Are we critics or are we fans?

[John Kavanaugh]

The delusional fact that some of you perceive yourself as critics verifies the value of your opinion.  

[Sean_A]

I am definitely a hybrid of fan and critic with heavy leaning toward fan if only because I ain't paid to be a proper critic so I don't feel any obligations to present opinion in a fair and impartial manner.  Besides, a lot of so-called expert critic opinion is a load of bollocks and filled with personal preferences - poor critiquing.  Usually, opinions tend to run way too strong either positive or negative when in truth, most of the time a course is a course is a course.  What is in the ground isn't often terribly different than any one of hundreds of courses - even the very good courses.  Fans and critics alike latch onto stuff which they either like or dislike and that will colour the critique.  For instance, i have a strong distaste for courses which aren't a comfortable walk.  That one detail in and of itself may give me reason to "fail" a course even if I know it is unreasonable of me to expect certain courses to be a good walk.  This sort of thinking in essence can be the difference between a fan and an archie.  A critic needs to dig further and find out why a course is the way it is before he delivers an opinion.  Otherwise, he is just giving us some rhetoric on what his likes and dislikes are.  I don't really care about that except from a very small number of people and they don't tend to be from the industry.  I would rather see a load of good pix with some text to help explain the pix then listen to an archie expose on the strategy of a hole.    

I wouldn't go so far as to say folks don't change their minds in debates.  Using myself again, I certainly have been persuaded that what I call unnatural golf can be excellent.  Five years ago I didn't really buy into the idea of great golf looking unnatural.  Painswick is another case in point.  I don't really like the course because I think there is a lot of poor architecture there, but I can understand its value in the way it is a rule breaker in so many ways.  However, I live 45 minutes away and only play it maybe once a year - I hate the opening hole - tee hee.

I certainly think there is a group think element on this site, but that doesn't mean it isn't for valid reasons.  On the other hand, this site is a bit of a club and it should be expected that a certain amount of group think will exist if only because of that.  

Ciao

[Mac Plumart]

I ain't paid to be a proper critic so I don't feel any obligations to present opinion in a fair and impartial manner

Frankly, Sean, this might make you a better critic than if you were getting compensated for your opinion.  Human nature, money, greed, and conflicts of interest generally don't yield unbiased analysis.

[Anthony Gray]

The delusional fact that some of you perceive yourself as critics verifies the value of your opinion.  

  He's back.

 AG

[Mike_Young]

I have always thought of this as a site for FANS of golden age architecture....AND some of those fans are critics...same as any of the fan clubs for the ODG's.....sports team fan clubs or music fan clubs....nothing wrong with that....

[JNC Lyon]

Most people on this site are fans. I certainly am.

It doesn't mean we can't be meaningfully critical of features/holes/courses or discuss the topic with insight, but there is a large gulf between that and being a critic, in my opinion.

As with film, TV, music and other arts, I am certain that many people consider themselves legitimate critics despite lacking the requisite knowledge or experience to do so.

As with many threads of this nature, I suspect people's answers might be split by their definition of "critic".

Being a critic is being an impartial fan who is not afraid praise or criticize anything.

I think that's a solid statement, John, though I would add "educated and insightful" to "impartial". Impartiality isn't worth much without the ability to understand what you're seeing and relate it to the particular field of endeavour.

"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
--Leo Tolstoy

I agree that being educated and insightful helps as a critic, but impartiality is damn important nonetheless.

JakaB, I'm not sure why being a critic involves payment. 

[Sam Morrow]

A long since passed away friend once told me that critics are people who think they know everything but don't really know anything.

[John_Conley]

Most importantly, with the beat that pounds, the B.E.P. put on a great show.  Timberlake/Jackson was the best thing that ever happened to the Super Bowl.

[Sean_A]

I ain't paid to be a proper critic so I don't feel any obligations to present opinion in a fair and impartial manner

Frankly, Sean, this might make you a better critic than if you were getting compensated for your opinion.  Human nature, money, greed, and conflicts of interest generally don't yield unbiased analysis.

Mac

Honestly, I believe a critic has an obligation to get down with people in the business, but retain that fine line of not getting dirty or competing with them.  I don't know how well critics do on this front, but it is essential.  A fan has no such obligation.  As an example, magazine raters are not really critics because they often wouldn't perform any of the necessary "due diligence", but the entire system is compromised by leaving the door to being compromised by receiving free golf etc.  In my opinion, that means the entire process is circumspect and who knows, it could explain some so called anomolies in rankings. 

Ciao

[Duncan Cheslett]

My dictionary has a couple of definitions for 'Critic'

1. One who forms and expresses judgements of the merits, faults, value, or truth of a matter.

2. One who tends to make harsh or carping judgements; a fault-finder.


I favour the first definition; a critic being a person who impartially evaluates the pros and cons.  Unfortunately the second definition has, though common usage, become the more accepted. This is undoubtedly because in the professional arena cynical or negative criticism makes a bigger splash for the critic and shifts more newsprint than fair or impartial criticism.

If we use the old definition then I think we should all be proud to be critics.

[Kris Shreiner]

Duncan,

That 1st definition puts what a critic really is quite succinctly. Your conclusion is bang on. Life is a series of judgements.

[jeffwarne]

Sure there's a group think here-amongst the POSTERS--who no doubt fear the green ink attack
There's probably less group think amongst the lurkers.

Count me a fan, not a critic.
critics are obligated to review a wide range of items regardless of their predisposition.
I'm not even going to play a course i don't think I'm going to be predisposed to like-there are too many out there that I've got a good chance of enjoying to waste my time elsewhere.
I'm also less likely to play a course where everything's a big production (think caddies in white coveralls), regardless of architecture.

[Terry Lavin]

I'm a fan who can bluff and bluster his way into some criticism, but to me, a critic is somebody who has dedicated his or her professional time to becoming an expert in the area that is being criticized.  Back in my college days, I was a rock critic, but I didn't play an instrument, so I didn't consider myself anything other than a hobbyist college kid.  I have read enough about golf course architecture and seen enough examples of different styles of golf course architecture to have developed some knowledge and some language on the subject to the extent that I feel comfortable criticizing a given hole or a given design.  But Brad Klein and Geoff Shackelford are the type of people who can properly be called critics, in my judgment, because they have truly dedicated their professional careers to gathering the knowledge, the history and the soul of the craft.

And then, they still aren't architects; they're JUST critics.  Which is a hell of a lot more than one can say about the rest of us hobbyists.

[JMEvensky]

I'm not even going to play a course i don't think I'm going to be predisposed to like-there are too many out there that I've got a good chance of enjoying to waste my time elsewhere.

That's a pretty good point.It might also ratchet up someone's dislike of a course that they were expecting to like--but for some reason things weren't as advertised.

[Tim Martin]

I'm a fan who can bluff and bluster his way into some criticism, but to me, a critic is somebody who has dedicated his or her professional time to becoming an expert in the area that is being criticized.  Back in my college days, I was a rock critic, but I didn't play an instrument, so I didn't consider myself anything other than a hobbyist college kid.  I have read enough about golf course architecture and seen enough examples of different styles of golf course architecture to have developed some knowledge and some language on the subject to the extent that I feel comfortable criticizing a given hole or a given design.  But Brad Klein and Geoff Shackelford are the type of people who can properly be called critics, in my judgment, because they have truly dedicated their professional careers to gathering the knowledge, the history and the soul of the craft.

And then, they still aren't architects; they're JUST critics.  Which is a hell of a lot more than one can say about the rest of us hobbyists.

Terry-Spot on comments.

[John Kavanaugh]

I hate to break this to my rater buds but once you accept a freebee you are either a critic or an extortionist. 

What do they teach you at rater camp about being a critic?  Do they even use the term?

[Terry Lavin]

What do they teach you at rater camp...? 

Wouldn't this be a fun thread! 

[Rob Bice]

Wouldn't it be great if we could have all of the critics/fans play several courses without knowing who the architect is?  Kind of like a wine tasting where all of the bottles are covered with brown paper bags.  Would love to see the comments.

[Kirk Gill]

The distinction I make between critic and fan is that criticism implies at least an attempt at dispassionate analysis, while being a fan is based on an emotional response to something. The word critic derives from the Greek krites, a word meaning "a person who offers reasoned judgment or analysis," while fan is typically believed to derive from fanatic, meaning "marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion."

I think we're all fans of golf course architecture, and the degree to which any of us are critics is tied to the degree to which each person attempts dispassionate analysis of the subject.

You don't have to have any depth of knowledge about golf course architecture to be a critic of GCA..........just to be a good one.

[Terry Lavin]

Wouldn't it be great if we could have all of the critics/fans play several courses without knowing who the architect is?  Kind of like a wine tasting where all of the bottles are covered with brown paper bags.  Would love to see the comments.

Great concept.  In a way, what we're doing here, as amateurs, is what some of us attempt to do when getting knowledgeable about tasting wine.  You keep exposing yourself to a bunch of different wines (or golf course architects' works) and develop a language to describe your likes and dislikes.  I'd like to think that I've gotten fairly good at that with wine, but I've never exposed myself to the paper bag test, probably because I'd wind up preferring a $10 Malbec to a $100 Cabernet!  

[Scott Warren]

Kirk and Terry, a couple of great posts making some fantastic points. Thanks. I agree completely.

[PCCraig]

Wouldn't it be great if we could have all of the critics/fans play several courses without knowing who the architect is?  Kind of like a wine tasting where all of the bottles are covered with brown paper bags.  Would love to see the comments.

Rob:

A great point. If we blindfolded GCAers and brought them to 10 courses from 10 different architects, I think people would be shocked to find out what they actually like. This would also theoretically prove that few on here have actually developed their own likes and dislikes, without the aid of certain posters and trends.

[JR Potts]

Pat/Terry/et.al.:

The problem with your brown bag test is that most of us are knowledgable enough that we can stand on the first tee and recognize a Nicklaus course, a Fazio course, a Smyers course and a Jones course on the first tee.  And for a lot of people, that's what immediately turns some people off and what makes a lot of people like the course.

[Terry Lavin]

Pat/Terry/et.al.:

The problem with your brown bag test is that most of us are knowledgable enough that we can stand on the first tee and recognize a Nicklaus course, a Fazio course, a Smyers course and a Jones course on the first tee.  And for a lot of people, that's what immediately turns some people off and what makes a lot of people like the course.

I'm not so sure.  I think that people would sometimes confuse a Fazio for a Jones or a Jones for a Nicklaus or a Fazio for a Nicklaus.

On the other hand, I can see some people conflating the work of Doak vs. Coore & Crenshaw.

Now if you want to talk about Fazio vs. C&C or Jones vs. Doak, then I would tend to agree with you.

[Terry Lavin]

OK, Terry, so play critic for a sec, and rate Les Miserables...

I've been "outed"!  Saw it yesterday for the 7th time and found the production stirring, with some great performances and only a couple tepid voices.  Great fun and an awesome way to prep for the Super Bowl and the national anthem...