[Peter Pallotta]

I was reading an old Downbeat magazine, from the early 60s, the record reviews section. About one record, the reviewer wrote: 'X has been a sideman on a hundred middling recordings over the last 20 years - and this was apparently enough to convince Y Records that he warranted a session as leader. The result only demonstrates why he's always been a sideman. The evidence here suggests that X is incapable of producing a coherent musical idea longer than two bars, instead merely stringing together a series of tired cliches that lead nowhere, and in a tone that can best be described as anonymous'.
Ouch. And I know X's work, and I think it not only harsh but mostly inaccurate.
But it *is* frank.
Now, I'm not asking for that kind of brutal honesty; but see, I rely on you ladies & gents who have played a ton of courses, great, good, bad and indifferent, to provide *something*, ie something resembling frank commentary.
Not about a minor Nicklaus, mind you, or some overdone soufflé by Player, or a Fazio renovation of a classic course, or any number of other punching bags and fish in barrels that have long been the easy 'out' for insightful & experienced folks here who wanted to fill their 'frank commentary' quota.
No: in trying to learn and know and enjoy the reading I do here, I need frank commentary from my architectural betters about good new courses and about high profile renovations by leading architects and about long cherished classics -- commentary that explores why 'good' wasn't 'great', or the reasons a renovation didn't achieve all that it might have, or that details courses where leading architects failed to do their best work, or get even close to it, or that provide some new truths/fuller narratives about long-cherished classics that have long ridden the coattails of reputation and exclusivity.   
Something other than praising a new course to the sky simply for being 'fun' or a renovation simply for 'opening up the sight-lines' (and leaving unsaid all the rest, after scouring for the best things that could be said). 
This is gca.com for goodness sake! You guys can do better/offer more than that, no?
And if not here, where's a fellow to look? It sure isn't out there, in the glad-handing magazines or well meaning promotions.
Or am I wrong? Is the frank commentary flowing freely here, and I'm just too blind to see it?
What do *you* think is frank commentary? Do you offer it here often?
P

[Ally Mcintosh]

As long as frank commentary isn’t passed of as “I know best” knowledge.


Too many times, we see suggestions about how architects could or even should have done something differently without any understanding of why it was done the way it was.


By all means suggest, ask, cajole. But do it whilst trying to search out the counterpoint.

[Colin Macqueen]

Peter,


Quite frankly I don't offer frank or, to be honest, any commentary as it requires what you set out in your opening observation.  I think that you are setting, quite rightly, a high standard.


I believe it takes a good writer, with a keen eye, in depth knowledge, well-rounded experience, a modicum of golfing ability and a passion, tinged with compassion, to deliver that frank commentary. To me that is a very high bar to hurdle and we were lucky to have had that in the first ten years that I was a member of this forum.


I am wondering to myself if you are simply lamenting the, relatively, lacklustre timbre of the debate on GCA over the last few years or so. I feel the loss of this debate but as I don't really contribute, though vicariously enjoy it, it is cheeky/rude of me to in any way grizzle


Nonetheless it strikes me that there is a lack of robust to-ing and fro-ing. I suspect that fewer new projects, somewhat less acerbic characters abounding on GCA and the fact that most all aspects of golf course architecture have been discussed in this forum one way or another the "frank commentary" aspect is diminished.


Cheers Colin

[Sean_A]

Pietro

Frank commentary rarely pays, even for guys that get paid. The new frank commentary is to not include a course on your site, blog or whatever if one is less enthusiastic than the mainstream.

Long ago I decided to focus on favourites for inspiration and guidance. There ain't a whole lot more that can be written about the great and good of architecture. It's more about finding voices which resonate.

I have essentially stopped reading stuff about new courses. The over praise and fawning style media highlighted by the in your face bling approach has quickly become off putting. It's a new generation out there, everything new is better than ice cream.

I wish Ran would write honest pieces about courses which failed to impress. But of course that doesn't pay.

Happy Hockey

[Robin_Hiseman]

Frank commentary comes with the inherent risk of being piled on. I don't think many people have the time or the will to administer a vitriolic debate, which is why it tends to be rather vanilla now. This is also a fully public forum, which anyone can read, so you have to be careful what you write in case it strays into the realm of defamation or libel.

[MCirba]

Frank commentary flows much easier here when the topic is a public or resort course.


Folks are much less apt to bite the hand of a coveted invite.

[Bruce Katona]

While "Good, Better, Best, Most Outstanding, Best F&F" offer some badminton fodder back and forth across the net, the Worst of the Worst (the perennial favorite Country Club of the Poconos @ Big Ridge) is a bit more gentile and fun to read.

[MCirba]

While "Good, Better, Best, Most Outstanding, Best F&F" offer some badminton fodder back and forth across the net, the Worst of the Worst (the perennial favorite Country Club of the Poconos @ Big Ridge) is a bit more gentile and fun to read.

But even that course is 12 MILES long from first tee to 18th green so it has that going for it.

[Peter Pallotta]

You know what wins out when there's not a rigourous discussion/debate about the craft?
The commerce.
And with that the underlying/unspoken message & confirmation that commerce is king.
Such that what's popular and successful (outwardly, financially) is what's considered best (inwardly, artistically).
I wouldn't care if that was the case with widgets, or baseball mitts, or designer jeans.
But when it comes to 200 acres of nature transmuted into a field of play for a wonderful game like golf, it does sadden me bit.
More broadly: chatting with my son the other night as he was listening to some modern rap/hip hop.
While I was always a stick in the mud, and preferred jazz and Sinatra and Simon & Garfunkel, I did like & listen to some rock and also some rap -- and I mentioned the rap of my early days: Public Enemy.   
Remember: Fight the Power.
And I said to my son that i found it strange that the early rappers wanted to fight the power, while today's rappers want to *be* the power (with guns and girls and as much bling as possible).
And my son said, "Yup, papa" -- like it was the most natural (and inevitable) of developments.
I suppose he's right (as Sean notes too): few wish to fight the consensus, they want to *ride* the consensus -- everything is better than ice-cream.
Why?
Because there's no money in doing anything else.
Commerce.
Yes -- and we can't serve two masters.   

[Jason Topp]

I agree with the sentiment.  However, when someone is kind enough to invite me to their club I am unlikely to thank them by trashing it publicly on a website. That is the dilemma about frank commentary. 

Rather than worrying about an overall rating of a course it might be more informative for us all if we wrote likes and dislikes about courses we experience.

It is rare that I find a course where I like everything or dislike everything.  I have a hard time ranking courses in some measure because I think of golf courses a bit like food.  Trying to compare a private course built for an exclusive club on ideal sandy loam soil against a public course built for affordable golf on clay is akin to ranking a particular pizza against a particular ice cream.  I can do it but I am not sure it adds much.



That sort of analysis might lead to a more open and informative discussion.

[Peter Pallotta]

JT -
that's all I'm really asking for.
We don't need to 'trash' something, or to be mean-spirited, or to slap a number on it (high or low).
But how about something like: 'hole X and Y fail to inspire, the green sites derivative of many others and adding little to either the challenge or strategic intent/complexity; and holes A and B fight the natural topography, as it seems that Architect Z was intent on providing an especially photogenic vista and downhill tee shot at the expense of a more organic and fulfilling test'.
Just honest analysis.
P 

[Sean_A]

Pietro

Jason hits a strong note.  A lot of folks aren't ready for or want frank commentary.  It is often the case where things can quickly become personal.  I guess its often easier to attack the messenger rather than the message. 

I think Doc also hits a strong note. Unless one is intimately involved with a project, it is very difficult to know why certain decisions were taken because the constrants aren't often public knowledge. While architecture and final product are obviously strongly related, it can be the case that given the constraints, producing an okay course is not a bad result.     

Happy Hockey

[MCirba]

Seriously, Peter...I completely agree.


I had intended to post an end of year wrap-up of every new course I played this year (25 to date...sort of a light year compared to my younger days when I would hit net new numbers like 72, but alas) with my Doak Scale score and some brief commentary explaining why.


I may throw in repeat courses (14 to date) as a few have had significant work done since I played them prior.


If I don't get invited anywhere next year at least I'll know why. 

[Adam Clayman]

Few in the industry can be frank in a public setting. And even fewer, outside the industry, are capable of even cursory analysis. It's almost a Catch-22.


Express your opinion and then justify it. Then, Own it, until you learn differently. Being shown wrong is the best education. Too bad most will just dig in their heels, and then attack, personally.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Few in the industry can be frank in a public setting. And even fewer, outside the industry, are capable of even cursory analysis. It's almost a Catch-22.


Express your opinion and then justify it. Then, Own it, until you learn differently. Being shown wrong is the best education. Too bad most will just dig in their heels, and then attack, personally.

Sean hits the right note by referring to what Robin said, the same point I was making.


But Adam above just about nails it.


All that said, I tend to be a more outspoken critic than most who work in GCA. Yet I’ve learned to temper some of the things I might have said in the past by searching answers straight from the horses mouth on why certain things I might not like have been done. That and trying to remember that a lot of GCA is opinion and somewhat subjective, even if it sits within an overarching objectivity.

[MCirba]

One doesn't need to be a movie maker or a musician to offer an opinion on a film or album.


Courses are built to be played.  And analyzed.  And critiqued.


Of course, one always needs to consider the source.

[Ira Fishman]

It is completely understandable that people in the industry or guests at a club are not likely to offer Downbeat magazine like criticism.  However, I have found that if I can phrase the  question in a reasonable precise way, I get a lot of useful information that trends toward candor.  And I have learned enough about what many regular posters like or do not like about a course to know how their views might align with mine.


I have tried to be candid, and I completely understand why someone would discount my opinions because I am not an expert, but I hope that some find them of value when planning trips.


Ira


PS Downbeat reviews were legendary.  I should start reading again.

[Jeff_Brauer]

The only ones in the industry who can be frank are those who are about to retire.  And even then, its probably not wise.


As to the original premise, I've been here a long time, and perhaps glossing over things, but I think this whole site was more frank and critical back in the day.  Tommy Knockers and others were brutal to gca's they didn't like.  It seems to sort have matured, like football coaches who tried the end around early in their career, but remembering all the bad ones, take it out of their repertoire.


As to criticisms, the hardest ones for me to deal with are the open ended ones, encapsulated in "what might the gca have done better?"  I can see specific items, like trying to recreate the 12th at ANGC, but enlarging it for public play, etc.  When those topics did come up, it tended to go the broad celebrity route.  Fazio redoing a classic course?  Has to be bad.  Doak? It's great, of course.  The critique never got deeper than that, and in some ways was really hypocritical in that if Faz moved a fw bunker 30 yards to challenge modern play he was ruining a classic.  If Doak was doing it, they were sure it was a well considered decision.


What was really ironic was they would bash anyone who thought Fazio was only popular to play because he was a "name," while all the while really doing the exact sort of non thinking when it came to playing one of their favorites, LOL> 


In some cases, the recreation of certain subtle green contours were debated, as if anyone could really tell from photos.  I recall the outrage over some Riviera bunkers.  People just "knew" that Faz didn't get the "3D" right from a 2D photo.  While I will admit there are many levels of definitely no restoration type work are touted as restorations, when you really look at it, most gca only sympathetically restore courses, trying to keep the look but working within the confines of current situations.


Is it time for more frank commentary?  I suspect now that our fearless leader is in the employ of a mainstream magazine he will be under pressure to at least personally write in the professional style that most of those have adopted, i.e., don't bite the hand, etc.  Whether that frees the band of 1500 merry participants on this site to take up the mantle, who knows.


Again, my only suggestion would be to try to limit the subject to one course, maybe one hole or one feature at a time rather than broad brush everything.  Just my $0.02

[Adam Clayman]

Jeff is correct that back in the day, passions ran higher. From my perspective it was about disrupting the status quo, on the perceived lack of naturalism, and an almost total disregard for core principles.


One favorite moment of mine was when the lyrics to the song "minimalist blues" were leaked out of the annual ASGCA meet-up. My perception was that "they" were dissing (and snickering at) the disrupters. Which, in a counter-intuitive way, gave the disruption validity. That pretty much culminated when Jack told his associates, after Sebonack was finished, that if they wanted to have a future in the business, they needed to learn how to "do that". Of course, referring to the design build methods of Doak's crew.




 

[Ira Fishman]

The only ones in the industry who can be frank are those who are about to retire.  And even then, its probably not wise.


As to the original premise, I've been here a long time, and perhaps glossing over things, but I think this whole site was more frank and critical back in the day.  Tommy Knockers and others were brutal to gca's they didn't like.  It seems to sort have matured, like football coaches who tried the end around early in their career, but remembering all the bad ones, take it out of their repertoire.


As to criticisms, the hardest ones for me to deal with are the open ended ones, encapsulated in "what might the gca have done better?"  I can see specific items, like trying to recreate the 12th at ANGC, but enlarging it for public play, etc.  When those topics did come up, it tended to go the broad celebrity route.  Fazio redoing a classic course?  Has to be bad.  Doak? It's great, of course.  The critique never got deeper than that, and in some ways was really hypocritical in that if Faz moved a fw bunker 30 yards to challenge modern play he was ruining a classic.  If Doak was doing it, they were sure it was a well considered decision.


What was really ironic was they would bash anyone who thought Fazio was only popular to play because he was a "name," while all the while really doing the exact sort of non thinking when it came to playing one of their favorites, LOL> 


In some cases, the recreation of certain subtle green contours were debated, as if anyone could really tell from photos.  I recall the outrage over some Riviera bunkers.  People just "knew" that Faz didn't get the "3D" right from a 2D photo.  While I will admit there are many levels of definitely no restoration type work are touted as restorations, when you really look at it, most gca only sympathetically restore courses, trying to keep the look but working within the confines of current situations.


Is it time for more frank commentary?  I suspect now that our fearless leader is in the employ of a mainstream magazine he will be under pressure to at least personally write in the professional style that most of those have adopted, i.e., don't bite the hand, etc.  Whether that frees the band of 1500 merry participants on this site to take up the mantle, who knows.


Again, my only suggestion would be to try to limit the subject to one course, maybe one hole or one feature at a time rather than broad brush everything.  Just my $0.02

There is a definite bias on the board toward Doak, C&C, and Hanse. I hope to play enough of their courses to assess the degree to which that bias is warranted. So far, the one C&C course—Bandon Trails—is one of my favorites. The deception off the tee on the front nine plus the 13-15 stretch does the trick for me even if the Par 3s did not strike as much of a chord. The two Doaks—PD and Old Mac—justify the bias. There is not a weak hole on PD, and Old Mac required a balancing act between tribute and freshness. Numbers 1-6 and 18 are brilliant tribute and Number 7 is brilliant freshness. The two Hanse courses—Castle Stuart and PH4– have been disappointments. The first is all about appealing to the American tourist so feels artificial and the second runs out of steam on the back.


Having said that about the Doak courses, I stand by my post from a couple of years ago that Pasatiempo is a better course than PD.


Ira

[John Kavanaugh]

There is a reason that Trolls name their first sons Frank.

[Peter Pallotta]

I certainly don't mean to equate 'frankness' with hurtful words and much less with personal attacks.
But 'ego' and 'commerce' have both gotten very out of hand, IMO, if an honest assessment now qualifies as ingratitude towards the member who hosted you, or as reason for a libel suit, or even as 'criticism' of an architect's skills.
So far from the time (and the approach) of the 'disrupters' have we come that I can't remember ever reading, about a very good and highly regarded modern course, even something as mild and 'descriptive' as:
"While 15 is a strong Par 3 with a smartly-conceived multi-tiered green, 16 disappoints as a short Par 4 - failing to offer (from any tee, and in any wind conditions -- and I know because I've played the hole 6 times now) any compelling reason *not* to lay up with a 6 iron. Hole 17 somewhat makes up for it as a reachable and engaging Par 5, marred only by a green that leans towards the pancake variety, and 18 is a classic long Par 4 finishing hole that saves the best vista for last, and does so without the 'manufactured postcard' feeling of the vistas on holes 6 and 12'.
Just that: a direct and honest assessment; one's true opinion.
And if *that* gets architects mad and members feeling ill-used and folks tossing around the 'hater' label -- well, it really is bit of a sad day for the art & craft of gca.

[Sean_A]

A certain Canadian of Italian descent once accused me of being miserly with my course conclusions  This slight tug of the ear did make me backtrack here and there and I reckon that's OK.  But I do understand where you are coming from. Some courses are treated a bit too preciously. That said, much of the harshest stuff written on this board has been about archies. In nearly every case I thought the writer was out of line because they simply didn't know enough to offer an opinion. Generally, it's far better to stick to discussing courses!

Happy Hockey

[Peter Pallotta]

I should've noted it earlier, Sean: your profiles do in fact, time and time again, offer honest assessments and insights -- fair, they seem to me, and balanced, and often hole by hole, and with neither rancour nor personal attacks on the architects involved. And that's one of the reasons so many of us enjoy and appreciate your work so much. But (no 'but' really) most of said courses are so long and well established, and/or so under the radar, and the architects involved so long ago passed away, that I assume it is easier for you to offer such honesty. And that's kind of my point: fair, balanced, hole by hole, insightful, without rancour or personal attacks -- and yet all that falls under the apparently scary and fraught heading of 'frank commentary' when it comes to well regarded moderns.   
Peter
PS - wrote you more, as a sidebar/context, in an IM. 

[Sean_A]

Pietro

Thank you and you aren't wrong. I don't think there is any doubt that it is more difficult to offer objective criticism when one knows and respects the subject's creator. I spose this is an added reason for at least attempting to discover the main reasons for the creation of a course and what the constraints were.

 I recall feeling a great deal of sympathy for the chap who designed Celtic Manor 2010. He was put in an impossible position to design a Ryder Cup course using dubious land, half of which had to be canabalized from an earlier design without really altering the routing. Then the course had to be playable for the average hack and make money as resort course. There was more as well, but you get the point. It would have been a miracle for a course of lasting merit to be created. However, did the design meet the brief? That sort of question rarely gets asked. Instead, most of the time work will assessed by an imaginary set of standards which is applied as if an exam was being administered.

I am as guilty as any on that front, though I am trying to escape this way of thinking by asking myself central questions about courses. One of which is what decisions and consequences does the course offer to golfer out of position. In other words, critiquing a course as if it is played from the middle of fairways is fine, but only one side of the die.

Happy Hockey

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()