Why is there so little discussion on

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I stand by my main point that Tom Doak and Tommy Naccarato both made a major contribution to understanding golf architecture, Tom with his landmark book and Tommy via the Internet. The big picture of their contribution should not be lost with any minor criticism.

Agreed

In fairness, I don't think Tom ever claimed he played or walked every hole at every course included in the Confidential Guide. Ditto for Tommy who took liberty - and I am glad he did - criticizing big name architects ( e.g., Fazio, Rees Jones, Etc.) without ever seeing much of their work.

Agree that some license was taken, but, I don't think you can offer a general critique of a golf course without seeing the entire golf course.
At the very least, a highlighted footnote should indicate the extent of the examination.

Giving Adios a 5 and Boca Rio a 4 has to be one of the all time blunders in golf.
Loxahatchee a 6, Lake Nona a 7, The Medalist a 7, Mountain Lake a 4, Eagle Trace a 5, Old Marsh a 6.
Loblolly Pines a 6, TPC Sawgrass an 8.  Pine Tree a 6.  
Some might take exception to those scores, maybe even Tom  
However, that's what can happen when a thorough examination isn't performed.

Their contribution was getting us to think critically and, honestly, we are all better for what  Tom and Tommy did.

I don't think that anyone disagrees with that.

Their contributions have been and continue to be both substantial and appreciated.

Let's just wait a little while before we grant them "deity" status

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom,

It's not a question of you being factual and honest, no one questioned either.
It's a matter of basing an evaluation on limited and incomplete data and expanding that limited and incomplete data to form a general conclusion.

It's a matter of not footnoting those courses where your review and analysis was incomplete.
Failure to do so can lead the reader to an inaccurate conclusion.

I think you have to understand that you enjoy a lofty position in the world of golf and golf course architecture.

And as such, some consider your words as carrying great weight, great authority, so when they read one of your reviews of a golf course, they accept that review as "The Gospel".

When your review of that course was on the run, sketchy and/or significantly incomplete, how fair is it for that course to forever carry the blemish of a mediocre or poor rating ? A rating based upon incomplete data and analysis ? 

I would think that a fairer analysis of courses where you didn't have the opportunity to see the courses in their entirety would have been for you to mark the course with an asterisk and footnote the extent of your evaluation.

Making a general statement, either at the begining or end of the book, that you didn't evaluate all 18 holes on all courses is irrelevant without referencing which courses failed to get your complete attention, because the reader soon forgets your general caveat and gets lost in the individual reviews.

Once into the book, the reader has no way of knowing the extent of your familiarity, experience and evaluative criteria for the entire course.

Hope that helps.

I'll address Tommy in a seperate reply

It's like "fine print" which often goes unread or is quickly ignored.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

It's not a question of you being factual and honest, no one questioned either.
It's a matter of basing an evaluation on limited and incomplete data and expanding that limited and incomplete data to form a general conclusion.

It's a matter of not footnoting those courses where your review and analysis was incomplete.
Failure to do so can lead the reader to an inaccurate conclusion.

I think you have to understand that you enjoy a lofty position in the world of golf and golf course architecture.

And as such, some consider your words as carrying great weight, great authority, so when they read one of your reviews of a golf course, they accept that review as "The Gospel".

When your review of that course was on the run, sketchy and/or significantly incomplete, how fair is it for that course to forever carry the blemish of a mediocre or poor rating ? A rating based upon incomplete data and analysis ? 

I would think that a fairer analysis of courses where you didn't have the opportunity to see the courses in their entirety would have been for you to mark the course with an asterisk and footnote the extent of your evaluation.

Making a general statement, either at the begining or end of the book, that you didn't evaluate all 18 holes on all courses is irrelevant without referencing which courses failed to get your complete attention, because the reader soon forgets your general caveat and gets lost in the individual reviews.

Once into the book, the reader has no way of knowing the extent of your familiarity, experience and evaluative criteria for the entire course.

Hope that helps.

I'll address Tommy in a seperate reply

It's like "fine print" which often goes unread or is quickly ignored.

Patrick:

There are two things wrong with your analysis.

One, I did not "enjoy a lofty position in the world of golf and golf course architecture" when I wrote The Confidential Guide.  The book helped me gain that status, but I certainly didn't have that status when I wrote the first bit in 1988, or even the published version in 1996.  I'd designed five courses as of 1996, and you probably still couldn't name one of them.

Second, some have argued that I shouldn't rate any course unless I am intimately familiar with it, or make a detailed footnote about any course I didn't spend more time on.  I understand that point, and maybe agree with it ... but if I followed it, there would be much less of a book.  If I'd walked the whole course, they'd tell me I had to have played it.  If I'd played it, they'd say I had to have played it under different wind conditions.  By the time we finished, I would only be allowed to comment on 80 courses, not 800, and there would be no book.

What did the "3" for Lundin Links mean?  It meant that if you were going to Scotland for a week or two, I don't think it's one of the courses you ought to seek out, as much as the courses I rated 4 or 5.  I will stand by that ... and as I also wrote in the foreword, if you agree with me on 80% of the courses, then the others should just be chalked up to a difference of opinion.  I will probably change the ratings for 50 of the 800 courses I listed in the original book, most of which will be based on a second look.  [Also, I have a method to improve upon my ratings this next time around, but that's still a trade secret for a few months more.]



Thanks for your advice.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom,

No one doubts that rating 800 courses is a Herculian task, one where the numbers makes it almost impossible to conduct an in depth analysis of each course.

It's kind of like "speed dating"

But, if you're going to give a course a "thumbs up" versus a "thumbs down" isn't a course entitled to an architectural form of "due process" ?

Especially with your "new found" notoriety and reputation ?

I happened to like the concept of the "Gourmet's Choice".

If I had to value a book, I'd rather have an expanded version of the "Gourmet's Choice" where you provide in depth analysis based on intimate experience with those 80 courses, rather than "drive by shootings" of 800 courses.

But, I understand the nature of "book sales"

My thought would be to publish the expanded "Gourmet's Choice" and add to it with each course that you're able to review in detail.

Maybe it's a product made for the internet rather than print publishing.

But, I'd rather read your book evaluating 80 courses you played than your book based on 800 courses you whizzed around in a cart.

Despite what you may think, I value your opinion...............................most of the time.

 

[Sam Morrow]

Aren't the thoughts in Doak's book just that, his thoughts? If he sees 4 holes he sees 4 holes.

[Jud_T]

An improved method of rating?!!!!!!  That ought to be good for 6 months of thread topics!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Aren't the thoughts in Doak's book just that, his thoughts? If he sees 4 holes he sees 4 holes.

But, if you're led to believe that he saw all 18, then what ?

Sam,

No kissing up and Tom can speak for himself.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

No one doubts that rating 800 courses is a Herculian task, one where the numbers makes it almost impossible to conduct an in depth analysis of each course.

It's kind of like "speed dating"

But, if you're going to give a course a "thumbs up" versus a "thumbs down" isn't a course entitled to an architectural form of "due process" ?

Especially with your "new found" notoriety and reputation ?

I happened to like the concept of the "Gourmet's Choice".

If I had to value a book, I'd rather have an expanded version of the "Gourmet's Choice" where you provide in depth analysis based on intimate experience with those 80 courses, rather than "drive by shootings" of 800 courses.

But, I understand the nature of "book sales"

My thought would be to publish the expanded "Gourmet's Choice" and add to it with each course that you're able to review in detail.

Maybe it's a product made for the internet rather than print publishing.

But, I'd rather read your book evaluating 80 courses you played than your book based on 800 courses you whizzed around in a cart.

Despite what you may think, I value your opinion...............................most of the time.

Patrick:

You have seriously misrepresented my visits to golf courses above, by characterizing them as "speed dating" and "whizzing around in a cart."  I've played more than half the courses -- I've played the best of them 10+ times -- and I spent a good two hours or more walking most of the others, except where somebody wouldn't let me walk for fear I'd get in the way.  I'd appreciate it if you didn't paint my reviews with a broad and inaccurate brush.  My visit to Lundin Links was an exception, not the rule.

I also think you're still missing the point of the book.  It isn't intended to be my through analysis of every course or even of all my favorites.  I am sure some people would be interested in reading that, too, but I'm not that interested in writing it; plenty of others have already tried.  The point of my book was to encourage people to go and see all the great out-of-the-way courses I was recommending and to judge for themselves -- and the more of them I could include, the better.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Now Tom,

1.    You're getting too sensative, I did post some smilies 
2.     Perhaps you're forgetting some of our conversations we've had on this subject.
3.     I understand the purpose of the book, I was just informing you that I'd find your in-depth analysis more informative and       
        more interesting.

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat,

Further to some of the points Tom made, I don't think a golf course is "entitled to architectural due process". The Confidential Guide was and is Tom's book. The opinions expressed are nothing more than his opinions which people are quite free to discard if they choose,

Thanks to the Internet and Ran people are also free to express why they think Tom or anyone else rated a course too low. For example, quite a few people have told me I should see Mountain Lake and I regret not seeing it when I attended the Ren Cup.

But, we never have time to see everything.

[Sam Morrow]

Aren't the thoughts in Doak's book just that, his thoughts? If he sees 4 holes he sees 4 holes.

But, if you're led to believe that he saw all 18, then what ?

Sam,

No kissing up and Tom can speak for himself.

Kissing up to Tom, I'm one of the people who complains about the Doak butt boy mentality around here. I see a problem in this thread and many other threads, you are always get into a pissing match with someone. Why is that, is it fun, are you that bored? Does it arouse you?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Further to some of the points Tom made, I don't think a golf course is "entitled to architectural due process". The Confidential Guide was and is Tom's book. The opinions expressed are nothing more than his opinions which people are quite free to discard if they choose,

Thanks to the Internet and Ran people are also free to express why they think Tom or anyone else rated a course too low. For example, quite a few people have told me I should see Mountain Lake and I regret not seeing it when I attended the Ren Cup.

But, we never have time to see everything.

Agreed, but, If you don't see a course in its entirety, then that should be pointed out via an asterisk and footnote.

Isn't that akin to a critic providing a review after he left halfway through the show ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Aren't the thoughts in Doak's book just that, his thoughts? If he sees 4 holes he sees 4 holes.

But, if you're led to believe that he saw all 18, then what ?

Sam,

No kissing up and Tom can speak for himself.

Kissing up to Tom, I'm one of the people who complains about the Doak butt boy mentality around here. I see a problem in this thread and many other threads, you are always get into a pissing match with someone. Why is that, is it fun, are you that bored? Does it arouse you?

Sam, I didn't know that we should all be like minded and not have another point of view.

You're defending Doak for only seeing four (4) holes and not footnoting same when he provided a review of the ENTIRE course.
That's misleading, his review is incomplete and generalizing on 18 holes when only 4 were evaluated is intellectually dishonest.

Your defense is ridiculous and you know it.

[Sam Morrow]

Aren't the thoughts in Doak's book just that, his thoughts? If he sees 4 holes he sees 4 holes.

But, if you're led to believe that he saw all 18, then what ?

Sam,

No kissing up and Tom can speak for himself.

Kissing up to Tom, I'm one of the people who complains about the Doak butt boy mentality around here. I see a problem in this thread and many other threads, you are always get into a pissing match with someone. Why is that, is it fun, are you that bored? Does it arouse you?

Sam, I didn't know that we should all be like minded and not have another point of view.

You're defending Doak for only seeing four (4) holes and not footnoting same when he provided a review of the ENTIRE course.
That's misleading, his review is incomplete and generalizing on 18 holes when only 4 were evaluated is intellectually dishonest.

Your defense is ridiculous and you know it.

Did you read Doak's entire book?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Aren't the thoughts in Doak's book just that, his thoughts? If he sees 4 holes he sees 4 holes.

But, if you're led to believe that he saw all 18, then what ?

Sam,

No kissing up and Tom can speak for himself.

Kissing up to Tom, I'm one of the people who complains about the Doak butt boy mentality around here. I see a problem in this thread and many other threads, you are always get into a pissing match with someone. Why is that, is it fun, are you that bored? Does it arouse you?

Sam, I didn't know that we should all be like minded and not have another point of view.

You're defending Doak for only seeing four (4) holes and not footnoting same when he provided a review of the ENTIRE course.
That's misleading, his review is incomplete and generalizing on 18 holes when only 4 were evaluated is intellectually dishonest.

Your defense is ridiculous and you know it.

Did you read Doak's entire book?

Cover to cover and probably before you ever heard of it.

[Sam Morrow]

Aren't the thoughts in Doak's book just that, his thoughts? If he sees 4 holes he sees 4 holes.

But, if you're led to believe that he saw all 18, then what ?

Sam,

No kissing up and Tom can speak for himself.

Kissing up to Tom, I'm one of the people who complains about the Doak butt boy mentality around here. I see a problem in this thread and many other threads, you are always get into a pissing match with someone. Why is that, is it fun, are you that bored? Does it arouse you?

Sam, I didn't know that we should all be like minded and not have another point of view.

You're defending Doak for only seeing four (4) holes and not footnoting same when he provided a review of the ENTIRE course.
That's misleading, his review is incomplete and generalizing on 18 holes when only 4 were evaluated is intellectually dishonest.

Your defense is ridiculous and you know it.

Did you read Doak's entire book?

Cover to cover and probably before you ever heard of it.

I read about 4 holes worth.

[Tommy Naccarato]

Tim,
You bring up a great point about me in regards to the amount I've seen. You are completely correct!

Tom is right about the portion of the book I forget--and like Pat says, it is read like fine print especially when no one actually reads anything anymore!  The first thing I'm sure that happens is people go directly to the number--because we are a number society--and frankly put, I hate numbers because its a tool that if in a different thinking mind, watch out!

As I wrote earlier, if it wasn't for the words in the Confidential Guide, I would have never learned to speak out about the subject. When Tom says that the book helped make his career, well BOLLOCKS! Tom's talent alone got him there justly; he paid his dues and for some of you that like to kiss up to him, honestly, Tom is one of the few architects you can be critical with and he respects the viewpoint. I'm not sure if he still does it at Ren Cups, but he used to hand out a questionnaire asking people to be honest and give some of their opinions on the course from that weekend--he wanted TRUTHFUL opinions and I've seen him respect people more because of it.

While I disagree--and its a matter of opinion--about his opinion of California greatness and "Enlightenment" I still believe that the landscape offered a dynamic that hadn't been experienced in a great majority of lands which many great East Coast clubs had to offer. Probably more a testament to those designing but out here, it had to be like kids in a candy store--those great amateur architects who made a name for themselves no different then they did in the East. They even got Walter Travis to come here for a couple of winters!

I urge you all to pick up a copy of Daniel Wexler's Missing Links and Lost Links as a start.

You'll quickly learn that form that time period--to dream of what once was--how the fever pitch of this sport was at mass centigrade and exploding into the same mindset that could have been just like the Mecca, the home of Golf in Scotland, where Golf is a way of life no different then an afternoon stroll. It would have been really something. Unfortunately, we can only learn by our mistakes.

The visit has been great! Back to the Lounge I must go! I have a bunch of thirsty Lounger's wanting a drink and I don't want to get fired!

[Tim_Weiman]

Tommy,

I miss Rec Park and Long Beach. We'll have to do it again before too long with dinner afterwards in Belmont Shore.

[Jim Nugent]

Tom Doak, in the new edition of the CG, will you rate courses if you haven't seen all the holes on them?  It sounds like that was a small minority of courses in the earlier editions. 

[Tom_Doak]

Tom Doak, in the new edition of the CG, will you rate courses if you haven't seen all the holes on them?  It sounds like that was a small minority of courses in the earlier editions. 

Jim:

I'm not sure.  I've asked for feedback here recently, whether I should just include the courses I would recommend, or whether I should include every last course.  Part of that is an issue about space ... if I include every course, and any pictures, then the book is going to have to be more than one volume. 

The response was pretty mixed.  Some said why comment on a course you didn't like, while others said my criticisms of those courses were important, both to argue against their status as a destination, and to make observations about design that didn't work so well.

The first edition included every single course I'd seen [18 holes or not quite all of them], partly so I wouldn't be accused of playing favorites or avoiding a sensitive topic.   I haven't really intended to duck those questions now, so I will probably include every course, in some form or another.  But, it remains to be seen how all that will fit into the book(s).

I don't think there were even ten courses of the 800 where I didn't see all the holes, so it's not really much of an issue.  But I sure as hell can't remember all of the holes from all of those courses anymore!

[Jim Nugent]

Tom, I definitely think you should comment on and rate courses you don't like.  That is one thing that made/makes the CG special. 

You could tag each course to show whether you played or walked it (or saw it), along with played once or multiple times.   

Any interest in ranking the 10's?  I'm guessing you don't see all them as equally good.   

[Sean_A]

Tom, I'm going to use quote bubbles here simply because you bring up a lot of points I believe need addressing. I don't want to make it seem like a debate, but more a healthy discussion.

I still don't think there are hundreds of courses worth restoring.  What's driving the restoration industry is desperation, on the part of many out-of-work architects, and vanity, on the part of many club members [WE have a DONALD ROSS course, too!].

100% on the desperation part and we can see the results of those that are using the gimmick of the word restoration to power the work they no longer have: RIVIERA is a perfect example, but now, I think the persons responsible for that mess see that there is only one way to disguise it and say its renovation, thus actually destroying the masterpiece they once had.  By chance, did you get to see any of that same person's work at Winged Foot? I did, and I was shocked, dismayed and saddened. What's worse is now we have Merion to mourn as well as the greatest course of the all--the very one that drive you and I to our love and passion for this great art--THE Old Course of St. Andrews, all done  by rank amateurs with little to no insight other then to strengthen. Its a dirty word.

But, I think your selling short those that would like to see their courses brought back to life by those that care and know where the greatness lies in the ground and know that there are the "right" people out there to get it back. I've met many a passionate and driven member that will go to no end to show his fellow members that they made mistakes and there is a place to recover from them. They are out there doing there best to get it done, even if it means getting lambasted as the club lunatic and treated harshly to the point of wanting to leave their club. But these are resilient people and they still fight on for architectural greatness at their club's. One of them is even a woman whose driven to restoring the greatness. I've got to tell you how impressive it is to see her in action!

Having people passionate about their golf courses and restoring the elements that made them fun and entertaining designs is a good thing I would think. They just need the right people to get it going. And once again, I disagree with you. I think every course with the name Raynor, Ross, Macdonald, MacKenzie, Hunter, Thomas, Bell, Watson, Macbeth, Egan, Macan, Dunn et. al. should be restored and we should be reading whats in the ground as a testament to the greatness.

I do think it's important to have a handful of examples of each architect's best work.  It's too bad that so many of the guys whose names you listed have had all of their work destroyed, and it's too bad that hardly anyone is out there trying to restore the best of it.  I've been to Woodland Hills and Palos Verdes CC, for example, and if they were once great courses, they've done a great job of hiding it between then and now ... neither would even get a 5 in The Confidential Guide today.

Tom, This is where both you and your book have failed. As much as that book inspired a lot of us and gave us the legs which to stand, there are many faults to the book; many courses where you didn't see all of the course, yet rated them. Also, the subject and the opinions are always varied. Look at us on this thread!

At the time you rated Lundin Golf Club I think it was a four or something well short of the mark. Then, you admitted to me on this very site that you only saw four holes! Yet, here on this fabled grounds were some of the most influential golf holes which Charles Blair Macdonald would use as inspiration for his designs in America, which you would later revisit and design a golf course in his honor using the same tools of inspiration.

Hmmmm? ? ? ? ? Inspiration? ? ? ? ? Maybe just maybe there is something to see and learn with these courses, or, are you shutting yourself off now to the learning process?  I hope not! I know I will never do that till the day I close my eyes.

You yourself have to admit that what existed at Lundin had devolved horribly, yet the bones were there to see the greatness of what Macdonald saw--I mean, come on! You even got Mike Kaiser and Uncle George Bahto to go there with you!  

And one can see this same thing at what is left of our West Coast courses. You have good people driven to make bring it out. I think it would be far better to help drive the industry of good people capable of doing the work--a positive for you then put it down. This is why all golf courses that any of us should see as worthy, deserve restoration. and most, honestly, do you really want to be the judge and juror to this?

If there was such a great legacy of golf architectural thought out west, I can't quite understand how all you enlightened west-coasters allowed it to be lost after the Depression, but that's another story.

Tom, How did Lido die? Timber Point and the others during this harrowing time in our world's history? When you say "enlightened west coasters" it makes me realize your smugness and arrogance, or what fame and success has done to you. I think I could, myself, go on any course in the world; on any coast in the world and appreciate the architecture at any level--its what I love and I used to think you did too. Now, I'm not so sure.

This makes it even more confusing when thinking that you used an open mind while writing the critical commentary in the Confidential Guide. Like I said earlier, there are many faults in that book. Still it remains one of my most prized because its not only a great book because of your insight on courses you did actually write about with passion but also allows me to now see exactly what you don't know and should. None of us are perfect! It also makes me appreciate Ran's write ups that much more.

Tom, I say this with all due respect and honesty: You have the power to influence many with your knowledge and intellect into the art. You educated me with your writings and our camaraderie in the past.  I'm pointing this stuff out to prove to you what you are seemingly no longer capable of seeing or simply don't want to see.  Just like our West Coast courses that only an assorted few can be seen in photographs and what little, but still valuable evidence that is still in the ground. That is after all the brain candy for guys like you and me--what's in the ground. The same use of what's in the ground at places like Palos Verdes and Woodland Hills. Its there.

Donald Ross and his associates (Ellis Maples, George McGovern, Orrin Smith, Walter Hatch, etc.)
C.B. Macdonald and his associates (Seth Raynor, Charles Banks)
A.W. Tillinghast
George C. Thomas (though he did only the one course out East)
Harry Colt
Hugh Alison
Alister MacKenzie
Perry Maxwell (and the Wood Brothers who built his courses)
George Crump
Herbert Leeds
William Fownes (and his superintendent)
Hugh Wilson
William Flynn (and his young associate, Dick Wilson)
Fred Hood
John Duncan Dunn
Walter Travis
Devereux Emmet
Wayne Stiles
John Van Kleek
Willie Park, Jr.
Robert White (one of Tom MacWood's faves - I have no clue if he designed anything or not)
Herbert Strong

I think this is really beside the point, though.  What matters is the courses that got in the ground, not who built them.  When you concentrate on who built them, you're projecting about the quality of the work, unless you've got the pictures to prove it.

Tom, There were a few points to listing. The main thing was to list how many of the same guys you listed, that I listed, and I didn't even put down Seth Raynor on purpose, despite two courses in Hawaii and no courses completed, only planned in California. You see, they moved out here; They settled here; they worked here and eventually died here, or close to died here. (In the case of Tillinghast who then moved in with is daughter in Ohio for the last year or two of his life) These minds of great influence in the classic Golf Architecture we love.

Compare out list, we have six, but you forgot Fowler and his masterful work at Eastward Ho! so that's seven; If I would have included Raynor or Allison (who was doing work in Japan and stayed out of California, simply because of MacKenzie, well, I think you can get my point. n some ways today its no different then you or Rees Jones in China, where you went were the work was or where it carried you. But in California, the all moved out here for various reasons. Hunter was teaching at Cal I believe, Thomas to grow roses year round; MacKenzie, whether it was to get out of town to evade a jealous husband or wife or simply because he saw a vast landscape that was worthy of great golf and could yield a crop like Cypress Point, Pasatiempo or The Valley Club.  You had a Max Behr, who was the most vocal if not influential voice with his Golf Illustrated magazine, who after losing his wife to Influenza, picked up his young son and daughter and moved out West and tarted finally getting to prove his theories in the ground. Tom we are talking some very bright and intellectual people that became "enlightened west coasters."

Some of these very same people would go on to write the most definitive books ever on the subject. Are you going to now discount them also?

The fact was it was getting done out here in the Enlightened West, Australia, Japan and even in Hawaii, then a depression, world war, redevelopment and simply old age and illness stop this movement dead in its tracks here in the United States. It ended faster then it got started with no one left to drive the car. And that's why it can barely be seen today. To me, that tragedy in golf is far more enlightening in what can happen. I've had a front row seat to see what is left being destroyed on a day to day basis every time Fazio's Tom Marzlotov gets off of a plane at LAX. And that's the point, what can you do to stop it!?!?

Just curious -- of all the NLE courses you listed, which of them do you think might have got a 7 or higher in The Confidential Guide if I'd seen them in their heyday?

Tom, if its O.K. with you, I'd like to take a brief rest here for a bit, not because I can't produce a list full of El Cabellero's and Royal Palms. I have to get some work done. But I promise that I will list for you all of the courses that were worthy, what is left and what will never be again, as well as how technology would have deemed a lot of them obsolete, even for an amateur.

Naccers

I think you are being a bit unreasonable.  Remember, we are talking about a guy who as far as I can tell is committed to properly restoring classic courses.  From his perspective as a dirt guy, I think it very reasonable to question the value of restoring (sounds like you are saying practically every course built by an ODG) courses which aren't really special in one way or another.  Its probably partly a philosophical approach, partly a pragmatic approach and partly a business approach.  You are out there in dreamland with pretty blue wishes while Doak is trying to make a living fulfilling "your" wishes and yet chasing his own ambitions.  I think it is always useful to bring these pie in the sky/esoteric/philosophical leanings back to a realistic level where choices have to be made.

Tom D

I realize that the CG was meant as a travel guide, but don't you think it has been used by yourself as a ranking?

Ciao