[mike_malone]

 I start one topic where I compliment a course and this is what I get.

[Mike_Young]

Golf architecture is so much like music when it comes to commentary.  Both accept self proclaimed expertise.  But with music one is considered foolish to think his genre of music is the only thing that matters.  The same can't be said for golf architecture on this site. We only condone one genre.  And with music one rarely if ever gains notoriety doing cover songs or writing lyrics to an existing tune. I live in a music town and see great musicians that play with world class bands hanging in local bars and trying to make it for years on their own when in reality they are better than the guys they work for. 
Golf architecture has so many parallels.  There is so much good music one can listen to for hours  and not know the name and there are so many really good courses that will never be known outside of 100 miles.   Most commentary one hears outside of the actual listening experience is there for marketing or sales just as it is in golf. You just have to like what you do and not worry about who else likes it.  If enough do then you can hang around for a while doing it.

[Kevin_Reilly]

"Welcome to the board...participate often, but have a thick skin..." advice from Pat Mucci to new members.

[jeffwarne]

I'd much prefer to read comments about and see images of an undiscovered gem than read all that's wrong with a course that could have been avoided in the first place. You can usually tell what courses are preferrred by what's NOT said .
As noted here, when commenting negatively, it's hard not to come off looking like a jerk or someone with an agenda when in the industry.
If you look at old newspaper clippings about new courses 90-100 years ago, there was plenty of fluff and fanfare then as well.

[Ian Andrew]

Most threads are not on golf architecture
It might be a better place to start than frank commentary.


One of the most educational things I ever wrote, for myself, was my top 25 architects piece in the blog.
It contained both compliments and criticisms of each architect.
I did more than the 25 on the list as I considered some I didn't end up listing.
It was a healthy exercise. Try it.


You might discover your heroes aren't perfect and your villains are better than you give them credit for being.

[Peter Pallotta]

I read that blog/series many times, Ian - an excellent overview.
And also an excellent example of the kind of critique/commentary I'm asking about, and asking for.
No villains, no superheros -- just smart, honest, insightful commentary, which, after all, is and can only be an 'opinion'.
This works, that doesn't, this is exhilarating, that is a disappointment -- for such and such reasons.
Sean raises valid points about the challenges of 'judging' a work without knowing all the restrictions/conditions it was created under.
Fair enough:
But - if we can't (as I've been told constantly that I can't) separate out the 'architecture' from the 'course', nor the overall setting from the experience, why should I care to parse out the course that is actually *there* from the course that *might have been* (sans restrictions)?
Plus: why so black and white? Why the immediate thoughts of 'judging' and 'ranking'?
To me, activities/approaches like judging and ranking are far from inherent in the notion of frank commentary.
Indeed, if I knew a very good course very well, the last thing I'd do would be to slap a number/rating on it.
Instead, I hope I'd do it the courtesy of discussing it, as it actually exists, and detailing what for me are its strengths and weaknesses, its high points and low.
I'd like to think I'm a thoughtful person, and sometimes even a kind one: I'd hate to hurt anyone's feeling, and certainly to hurt anyone's careers, by being "critical" in a public forum.
But where have we gotten to when honestly discussing what we see as questionable choices or seemingly flawed ideas or awkward looking finishing work/execution is seen as being "critical"?
It's a critique. Your blog series was a critique, and a very well informed one indeed. It's value lay precisely in the quality of that critique.
At any rate, I've again said too much. I think it's clear, as someone noted earlier, that there is very little appetite for frank commentary anymore, even here. Maybe especially here. 
No big deal, I suppose - no harm no foul as they say.
But it sure makes, on a discussion board, for less interesting & engaging discussion.
Peter

[Tom_Doak]

Most threads are not on golf architecture
It might be a better place to start than frank commentary.


One of the most educational things I ever wrote, for myself, was my top 25 architects piece in the blog.
It contained both compliments and criticisms of each architect.
I did more than the 25 on the list as I considered some I didn't end up listing.
It was a healthy exercise. Try it.


You might discover your heroes aren't perfect and your villains are better than you give them credit for being.

As I recall, though, you drew the line at including architects who were still alive, which avoided most of the hot buttons.  Even just taking a stand on where Pete Dye belongs among the icons would spark much more debate than comparing Colt and MacKenzie for the top spot.


One factor that muffles frank commentary is having a personal relationship (even a small one) with the designer.  The Confidential Guide was so frank because I was 27 and didn't know anyone apart from Mr Dye - and it would have been too obvious to go easy on him.  For that reason, I have always tried to stay a bit removed from panelists and other architects.  (Even here:  while you all very familiar, there are only a few I have played golf with and gotten to know.)


You can read the bias quite easily in people's reviews:  just as I tune out when reviewers start mentioning their own score, I've started to tune out whenever they mention the architect by name.  "This hole shows the genius of Tom's routing" (or, "this is another example of Fazio's focus on framing over strategy") are both tells - you could easily make those points about a golf hole without making them personal.  As soon as it becomes personal, and you start ascribing design features to your perception of the designer's persgnality or character, you have lost whatever objectivity you might have had.


There are too many sacred cows here.  The fact that some guys accuse me of being one is the proof that I'm not.  A real sacred cow would not be mentioned is such a vulgur thread.

[Joe Hancock]

From Monty Python’s “The Life of Brian:


Brian: “I’ve told you, I’m not the Messiah!”


Female: “Only the true Messiah denies his divinity!”


Brian: “Well, what chance does that leave me?! OK, I AM the Messiah....now, F off!”

[Peter Pallotta]

Joe - Ah, "Life of Brian": like The Old Course, it provides an answer to just about any question ever asked! 

Tom - I'm sad to think you thought the thread a vulgar one -- but at least it's frank commentary!  And, I suppose like architects do all the time, I have to weigh the opinion and see if I agree or not; frankly, since you aren't a vulgar person yourself, it carries more weight and gives me more pause than would be the case with some others.

More generally, I think what happened here, as sometimes does, is that I got an/the answer to my question early on in the thread, but only realized it much later. Since over the years many of us have shown no fear or compunction whatsoever about being brutally honest with *each-other*, or with getting unnecessarily nasty and personal and contemptuous very quickly and for little reason, we apparently have no problem with frank commentary per se.

So it must be what Mike C mentioned in one of the first posts: It's simply that, when it comes to the top privates or most prized moderns, no one sees any benefit whatsoever in sharing detailed critiques when the risk is not getting an invite or losing one's 'membership' in a valued club or being shunted to the outside of a valued circle. 

Well, I understand that.

P

[MCirba]

I'm not sure this is anything new under the sun, Peter. 

Wasn't it Bernard Darwin or Peter Dobereiner who said something like, "by all means drink their booze, sleep with their women, but don't dare criticize their golf course!"

[Ronald Montesano]

here, where there is no advertising?

digest, magazine, world, week, et al., where the livelihood of writers, editors, and more, is beholding to the advertising dollar?

why wouldn't someone be frank on GCA?

Doak, Hanse, CC are fncking great at what they do. Wealthy people who like these three (and have to defend them) are as close to liberal/progressive as their (probably) conservative politics will ever let them get.

People who like Fazio, Hills, Nicklaus and other sculptors, don't have the same architectural predisposition and values that devotees of the former, do. As a result, they don't see the need to go into depth.

Reminds me of this Far Side cartoon, featuring Gorillas: https://medium.com/@MattoRochford/i-shall-let-gary-larson-s-gorilla-sid-convey-my-feels-7f3d893b985c

[Peter Pallotta]

Mike,
you're probably right again. 
But in my defence, I still don't understand the assumption that 'frank commentary' has to be harsh/mean or even particularly negative? In a part time past career, as a story editor, I spoke honestly with writers (and they with me) all the time: e.g. I think this works particularly well, and it's a motif you may want to consider repeating later on; this middle section is confusing and maybe even confused -- what were you intending?; that's a weak opening, it seems to me, and not in keeping with where you take the story etc etc.   
We were trying to make the work better, if not this time then for the next time.
Anyway, best I guess to leave it at that: nothing new under the sun.

P

[Greg Hohman]

It is great that experts comment here, but I would not visit GCA if they always held the mic. Write on, Peter.

Nothing new under the sun? Look around more.

"Architecture is always dream and function, expression of a utopia and instrument of a convenience." Roland Barthes, The Eiffel Tower and Other Mythologies (1979).

[Colin Macqueen]

Mike C,


I am pretty sure it was Henry Longhurst who uttered the immoral words you quote. I must look it up, frankly I'm not sure!!


Cheers Colin

[Tom_Doak]

Peter:


I only meant that the true sacred cows are above any criticism and would never be mentioned in a thread which calls for more frank commentary.  I'm with you on the topic in general - nearly everyone here is holding their tongue in fear of losing their privileges or access to places they want to go.

[Ally Mcintosh]

It would be a sad state of affairs if that last point were true, Tom. I can’t believe it is.


I disagree with Mike Young that you can criticise GCA like you can criticise music. The latter is pure art that starts with no constraints. GCA has a bunch of constraints and conditions, not least the site and soil, as well as the budget and brief.


It’s why I hated the idea of trying to rank the top 100 architects. It’s a completely futile task. Ranking courses looks at an end product. No-one is privy to all the facts when ranking architects.


And so to frank commentary... Often commentators grab hold of one or two aspects of a course without any consideration for the reasoning or the other 90%. It’s perfectly ok to do this as long as the commentary doesn’t give off a mightier than thou’ aura that can send readers down the wrong path. A case in point was the recent to and fro’ between Ben Stephens and Robin Hiseman where it took far too many posts for Robin to shut Ben down in his erroneous commentary about the JCB course.

[Ben Stephens]

It would be a sad state of affairs if that last point were true, Tom. I can’t believe it is.


I disagree with Mike Young that you can criticise GCA like you can criticise music. The latter is pure art that starts with no constraints. GCA has a bunch of constraints and conditions, not least the site and soil, as well as the budget and brief.


It’s why I hated the idea of trying to rank the top 100 architects. It’s a completely futile task. Ranking courses looks at an end product. No-one is privy to all the facts when ranking architects.


And so to frank commentary... Often commentators grab hold of one or two aspects of a course without any consideration for the reasoning or the other 90%. It’s perfectly ok to do this as long as the commentary doesn’t give off a mightier than thou’ aura that can send readers down the wrong path. A case in point was the recent to and fro’ between Ben Stephens and Robin Hiseman where it took far too many posts for Robin to shut Ben down in his erroneous commentary about the JCB course.

Ally

Regarding your comments I respect your opinion however others may have differing opinions whether you like it or not.

Are you implying that all of us golf course architects/designers should be covered in cotton wool, be in a comfort zone and be praised for the work they have done via GCA threads all the time?

I agree with both Mike Young and Tom Doak - I believe we do become better designers taking on board criticism or comments from our peers.

In life we criticise and comment on architecture, movies, music, fashion, car design, computers, software, politicians, footballers, judges, iPhone design practically everything that is on our planet. Are you implying that golf course architects/designers or golf courses should be immune from this?

My Design Tutor used to tell me that 'there is no such thing as a perfect design'.

There is not one golf course in this world that is 'perfect'. Has one course ever got 100% or 10/10 in the rankings?

I guess we have to agree to disagree regarding our views on this topic.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Hi Ben,


I completely agree with you that questioning, asking and learning is always welcome.


But it’s just the way it is done. On the particular conversation I referenced above, if Robin hadn’t kept on answering you, readers would have been left with the impression that there was something wrong with his design. Or that he had not considered the points you brought up. So he had to keep going whilst you kept going.


I’ve seen the same on other threads. Rarely with Tom Doak because most accept his first answer.


I think frank commentary is great. I just prefer people to try and look at both sides. I’m guilty of not doing this myself as I have a bee in my bonnet at the moment about all the links changes happening by the same practice.

[Sean_A]

Peter:


I only meant that the true sacred cows are above any criticism and would never be mentioned in a thread which calls for more frank commentary.  I'm with you on the topic in general - nearly everyone here is holding their tongue in fear of losing their privileges or access to places they want to go.

A big part of the problem with frank discussion is if a writer doesn't first make it clear that the course is awesome, he would be happy to play it every week, blah blah before getting to the nitty gritty. Folks assume the over-riding opinion is negative. I take the PoV that we all know X course is great so that does not need to be the core of a critique. It's assumed the reader possesses a certain knowledge base. Everything does not have to be written every time out.

In general, I agree with Ben. He asks questions which may frustrate the archie, but how else does one gain insight into decision making? I think of it this way. If an archie was asked these questions during an interview would he get frustrated? The problem is more about timing and the platform than about the questions. From this perspective, it is very easy to understand why some archies do not want to over engage about their work on a forum. Without the structure of the interview it becomes very difficult to engage in a satisfactory way that remains public.

Happy Hockey

[Ben Stephens]

Peter:


I only meant that the true sacred cows are above any criticism and would never be mentioned in a thread which calls for more frank commentary.  I'm with you on the topic in general - nearly everyone here is holding their tongue in fear of losing their privileges or access to places they want to go.

A big part of the problem with frank discussion is if a writer doesn't first make it clear that the course is awesome, he would be happy to play it every week, blah blah before getting to the nitty gritty. Folks assume the over-riding opinion is negative. I take the PoV that we all know X course is great so that does not need to be the core of a critique. It's assumed the reader possesses a certain knowledge base. Everything does not have to be written every time out.

In general, I agree with Ben. He asks questions which may frustrate the archie, but how else does one gain insight into decision making? I think of it this way. If an archie was asked these questions during an interview would he get frustrated? The problem is more about timing and the platform than about the questions. From this perspective, it is very easy to understand why some archies do not want to over engage about their work on a forum. Without the structure of the interview it becomes very difficult to engage in a satisfactory way that remains public.

Happy Hockey

There has been a number of new courses which has been given huge exposure in the golf media, magazines soon to be on TV etc. One may be designed for a tour event where it will be exposed under a lot of scrutiny there will be comments and critiques be passed on by other outside this Discussion Group especially Tour Pros who can be a hard nut to crack at times - Wentworth is one example. Other courses would be under less scrutiny because they have been under the radar.


Would the all Architects design the same house/building? no they have their own design strategy/approach and views what the house/building should be and look like. The same goes for golf course architects/designers they stamp their design mark on that course.


It would be interesting to see past golf course design competitions to see what design each architect/designer has produced - one example is the Brazil Olympics course some architects/designers have shown their proposals and others have kept it in their own file. There would have been huge variety in terms of the designs. Does everyone like Hanse's winning design - I would say not 100%


https://www.golfdigest.com/story/how-gil-hanse-beat-jack-nicklaus-greg-norman-and-gary-player-for-the-rio-job

[Ally Mcintosh]

Peter:


I only meant that the true sacred cows are above any criticism and would never be mentioned in a thread which calls for more frank commentary.  I'm with you on the topic in general - nearly everyone here is holding their tongue in fear of losing their privileges or access to places they want to go.

A big part of the problem with frank discussion is if a writer doesn't first make it clear that the course is awesome, he would be happy to play it every week, blah blah before getting to the nitty gritty. Folks assume the over-riding opinion is negative. I take the PoV that we all know X course is great so that does not need to be the core of a critique. It's assumed the reader possesses a certain knowledge base. Everything does not have to be written every time out.

In general, I agree with Ben. He asks questions which may frustrate the archie, but how else does one gain insight into decision making? I think of it this way. If an archie was asked these questions during an interview would he get frustrated? The problem is more about timing and the platform than about the questions. From this perspective, it is very easy to understand why some archies do not want to over engage about their work on a forum. Without the structure of the interview it becomes very difficult to engage in a satisfactory way that remains public.

Happy Hockey

OK,

Let me explain a little more.

Saying "why did you do xyz?".... when there is someone there to answer is great.... Saying "I would have done it abc way..." and then taking 5 more back and forward posts to accept the answer why it wasn't done that way is not so great...

And these are in the cases where the architect is there to answer.

I'm only using one small example with Ben - I don't mean to stick on that because in general, Ben has posted great searching posts and ideas and questions, as well as some interesting theoretical routings over the years. And others tend to be far more at fault.

Also, architects who participate on this forum are actually in a better position. Because they can at least respond to the wrong assumptions and criticisms, even if that sometimes takes more energy than they would like.
Spare a thought for those who are not on here and can't respond to explain why something was done the way it was done. It's very easy for negative opinions to get stuck in the public consciousness with regards to golf courses. Arguably, that's one - albeit small - reason that this board has the big gulf in admiration between the Tom Doak's of this world and many of the architects who don't have the ability to respond and explain.

That's why I'm trying my hardest (and sometimes failing) to hold my tongue on quite a few of these links changes; because I don't know - definitively at least - the drivers.

[Ben Stephens]

Peter:


I only meant that the true sacred cows are above any criticism and would never be mentioned in a thread which calls for more frank commentary.  I'm with you on the topic in general - nearly everyone here is holding their tongue in fear of losing their privileges or access to places they want to go.

A big part of the problem with frank discussion is if a writer doesn't first make it clear that the course is awesome, he would be happy to play it every week, blah blah before getting to the nitty gritty. Folks assume the over-riding opinion is negative. I take the PoV that we all know X course is great so that does not need to be the core of a critique. It's assumed the reader possesses a certain knowledge base. Everything does not have to be written every time out.

In general, I agree with Ben. He asks questions which may frustrate the archie, but how else does one gain insight into decision making? I think of it this way. If an archie was asked these questions during an interview would he get frustrated? The problem is more about timing and the platform than about the questions. From this perspective, it is very easy to understand why some archies do not want to over engage about their work on a forum. Without the structure of the interview it becomes very difficult to engage in a satisfactory way that remains public.

Happy Hockey

OK,

Let me explain a little more.

Saying "why did you do xyz?".... when there is someone there to answer is great.... Saying "I would have done it abc way..." and then taking 5 more back and forward posts to accept the answer why it wasn't done that way is not so great...

And these are in the cases where the architect is there to answer.

I'm only using one small example with Ben - I don't mean to stick on that because in general, Ben has posted great searching posts and ideas and questions, as well as some interesting theoretical routings over the years. And others tend to be far more at fault.

Also, architects who participate on this forum are actually in a better position. Because they can at least respond to the wrong assumptions and criticisms, even if that sometimes takes more energy than they would like.
Spare a thought for those who are not on here and can't respond to explain why something was done the way it was done. It's very easy for negative opinions to get stuck in the public consciousness with regards to golf courses. Arguably, that's one - albeit small - reason that this board has the big gulf in admiration between the Tom Doak's of this world and many of the architects who don't have the ability to respond and explain.

That's why I'm trying my hardest (and sometimes failing) to hold my tongue on quite a few of these links changes; because I don't know - definitively at least - the drivers.

Ally




Thats a valid point you have made. However we take on board comments from others and seeing why and where are they coming from which we may agree or disagree. Life would be dull if we agreed all on the same thing.



Everyone has a different view of how a golf course should be designed and also have to adhere to different brief requirements whether its a Ryder Cup, to host a major or tour event or for club members or for weather conditions or time of play etc.


Would you, Robin, Tom Doak, Gil Hanse and et al design the same course/routing or even sequencing? Would you like the what the other designer is proposing? Or would you learn from what they are proposing or question why have they taken this route and would you have done this or that? 


Also having a tour event has certain requirements and spectators/operators coming into the equation can the course accommodate their requirements ie spectator facilities with focus around the 1st tee and the 18th. Can the course facilitate for certain requirements or can it be adjusted to suit. A good design has flexibility to cater for this if required.


Was the brief was to get the best 9 or 18 holes out of that land, starting and finishing at the clubhouse position or to accommodate other factors such as hosting a tour event that most of us are not familiar with the requirements like corporate hospitality and spectator seating, tented village, toilet facilities etc. There are only a few GCA members who have experience in this regard like Tom and Robin.


It seems that some event organisers, tour pros may have a differing view of course setup and sequencing of the holes to maximise their commercial return - Hoylake is one prime example the club members course has a different sequence to the Open course as preferred by the R+A. You ask what are the reasons for doing this. The Open has become more commercial and larger event that tickets are being sold out for the weekend of next years open already - the same goes for tour events. 


Variety is the spice of life and we are privileged to work in golf course design plus sharing information, comments and taking on board critiques - I believe will make designers stronger and others may not agree with this and are satisfied in their comfort zone rather than be challenged. We learn something new practically every day. Some may see things that others don't.


Personally had it not been for GCA I would have not learned so much and the input here is fascinating even though not everyone will agree or disagree on certain topics - the same for politics - are we Red or Blue? and so on.




Cheers
Ben

[Adam Clayman]

Mike,
you're probably right again. 
But in my defence, I still don't understand the assumption that 'frank commentary' has to be harsh/mean or even particularly negative? In a part time past career, as a story editor, I spoke honestly with writers (and they with me) all the time: e.g. I think this works particularly well, and it's a motif you may want to consider repeating later on; this middle section is confusing and maybe even confused -- what were you intending?; that's a weak opening, it seems to me, and not in keeping with where you take the story etc etc.   
We were trying to make the work better, if not this time then for the next time.
Anyway, best I guess to leave it at that: nothing new under the sun.

P

Peter, I suspect most confuse, and fail to see the difference between a critique, and criticism. One is typically thoughtful and constructive.


On a recent thread there was a sad comment about John Low's ideal green, and how if it were built today, it would ensure no further commissions for that artist. I'm assuming the author meant it would be highly criticized.  Should a thoughtful critique, of the actual art, include these visceral reactions? In a way it validates your points on Ego and commerce as a driving force in modern design.


My newest thought; It's been the commercial that preys on the ego, and through of all things, Athleticism.   




 


 

[Peter Pallotta]

Truth be told, Adam, I've made that mistake & confused the two many a time on here, to my regret.
I think for me, at least, when 'critiques' are left unspoken or badly spoken, it's like a pressure builds up and then it comes out as criticism instead.
But I can't convince myself that, despite those personal failings and the inherent potential pitfalls of publicly offering critiques, the alternative is any better, i.e leaving, as you suggest, the forces of commercialism preying on the ego to squish (or demonize) any attempts at 'elevating' the art&craft through constructive criticism.
Not that this can come from *me* mind you, I understand that -- but there are plenty of folks here with far greater insight and experience from whom such constructive critiques would be of value.
P

[Sean_A]

Its only in fairly recent times that the term criticism has taken as wholly to mean negative commentary.  So it is easy to understand the confusion between terms when there the two have so much overlap in meaning and both can be thoughtful and constructive. I prefer Pietro's "frank commentary" approach which leaves the matter in no doubt.  Frank can be harsh, mild, positive, negative etc etc.  All approaches have their place if well targeted.

Happy Hockey

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()