Biases, bashing and an architecrual discussions

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Is it my imagination or does it seem that those who regulary complain about biases and bashing, are the least able to articulate their architecural opinions. For all our disagreements, I have to commend Rich Goodale, at least he never avoids answering a question or avoids explaining his point of view. I prefer someone who can itelligently disagree with me to someone who agrees with me but can not articulate why he feels a certain way. In fact I was serious before when I said said that many of my ideas on golf architecture were formed or came into greater focus during intelligent disagreements -when I was forced to think about certain aspects that I hadn't thought of before or avoided thinking about - questions, inconsitencies or paradoxes that I avoided or could not explain.

[Slag_Bandoon]

I agree.  Um, sorry.

[Jeremy Glenn. (Guest)]

Well said.  Intelligent debates are a great way to learn and expand our horizons.

Having to defend what we believe in is the fastest road towards understanding the vulnerability of assumptions and the strength of truth.

[Mark_Fine]

Sometimes written communication (essentially the emails we use here) are difficult to interpret.   Some people also type faster and have the patience (and time) to clearly state their position.  I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt as long as they appear open minded.  Nothing like a good debate though as long is it is not argueing for the sake of it.
 
All in all this site works pretty well which is why I still frequent it.  
Mark

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom MacWood:

If I'm not mistaken, the latest suggestion of "bias" came in the form of Pat Mucci's question about mounding at Old Marsh.

To my mind, Pat asked a reasonable question.  I, for one, am turned off by Rees Jones use of mounding, but essentially give Pete Dye a free pass.

It seems perfectly fair for Pat to ask whether I'm applying a double standard.  Maybe I am.  May I am not.  But, either way, I see nothing wrong with Pat suggesting I might be biased (against Rees and in favor of Pete).

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Tim
I think the subject of mounding has been well represented on this DG and I don't think Pete Dye has been given a free pass. The mounding at Whistling Straits has been criticized by several - although not me. I dislike what he has been done to Crooked Stick and wish he would left it alone. Others have criticized Mystick Rock, Bulles Rock and the course in LA the escapes me. I have on several occasions asked why he doesn't return to his original low profile style. There is no double standard.

Not all mounding is created equally, the parking lot mounding favored by Rees is not the mounding found on Stanley Thompson course. If you would like me to go into more detail about specific architect or to compare specific courses, I will be glad to - but of one thing I am confident there is no double standard. How can there be a double standard when the person who is complaining of a double can not articulate a single standard?

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom MacWood:

My only point is that from time to time it will be perfectly reasonable to ask whether a double standard is being applied and/or whether some bias is present.

The answer may be yes.  It may be no.  As long as the discussion furthers our knowledge and understanding of golf architecture and specific courses, I'm okay with it.

If someone suggests I'm "biased" I'll either plead guilty or try to explain why I hold whatever view is being questioned.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Tim
I disagree.
A)It is hell of a lot easier to claim bias than to articulate why you feel a certain way. If you disagree with someone's assessment, explain your own and point any inconistanies in the others view. The problem is those claiming bias are either unwilling or incapable of anylysing what they see and like.

B)It is hell of a lot easier to claim a group is bias than to take on an individual intellectually (so to speek) and say he is wrong or you disagree based on A, B, and C. And before you can start claiming bias or prejudice you should have articulated your analysis of the architectural subject. 90% of what is claimed to be a bias are differences in taste and usually one party is unwill to even share or explain his tastes. I think it lazy and cowardly to say this irrudite group is bias. This group is made up of individuals with vast differences of opinion. If you have a problen with indiviual have the balls to say so and take him on intellectually by articualte your differences through architectural analysis, not like a want-to-be defense attorney trying to disqualify the witness, but never bringing his own architectural anaylsis to the table. The claim of bias is way for those unable to analyze to avoid intellectual confrontation.

C)Not everyone is able or even wants to analyze architecture in detail. Many enjoy talking about the golf courses they've visited and enjoyed. They like the other aspects of the game, and that is fine. The problem is when you get those who would prefer visiting, playing and experiencing many great or well-known courses accusing a group or indiviual of bias. If someone prefers not to analyze what they see and if they choose not be discerning - they like it all or nearly all - thats fine, just don't try to tell me not to analyze and to be discerning - because I don't like it all. And that ain't bias. And those who also enjoy analyzing, seperating the great from the not so great and articulating their findings who disagree with me, ain't biased either.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom MacWood:

Reading your post I think we probably agree on more than we disagree.

This group does include a wide diversity of experiences, opinions and preferences related to golf architecture.  Anyone who articulates his point of view really will be welcomed.  I know from private conversations that architects like Tom Fazio are presumed to be unpopular, but recently I expressed a very favorable opinion of one of his famous designs (Wild Dunes) and not one person criticized me for doing so.

So, that does say to me that supposedly unpopular opnions are treated with respect, especially if one can articulate why he holds the view expressed.

But, even if the group as a whole isn't "biased", that doesn't mean bias won't occasionally creep into our dialogue.  Thus, I see nothing wrong with someone asking if this has taken place.

I happen to like your use of the word lazy, because that may be more of a problem than bias.  On another thread someone raised a legitimate question about the meaning of "he could have gotten more out of the site".

Go take a look at the response by SGD.  That was a classic example of "lazy".  He tells us Tom Fazio wins the "Lifetime Award" with the course called "The Preserve", but does absolutely nothing to detail where he thinks Fazio missed opportunities.

I already know people think The Preserve isn't very good.  At this stage it would be far more useful to explore what might have been done differently.

GCA isn't "biased", but that particular post does undermine GCA's credibility.  Big time.

[Lou Duran]

Tom M.-

This is probably a thread that I shouldn't be touching with a 10' pole, but here it goes anyways.  BTW, I don't think that you were necessarily speaking to me in your comments, but it is cold here in Texas and I have the time to respond.

I don't personally care if people dislike like the work of Fazio, Nicklaus, the Jones family, etc.  What I have objected to in the past is the often brutal personal attacks against many of the modern architects.  There is little if any similar personal criticism of their predecessors, which, given that there are many, many crappy old courses, at least suggests that a bias or double-standard exists.  

You are absolutely right,  golf is a lot about tastes, preferences, opinions.  The detailed analysis you seem to desire so much, the intellectual repartee if you will, is about something that often defies that treatment.  Golf is a near religion to many people for a variety of reasons.  I dare to say that architecture, the definition of which is not all that well understood or defined, is but one aspect of golf that interests people.

Personally, in addition to golf, I enjoy politics, economics, business, and travel.  The subjects that I choose to address on this site tend to have an element of these as they relate to golf and golf architecture.  I doubt that my love for and interest in golf are any lesser than yours.  But my orientation toward the game is not with obssessing about artistic or irregular/natural bunker design, elephant burial grounds for green complexes, or holes specifically called Redan, Biarritz, Alps, or Cape.  I do know what I like in a golf course, and play well enough to personally understand strategy and shot values.  

Though I may not be as smart as you are, I don't think that I am lazy.  I greatly admired your Arts & Crafts piece, but I would never have the interest in researching that subject matter.  I can spend a couple of days at El Prado or the Guggenheim (sp) and enjoy the works of Goya, El Greco, Picasso, etc., but I don't have a great interest in the detailed characteristics of their brush strokes (though I do enjoy learning the autobiographical highlights of their lives).  I have read and own a large number of the golf architecture books discussed on this site, but I can't say that very many provide me inspired reading.   Yet, I can tell you without a doubt that if I ever have the opportunity to play the likes of Cypress Point, Pine Valley, National Golf Links, Shinnecock Hills and Seminole it will be like being in heaven.  I many not be able to tell you why in finite detail, but the experience is what matters, not the ability to articulate it.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Tim
I believe we may see this subject the same way. For example take the emotional hot potato of your home course. I pointed out certain aspects of the course that were disapointing to me, you pointing out certain aspects of the course that you felt were commendable - we may have disagreed, but I didn't claim you were biased and you do not claim I was biased. We simply saw some things differently, although we agreed on certain other positive aspects of the course. You have defended Fazio and you have criticized Fazio, I have criticized Fazio and I have found some of his work excellent. And we have both articulated exactly why without accusing anyone of being biased.

Posts like the one by SGD are always going to be an unfortunate reality, anonymous bashing without any information to back up a view. But even that is not necessarily a bias, for all I know he speeks from personal experience and has very good reasons to criticize that particular course -- who knows -- but no one gains anything.

The same is true with the blanket claim of bias. That is just as bad as the anaonymous bash. When a Pat Mucci, for example, claims an entire group is biased, just because he disagrees with them, yet has never articulated his own view, he is doing the same thing as SGD. When he attempts to negatively paint an entire group because he doesn't have the guts to name names or the capability to articulate his own view of the architect, no one gains anything. He believes Rees Jones is a victum of bias, but have you ever heard him articulate why he likes the work of Rees Jones? I haven't, I'm not even certain he does like his work -- I think he's only played a couple of his courses. I don't think Rees is a bad architect, he is not one my favorites, but he ain't bad and appears to be adjusting his work. But I'm not interested in not bad, I'm looking for excellent work, but perhaps I've missed something, tell me what I've missed, don't tell me I'm biased because you disagree with me.

Lou
I wasn't thinking of you when I wrote this post. But I will defend the right of anyone to criticize the work of modern or old-time architects. I am a great admirer of many past architects, I am not great fan of certain modern trends. I have expressed why I like what I like and have expressed why I don't like what I don't like. Is my preference for older designs a bias, I don't think so, because, one, I don't like all older works and two because I have articulated the differences I've precieved. If I criticize Nicklaus or Fazio or Dye, is that a personal attack? If explain why, I don't think so.

If have no problem with people enjoying the works of all sorts of architects. But if you disagree with my cirticism, you have choice either disagree by explaining why or if you prefer not to articulate why you like a certain course or architect remain silent. Unfortunately too many prefer to claim my criticsm or anyone's criticism is the result of a bias or is a personal attack without articulate there own view - that in my mind is lazy.

I'm not looking for some complex or detailed analysis. I'm looking for any simple analysis. Just explain why you like the architecture, think about it, explain what features you enjoy or don't enjoy - it ain't that tough and doesn't require great intelligence, just a little thought. But I don't begrudge those who prefer not to, architecture is not interesting to everyone and golf is a great game with many wonderful aspects, but don't tell me that I'm biased or personally attacking an architect just because you disagree with my opinion.

I too like you have many interests from music to food to religion to history to travel to the arts to sports to booze - particularly booze.

[Lou Duran]

Tom M-

As I said, I have no problem with criticizing the work, but I do with calling the designer arrogant, egoist, ignorant, evil, the devil, etc.  I do have to remind myself that this is an uncensored, open forum, and that some people do not approach the subject matter with the same level of seriousness that I do.  I don't have a problem with levity, but I see no reason to be disrespectful, particularly to people who have achieved a high level of success in the profession.  Criticize Nicklaus for artificial mounding, questionable routings, and a tendency to favor high fades (the last two I have not found to be true in the half-dozen of his courses that I have played), but why talk about his ego or accuse him of being arrogant as has been done a number of times?

On this site, you clearly display a preference for the more artsy, quirky older courses.  That is fine with me.  I think that most would agree that the majority of the top 30 or so courses were designed during the first third of the 20th century.  However, I believe that there are a lot of great courses being built today, and the average new course is superior to the average "old" course.  

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Lou
You may be right that the average course of today is better than the average course of yesterday - I don't know. But I'm not interested in average courses.

I'm not sure I would call what I prefer as artsy or quirky. I enjoy interesting courses that rely a natural attributes and that require thought. They could have been built 80 years ago or yesterday - it just seems that more of them were built 80 years ago.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom MacWood:

Actually, it would have been pretty silly of me to suggest your critical comments about the routing of Sand Rdige were "baised".  Of all the routing plans Tom Fazio put together, the one I liked best addressed most of your criticism.  Unfortunately, that plan couldn't get the required environmental permits.

Then, too, you expressed exactly what you didn't like about the final product.  That's what we are here for.

If SGD had followed your example, he would have made far more of a contribution.  The fact that many people find The Preserve disappointing has already been well established.  Why beat a dead horse without introducting something new, e.g., what SGD would have done differently?

Like you, I've reached the point where I'm only looking for excellent work.  I don't have either the time or the money to chase after every new course that is pretty good but not truly special.

Let's get together this summer either in Cleveland or Columbus.  I could share my own ideas about the ideal routing plan for the Sand Ridge property.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

You are either naive, whining, or haven't read my posts carefully, and are articulating your own, possibly biased, interpretation of my posts.  There is nothing more I can say.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Tim
I'd enjoy another tour of Sand Ridge with you this summer.

Pat
Thanks. You bashed me, accused me of bias and didn't  support your position - trifecta!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

No Tom, You dragged me into this thread by personalizing it, mentioning my name, and attributing statements you know to be false about me and my position.

To clear up matters of bias I will provide an example you are all too familiar with.

You, Tom MacWood, bashed Atlantic and Rees Jones's work at Atlantic, and when I pressed you, you admitted that you had NEVER PLAYED the golf course and had NEVER SEEN the golf course.  That's both BIAS and BASHING, and you were the author, and guilty of both.

To state that bias and bashing hasn't existed on GCA is to deny the facts and your very own words on Atlantic.

This whole thread is nothing more than an exercise in whining on your part because I wouldn't take your disingenuous childish bait on the Rees Jones and Old Marsh threads, another course that you've never played and never laid eyes on.  

Yet, a reasonable dialogue was held with Bob Crosby, who has played the course, even though we disagreed on Old Marsh's merits.

Try a little sincerity, it'll do wonders in encouraging dialogue.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
When did I comment on the Atlantic? If I recall it was two to three years ago. What exactly did I say?

If memory serves me I was commenting on an article I read on the founder of the club and a number of photos. Is commenting on photos a form of bias?

Are you sure it wasn't just a case of disagreement instead of bias? I know you have disagreed with my reviews of Rees's work based on what I have seen (I have played quite a few of his courses) - I've never avoided articulating exactly what I have disliked or liked about his designs - in my view that is not bias. I don't believe my Atlantic comments were biased, perhaps you disagreed with them based on your greater experience of the course, but just for the sake of arguement let us say they were biased, if that single post of three years ago is the only case of bias in the thousands of posts I've made, I'd say I'm doing pretty well.

I understand Rees is a very good friend of yours and ironically that you have only played two of his designs. Is it possible your friendship has effected your judgement?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

No, it hasn't !

[Matt_Ward]

I've watched this thread for quite some time and offer the following.

People need to PLAY courses before opening their mouth and making grandiose statements -- either pro, con or in the middle. When people have not played and then start carping about this and that -- in my mind it says two things -- ignorance and yes -- bias!

I've seen plenty of Rees Jones layouts over the years and have said that his latest efforts, to wit -- The Bridge, Olde Kinderhook and Nantucket, to name just three, are three of his finest efforts. And, in each of the cases cited have provided concrete rationales from my perspective. I've also mentioned that such layouts as Tattersall (PA) are really poor and that Quintero (should not have been ranked among GW rankings for modern designs) and Cascata and Atlantic are good courses but not worthy of such high standing among the best of the best.

I know plenty of people in the golf industry, as many do who post on GCA, and have not hestitated to state my feelings about certain courses even with those relationships in mind. I get tired of hearing from people that just because people like Pat and I might defend SPECIFIC FEATURES OF SPECIFIC COURSES WE HAVE PLAYED we get accused of being overly protective of Rees Jones. That is hogwash. I have had the opportunity to play a  wide range of Rees Jones courses and seen the evolution of the product he provides. Not all are good clearly, but I also believe when I see / play some of his recent efforts and I see concrete changes I will note them and defend them.

I do agree with Lou Duran in that too often plenty of superior modern courses are being built today and are often simply dismissed. However, there is a tendency from some GCA posters that if you should have a course that is so and so years old and has a revered "name" architect from the past you hear the argument the course is ready to be canonized for sainthood.

I do agree with you Tom on one point -- I'm interested in playing excellent designs. I don't come with bias because I can see virtues in plenty of courses -- both those from the distant past and many of today's modern courses. And, I try my best to really discuss the actual design not the designers. Let's not forget golf is something we feel passionate about -- that's a real plus above all else and makes GCA a place to share that passion we have for this grand game.

Hope this helps ...

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Matt
Very interesting points, but I'm not usre what it has to do with biases, bashing and architectural discussions? Hypothetically if you play all the Rees Jones courses in the world but can't articulate why you find them compelling how does that contribute to an architecural discussion? I disagree with your opinion regarding too many on GCA having a preference for older courses, the opposite arguement could be made that you show questionable taste with many modern designs - neither one of us would be helping the discussion of architecture or providing any specific insight. I'm not into blanket generalizations and your post is packed full of them. If you could stop generalizing and bring up specific examples that would help - for example who has been cannonized?

Again a disagreement is not a bias, the term is thrown around far too easily. If I disagree with you and/or your methods of evaluation, is it exceptable that I claim you are biased? I'm perfectly happy to say we many times express different tastes and we can point out those difference with specific courses and specific features. I welcome when you and Pat defend features of specific courses that you have played, the more information you provide to support your views the better for everyone -- I have problem when you spend your efforts trying to tell someone they have no right to express themsleves or they are biased, that is counter productive.  If you really want to help, please don't generalize and continue to bring up specific examples.  

[Matt_Ward]

Tom --

I have articulated with specifics, not generalities, my feelings on various Rees Jones designs from a pro and con perspective. Also, I am not a PR advocate for Rees Jones or any other architect even though I admire all of them and what they try to accomplish. I review courses -- not designers.

I believe my reviews of his projects, and that of other architects, comes from having played numerous courses he has designed. I believe this perspective has given me a much wider view of how his work has progressed over the years. I didn't glean my observations from talking out of my hat or from just looking at pictures. I took the time to go to them and make my own observations. Clearly, people can and will disagree, but I'll say this again, disagreement should include a little on-site homework.

As far as course preferences I think it's fair to point out you tend to side with older classic courses (some may be a bit quirky) and state that there is a dearth of good modern courses. I disagree with that because there's plenty of modern courses today that are really good but often get little air time either here on GCA or elsewhere. My extensive travels each year in seeing about 40-50 new courses throughout America allows me, in my opinion, to say that.

You're right Tom -- people can disagree and it's not bias when people have different opinions. I never said it was so. Please do not insert words into my mouth -- give me that opportunity. However, when people make statements about specific courses without playing there I begin to scratch my head and say "how does one do that?" I never said people can't express themselves, but what you always ask from me (support rationale) is no less than what I expect from others -- including you.

I offer this in a spirit of hopefully moving on beyond this and learning from all who post on GCA. That's my goal and I hope it's one we share.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Matt
I never said you did not. I said hypothetically that IF you (or anyone) played a golf course but were incapable of articulating your view you would be unable to add to an architecural discusion - playing many courses unfortunately does not automatically create an interest in architecture or the ability to effectiely articulate your tastes. Everyone on the site does his or her site homework, however you probably play more courses than anyone and I enjoy your comments. We do not always see golf course architecture the same (One difference being I have been greatly influenced by golf architecture litaerature and you have not), so I take that into account when I read your reviews. But it is very helpful to get your thoughts.

When I was referring to generalities I meant in you condemnation of an entire group with very broad and general statements (no specifics), for example :  "there is a tendency from some GCA posters that if you should have a course that is so and so years old and has a revered "name" architect from the past you hear the argument the course is ready to be canonized for sainthood." That is a generalization and somewhat simplistic view, specifically who, what courses and what architects?  Or, "People need to PLAY courses before opening their mouth and making grandiose statements", who makes grandoise statements about courses they have not played and what did they say? Or, "I get tired of hearing from people that just because people like Pat and I might defend SPECIFIC FEATURES OF SPECIFIC COURSES WE HAVE PLAYED we get accused of being overly protective of Rees Jones." What specific features have you mentioned on what courses that YOU HAVE PLAYED has caused people to say you are overly prtotective of Rees? Who said it?

I don't believe I said there were not outstanding modern courses being built. I find golf courses that rely a natural attributes and that require thought interesting  - if that is quirky so be it. I'm not a fan of golf courses that are overly manufactured and excessivley shaped - that is where we may differ. Age is not a factor, although most of the courses I like were built in previous eras. Although not all -- what is your opinion of The Golf Club, Sand Hills and Casa de Campo?

[Matt_Ward]

Tom:

The courses you list ... The Golf Club, Sand Hills and Casa de Campo I have all played and each is clearly a "must" play for any real golf enthusiast. I would give "10's" to TGC and Sand Hills -- they are truly well done and among the finest I've played anywhere.

I've played Casa de Campo but I would hesitate to give the course more than a 8.5 on the Doak scale. But, I must add that Pete Dye is one of my favorite architects because he knows how to strike "fear" in the hearts of players -- especially better ones. You just know that Dye will not allow you to "relax" or go on "cruise control" with your game.

Pete may have fallen off a slight bit in recent times (I still love Whistling Straits / Straits Course & Sky Course at Lost Canyons), but his impact on golf design is clearly unique and he has fundamentally altered the landscape by which courses are built and designed.

Tom, playing plenty of courses doesn't give anybody a heads-up on quality analysis is clear, however, it's important to realize that without actually going to a full range of an architect's portfolio how can you hope to draw conclusions on how his work has evolved / changed / improved / slumped, etc.

The features of mounding have been batted more times than most balls at spring training games and how Rees has incorporated such a feature. I believe he has clearly modified this concept in his most recent works. Unfortunately, there are others who see it differently, but sometimes these same people continue to apply there beliefe through old time courses versus his newest work which many have never seen.

Hope this helps ...

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Matt
I agree with your assessments, I too believe The Golf Club is superior to Casa de Campo, some of the interior holes at CdC fall down a bit - especially around the airfield.

I take it you will still give us the specifics regarding all those blanket statements made on your previous post?