Should course critics be held to a similar standard?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

You're confused.

You're the one who makes pronoucements without ever having seen a golf course, not me.

I can see why you would want to dismiss my opinions,
they're based on first hand knowledge and facts,
not speculation and fantasy, as yours are.

[T_MacWood]

Pat
I can see why you would want to dismiss my opinions,
they're based on first hand knowledge and facts,
not speculation and fantasy, as yours are.  
 
Your opinions are just that, your opinions. They shouldn't necessarily be dismissed or given any added weight...its just fun to give you a little of your own dismissive medicine once in a while.

I think it is funny you like to quote Macdonald--only giving an opinion after playing a course under all varying conditions--only when it suits you. Oddly you have commented on several courses after a single play...isn't that a little hypocritical....but thats OK. I don't have a problem with your comments....because IMO Macdonald--like you--only used this theory when it served his purposes.

As far as your opinions being based on 1st hand knowledge and facts...that's not always true. Your confusion over the differences between judging a courses merits, and documenting changes has produced less than factual accusations. You constantly repeat the same matra, perhaps because you were upset you didn't know all the facts on Hollywood, Bethpage and Baltusrol (and GCGC)...and when you you can't produce conflicting facts on their evolution, it is much easier to discredit the opposing fact producer (saying "you can't document the changes because you haven't played the course" instead of "I've played the course several times, but I've not done the historical research, I appreciate you uncovering the changes...but I must say like the changes")....instead you produce a form of fantacy or air of doubt.

At first it concerned me...but you have been doing it for so long without ever producing a single example of this supposed trait that I know no one can possibly take it seriously....so carry on!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

With respect to Baltusrol, you made the comment that Rees left his "DISTINCTIVE MARKS" all over the golf course.
I asked you what were his distinctive marks,
and I asked you where they were left on Baltusrol ?
You responded by indicating that two greens had been mowed back into the fringes.

I ask you once again, what are Rees's distinctive marks ?
and, where are they at Baltusrol.
You said they were all over the golf course, could you just identify the specific locations, after you tell us what his distinctive marks are so we can look for them ?

You made an irresponsible statement, never having seen the golf course, and have NO facts to support your contention.

Shall we go back to Atlantic, where you made claims about the golf course and the land it was on without ever having seen it, that were absent the facts ?

Tell me also what I said about Bethpage that wasn't factual.

Tell me what I said about Hollywood that wasn't factual.

Tell me what I said about GCGC that wasn't factual.

At one time I indicated that if you played a golf course you couldn't pick out the changes.  You responded by comparing two aerials, pre and post.  Any moron can compare photo A to photo B, but to actually walk the site, and play the golf course, and detect the changes is another matter, and that was my challenge to you.  That you didn't have the eye to spot the changes because the changes weren't a substantive departure from the original designers style.

I would think that CBM would find your evaluations of golf courses you've never been to, golf courses you've never played, laughable, as do I.

When photos reveal wind direction, firmness of the turf, putting green speeds, texture of the bunkers, etc., etc., then you may be on to something.  Until then, your evaluation of golf courses you've never seen will remain a fantasy.

[T_MacWood]

Are you kidding? I quoted Rees himself...why put GCA through these samantic contortions?...once again? Its hard to argue with a direct quote from Rees himself...if that ain't fact, I don't know what fact is...or maybe you don't put much credibility in Rees's comments.

Same deal with Atlantic...I quoted directly from the developer (the guy who wrote the book)...if you don't like his characterization of the site...take it up with him. I would tend to think he knew the site pretty well.

I don't think CB would have your problem understanding the difference between evaluating the merits of a design and documenting changes. One is subjective, one is not. For some odd reason you've had difficulty getting the difference through your head. Oh well. Carry on!