, athletes ad naseum all are open to criticism and get hammered a lot harder than gca's.  If golf course architects are being held to account and even to occasional ridicule..  well, at least someone's paying attention, right?  I would think that's a good thing.

Who gives 100% credence to an individual post?  Most of us weigh the accumulation of opinions just as a lot of observers have rendered their judgements of a certain architect from the body of his work and not just a course or two.  

Not posting something that you wouldn't say to someone's face seems to me to be an overly-censurious standard that would get in the way of good discussion.  While most of us post under our own good names, if we choose we may check our manners at the door.  Thank goodness.

   

[Dan Kelly]

I found this apropos to the discussion.  It is from the New York Times where the editor of the book section responds to a readers question about the "nastiness" of some recent book reviews.  


An an interesting perspective on the critcal process, responsibility and accountability.  



Getting Nasty

Q. Since you took over as editor of the Book Review, I have been struck by the number of vicious reviews you have published, most notably Leon Wieseltier on Nicholson Baker's "scummy little book" ["Checkpoint"]. A number of others spring to mind, including a recent review of Laura Kipnis's "The Female Thing" and Daniel Mendelsohn's review of Jonathan Franzen's "The Discomfort Zone."

— Barbara Wansbrough

Sam Tanenhaus, editor of the NYT Book Review
A. We have indeed published some strong-minded and sometimes harshly worded reviews - the consequence of our preference for reviewers who take books seriously, as the best critics have always done. Taking books seriously means reading them closely and responding forcefully. Samuel Johnson did not mince words. Neither did Oscar Wilde, Edmund Wilson, Cyril Connolly or Mary McCarthy. A fiercely negative review, if it's well thought out and intelligently written, reflects the critic's deep involvement with the work in question and so is kindred in its enthusiastic spirit to a rapturously positive review. The civil, polite, or "nice" review often springs from detachment or even evasiveness and, in our view, doesn't serve readers especially well.

This isn't to say reviewers shouldn't be responsible in their appraisals and reasoned in their prose. Of course they should be. But a review can have both those virtues and also be negative and even fierce. The greatest danger facing literature today is the steady devaluing of the published word, a decline characterized in the culture at large not by "nastiness" but by indifference and disengagement. And this is what we at the Book Review wish to combat. At the same time we don't consider our reviews the last or most definitive word, and we regularly publish letters from authors and readers who strongly disagree with our reviewers. Often we disagree with our reviewers, too. But it is their call, not ours. We avoid trying to influence reviewers in any way and select them not because we think they will like or hate a particular book, but because we think they'll have something interesting to say.

I should add that I'm an author myself and know what it's like to have my work treated roughly by reviewers. In one instance, I sent a note to the editor of the publication where a negative and, I thought, unjust review of my work had appeared. The editor replied that as an author I had offered my work up to the public and had no business complaining because I had been criticized. It was good advice.

Bravo, Mr. Tanenhaus!

[Glenn Spencer]

Jeff,

I do care about those issues, but I don't let an architect 'off the hook' because of them. This is 2006, I would imagine things can be done to avoid building the 8th hole at Longaberger the way it is. I take it that you haven't been out there. Well, even for a dummy like me, it is VERY easy to see that it is a FABULOUS piece of land. To build a pretty course (given) that has some of the stupidest shot asks and mismatched greens and Nascar style fairways is a waste to me.

The clubhouse and the practice facility are completely wonderful, so are the people. The golf course isn't. I can see most people enjoying their day there, but nobody is EVER going to say the place is underrated or that Hills got the most out of the property. Pretty typical of AH, actually. Are you under the impression that Hills was under supreme budget restraints and not able to do better? I am not. What AH courses have you played in Ohio?

Glenn,
I think the conflict with some of your posts like the one above is that you don't seem to give any consideration that people might disagree with you on some of these things. I think your passion for the subject is impressive, but believe it or not I would have to say quite a number of people actually LIKE Longaberger.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=24309

There's the thread of our discussion in July. Its fairly evident that of the GCA crowd the approval rating is less than stellar, however there are those of us who thought the course was worth an afternoon to see. If you want to look at the rankings, LB is #65 public by Golf Digest and #17 in the State, GM has it at #47 public, and GW has it as the #1 public in the state. There are quite a few impressive designs behind it as well. Does that make it overrated? Depends. It certainly means somebody out there must have enjoyed it!

Andy,

Back to School (classic movie) Say it!!! Say it!!SAAAAYYY It!!!   Go ahead, find me someone that will say that Longaberger is underrated or that he got the most out of that property. The Rankings? I never knew that basket-makers had such power, to get that place in the top 17 in Ohio is insulting to an Ohio golfer. I feel comfortable speaking for the world in saying that no well-traveled golfer is going to walk off that place and say it is underrated. Jesse and yourself know what you are talking about, but if you like 8, well, you are just wrong, that or you must be fooled by it's beauty. I will say it is the best hole of its kind though, of course there is a good reason for that. There will never be another.

[Mike_Young]

OK....after 60 replies I guess I have a good idea of the varying opinions on the site in regards to the subject.....I was just expressing mine.....
Mike

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tommy,

Both you and I must have matured in the last year or two...we haven't had a dig at each other for about two years...

Happy Christmas...

Brian,
Boy, has there been a time or two though!

Dunes at Seville aside, some of the names of these Hills courses are abominations! The Golf Club at Cypress Head??

Mike, You keep on expressing them. Never stop!

When it comes to this entire thread, I could always say the magic word...........



SANDPINES! ! ! ! ! !

Surely that must be worth some measure of criticism, shouldn't it?

(Just Joking!)

[paul cowley]

.....personally I always welcome praise, critique, criticism or bashing of any sort.
And I just hope that what ever you say can be repeated if you found me grinning at you when you opened your front door.

...just kidding LOL ha ha ha  .........

[Doug Ralston]

Crap!!!

I am going to have to drag Glenn's butt to Eagle Ridge! I fear only that it is different from most other courses, I doubt he will say it is a poor example of what it is. He needs to see that Hills Inc really CAN do a good one.

And he will certainly stop thinking that Fox Run #18 is tough, after he experiences ER #4. Hehe, I am certain he will either thank me or kick me after that course!

But I still think it is unsurpassed.

Doug

[JR Potts]

ATTENTION

For you Hills lovers, he is building a new course in Chicago called Chicago Highlands.

I thought you all would be dying to know.  I will happily plan the first GCA outing there.   It should be easy to plan.

[Andy Troeger]

Glenn,

As much as I'd like to say otherwise...

I can't say Longaberger is underrated (although I don't really think its overrated either). I also don't really see getting most of least of out land...I'm not smart enough to tell that, so I fail on that account too.

I do like #8 well enough, so I guess I'll have to accept being called wrong, but if gives me more opportunities to give you grief for hating the course, then so be it!  

[Glenn Spencer]

ATTENTION

For you Hills lovers, he is building a new course in Chicago called Chicago Highlands.

I thought you all would be dying to know.  I will happily plan the first GCA outing there.   It should be easy to plan.

Nice. The USGA will finally have its US Open course in the Midwest.


Andy,

I will see you at Ryan's outing in the Windy City. I am sure hoping that Art did not lose the plans from #'s 2,6,9,18 at Pipestone. I will talk Hills anytime. I am thinking about seeing a therapist for my problem.

[Jesse Jones]

Here we go again..
What's the problem saying there are problems with a GCA's work?
I'm not a fan of AH.
So what. If you like a guy, pay and play. Rave about it when you are done. Cool.
But see, I paid for the round. I'm a customer. I can have my say.
Two, when it comes to someone like AH, I've played enough of his work to have an opinion.
I hear y'all already, why do you keep playing his courses when all you find is disappointment?
But I was giving the guy a chance.
From Maryland to Michigan and points in between.
Different terrain and budgets. Public and Private.
AH has done some good stuff..But the rest is just disappointing.  
Bay Harbor and Longaberger are just two of the examples of what I'm describing.
I've gone over my complaints of these courses ad naseum.
My point, if you have seen enough of the work, say what you want.
He's a big boy really..He can take it..

[Jordan Wall]

Jesse,

I have an honest question for you.

Do you think Harbour Point is a good golf course?
Or, do you think it is a mediocre course yet simply fun to have a nice, casual round at?

Cheers,

Jordan

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mr. Tanenhaus kinda makes both points here - favoring strong reviews and even a level of nastiness:

"I had offered my work up to the public and had no business complaining because I had been criticized. It was good advice."

I agree.  As a gca, I know its futile and counterproductive to try to manage the press, or the internet.  Just spell my name right - That's Keffy, Keffy Bauer.....

On the other hand, he also says:

"Taking books seriously means reading them closely and responding forcefully."

To be honest, my beef is that on this site, I get the impression that we all fire off posts some time, without really "reading closely" - i.e., "do the heavy lifting, to borrow a phrase from Matt Ward.

"This isn't to say reviewers shouldn't be responsible in their appraisals and reasoned in their prose. Of course they should be. But a review can have both those virtues and also be negative and even fierce."

My objection is/was only to irrresponsible prose and poorly reasoned critiques.......In short, writing a negative review isn't wrong, but I am sure the writers for the publication in question didn't stoop below certain levels of civility.  You can disagree all you want, but some of the over the top writing here is undefensible.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

So is over-the-top self-promotion..... (Not you Keff)

[Jesse Jones]

Jordan,

Calling me out about the course down the street from my home huh?
That's cool..I asked for it..
I think it's another 6-6-6 AH design.
6 great-6 decent and 6 "What in the hell were you thinking" holes.

Examples.. The fourth hole..come on now....what's the club selection there when it's F&F-4 iron-6 iron-gap/lob wedge?
The 13th depends on where they put the tees--up front--5 iron wedge-no other choice--can you see the green? I don't think so..
Nice Holes--
#2 is a tremendous driving hole--lace 'em up buddy..
#8 great driveable Par 4.
#17 another nice driving hole. The longest 430 yards I've ever played.

Anyway..
HP is OK at it's best.
However, when I'm playing with you and your father, it's awesome.
See, I'm not totally focused on the golf course when I'm playing with friends.
Since I have few friends, I often have time to concentrate on the course.
With the right partners, the course really doesn't matter that much to me.
It's about the experience.  
HP is saved because it is maintained well, has a good staff and a great bar/restaurant.

[Tom_Doak]

I have no problem with someone bashing my work here (or anyone else's) as long as they have specific points to make.  

A general bashing of someone's body of work is ridiculous, because no one has played more than a fraction of most architects' output.  You can say I've played these four of so-and-so's courses and I think they are rubbish and has he done any that anyone likes?  But to say it's all bad is silly.

I took most of the comments which might have been considered "personal attacks" out of The Confidential Guide between the first volume (for 40 friends) and the second (the 1000 copy limited edition).  You can say things to your friends you should never say in public.  I think most on here believe themselves to be among friends but it is also a public forum and some should consider that more carefully.

[ForkaB]

"Bashing" is fine, whether it be an architect, a course or just a golf hole, but ONLY if one backs it up with some specifics.  The "I played XXXXX yesterday, and boy did it suck!" sort of comment is not criticism, it is childishness.

Same for adulation.

Quite frankly, while I respect everybody's opinion, I don't really care what anybody thinks on the site unless they take the care to tell us why they think the way they do.  That is the only way we are going to learn anything.