Are you kidding ? Yourselves ?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I just had a couple of real revelations! One last night involving this whole subject of how to analyze what's natural and what isn't or natural looking and what isn't and how all of that ties into the artistic aspect of golf and how that ties into the functional aspects (the utility) of golf both from the architect's perspective but much more importantly from the player's perspective--which is specifically what you mean by "playability". It's all actually right there in the starting quote of how "construction art and utility meet...." But the revelation was triggered by what you said yesterday about Rees's mounding!

I really do think we can wrap all this up and come to a conclusion although certainly opinions may still vary about the product of the conclusion in architecture--later on that!

But the other revelation is very much throughout your post of 1/13/9:22am! For the longest time many of us have just suspected you of being argumentative all the time and trying to prove you were right about any particular subject, topic or issue. And furthermore, that you seemed unwilling or unable to back up your arguments by personal opinions and examples when you argue for certain issues, and when you've said that you are right about them and others are not, for one reason or another.

But now you have admitted throughout that 9:22am post that that is exactly what you're doing (and have been) and that you're personal opinions have nothing necessarily to do with the subject, discussion, argument or debate. And furthermore, that none of us have any idea what your personal opinions really are, and we aren't like to ever know. And you go on to say that isn't even important and it certainly has nothing to do with the subjects and points we discuss.

So be it, and I completely understand where you're coming from now. Although almost all of us on here discuss architecture from the perspective of our own personal opinions and even try to back up our opinions with facts, examples and principles believed in, you on the other hand,  participate on this website and treat these discussion only from the perspective of a "classic debating format"!

There is a huge difference in that approach and the way we operate on here because the way you apparently participate and intend to participate makes the "debate" itself the sole point and the sole subject at hand! The classic art of debate is simply the art of argumentation (and generally in a classic format)!  

In actual fact it makes no real difference to a debater which side of an issue he is on and in classroom or formal debating you are actually given spontaneously either side of an issue (which you may neither believe in or even be that familiar with) and it is simply your job to argue that side or issue as persuasively as possible and the underlying issues therefore may not necessarily have that much relevance, if any at all.

And I'm sure most of us have seen examples of really good lawyers on shows where they might stage a "crime" for an audience, and even do it again simply for visual clarity, and then proceed to persuade and convince the audience that they really had not seen exactly what they thought they had seen--at the very least not in a legal context.

So Pat, that's what you're doing by your own admission! And I might suggest that doing that on a golf architectural website where contributors are trying to express their opinions and discuss them may not be the place to do what you're doing. It takes up a lot of time, can very much divert the subjects  and often becomes frustrating as most do not understand what your doing (or have been doing). So maybe you should begin to post, talk, discuss or even argue from the perspective of what we're saying instead of always exactly how we're saying it--which is the sole subject of a "classic debate" and it's particular format.

I do understand that you're real intent is to create "fairness" and "equity" and rid this site of your belief that it has a bias and therefore a double standard but I would think you could do that better on here by backing up what you say by trying to persuade others what you truly do believe in!

So I might suggest that you stop doing this and get into the general flow here of expressing your real opinions like the rest of us do. If it's a "classic debating" website you're looking for, I'm sure we can find one on the Internet for you!

On NGLA's #5, no, I had not noticed mounding or "containment mounding" on the right or anywhere on the hole but would be happy to go out there with you and look and see and discuss it. It may very well be some sort of drainage related feature but we should just wait and see.

Tom Doak:

That's a beautiful example you gave and says so much about the realities of architectural analysis!

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

I'm not a fan of Rees Jones' work, but I agree with your position that a person who suggests Rees Jones courses "don't make you think" is probably expressing bias.

Actually, I know of very few courses that "don't make you think", even local munis that wouldn't rank more than a 2 or 3 on the Doak scale.

You may recall that prior to Hurricane Hugo Charleston National was being touted as the Pine Valley of Charleston.  While I generally dislike all that marketing crap, being someone who loved Charleston I made a point to go play CN several times shortly after it opened.

There were parts I didn't like, specifically some of the mounding people criticize Rees for (Holes #1 and #2 for example).  But, there were all sorts of shots where you had to think very carefully about what club to play and where to hit the ball, especially those most exposed to the wind.

Hugo changed the whole concept of the place (from private club to real estate) and I don't like what has happened.  Still, for me, at least, Charleston National was both challenging and fun to play.

Golf Club Atlas, like any other environment, organization, etc., has a culture, things that are "in" and things that are out of favor, including specific architects.  Thus, if someone says Rees' courses "don't make you think", most likely the statement will go unchallenged because Rees bashing is in favor at GCA.  By contrast, were someone to make that statement about Bill Coore, most likely there would be immediate protest.

I make a point of speaking up for things that are out of favor because it would be pretty dull if we all sat around talking about what a great guy Alister Mackenzie was or what wonderful work Bill Coore does.

We get too lax about accepting broad statements from people who really don't have first hand experience with the work they are commenting on.  While I don't mean to suggest a person should have to trot out a resume to express an opinion, it would be better if more people followed the example Tom Doak set in The Confidential Guide: actually see, play and study work before you comment on it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I could have saved you the effort of typing all of those paragraphs as a result of your not understanding what I said.

In response to what Tom MacWood said I THINK about architecture, I indicated that Tom MacWood,  or anyone else, doesn't know what I THINK about architecture, only what I WRITE about architecture, and the two MAY or MAY NOT, I repeat TEPaul, MAY OR MAY NOT reflect my thinking.

I further went on to say, that just because I choose to champion or defend an issue, it doesn't mean that you or anyone else knows my thinking, only the POSITION I've chosen to take on that issue.

In all the posts where I have said, " I BELIEVE, OR I THINK"
you can take those as a reflection of my position on architecture, and after one and one half years, if you don't have some idea of my leanings, preferences, tastes or views, I return to my recommendation that you and others seek review courses in reading comprehension, or an eye doctor.

I'll ask you the same two questions I posed to Tom MacWood above, relating to bias,  The "Thinking" and "Hollywood" issues, and you tell me if you interpret them as bias,  tell me that your friend Brian's comments on Hollywood weren't totally biased, and without basis in FACT, since he had never seen Hollywood prior to the renovation, and made allegations that were totally false and without basis in experience and fact.

You have a tendency to draw the conclusions you want to draw, despite their departure from the facts.  And.....
if anything, I probably more than most, substantiate my side with FACTS and answer answerable questions, rather than avoid and ignore them as many do.
I can't comment on Nantucket or the Sanctuary because I have never played them.  Why would someone ask me to evaluate the terrain at NGLA in 1910, 32 years before I was born ?  How would they know ?  And, in what context would they evaluate my answer if I chose to respond ?
And lest you jump on Beau Desert, my comments weren't directed at the course, only the mound, and the deference to Fowler as opposed to the criticim that gets automatically hurled toward Rees and Fazio.

Lastly, there are those that feel that only NATURAL objects or features belong on a golf course.  I have to confess, other than windmills, waterfalls, ball washers and benches, I don't know many other UN-NATURAL objects or features that exist on golf courses, BUT, if an architect places a feature on a golf course, and it works from a playability or strategic point of view, SO WHAT ?  Or to paraphrase Tom Doak, SO WHAT !
It works and the hole and golf course are better for it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

If, in your above post, you're saying that there is no room on this site for the position of "Devil's Advocate", I would disagree with you and state that that smacks of elitism.

Acting as a "Devil's Advocate" neither diminishes ones understanding of architecture or architectural values, nor does it diminish ones credibility.

I don't have a set, inflexible, monlithic view of golf course architecture.

If I choose to champion, defend or challenge, a post and/or thread, the value of my opinion lies in the articulation and substance of my posts, not whether I agree or disagree with you, Tom MacWood, Tommy Naccarato or anyone else.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Listen, you know I can read just fine and I can read what you're writing. And I've definitely figured out not only what you write but why. You are trying to act the part of a formal debater on this site.

You are more interested in the art of argumentation apparently than you are in the art of architecture! And consequently you argue frequently with the contributors on this website instead of discussing subjects with them. Obviously, you want us to get involved in a formal debate format with you so at the end of the topic you can try and prove that you've won the debate, I suppose. That's the way debating is--it's the art of argumentation, plain and simple and the POSITIONS are there only to be argued effectively. And at the end of the debate someone is declared the winner by a judge who analyzes and scores how well the positions were presented.

Just read the second and third paragraphs of your own 1:27pm post of today. It's almost a perfect desciption of what a formal debater does! There's no doubt about it. You're not even talking about architecture there, you're talking about the way you write on here, the positions you take and why and you inform us again that it may or may not reflect the way you think.

You're just taking positions and arguing them--they may not even be positions that you believe in or even have an opinion on. If that's not formal debating, the art of argumentation, then what the hell is?

And I'm telling you that doing that on here takes up a lot of time, it diverts subjects from being discussed well, it stultifies and tramples on people's opinions, it devolves into arguments about the meaning of the words some of use, and its all generally bracketed by your accusations that some of us can't read or see well. How many times have we read that from you on here?  

And all of this is done by you to defend "equity", ferret out double standards and to rid this site of what you perceive as bias generally in the name of architects like Fazio and Rees because they need to be "championed" on here by you.

Look at this topic right here. You post a topic and you tell us about a mound by Fowler on a hole in England (I guess). You tell us what we're going to say about it before we've even had a chance to read about it or see even a photo of it. You tell us, particularly the three of us, that we are going to rationalize that it's just fine since its Fowler's but if it happened to be Rees's or Fazio's we would scream "poor architecture" so loud as to hurt eardrums. And all this before we've even said a word about it! That's bullshit, Pat! You've established your position and ours too by telling us what ours is before we've even had a chance to think about it!

And you are still telling us what we think about this particular Fowler mound and how we would say something else if it were Rees's or Fazio's. Have you even bothered to read what we said about the mound? Have you read what we would say if it was Rees's or Fazio's?

It's the art of argumentation you want, not discussion. You tell us how right you are by citing something Brian Schneider said maybe two years ago. What's the point of that? Maybe the kid was wrong, but it was two years ago and that's somehow supposed to show that this site is totally infested with anti-Rees and anti-fazio bias?

In that 1:27pm post you say we have no idea what you think only what you write. We're interested in what you think, just as you seem interested in what we think. We all have discussions on here by expressing what we think, which are our opinions, and we try to back them up with examples, principles, history, facts, details, any number of things to explain why we have those opinions.

But you say we just have to read what you WRITE and that MAY OR MAY NOT reflect what you THINK! We really would like to know what you think, Pat, and not have these discussions be an endless Goddamn guessing game about what Pat Mucci thinks or even what he's trying to write and say.

You can tell us what you think everytime you post, you know, it's not going to kill you and I guarantee noone will think the lesser of you or your knowledge of architecture!

I've been guilty of falling into these arguments far too long but now that I've figured out what you're doing, through your own clear admission on this very thread, I'm not going to get into it anymore. I'm just going to answer the questions that I'm interested in with my honest opinion and if you try to argue it I might clarify but will probably end up just saying, "well we don't agree, fine, so what, end of story! Of course, that gives you the last word to say it proves you're right and I'm wrong, but so what?

So I hope you will do less of what you described there in paragraphs 2 and 3 in the 1:27pm post and do more expressing what you think and what your opinion is. Believe me, I know it's hard for you to believe but Rees and Fazio don't really need to be championed on here by you; they're doing fine on their own probably just about as fine on here as their architecture is!

So remember, this page is "Golfclubatlas golf architecture discussion group" not "Golfclubatlas's debating society". And I hope it gets back to that and stays that way.

Fellows, sorry to take up so much time with all this but anyway, I hope this will be the last of it for me and as suprising as it may seem from the tone of all this, Pat and I really are friends!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

If I don't agree with a post should I just roll over and let the statements go uncontested or should I offer a counter opinion ?

Are we to accept the opinions of some as Gospel.
Let's just rename this section the admiration group and post accolades about the priveleged few and their work.

This portion of the GCA site is called, DISCUSSION GROUP.
and sometimes discussions lead to debates because people have differences of opinion, like NGLA being manufactured vs natural.

On some issues I share your views, and say so.
On other issues I disagree with your views, and say so.

You're prepared to dismiss a potentially damaging statement,  that could have a negative impact on someone's livelihood, and I think an offense like that should be corrected, even if it takes debating.

When I first came on this site, some if not many people judged golf courses and made negative statements about the course without ever having seen the golf course.  
I think I changed some of that.
Some people bashed almost every work of Rees and Fazio, without ever having seen them.
I think I changed some of that.
People criticized golf courses and architects without understanding or factoring in the role of the owner/developer and/or the intended use the golf course.  
I think I changed some of that.

And these perceived changes didn't happen because I agreed with every post.  They happened through discussions and debate, albeit contentious at times.  I've tried to see the other persons point of view, even if I don't agree with it.
 
Based on the three times we spent time together at
GCGC, Innescrone, and AppleBrook, I would venture to say that we agree on the majority of architectual issues.
On the ones we don't, there is nothing wrong with debating our differences, even passionately.

Do you agree, or should we debate this issue ?  

[TEPaul]

Pat, look, you're an extremely nice, kind and generous man, and anyone who has met you or probably actually talked to you knows that. And they know if they get to know you that you definitely do know a lot about architecture!

But I question the way you go about this site and mostly because of what you said yesterday and today about the way you approach discussion on here. It was a revelation for me to see you say it in writing.

Sometimes you might take a position, as you said, that may not reflect what you think. I really don't see why that's necessary, particularly if it goes on and on with no real purpose other than argumentation! And I do know what you mean about responding to things said you don't agree with. We all do that but it sort of shows in the response what we do think--what our opinion is--and then that's it!

I don't know if you've really changed what you perceive to be "inequity", "double standard" and "bias" on here. Many times you've just stultified opinion, discussion etc and cast the whole thing into argumentation that is far removed from the subject at hand.

People on here may have a certain way of looking at architecture, I realize, but so be it. This is a free world and so is the Internet.

Anyone can come on here and say anything they want to and you know that. There is nothing about this site that requires one to pay homage to Coore and Crenshaw to discuss things on here. The fact that many like them should not upset you.

And whatever you continue to say about Rees bias I'm not buying. If you really feel that way you could not have read "The Bridge" and "Old Kinderhook" topics. There may have been some criticism, but generally those topics were extremely positive about what Rees had done! I'm sorry that they aren't still around so you could see the positive things I noticed about being there and the photos too, for instance!

I realize that everything I said may not have been positive but only because that's the way I see it; that was just my opinion and still is. And you do remember, I think, that Rees is a pretty good friend!

I'm sure we do agree on many things. What we do not agree on, though, we can just explain what we think, discuss it and if there isn't agreement, just let it go as such--no big deal.

That's about all I've ever tried to say! Discussion?--yes, endless debate?--I would prefer not.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Sometimes a thread is created or a post made that could use a "Devil's Advocate".

Perhaps the thread or post deviates slightly, moderately, or substantially from my own views.  Taking a position that may challenge the poster to articulate their beliefs or conclusions, supported by empirical data, is a healthy process, one that I have learned a great deal from, and one that can reveal the substance of the individuals thread or post.

You know that I like the look of the bunkers at Innescrone and AppleBrook, but if their look wasn't as rough, would it impact their playability and their strategic merit ?
 
Now others have posted that the look alone is the qualifying standard, and I don't agree with that, so I begin the discussion, which may turn in to a debate.  And, there is nothing wrong with that.  That others may think I'm against the look of the Bunkers at Innescrone or AppleBrook is a total misreading, on their part, of my core position and the discussion I've initiated, but as we know, through this medium, many times the idea or concept isn't always communicated or interpreted correctly.  
That's an unfortunate byproduct.

As we sat on Gil's porch, enjoying the day, he and his wife's hospitality, the company, the food and drink, one listening to us would think we are in harmony regarding our thoughts on architecture, but there are some differences, some subtle, some not so subtle, and I don't think that discussion or debate relative to the differences we have is a bad thing, as long as it isn't personalized.

I consider you a friend, as I do Tommy Naccarato, but that doesn't mean we can't have differences in our viewpoints and articulate them through discussion and debate, even if it gets passionate, which because of our love for golf and architecture is almost a certainty.

On some issues I've come around to your thinking, and on others, I think you've come around to mine, and I could say that to Tommy Naccarato as well.  We have benefited from each others opinions as manifested in our discussions and debates, and that's the purpose of a discussion group.

Are you as excited as I am about 4 at the Jersey shore ?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Well, then, so be it! But let's make it an efficient use of our time and this space.