RJDaley,
I think that there is a difference between constructive criticism and demonizing or feeding frenzies, which fortunately, have become less frequent.
There has been a degree of inconsistency in applying "standards", universally, to all golf courses and all architects.
Tom MacWood has taken a consistent position that he would like all/most courses restored to their architectural high water marks. Certainly, a noble goal, and a great idea.
Part of the problem with that theory is, the reality of what the membership wants. Often it differs from what we would want.
But, certain architects are villified for not doing so, even though the club's mission statement didn't call for restoration, and other architects are given a pass, or their work overlooked, when the same situation occurs at a golf course they are working on.
You can't villify Rees Jones for not restoring Hollywood, when that was never his instructions from the club, and give Tom Doak a pass for Atlantic City, which he renovated and modernized, or C&C for their work at Riviera, which was not a restoration. You have to apply the same criteria or standards, equally, fairly and universally, otherwise you lose your credibility.
You can't expand the praise for an architects work on a specific golf course, to universal praise, when he has disfigured another golf course, eliminating much of the original golden age architects work and left his fingerprints all over the golf course.
That reflects a lack of objectivity or a lack of intellectual honesty.
George Pazin,
You claim that all discussions are merely opinions.
That's not true.
Facts are, and will continue to be the foundation and an integral component for any valid discussion and conclusion.
It is a fact that Fazio oversaw the work at Merion.
It s a fact that Fazio oversaw the work at Pine Valley.
The conclusions regarding the outcome of that work are opinions. Unfortunately, in many cases, opinions are rendered, absent the facts.
Brad Klein,
You have to remember, this is a forum open to everyone, not a select group of professionals or experts, and as such, much of what is posted is from amateurs or novices and much of what is posted must be filtered or eliminated to get to core issues.
You, personally, attended a get together of GCA'ers at Alpine last January. Would you say that the level of the discussions at that get together were on a substantially higher level then those on the open forum ?
Would you say that the presentations and discussions were substantive, with clear and concise "signals" ?
Would you say that the information distributed was highly informative, and that the questions and discussions emanating from the presentations were intelligent and presented well ?
It's not perfect, but it seems to be functioning adequately.