Also, even IF the EIGCA & ASGCA members were actively encouraged to criticise their peers' work, do you think they would really do so on a public forum where the typed word shows everything up so harshly, where people become emboldened beyond their natural character and where the default position is either black or white? I'm about as vocal as it gets and I stop myself on most occasions not because of a code of conduct but because I just think it's plain rude. And also because I realise I'm not always fully informed.
It seems this poll was not thought through then.
1. If the EIGCA comes out against what is being done, this is about the most public and serious criticism it could make against a golf architect, and in this case a member. It is a one-stop shot against those hired to do the work. So perhaps Frank is right with his percentages.
Could a vote lopsided against what is happening be any more serious slap in the face?
In any event we will find that either the EIGCA is not in the camp of Mackenzie and Colt... who proclaimed this was sacred ground, or the EIGCA condemns one of its members... without a word... but a virtual vote of non-confidence.
I could see some of the "defenders" wanting the results made public so they don't get lumped into the camp of supporting what is happening to the Old Course. Or doing what Robin had done and explain his vote.
2. The code may not stop you, but EIGCA's restrictions on free speech are an assault on what makes business open, vibrant and improving.
The old architects (before the creation of architect associations) were not shy about offering an opinion, and we reference some of their words today. We wish their was more. In fact, Dr. Mackenzie's clear voice on The Old Course sends a rocket into the house of those who chose to slice the Old Course open. I wonder what he would be doing today... surely he and his compatriots voices would be clear and forceful. Joshua Crane might have been campaigning to alter the first greensite!
Have you read Robert Hunter's assessment of Seth Raynor's work in
The Links? That was thermonuclear war. Who benefited? Developers, golfers and their communities. "
With EIGCA rules in place we would have lost (and have lost) a lot of valuable insight. I wonder... how much have we lost, and how much has this cost developers? I look to some EU lands and see golfing wastelands where incredibly good golf could have been had for a song. Would the club or developer have benefited from open discussion? Most certainly.
Robin,
Digging up the Old Course was not necessary to bring the technological problem into focus. What it required is the governing bodies to focus on the problem and bring it into focus through the vast media opportunities they have at their disposal.
The R&A and USGA have the power to make golf whole again. It doesn't require building new tees and digging up greens on golf courses for championships that pass through every 10 to 20-years. There is a round sphere vital to the game that travels too far. They should busy themselves with that problem and it will solve virtually all the others.