[Jonathan Cummings]

Wait a second Steve, you are dousing the fact that I was warming up to my bean counter title Matt has given me.  You mean I should ignore it? :-)

[Matt_Ward]

Jonathan:

You are an EXCELLENT bean counter and a good reviewer of courses tpp.

How does that sound to you !

Steve:

Thanks for conceding my "apparent knowledge" and my "decent grasp on design." I appreciate you going out on a limb to grant me such a low base level. You are free to not "grant me" anything -- that's your prerogative. As it is mine. What the hell do I know -- simply ignore it.

Steve, it would be nice for you to think about this -- how bout people do some heavy lifting before they get engaged in the debate program. If people want respect -- then show some too. I deliver robust and frank statements -- I am sorry if thin-skinned people wish to have them deliivered in a Pampers style format. Given the stated need I'll be sure to keep that in mind and simply deliver vanilla respones to those who favor that approach.

Let me point out I am a big boy and people are free to say what they wish to me. I try my best to stay on the siubject matter and I also try to provide some insights gleaned from my own experiences. People can disagree with whatever they wish. All I have asked of such people to demonstrate some serious counterpoint based on personal observations that have a good bit of depth to them.

Appreciate your taking the time to write you thoughts --

David Kelly:

I never said equal value for the two groups -- I simply opined that walking is not as bad as throwing forward opinions known from photos and from other totally removed elements.

If someone discloses they walked the course only and much more than just a quick here and there -- and someone else played the course once or better yet several times -- then the answer is obvious -- the playing dimension counts for more. The walking dimension can be scaled at a lesser value -- if at all if people feel that way. Just make sure the playing field is consistent.

To borrow your closure --

Capisce?

[Ed Oden]

Matt, with all due respect, your last reply to Steve Burrows is an embodiment of why you have lost all credibility in my eyes.  You say you have a thick skin, but when your opinions are opposed in tones mild by your standards you are insulted.  You ask people to do "heavy lifting", but when they do you dismiss them because your "body of work" is superior.  You say you are interested in frank discussion, but when thoughtful counterpoints are presented you do not address them.  You say people who demand respect should be willing to show some too, yet you demand respect more than anyone else on this site and rarely reciprocate with any semblance of respect to your fellow board members.  You say we are free to disagree with you, but when we do you cry foul.

Your knowledge and experience are enviable.  You have the potential to be one of this site's greatest assets.  We could all benefit from what you bring to the table.  Unfortunately, your knowledge is lost in a sea of self importance and a stubborn adherence to contradictory positions that you would not accept if they came from someone else.

[Matt_Ward]

Ed:

With all due respect, hold the phone with the spin cycle you are dishing out -- I have no issue with people having opinions (different ones / strong ones, whatever) -- but honor those who have played the courses with a bit of homework that suppots such positions. Is that too much to ask for ?

I enjoy seeing counterpoints to mine -- provided I know the person(s) is doing so from a position that demonstrates they have done their homework and can make cogent and clear comments on why they favor what they do and how it might come into disagreement with my stance. I learn a good deal when people follow such a course of action and often compliment people when doing so -- happy to share a ton of messages to support such a claim without specific names mentioned). Too often people take one narrow area and try to blow it up to some larger point when the evidence they are citing doesn't support such a stretch. Then when they are called on it -- they do the turn around game and cry foul and proclaim I am the Darth Vader guy doing so. How nice -- how predictable. I'm always interested in others who then chime in and go to bat for such people and see me as the bad guy.

I take strong points in plenty of instances -- I'm sorry it's not dressed up in the PC language that people want 24/7.

I've given plenty of time and opportunity for people to say what they wish -- but let's be clear there are strong biases and prejudices to certain architects and courses on this site that go far beyond anything else tied to real analysis. I've tried to highlight those situations -- no doubt from where I stand on such matters.

The "heavy lifting" I often mention -- is rarely accomplished by the people who take the greatest umbrage to what I say.

Ed, your position is noted -- I hope you can understand mine and try to do as much moving as you wish me to accept and act upon.

Thanks ...

[Jim Nugent]

Just noticed that GW lists Jack as the sole architect of Muirfield Village.  Muirhead gets no credit at all. 

[Anton]

The man responsible for Stone Harbor gets no respect in the industry.  What a shame.

That is sarcasm by the way. 

I read an interview with Muirhead and he stated very bluntly that "he" had more to do with Muirfield Village's design than Jack.  Not so sure if that is true but it is interesting he was left off.

[Jim Nugent]

Tony, I thought Desmond routed the course and was responsible for most of its design.  I also thought Jack has almost continuously worked on it since then.  Has he so changed the course that Muirhead no longer deserves any design credit? 

[Anton]

Every time I see his name all I can see in my mind is Stone Harbor.  I can't get past that design.  :-)

I def. think he deserves to be credited.  Im surprised they left him off.  JN and DM debated for years in interviews who had the greater hand in Muirfield Village.  At least what I had read.  JN now has dug up and rebuilt that course a lot over the yrs.  Most for the better for sure.  It has always kept to its central theme and style.  The original 17th didnt really fit the rest of the course and had that Muirhead waste area that needed to go.  It just didnt fit the mold.  Now the course is looking much more uniform from start to finish (except maybe the 8th hole).  That doenst exactly fit with the rest of the course either. 

But I still cant associate DM with any design other than Stone Harbor.  WOW that place is still wild even after a remodeling. 

[Matt_Ward]

Tony:

If Desmond was involved -- even minimally - he should be included.

No different than other attributions.

[Anton]

And that is what I said.  He should be credited.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()