[Frank Pont]

Just saw on the discussion topic about the changes on TOC the picture of the sign stating that these changes were approved by the Links Trust and the R&A Championship Committee.

Adam Lawrence mentioned in another discussion that Martin Ebert, the English golf architect, is part of that committee. That means he has known about these changes for a while, and unless he voted against them, has approved them.

That makes him another prominent architect next to Dr H who holds direct responsibility for the unfortunate things happening to TOC now.

Very disappointing.....

[Scott Macpherson]

Hi Frank,

I, like you, have chosen not to pursue membership of the EIGCA partly because we lose a freedom to be able to critique the works of our colleagues, but that doesn't give us a licence to throw stones.

I have never met or spoken with Martin Ebert, but understand him to be a very conscientious and respected architect. As I have never seen him post on GCA, I presume he can't. On that basis, any criticism of him seems unfair – especially if the accusations are untrue.

Scott

[Garland Bayley]

Martin Ebert is a registered member of the website. I presume it would be the same Martin Ebert.

[Philip Spogard]

Hi Frank,

I, like you, have chosen not to pursue membership of the EIGCA partly because we lose a freedom to be able to critique the works of our colleagues, but that doesn't give us a licence to throw stones.

I have never met or spoken with Martin Ebert, but understand him to be a very conscientious and respected architect. As I have never seen him post on GCA, I presume he can't. On that basis, any criticism of him seems unfair – especially if the accusations are untrue.

Scott

Hi Frank,

I agree with Scott on this point. Be careful not to try and reach very critical conclusions based on your own assumptions. You are a well connected man and could contact any architects directly instead of in an open forum.

Philip

[Jim_Kennedy]

Hi Frank,

I, like you, have chosen not to pursue membership of the EIGCA partly because we lose a freedom to be able to critique the works of our colleagues, but that doesn't give us a licence to throw stones.

]

Hi Frank,

I agree with Scott on this point. Be careful not to try and reach very critical conclusions based on your own assumptions. You are well connected man and could contact any architects directly instead of in an open forum.

Philip

Which probably explains why associations have rules about criticizing fellow members, it always looks unseemly to do so in public.

They'd prefer it you'd all air out your laundry in your own yard.

[Frank Pont]

Scot and Philip,

If Martin tells us he did not know about these planned changes and did not vote for these changes I will humbly apologise to him profusely and in public.

For now the fact that he sits on the R&A Championhip committee (confirmed by Adam Lawrence) and the fact that that Committee was one of the bodies that approved the changes to TOC (confirmed by the signs posted on TOC)  seems pretty straightforward to me.

[Scott Macpherson]

Frank,

The way I see it is that because he is on the R&A Championship Committee he may have known about the concept and of the details. But then again, he might not have known. Or maybe he didn't know of the final the details?? Remember the Links Trust are involved. Either way, I don't know either, and frankly, (excuse the pun) it doesn't bother me. But what did, was the tone of your email. It was accusatory, and I felt that was undeserved. If you want to know what his role is/was, go and ask him, and then post your comments if you desire. I just don't this is a forum to call him out, or anybody else for that matter.

Scott

[Frank Pont]

Scott,

I guess we differ in opinion on this subject. I do care and it does bother me.

Keep in mind that the whole TOC proces has been far from transparent, so we are trying to piece together who decided what based on limited information. And that limited information says that a body in which Martin has a position was involved in the decision on the changes for TOC.

[Philip Spogard]

Scott,

I guess we differ in opinion on this subject. I do care and it does bother me.

Keep in mind that the whole TOC proces has been far from transparent, so we are trying to piece together who decided what based on limited information. And that limited information says that a body in which Martin has a position was involved in the decision on the changes for TOC.

Frank -

I believe everyone in here genuinely cares and are bothered about what happens at TOC - but that doesn't justify taking a 'Guilty until otherwise proven' approach. And in my opinion there is a difference between trying to understand, discuss and place responsibility among some larger golfing bodies to start putting up your own critical stories aimed at specific architects on a very vague and self-formulated foundation.

But perhaps that is just a differentiation in opinion.

[Chris Kane]

If Martin Ebert doesn't want to be associated with this work, he should resign from the R&A Championship Committee.

Members of that Committee are jointly and severally liable for the decision to approve the changes. He is 'guilty' until he shows otherwise.

[Mark Chaplin]

Bob Huntley:  No, there was no vote of R & A members at all.  Even the fellows on the Championship Committee weren't informed of the proposed works until last week.  A friend of mine who is a member heard a rumor two months ago via Hawtree's office and tried in vain to find out anything more, but none of the members he asked knew anything about it, including two committee men.

The above is from the Peter Thomson thread. Sounds like Mr Pont may have to make his public apology to Mr Ebert.

[Neil White]

Excuse me for being naive but if members of the Championship Committee weren't informed until last week how few people could really be involved in the decision making process?

Are we looking at a mere handful of individuals making decisions on behalf of the majority regarding the TOC?

As I asked before in another thread I would like to find out who initially made these suggestions and got the ball rolling.

Neil.

[Tony Ristola]

Bob Huntley:  No, there was no vote of R & A members at all.  Even the fellows on the Championship Committee weren't informed of the proposed works until last week.  A friend of mine who is a member heard a rumor two months ago via Hawtree's office and tried in vain to find out anything more, but none of the members he asked knew anything about it, including two committee men.

The above is from the Peter Thomson thread. Sounds like Mr Pont may have to make his public apology to Mr Ebert.

Hmmmmm... No vote by the R&A membership... Championship Committee not informed until a week ago? Interesting if true. They would have had an opportunity to voice an opinion. Even resign in protest.

Would you have resigned to make a point? Or threatened resignation should they carry out with their scheme?

I wonder... what would Dr. Mackenzie have done? What would he have said? Would he have raised verbal hell? Made a Vlog post condemning the actions? Would he have sought answers? Would he have sought to identify responsible parties, identified responsible parties or let them slip into the dark?

[Neil_Crafter]

Bob Huntley:  No, there was no vote of R & A members at all.  Even the fellows on the Championship Committee weren't informed of the proposed works until last week.  A friend of mine who is a member heard a rumor two months ago via Hawtree's office and tried in vain to find out anything more, but none of the members he asked knew anything about it, including two committee men.

The above is from the Peter Thomson thread. Sounds like Mr Pont may have to make his public apology to Mr Ebert.

Hmmmmm... No vote by the R&A membership... Championship Committee not informed until a week ago? Interesting if true. They would have had an opportunity to voice an opinion. Even resign in protest.

Would you have resigned to make a point? Or threatened resignation should they carry out with their scheme?

I wonder... what would Dr. Mackenzie have done? What would he have said? Would he have raised verbal hell? Made a Vlog post condemning the actions? Would he have sought answers? Would he have sought to identify responsible parties, identified responsible parties or let them slip into the dark?

Tony, both Mackenzie and Colt are quoted as saying they would not change one blade of grass on the Old Course. They would be apoplectic I would expect. Both were R&A members too, for what that's worth.

[Frank Pont]

Given Gordon Moirs comments in his interview with Anthony (mentioned in the main TOC post) it seems highly unlikely the R&A Championship Committee did not know well beforehand.

Moir talked about how "the briefings given to the local golf clubs in St Andrews prior to the announcement being made were supportive".

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()