News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture
« Reply #100 on: July 22, 2020, 07:09:03 PM »
Peter,


I agree that, as you allude, applying the "fundamental principles of the art-craft to a given situation and set of circumstances" that can make a green a true original.  That said, I am always amazed at the assumption on this site is that any drawn plan would "be imposed onto the site (from a drawing/paper plan) regardless of the unique nature and features and soil & wind characteristics of the site itself."  I mean really, WTF? :D


Any plan would have the topo maps, tree locations, etc.  And what was not marked on the aerial photo/topo should have been marked by the gca during design phase field walks.  Of course, the wind rose so you know which way the wind is blowing, etc., soil knowledge also comes from either local soils maps or (better yet) soils tests made by a golf agronomist (although in the real old days, the gca did more of everything than now, where projects have many, many consultants)


And, any gca would probably have walked the site at least once, completed the routing, and then start thinking about said green or other feature.  I think we are all subject to getting repetitive (although we all say we aren't, Tom included :) ) and have to fight falling into old patterns if we really want to do something new.


Which is why I like to look at things from different perspectives, sometimes on a cold winter day in my office.  As I have always said, there are some things better figured out on plan, and some only reveal themselves in the field, but there is never any harm in figuring out something early on plan, and then being willing to massage it (and for a few holes on every course, it seems) change it completely.  IMHO, if you are surprised at a tree or what not being out there, you didn't do enough work in the design phase.  There is certainly no harm in looking at it from several perspectives, plan, field, etc.


But, even that is great design, perhaps, but in Ron Whitten's eyes, perhaps not innovative.  As mentioned by some of those business oriented posts, there is perhaps a separate thread on whether the gca is really, really, paid to be innovative on any given project?   I hate that idea, and I'm sure TD hates it, but it may very well be true in most cases, i.e., not all courses are on the roaring ocean and designed for tournaments, etc.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Colin Macqueen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture
« Reply #101 on: July 22, 2020, 07:18:37 PM »
Ah yes Ben,
Dinosaurs on Australian courses.
One newspaper reported the demise of Palmers dinosaur at Coolum Golf Course, after it went up in flames leaving only a charred skeleton, as "Palmersaurus Wrecked....."
Not sadly missed!
Your list of innovative ideas seemed a bit of a stretch to me but then I am realising that I am such a traditionalist when it comes to my golf I can't get past the idea of a pleasant, quiet, natural, traditional eighteen holes. I guess I'm the dinosaur now!!


Cheers Colin
"Golf, thou art a gentle sprite, I owe thee much"
The Hielander

Peter Pallotta

Re: Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture
« Reply #102 on: July 22, 2020, 07:23:01 PM »
Jeff - no, I didn't mean to suggest that 'originality' precludes plans drawn in the office (after site visits and studying topo-maps etc.) My point is that originality -- or even 'innovation' -- doesn't lie where the critics and the theorists tend to thinks it does, and it never has.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture
« Reply #103 on: July 22, 2020, 07:31:33 PM »
Yes, I have heard both Pete Dye and Tom Fazio say that owners hire them to do their last course.  No one wants to hear their gca (or airplane pilot) say, "Hey, I want to try something new!" :)   

I saw Fleetwood Mac a few years ago, and they introduced the song Tusk as one they had a lot of trouble getting recorded.  The suits (Record executives) always called for fresh new material, as long as it sounded substantially like the last album that sold millions.

My old mentor had the general idea that you had to do your last best course again, but might be able to introduce 2-3 new design concepts (not that his were anything radical) without anyone complaining too much.  That sort of slow evolution thinking may be what frustrated Ron W a bit, but it is probably a more practical approach to design evolving.




I'm glad I had a different mentor!  Pete Dye at 56 told me at 20 that if the client would not let you do your thing, you had to have the courage to walk away from the project.  The client for the same project told me that he often worked with other designers who were more predictable and easier to deal with, but that it was a special site and he understood it required more flexibility to try and do something great instead of just good.


There are also some musicians who were ready to go their own way and argue about what the record company suggests . . . and they are usually the ones who have had great careers, instead of just hit songs.  [I'm sure that some tried and failed, too, but at least they tried.]


Some of this is about Style vs. Philosophy.  Through the course of building Sebonack, the only thing that Mr. Nicklaus said that bothered me was that the difference between us was more about the "look" of the course [what I would call the style] than the substance.  Maybe that's how he saw it, but that was not what I saw.  We had different philosophies of what golf courses are about.





JMEvensky

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture
« Reply #104 on: July 22, 2020, 07:52:43 PM »


There are also some musicians who were ready to go their own way





Nice.


How did Ron Whitten get the job in the first place? Did he have some knowledge of architecture?

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture
« Reply #105 on: July 22, 2020, 07:59:58 PM »


There are also some musicians who were ready to go their own way





Nice.


How did Ron Whitten get the job in the first place? Did he have some knowledge of architecture?


He was a district attorney in Kansas, with a love of gca, not unlike most here.  He started knocking on doors, worked with Geoff Cornish on "The Golf Course" published in 1981, and then was hired by GD. 
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

JMEvensky

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture
« Reply #106 on: July 22, 2020, 08:06:58 PM »
Thanks JB

William_G

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture
« Reply #107 on: July 22, 2020, 08:16:51 PM »

how many courses in Myrtle Beach that are nothings but 18 holes for a cart ride?



The entire economy of Myrtle Beach golf was built on the premise of golf carts.  In the old days your round of golf came with the hotel room . . . the only thing you paid the golf course for was the cart [and f&b].  So the cart path from the 9th green at The Legends went 100 yards up to the clubhouse and 100 yards back, even though the green and tee were 20 yards apart!


P.S.  Had I written about what "golf" should do, you'd be criticizing me for trying to tell the whole world what to do.  And the book was about routing by using case studies of my courses, not about this thread.


yes agreed, Americana ruined golf with the cart revenue model, capitalism gone bad so to say, I heard Myrtle Beach was all about gentleman's clubs, have not been


as far as carts go, many pros still see an added value in providing a cart, WTF



P.P.S.
I sure you don't know what I'm thinking but carry on, as I understand what the book is about
cheers
It's all about the golf!

Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture
« Reply #108 on: July 22, 2020, 08:58:45 PM »

Mike Nuzzo just built a golf course with a routed 9-hole putting course (30 minutes) a 9-hole short course (1 hour) and a regulation 9-hole course (2 hours)....all based on time to play....



If it really takes 30 minutes to putt out on nine holes he should probably tone it down  :D
:D
There may be 4 players. They could be beginners. And they may even have beers. 90 putts could take 30 minutes.
Although the 7th is built more for skateboarders than putters - it is a huge half pipe about 100' long.
Peace
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture
« Reply #109 on: July 22, 2020, 09:59:53 PM »

Mike Nuzzo just built a golf course with a routed 9-hole putting course (30 minutes) a 9-hole short course (1 hour) and a regulation 9-hole course (2 hours)....all based on time to play....



If it really takes 30 minutes to putt out on nine holes he should probably tone it down  :D


I thought the same and would love to see the proposed playing time of the regulation 9 holer come in at under 2 hours. No knock at all on the courses as I’m sure they are all fun to play.


Howdy Tim.
The big course is 3,200 yards long. 2 short 4s, 2 one shot holes and a single very long par 5 - for an approximate par of 35. And it is an easy walk. Not many new courses like that. Peace
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

Ben Stephens

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture
« Reply #110 on: July 23, 2020, 03:21:37 AM »

Cheers Ben, comments below

Cheers Ron, comments below in green - I reckon we would have good banter and chat at the 19th

[Ronald,I have heard of and see images of Arcadia Bluffs South Course by Fry/Straka isn't the design style based on Chicago GC?

Inspired by might be a better turn. The flatness of the site reminded F/S of the flat CGC site, and the style contrasts well with the original course. Whether the course you cited or ABSC, the inspiration came from the Golden Age and the Template holes.

Mike Cocking course at Lonsdale is inspired by template holes however with more squarish edges probably inspired by the shape of the early courses - its a hybrid of ideas put together into one - for current design trends it bucks it as it is seen as trying something different - the client must be either brave or Mike has put the ideas across very well.


In reply to your question there are possible alternatives and innovations such as1. Fluid Dynamics (or biomorphics) - which is 3D design by using computer modelling and is used by companies like Formula 1 and Indycar Manufacturers. It could be constructed by a 3D printer and the computer modelling can work out the drainage to make it look more natural as Formula 1 cars use it for aerodynamics to make it faster. Could it eliminate the use of underground pipings?
Can this be installed post-build, or must it be put in the ground pre-build?

There are ways of doing this i) large 3D printers on site working by each specific subsoil layer ii) in a factory using pallettes that can be installed ideally on a flat site or large floating slabs
2. Night golf - LED is becoming more prevalent and why golf courses are not utilising this. This could create something different and attract a new generation of golfers who like computer games etc? And allow golf clubs to open for longer hours possibly generating more revenue.
People sleep at night. They are meant to sleep during the dark hours. They call it the 3rd Shift for a reason; it's the top choice of a select(ed) few.

Understand where you are coming from - golf courses lose more money in winter due to shorter days, the majority of people working 9 to 5 and night golf can be a solution for this and also summers are getting hotter and night time is cooler to play. And it is something different which could attract a younger generation

3. A new architectural style which looks the wow factor - a good example of architectural design progress is the Jencks Architectural Evolutionary Tree which shows how design has progressed throughout the 20th century and what past influences the architects have used please copy the link which will show you the Jencks diagram - https://streets.mn/2014/10/15/chart-of-the-day-charles-jencks-architectural-evolutionary-tree/#lightbox/0/ - I wonder is there a Golf Course Architecture equivalent of this?
I suspect you would have mid-20th century architects in the USA saying "screw those golden age guys" followed by Pete Dye saying "love golden age, but give me some acid first" followed by Mike Strantz "I don't need acid; it's in my dna" followed by Jim Engh " ??? " followed by the minimalists "love golden age."

Designers often think - we can do better than this and experiment on new styles/ideas etc. I rather have a challenge than a too easy a brief.

4. Floating golf course

Why?

Its different and possibly unique. Sea level is rising and we could lose a number of links courses - the sand could be transported onto large floating pontoons or man made island. Japan for example has a shortage of land and it is a mountainous country that they have build airports in this way why not golf courses. Also it can be moved around to find the best weather conditions. It may be far fetching to most on here - it is just a theory which is possible but probably not practical from a commercial point of view at present.   

5. Golf Course Design influenced by biological structures and shapes.

Desmond Muirhead...shunned #ClashingRocks http://theaposition.com/johnstrawn/golf/personalities/213/channeling-desmond-muirhead

;D ;D  He sounded like a character however you and I probably have different interpretion and visualisation for this  ;)


6. Underground houses connected to ecological wet areas with a golf course above it
What sustains the golf course and how do you get around the legalities?

It could be created by inert fill with the Hobbit style houses built first and then golf course built above it - maybe too radical for most of us. The properties would face away from the golf course rather than look over it - isn't that safer?

7. Vertical golf course in the middle of a built up city or Golf Course inside large biomes/domes a la Buckminster Fuller so that it can be played 24/7.
Gravity might have something to add to this conversation.

The domes are very lightweight and strong aided by gravity - they could allow for all day golf in clean air. The Eden project in Cornwall UK is an example and these domes can be a lot bigger - it is down to the cost of materials which probably come down in future plus robots could build it.

I have seen an architect concept of a vertical golf course tower

8. New type of grasses so that they are more robust and less maintenance or even synthetic or hybrid grasses
Kentucky blue and Northern California Sensimilla? I know one guy working with this blend.

Well you probably know better than I do in this regard. There have been advancement in grass and turf technology over the last few decades.

9. New forms of hazards using materials that are not the norm on golf courses like concrete, plastic which has been thrown out, corten steel or even graphene.
liability insurance required?

Instead of timber as bulkheads - plastic like timber could be a fire risk hazard if a golf stubs its cigar or cigarette on it or throws it near it. Concrete/corten steel is longer lasting and gives a different look. You can shape concrete in many different forms.

10. more efficient and natural irrigation systems
proceed...

Technology improves by time so we will have wait and see ..........

11. Construction of golf courses done by drones or robots with the designer/contractor working from home.
lots of people out of work on this one.

Happening in construction and other areas like car manufacturing etc. Probably more cost effective and reliable :o

12. A golf course on the Moon or even Mars 
Now you're talking.

its probably hundreds of years ahead of us if the human race is still surviving

There are a lot of possibilities I could go on and on ....
I concur that these are outside the box. I can intimate that the majority of the golf world would label them as bat-shit crazy. Therein lies the rub.

There is no harm having different visualisations of the future - people may say its crazy - go back 75 years people would say flying from UK to Australia in a day was impossible. However it was made possible with he invention of the jet engine. Anything is possible ;D

CheersBen ]

Ben Stephens

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture
« Reply #111 on: July 23, 2020, 03:22:30 AM »

Tom
............

Your style is quite similar across the spectrum of the courses you have done - I have played two of your courses St Andrews Beach and the Renaissance Club which both feel like a Doak course like Dye, Ross and Jones have done - I really liked SAB more than Renaissance. I have not seen one from you and your team that is really very contrasting in terms of style and design approach. Its ok to be in a comfort zone in terms of design and if it attracts clients then you are doing something right.
,,.,..............


Cheers
Ben
Ben,
Having played:
Riverfront 250+/- rounds
Beechtree 3 rounds
Pacific Dunes 3 rounds
Old MacDonald 2 rounds
Heathland Legend 1 round
Streamsong Blue 1 round


I can easily state that Tom's courses are very anti-formula.


I regret that the Midwest Mashie was called off.  I hope the course at Sand Valley comes back to life.  I, also, can hardly wait to play at Stoatin Brae.


Carl


Can you clarify what you mean by anti-formula.


Cheers
Ben

John Mayhugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture
« Reply #112 on: July 23, 2020, 07:18:44 AM »
For those that want to read the entire Whitten piece, here's a link.

Note that this piece was published nearly ten years ago, in September 2010. Golf Digest seems to have reprinted it verbatim (except for changing 43 years to 53 years), but there's no indication that it's a reprint. Talk about a lack of innovation!

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/whitten-course-critic-rant

Note that we also discussed this piece at the time.
https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,46137.0.html



archie_struthers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture
« Reply #113 on: July 23, 2020, 07:41:38 AM »
 8)


Sour grapes, sounds like an angry petulant child.


To embrace the land and build something that reflects a symbiosis with it is such a rare gift. To then add challenge and intrigue without breaking the charm of same requires artistry. You know it when you see it ! You feel it when you play it!


Now I'm all for quirk as I've gotten a little longer in the tooth and perhaps a tad ( 8) )  less opinionated but quirk doesn't always work as flow is quite ephemeral. Perhaps that's why it's easier to build without taking chances. But the really great ones do it and sometimes you have to visit time and time again to see the vision.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture
« Reply #114 on: July 23, 2020, 09:40:21 AM »
Well if this piece is ten years old, he did not predict the future well - there have been hundreds of architect-driven renovations and restorations since then.


But there has been a trend of new par-3 courses where the number of holes is irrelevant, maybe that's the innovation he was looking for?

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture
« Reply #115 on: July 23, 2020, 09:57:53 AM »
Well, I thought I had heard it before, but figured it was in conversation, I had not recalled reading that article.


I wonder if the weblink, including "Critic Rant" was original or if GD added it for some sensationalism now?  No matter.  He doesn't sound angry or petulant to me, and he isn't that type of person.  (Although his long ago interview on this site shows he can be, LOL, as it was a part rant, complete with occasional foul language) He sounds like he is trying to engage some thought among those of us (gca's) of whom he has always been our biggest fan.  And, to get some clicks.....mostly, to get some clicks.


But, he missed a few future predictions, and nailed some.  Of course, the desire to "save money" by eliminating the gca has always been there, and one of the big selling points of the new wave design build firms is reduction in design fees, or eliminating them (i.e., hide them in construction cost or wait until the dozers are going to design something, which is fine for the thousands of bunker re-dos)  that have been done.  Or using a gca for a master plan and let your super build it without any more help.  Like I always say, it's the details that count, and if you put a construction firm or superintendent in charge, neither really thinks in terms of good design, they tend to think from their own parameters of construction and or maintenance ease.


Also, everything is designed, whether good, bad, or indifferent.  Seems to me if it is to last 25 years until the next rebuild, it's worth making sure it's good design, which requires someone who makes design their top priority.  But, it has become a harder sell.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture
« Reply #116 on: July 23, 2020, 10:18:30 AM »
Jeff - no, I didn't mean to suggest that 'originality' precludes plans drawn in the office (after site visits and studying topo-maps etc.) My point is that originality -- or even 'innovation' -- doesn't lie where the critics and the theorists tend to thinks it does, and it never has.


I like to philosophize about originality and innovation as much as the next guy.  Maybe it's as simple as the old saying, "Necessity is the mother of invention?"  Or the seemingly overly optimistic mantra that there are no (design) problems, just (design) opportunities.  At least I have always felt that, no real data to back it up. 


I once complained about being assigned the lower budget of the two courses being designed in my mentors office, implying or assuming the lower budget meant it would probably be the lesser project.  Ken Killian looks at me and says, "How do you know it's a bad design before you even design it?  Kind of self defeating, no?"  That stuck with me.  Obviously, you can't go into a project with the attitude that it won't end up great.  (Although I have met a surprising number of architects who say "Well, every course has a few bad holes.")


And, Ron's take about eliminating the "middle man" often takes hold, as people don't really understand how important design is to their enjoyment of the game, course management, etc.  I am on a superintendents group on FB and someone was lamenting dumb ass golfers and how they use their carts.  My comment was that design can eliminate some of that, most just assume its not important to locate cart paths carefully, taking into account human nature.  Golf design is about golfers, not "the land" although wise use of the land is obviously one way to please and accommodate them.


Lastly,  one of the "problems" I have with the idea of waiting until you are in the field (but, I don't really believe anyone who gets excited about golf course design doesn't start imagining golf holes from the minute they start the design project) is that those lightning bolts of inspiration do not appear on schedule!  What happens when its time to build a green or whatever, and you just happen to be uninspired?  I have been inspired at many different points of the process but if I didn't really start to think about it until the dozers were running, I think I would be limiting my chances to be inspired.  Always best to have at least some "hip pocket" ideas before construction starts.


Also, while those lightning bolts are one of the great moments in design when they happen, in reality, most design is a process of narrowing down options to the best one that compromises the least design criteria you (or Owner) have.  A great first hole heading right into the sun?  Maybe you don't build it as the first hole, or at all, etc.  Design is always a series of compromises, which should, IMHO, be carefully made in most cases.


They teach you in design school that the "Master Builder" image that FLW and RTJ among others, touts is more marketing myth that true design process, which mostly follows the logical scientific process, with some twists.  And, what is the old saying ? "Inspiration is 90% perspiration" or something like that.


So, yeah, plans can be (or just are) pretty important tool to the creative process, no matter what they tell you.  As always, just MHO, but in this case, backed by thousands of years of design experience that failure to plan is planning to fail, to drag out one more old bromide.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture
« Reply #117 on: July 23, 2020, 01:25:15 PM »
For those that want to read the entire Whitten piece, here's a link.

Note that this piece was published nearly ten years ago, in September 2010. Golf Digest seems to have reprinted it verbatim (except for changing 43 years to 53 years), but there's no indication that it's a reprint. Talk about a lack of innovation!

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/whitten-course-critic-rant

Note that we also discussed this piece at the time.
https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,46137.0.html


Well, I'm pretty consistent in my answers over that 10 years......
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Peter Pallotta

Re: Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture
« Reply #118 on: July 23, 2020, 01:38:43 PM »
JB -
thanks. Your line about "inspiration' and waiting for the 'lightning bolt' of great ideas reminded me of what I've heard or read from every single great jazz improviser -- i.e. not from amateurs like me or critics/theorizers, but from actual working professionals who mastered their crafts and made music most every single day, for an audience. They all say this: that while they all hope/wait for that those moments of pure inspiration and the lightning bolts of musical ideas, and live for those joyous moments, those moments  actually happen only about 10% of the time, and when they least expect it. The other 90% of the time they rely on *technique* and *training* and do the best that they can -- which is why every single one of them practiced so much, i.e. to develop as much technique as they could so that, during the 90% of the time when their longing for inspiration and greatness went unfulfilled, they could still manage to make really really good music. 

« Last Edit: July 24, 2020, 11:11:24 AM by Peter Pallotta »

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture
« Reply #119 on: July 24, 2020, 04:15:56 AM »
It is a very good thread, but I hardly understand a word of it -- not Ron's original contention, nor Ben's support of it, nor even Tom and Jeff's 'rebuttals'.
It's as if either a) the terms 'outside the box' and 'originality' are being used much differently than I would use them, and/or b) few of the posters have ever created something themselves, which obviously isn't true. But I can't think of one creative person worthy of the name who has ever produced great work by trying/starting out to be 'original' -- in any art-craft, and certainly not in gca.

This is interesting for me as a guy who doesn't buy the typical GCA mantra that plenty of original stuff has been built in my lifetime...and that is without the consideration of success. I would like to see more original stuff, but I am far more interested in better exploring concepts that have been around for yonks. On that score there is no question progress is being made. I think more can be achieved if the need to satisfy social media aesthetics is mitigated. But owners need to earn a crust...

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Ira Fishman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture
« Reply #120 on: July 24, 2020, 07:11:14 AM »
I went back to read Mr. Whitten’s interview here that Jeff Bauer mentioned above. It was done in 2000. It has some coincidentally ironic relevance for a couple of current threads. He does his own eclectic US modern 18 and repeats only Fazio. He picks High Pointe 13. And he labels number 14 at Waterwood National as this generation’s CPC 16.


Ira

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture
« Reply #121 on: July 24, 2020, 10:08:21 AM »
Ira,


I suppose that is the problem of being in the public eye in the media age.  You have to be totally consistent over decades or someone will dig exceptions out on the internet.  And, you get held to what is probably an impossibly high standard that few of us meet.  That said, I get your point. 


But, as someone who has had to put out a column every month, (14 years in Golf Course Industry Magazine) I have some sympathy for Ron....... a few days or a week before every column is due, I started to panic about what to write about this month.  And, occasionally decided to write something controversial just for the heck of it.  Just like Mac said if there was no criticism of a new course, something was wrong.  For an magazine author, if there are no laudatory or scathing emails after a column comes out, you must have been pretty boring.   Or, the stock gca answer to an odd hole no one likes?  "Well, which hole are you talking about?  The goal of that hole was to spur discussion!"
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Ira Fishman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture
« Reply #122 on: July 24, 2020, 11:11:15 AM »
Jeff,


I was not attempting to make any real point other than the same questions recur as they should over time.


Ira

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture
« Reply #123 on: July 24, 2020, 11:46:38 AM »
Ira,


Understood.  Let's give GD credit.  They figure their demographic is smart enough that they have to wait to repeat every 10 years to keep people from noticing (and they almost did!)  The typical newscast (and some politicians) figure their audience has forgotten what they told them a few days ago, in an effort to stir up today's outrage, LOL (not) :(
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

John Mayhugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture
« Reply #124 on: July 24, 2020, 12:43:03 PM »
Let's give GD credit.  They figure their demographic is smart enough that they have to wait to repeat every 10 years to keep people from noticing (and they almost did!)

Or they are just lazy. Why not indicate that it's from ten years ago, but the author thinks is still applicable? Surely that's more reasonable than trying to pass it off as something new.

Forgetting whether you agree with Whitten or not, it's a pretty pathetic editorial approach.