How Open Is Your Mind ?

[Garland Bayley]

And Tom D, please feel free to offer your true critique of Bighorn Cliffs Golf Course appearing on the first page of the site today.

[Don_Mahaffey]

...only problem with this web site as I see it is that people seem less and less willing to express their true opinions, because it's become so easy to predict the response, and they just don't want to deal with the response.  In my own case, it's a professional issue, too ... sometimes I think there are ten other architects on here whose sole purpose is to remind me not to state my true critiques of any modern courses. 

For each architect I'll bet there are a hundred here who would love to hear your frank critique of any modern course. Not because I want to be witness to an internet fight but because honest critique and honest defense is very enlightening. Critique of modern golf architecture seems to be grounded in either marketing or "I'll like your stuff if you like mine". No magazine is going to hammer a potential advertiser, so if it's bad they just ignore. And architects have a code of silence about each other so when something negative is said; it's usually cloaked in some sort of code requiring the reader to read between the lines to get the real meaning.

Golf development is on the slide, and maybe it comes back or maybe not. The decline is macro, but it's also a result of the methods used that drove the costs to ridiculous amounts of expense.  Profitable to some, sure, but at the expense of what?  Your generation of architects has taught the business community that it takes 8 figures to build anything good. I'd also love to hear a critique of that in general with specific examples of where it didn't need to be.

[TEPaul]

"Your generation of architects has taught the business community that it takes 8 figures to build anything good. I'd also love to hear a critique of that in general with specific examples of where it didn't need to be."

Don Mahaffey:

It is definitely not Doak's generation who's been responsible for that kind thing.

The old magazines and newspapers going all the way back to the teens are completely chocked full of articles in which some of the best and most respected architects and clubs have blatantly bragged thusly; "No expense spared" or even bragged about the total cost of a course, while those very same architects suggested to the world that if one hires them they will reap the rewards of all kinds of cost efficiencies and savings! The latter probably made some sense back in the teens and before where clubs trying to do things more on their own were repeating the very same mistakes but nevertheless anyone should be able to recognize the inherent dichotomy of the things some of those old architects said in print.

[Garland Bayley]

... Your generation of architects has taught the business community that it takes 8 figures to build anything good. I'd also love to hear a critique of that in general with specific examples of where it didn't need to be.

Exactly which of the courses at Bandon Dunes Resort cost 8 figures to build?

[Don_Mahaffey]

Tom,
If my comment seemed to be a slam on Tom, it's not; as I think he's done what he has to do to build great golf courses. I could say the same thing about my generation of supers. We blame TV and the tour and the Augusta syndrome, but more money in the budget usually made things better for us. Everyone likes to have more $$$ to work with, but I think golf has taken that too far and I think if we want to continue to grow the game, or at least keep it alive, we need to take a hard look at the amount of money it takes to build and care for our courses.

Garland, we can cherry pick, but take a look at the big picture. I want to hear the guys who can do it for less, shout it out. I think they get over run by the big name guys who have taught the world that it takes huge amounts of money to do anything. We know here, that guys like Doak, DeVries, Young, Nuzzo...and others can do it differently. 

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
If my comment seemed to be a slam on Tom, it's not;"


Don:

Relax. The very last thing I would've thought of with your remark is that it was a slam on Tom Doak.

And even if it was I think Tom Doak is a big boy and can handle it just fine.

Frankly, one of the things that has always most interested me (and I guess amused me too) is that Tom Doak has always seemed to be completely aware of his roll in golf architecture as a real critic certainly once upon a time (with his famous Confidential Guide) and both the positives and drawbacks of that and of real critical review while at the same time seeming to be constantly sort of ambivalent about the positives and drawbacks of it all. 

Perhaps he might even think by saying that I might be slamming him too. With assurance I'll say I'm certainly not---quite the opposite in fact. I don't think anyone can truly understand all the ramifications of real criticisms unless they've once done it on sort of a global scale with something really on the line or at risk.

That's one problem I have with some of the gratuitous and sometimes seemingly uninformed criticisms by some on here to do with courses or architects or even clubs----if you look at who they are, they have very little on the line or at risk and they never will! 

[Garland Bayley]

... I think they get over run by the big name guys who have taught the world that it takes huge amounts of money to do anything. We know here, that guys like Doak, DeVries, Young, Nuzzo...and others can do it differently. 

I'm not sure the guys you name would consider themselves to the the same generation as RTJ II, Rees J, JN, TF, AP, etc.

[TEPaul]

"I'm not sure the guys you name would consider themselves to the the same generation as RTJ II, Rees J, JN, TF, AP, etc."

Garland:

Well, how about we just settle for the fact they are all working during the same time? Would you buy that?

[Tom_Doak]

Tom P:  I appreciate your post above, but the one difference I would cite is that I don't think there ARE any drawbacks to "real critical review".  The only problem we have is that there isn't any such thing nowadays.

Unfortunately, most of the people best qualified to provide real critical review are co-opted by the system like myself, if not more so.  Look at Dr. Klein or Ron Whitten ... once independent voices, now they represent magazines for which they have to present defenses and justifications of course rankings, they are personal friends or enemies with many practicing designers, and they each have their own set of business conflicts of interest as they make sideline income from consulting at courses (old and new).  I used to read between the lines of their articles knowing their true feelings about certain courses and chuckle, but sadly this is seldom necessary anymore.

And then there is Mr. Morrissett, who thought he could stay above the fray instead of speaking the other half of his opinions, but who is trying to develop a new course himself.  [EDITED BY AUTHOR HERE.]

Incidentally, my client in China is interested in publishing The Confidential Guide in Chinese, and I might go along -- talk about a place that needs some enlightened criticism!  The shit that some people are building over there (under the premise that they are not contractually obligated to supervise it more, and that the clients don't know the difference anyway) is just mind-boggling.  However, in the end, I'll probably hold back, and just try to go over and build a couple of courses which set a better example, and hope that somebody appreciates the difference.  Especially since designing the golf course pays about 100 times more than writing the book. 

[John Kirk]

Matt Ward wrote:

“The only real stipulation that I hold for any course I play is whether or not consistently the good shot is rewarded proportionate to the level of skill in which it has been executed. On the converse side -- a course must punish poor shots - again in direct proportion to the lack of execution that's been achieved. Other than that -- I'm really wide open in what goes.”

“The reward / penalty dynamic, IMHO, is central and cuts to the core of what ANY golf design of merit will have.”

In general, I don't have a problem with this.  However, one of the characteristics I covet is a wide variety of possible outcomes for each shot, a randomness that makes each round unique.  A course that perfectly rewards or punishes shots based on shot quality can't have the smaller features that broaden the spectrum of results from one round to the next.

I like a complex playing field, with a wide variety of playing results, where the average result is proportional to the quality of shot played.

The simpler the golf course, the easier it is to tell whether shot quality equals result.  I see no way to judge this correlation on a complex course in one round.  If you get three "unlucky" bounces on your one day at the course, you might conclude the "quality-reward" equation isn't strong enough.

It just occurred to me:  I challenge anyone here to name a golf course that does not consistently reward quality play, and why they think that is so.

[Tom_Doak]

John:

The common refrain from low-handicap players is that wide fairways do not reward quality play, because they do not separate straight drives from wilder ones.

The problem with that straight-line correlation is that if you apply it to its logical conclusion, courses would be completely straightforward and downright impossible for weaker players.  I think someone still uses as their tag line something I once wrote on this subject, that "the paradox of proportionality is the heart of golf course architecture," or some such nonsense.

The true test of an enlightened observer is how much they can stomach the weaker player being able to get away with poor shots here and there (as long as they continue to play brilliant recovery golf).  This is by far more important than whether they can stomach the occasional bad bounce, which in hindsight, is always due to not giving the offending contour proper latitude.

[Bart Bradley]

I find this discussion remarkably interesting.  It strikes at the heart of the purpose of this website and it has been troubling me lately.  Tom Doak says above (3 posts up) that there isn't such a thing as "real critical review" nowadays.

I personally agree that all the sources of "critical thinking" are hesitant to be entirely honest and truthful.  And whether it is true or not, the course critiques and rankings have the appearance of a conflict of interest.

How can we, as a group, get to a place where the exchange of ideas can proceed with honesty? and isn't it important that we do so?

Bart

[Matt_Ward]

Bart:

Disclosures can be helpful to do what you seek.

Yet, you are asking for something only the individual observer can draw for themselves - about the need for "honesty." I read very carefully the accounts of the various magazines and what they provide from their ratings. I don't treat them as gospel because in my personal observations in having played the courses in question I can see apparent holes in their findings -- sometime major ones.

The best part in having multiple information sources is that you can see what is being said from a range of viewpoints. At that point you'll need to do your own personal investigation to see what ones are more accurate and those less so.

No reviewer will be 100% perfect -- no less than Doak himself said as much in CG when saying that "it is inevitable that we won't agree on everything."

Tom D:

Just a few comments on some of your statements you recently posted.

The degree of how "open" a mind is can be a difficult thing to define with any degree of certainty. I see many posters here have an affinity -- almost obsession -- with classic designed courses. In many cases -- these same folks -- often times fail to comprehend how well so many modern courses have been designed -- especially in the public domain and most notably in those areas of the country that in years past were quite pedestrian in what they provided -- see the mountain time zone, Texas, to name just two areas that come quickly to mind.

I have always tried to give sufficient time and energy to see what is being brought forward by different players in the design arena. I do agree with Don M that more time and awareness should be paid to those who don't have the big ticket sites and that doing more with less is indeed something of a major success story. In a number of my posts I have tried to highlight such courses although many of them will likely remain far in the shadows.

Clearly, people will have preferences -- that's fine. The real issue is do they have the capacity to see beyond those preferences and acknowledge such courses for the qualities they possess. I have done that with a few clear examples -- a short Raynor course in my neck of the woods called Morris County Golf Club in Convent Station. It is far from being a demanding course but the detailing of so many subtle design elements is clearly there and quite refreshing no matter how many times one plays it.

Consistency is important but it's also necessary for people to allow for a real evolution of one's thinking when situations demand it. As Tom Paul stated -- courses we have played from eariler years that were not truly appreciated at the outset may become favorites in a few years down the road - look at how Digest woke up years ago when it elevated the likes of Cypress Point -- in the earliest days of its ratings the course was far fro the lofty heights it enjoys today. Of little doubt -- is the fact that many people only assign a rating -- whether up or down or in-between - based upon how their game aligns itself to the course in question. That can be a tough thing to do because it's important to see what alternate strategies are available. I always try to play courses with varying handicap types to see firsthand what they need to do when playing particular shots / holes, etc, etc. No doubt I may not be able to get beyond my own game but I have learned over the years that great courses can only be great when elasticity lies at their core.

Tom you have stated in CG how you "relied on my short game for my ability to post a decent score, and I'm especially fond of courses with interestingly contoured greens, green complexes and bunkers." I too share that interest but I also want to see great driving of the ball be rewarded -- both for power and placement. In some ways, it boils down to what element is the first among equals.

Differences are bound to happen -- and they should be -- so long as a position is well articulated and examples can be thrown into the narrative to bolster one's position.

The concept of truth is a much more difficult one. I value people who provide strong opinions -- pro or con. But this site has had its moments when people are clearly holding back because they worry about what others may say and potentially how that might impact future access and other such elements. PC responses really say little of importance and detract from what can be gained when robust and free-wheeling replies are at the forefront.

[Bart Bradley]

Matt:

I agree with most of your comments to me.  Thank you.  I agree that disclosure is very helpful...but how often does that take place to the proper degree?

I don't expect reviewers to be perfect...Noone is perfect.  I was actually questioning the appearance of conflict in the process itself.

I have, for a long time, felt Tom had been entirely honest in the Confidential Guide (although not entirely correct...there is a difference).  I also believe that book and its honesty were absolutely critical to opening the dialogue which laid the groundwork of some really great modern architecture.  It is sad to me that perhaps the days of that honest dialogue are over.

I am no longer sure what source I can turn to for unbiased information.

Bart

[John Kirk]

OK, but what I'm saying is...

The more "design elements" a course possesses, the less consistently it will reward quality golf shots.

Thanks again to TEPaul, whose fine post reinvigorated this thread.

[Adam Clayman]

As TD eludes. Style has zero to with quality design. Its what's behind the style more the nuts n bolts.  I consider myself open. If a course can impress me with either inspiring me or making me think I'm gonna like it. It sits there and lays an egg even if the aesthetics are out of this world who needs it? Bay Harbor fits that bill to a tee.

[Peter Pallotta]

The thread title reminded me of a line I read once, unrelated to gca

"What a man sees and hears depends a lot on where he's standing, but it depends even more on the kind of man that he is"

I think the question really is "How open is your HEART"?

Or maybe better "How much value do you give what your hearts says compared to your pocketbook, your ego, and your professional and personal aspirations"

I don't think I've ever played a golf course that didn't test shots (to a greater or lesser degree) or punish mis hits (to a greater or lesser degree). I don't personally know how to measure those degrees very precisely, which is why I don't care or talk about it all that much.

I have played courses that are relatively unattractive to me, but then again those courses may well look fantastic to others.

I'm always left with two stark options -- to either fall back on the absolute primacy of fundamental principles, or to accept that anything that gets made gets made for a reason, and is fine (for someone)

The former I understand less well than probably most on here, and certainly a lot less than the professionals; the latter I can't quite get myself to believe

Or I can simple say "I like this, a lot" -- but you can't get rankings and best of lists from that (and honestly, I'm not wholly satisfied with that myself)

Peter

[Sean_A]

As TD eludes. Style has zero to with quality design. Its what's behind the style more the nuts n bolts.  I consider myself open. If a course can impress me with either inspiring me or making me think I'm gonna like it. It sits there and lays an egg even if the aesthetics are out of this world who needs it? Bay Harbor fits that bill to a tee.

Adam

What does "style" mean?  I get the feeling that styles of courses man an awful lot to an awfully great number of golfers - hence the reason eye candy sells.  One thing is for certain, attractive courses are easier to like and harder to discard as fluff.  When you think that golf tourism is at least to some degree built around the one tine visit then the visuals have to be considered important for an archie to get right - whatever right is.

Ciao

[Matt_Ward]

Bart:

Frankly, the information age we live in has likely allowed more transparency to happen then years ago. You see plenty of information on this site that alerts one to what the relationships are between certain people and the courses they have a connection with.

Bart, honesty does happen and is not the domain of just one person. The issue for me rests not only with the honesty dimension but the thoroughness of the analysis itself.

Bias -- or the more preferred expression -- preference -- is going to be present. The reader / golfer needs to discern for themselves what a reviewer is saying and what type of courses they seem to prefer. Clearly, some people are quite narrow and dogmatic on what they prefer and I can certainly see that with a number of posters here. I think having a wider array of course types is what interests me most.

Bart, if you read the Wall Street Journal you'll likely get a far different take --at least editorially than The NY Times. You know that going in. I don't agree with plenty of things the WSJ says but I do appreciate their take. It's no different than when you read the accounts from different people here or in the major magazines.

Conflicts do happen and those who are compromised by such conflicts have a duty to state such situations for the benefit of any reader who may not know something like that is happening. Those who don't run the risk of undermining their credibility - permanently.

Clearly, people who provide reviews are not 100% correct -- others who read their take may have other preferences but I enjoy reading the slant from those who see things differently than I do. It challenges me to really examine my thought process and when I realize the merits are there I have made changes in my likes / dislikes of certain courses. I would hope others would do likewise when the circumstances are present.

Bart, I've said this for a long time -- people claim they want honesty but many times they can't handle it (e.g. witness the closing scene from "A few Good Men" between Nicholson and Cruise). Clearly, I want to know that what someone writes is their opinion and not being couched to be less so for undisclosed other reasons.

This site, along with others, provides a mechanism for such filters to be pushed aside. Of course, that all depends upon whether people are really writing what they really believe. Like I said, it helps to have multiple sources to help guide your thinking and I try to do that with the key sources I have developed and maintained when deciding where I want to play.

[Adam Clayman]

As TD eludes. Style has zero to with quality design. Its what's behind the style more the nuts n bolts.  I consider myself open. If a course can impress me with either inspiring me or making me think I'm gonna like it. It sits there and lays an egg even if the aesthetics are out of this world who needs it? Bay Harbor fits that bill to a tee.

Adam

What does "style" mean?  I get the feeling that styles of courses man an awful lot to an awfully great number of golfers - hence the reason eye candy sells.  One thing is for certain, attractive courses are easier to like and harder to discard as fluff.  When you think that golf tourism is at least to some degree built around the one tine visit then the visuals have to be considered important for an archie to get right - whatever right is.

Ciao

Sean,
 My response was in relation to the original post made on this thread and some of the early response.

I ask this sincerely -- do people who post here generally believe in a one style aspect for all golf course designs? Is the feeling here that there is one particular style that fits all situations? I often wonder how elastic / pragmatic many people are because there seems to be a genuine narrowness in what is acceptable and what is not. Or are people more dogmatic and very narrow in what range of courses can really be deemed acceptable.

To give one example -- I would find it interesting to see what type of people can be both fans of the works of Tom Doak and Jim Engh. Both are contemporaries of each other and there's no doubt from the courses I have played both men are very talented, yet they offer a unique and distinctly different style. Are there people who are fans of both (realizing no architect, including these two gents hits home runs with each design) and would they play both styles on a consistent basis if the opportunity presented itself?

Well, the question is too personal for me to answer, but I am a fan of both Raynor's work and MacKenzie's, whose styles were quite different in their own day.

Sean, If an architect assumes because he will design a course for the one time visitor and concentrates only on visuals, how much respect does he/she show to the golfer?

I'll stand by example of Bay Harbor as a place with great visuals, yet apparently no intelligence behind key aspects of the golf courses design that can stand up to a critical eye.

[Sean_A]

As TD eludes. Style has zero to with quality design. Its what's behind the style more the nuts n bolts.  I consider myself open. If a course can impress me with either inspiring me or making me think I'm gonna like it. It sits there and lays an egg even if the aesthetics are out of this world who needs it? Bay Harbor fits that bill to a tee.

Adam

What does "style" mean?  I get the feeling that styles of courses man an awful lot to an awfully great number of golfers - hence the reason eye candy sells.  One thing is for certain, attractive courses are easier to like and harder to discard as fluff.  When you think that golf tourism is at least to some degree built around the one tine visit then the visuals have to be considered important for an archie to get right - whatever right is.

Ciao

Sean,
 My response was in relation to the original post made on this thread and some of the early response.

I ask this sincerely -- do people who post here generally believe in a one style aspect for all golf course designs? Is the feeling here that there is one particular style that fits all situations? I often wonder how elastic / pragmatic many people are because there seems to be a genuine narrowness in what is acceptable and what is not. Or are people more dogmatic and very narrow in what range of courses can really be deemed acceptable.

To give one example -- I would find it interesting to see what type of people can be both fans of the works of Tom Doak and Jim Engh. Both are contemporaries of each other and there's no doubt from the courses I have played both men are very talented, yet they offer a unique and distinctly different style. Are there people who are fans of both (realizing no architect, including these two gents hits home runs with each design) and would they play both styles on a consistent basis if the opportunity presented itself?

Well, the question is too personal for me to answer, but I am a fan of both Raynor's work and MacKenzie's, whose styles were quite different in their own day.

Sean, If an architect assumes because he will design a course for the one time visitor and concentrates only on visuals, how much respect does he/she show to the golfer?

I'll stand by example of Bay Harbor as a place with great visuals, yet apparently no intelligence behind key aspects of the golf courses design that can stand up to a critical eye.

Adam

I tend to agree with you.  I also understand that archies have to be mindful of the visual aspect not only because it can be very important to the enjoyment of the game, but because its an opportunity to deceive golfers.  Unfortunately, deception is out of style as its seen as unfair and instead of continuing to push the wide variety of the architectural bag of tricks archies get cookie cutter on us and succumb too far toward this sort of keep it fair style.  That said, with yardage guns becoming vogue all the visual deception in the world won't matter.  Its yet another device to limit the an already limited architectural creative vision.

Ciao

[TEPaul]

Tom Doak said:

"I think someone still uses as their tag line something I once wrote on this subject, that "the paradox of proportionality is the heart of golf course architecture," or some such nonsense."

TomD:

Hold on Hose! I can't let a remark like that just blithely creep by in the loaming without a good deal more exposure and examination!

I assume you're being humorous or perhaps ironical when you say "or some such nonsense" about that statement; or at least I hope you are. I certainly hope you will elaborate somemore on what you might mean by that statement even though it seems to me your following remark covers it fairly well;

"The true test of an enlightened observer is how much they can stomach the weaker player being able to get away with poor shots here and there (as long as they continue to play brilliant recovery golf).  This is by far more important than whether they can stomach the occasional bad bounce, which in hindsight, is always due to not giving the offending contour proper latitude."



Bob Crosby, I hope you see this! It might be some delicious food for thought for your upcoming examination of what you've recently termed "Equitable Architecture" and not just from Crane's perspective but Behr/Mackenzie's too. I assume both because it would fit into Tom Doak's use of the word and idea of a "paradox" within the idea and perception of "proportionality."

TomD:

I think you'd agree that different golfers look at some very similar situations (in architecture) very differently for all kinds of interesting reasons. It's pretty hard to deny that and it's probably always been that way.

When you use the term proportionality, I'm assuming by it you mean the proportionality of penalty or at least proportionality in the risk and reward equations or context, otherwise I'm barking at the wrong tree here. But if so it occurs to me that little statement, "The paradox of proportionality is the heart of golf architecture" just may be one of the best and certainly one of the most efficient descriptions of golf architecture I've ever seen; and not good architecture or bad architecture----just plain golf course architecture in the over-all.

Good Show!

[TEPaul]

TomD:

When I made my last post I hadn't yet read your Reply #109.

"Tom P:  I appreciate your post above, but the one difference I would cite is that I don't think there ARE any drawbacks to "real critical review".  The only problem we have is that there isn't any such thing nowadays."

You really don't think there ARE any drawbacks to "real critical review?" Well how about the fact that it generally tends to hurt the feelings and sensiblilites of some people, particularly those who have a stake in the subject you're critiquing? Don't you think that's the primary reason that most refrain from their honest opinions and critiques, as well as what you mentioned above----eg even the critics often have some stake in something that would be negatively affected by their criticisms; or so they think?

Listen, Tom, I agree with you that there really shouldn't be too much in the way of drawbacks to "real critical review" because afterall nobody is going to get sick and die from it. Some bruised feelings is definitely a long way from that. And I just miss those times when some of those guys really went after one another when they developed their interesting ideas and opinions and tried to shoot holes in the ones they did not agree with.

Give me a Max Behr anytime!

But I did run into this interesting remark in an early 1920s letter from Alan Wilson to Russel Oakley:

"Max just isn't happy unless he's in the middle of some hot philosophical controversy." (or some such nonsense) 

[Tom_Doak]

Yes, Tom, you understood that quote correctly [the paradox of proportionality, two quotes back].  It's from a year or two back when we were discussing the same subject (penalty for bad shots, not open-mindedness).

It's a very simple equation which is utterly lost on a lot of the golf professional / architects:  if the penalty is always made to fit the crime, by their standards, then the bad and mediocre golfers will all find the game impossible and have to quit.  I don't think I am the first one to point out that is a paradox -- I can't remember which of the old-timers used the term, though if I had to start looking somewhere I would guess it was Tom Simpson.

As John Kirk points out, architecture is more interesting when sometimes you get away with something, and sometimes a "near-perfect shot" gets punished.  I've noticed through the years that often the latter bothers the good players more than the former ... when they get away with a bad shot they have a hard time accepting their luck [probably because they are really thinking they don't want their opponent to get away with that kind of crap], but in any case, many fail to take advantage of their breaks.

That's why I had a problem with that thread detailing all of Mark Parsinen's "rules" of architecture and how the golfer should always be able to discern the nuances of a green when standing in the fairway.  He seems to want a justification for every reward or penalty on the course; which is of course appealing to most low-handicap types. 

But life isn't always like that, so why should golf be?  My favorite example:  it's considered perfectly kosher by most professionals to have a hole where you or I, from 230 yards out, have no real chance to hold a green even if we reached it.  But of course, it's NOT kosher to have a hole where THEY could not do the same thing at the upper limit of a long second shot for them, because they think they are the standard which all architecture should be built around.  (If you think about it, that's always the implication when someone terms some feature "unfair".)

I've spent the last 25 years or so trying to come up with whatever clever tricks I can to make my courses seem harder to good players than they seem to average players.  Some of it is about hazard placement, but a lot of it is visual and psychological, because good players generally think about the game more, and have more "rules" about fairness, so it's easier to get inside their heads.  Will never forget the day when Pete Dye, expounding on the same subject, blurted out the phrase, "When you get those dudes thinking, they're in trouble"!

[Tom_Doak]

As to your post on criticism which got in the middle there ... if the drawback is that architects are too thin-skinned [which we are], well, I think we could stand to get a little tougher.  Undoubtedly there have been a few times in the history of GOLF CLUB ATLAS where I was upset about something someone wrote, but I don't think any of those instances caused me to shoot the messenger. 

In fact, the only people on here who really get under my skin are the handful who need to be called out on the carpet for exaggerating their resumes -- who the old me would've pinned to the wall with questions.  But, sadly, I can't be the one to do that anymore, so Mike Young gets to have most of the fun.