Cult Courses, Architectural Wastelands, and Serious Criticism

[Kalen Braley]

With respect to Kalen's recent post, I can't see where having an agenda does me any good.  It is in my best interest to be as objective as possible, while being humble about my lack of expertise.  I'm here to learn.  Not everything in life is some game to be won.

Agreed John,

And I should clarify my last comment in that often times is seems a list of excuses is simply invoked to not trust or listen to so and so... instead of examining, analyzing, and processing the comments on their own merits.

[Sean_A]

If criticism were to be couched in 100% positive language the reader would have to know the critic's style very well. Besides, what is the point of the guess work involved with reading between the lines when something can be stated in a plain and open manner? Is guessing what the critic intends somehow better writing? It's not as if I reread critical opinions of golf courses over and over. I read these pieces to determine if I might want to play the course one day.

Ciao

[John Kirk]

You're right, Sean.

I became more reluctant to share my opinions over the years, mostly due to a couple of detailed analyses I was involved in.  After one of these long threads, I was treated differently by a number of people.  My primary emotion is that I'm mad about it, and don't want to play this game anymore if people are going to get all bent out of shape.  As it stands now, I haven't played golf in 18 months, and haven't seen anything new for years, so I have little to offer anyway.       

The mission statement is "Golfclubatlas.com exists to promote frank commentary on golf course architecture".  Every time someone with a vested interest tries to disrupt the site from its stated intention, it diminishes the site.  Just recently we had an ad hominem response to a rather anodyne observation about a course.   

Commercial and professional interests are antithetical to the site's intent.  Occasionally they attempt to eliminate forthright analysis when it does not suit them.  My question to the moderators is "why don't you do more to discourage this?".  One problem is that GCA is now a part of the mainstream, with a number of members in high positions in the architecture and journalistic hierarchy.

You're supposed to be able to offer your opinion here.  Sean, maybe it's easier for you to critique British courses because there are fewer Brits on the site, or perhaps Americans are more sensitive to criticism.

[Peter Pallotta]

Something important and indicative happened about 15 years ago (my goodness, time does fly):

Brad Klein wrote his 'open letter' to Tiger Woods, as the latter was embarking on his design career. 

I remember even back then being of two minds about it -- how 'prescriptive' it was, even though I liked the prescription.

Then and now, from insightful & influential voices, 'opinions' do tend to sound a lot more like 'rules', if not 'moral imperatives'.

I can't immediately find the letter on-line, but if memory serves, the prescription Brad gave to Tiger Woods was to design courses like Coore & Crenshaw did -- subtle features, lots of room, not requiring Tiger's level of skill to play etc. But preferably public. (I remember thinking that the 'ideal' sounded like a mix of Sand Hills, Rustic Canyon and Pinehurst #2.)

And the stated reason for Brad writing was noteworthy too: it was precisely because, Tiger being Tiger, the golf courses he designed would likely be very 'influential', ie set the stage for what would be considered quality golf course architecture in the years ahead.

In other words, Brad (and Ran, and me, and many/most of us) was saying that there was one kind of 'best' -- ie the kind of golf courses that Donald Ross built, and the kind of architecture that he and the neo-traditionalists favoured. The key concepts were 'strategic' & 'playable' -- which implied width, no forced carries, and little water. (Cutting down all the trees came later.)

Not that I disagreed with any of that, but I have to say it didn't feel all that much like opinion -- it felt like 'truth'. And that letter 15 or so years ago has proven quite the influence on & reflection of our times.

[Sean_A]

You're right, Sean.

I became more reluctant to share my opinions over the years, mostly due to a couple of detailed analyses I was involved in.  After one of these long threads, I was treated differently by a number of people.  My primary emotion is that I'm mad about it, and don't want to play this game anymore if people are going to get all bent out of shape.  As it stands now, I haven't played golf in 18 months, and haven't seen anything new for years, so I have little to offer anyway.       

The mission statement is "Golfclubatlas.com exists to promote frank commentary on golf course architecture".  Every time someone with a vested interest tries to disrupt the site from its stated intention, it diminishes the site.  Just recently we had an ad hominem response to a rather anodyne observation about a course.   

Commercial and professional interests are antithetical to the site's intent.  Occasionally they attempt to eliminate forthright analysis when it does not suit them.  My question to the moderators is "why don't you do more to discourage this?".  One problem is that GCA is now a part of the mainstream, with a number of members in high positions in the architecture and journalistic hierarchy.

You're supposed to be able to offer your opinion here.  Sean, maybe it's easier for you to critique British courses because there are fewer Brits on the site, or perhaps Americans are more sensitive to criticism.

John

I have received an earful from folks now and again and I admit the grief did make me tone down my comments somewhat, but I am still honest. I will still do tours of courses even if I think they are very middling...which to be honest is not that often. Though to be fair, I think some people don't like that I have clear cut differences in my approach when it comes to best and favourite.  I have never felt comfortable with the idea of best lists because as many people have pointed out, its a bit of a dopey concept. Plus, best lists leads to the same courses being discussed over and over...after a while its fairly dull.

I don't notice nearly as much sensitivity about courses these days on GCA.com. I get the impression that most of those who get angry about this stuff have left. Maybe people realize that for the most part, the context of the courses we discuss is they are nearly all good to great. It is almost impossible not to talk about negative aspects as a way to differentiate between the courses.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

It is almost impossible not to talk about negative aspects as a way to differentiate between the courses.

This has always been the key, to me.  If you are talking about a course that's 5 or less on the Doak Scale, you would want to note the things that would make it still worth seeing to some observers.  But if you're talking about a course that's a 6 or more, you ought to note the things that would turn off some visitors and make them feel like they'd wasted their money. 

[Tom_Doak]

I have to say it didn't feel all that much like opinion -- it felt like 'truth'. And that letter 15 or so years ago has proven quite the influence on & reflection of our times.

How did it influence anything?

[Sean_A]

It is almost impossible not to talk about negative aspects as a way to differentiate between the courses.

This has always been the key, to me.  If you are talking about a course that's 5 or less on the Doak Scale, you would want to note the things that would make it still worth seeing to some observers.  But if you're talking about a course that's a 6 or more, you ought to note the things that would turn off some visitors and make them feel like they'd wasted their money.

Tom

I appreciate this approach.  When combined with more practical info such as cost, history, club ambience, beauty and location it helps me decide if I want to play the course. A great course, or a historical course or a cheap course are usually not in and of themselves enough of a reason to convince me to visit a course. When you tell me a course is good, in a great setting with a few outstanding, interesting or unusual holes and I then discover the course is £30...I want to play it pronto.  If the cost is £200 I am much less keen which means I will usually bide my time and see if the course can be played for a more sensible price. Which essentially means that for there are effectively an unlimited number of courses I might want to see. There is no point in getting hung up on the canon.

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom -

in the context of this thread, to me what it influenced was the influencers.

It was indicative of the assuredness with which opinion-makers promote their opinions.

TW was going to do what he did regardless; and Brad I believe went on to restate his same basic message in countless presentations at many courses and to many committees over the years.

The 'open letter' was mostly a clever conceit. But the 'truths' it contained about quality gca and the seeming-certainty that lay behind Brad's missive to the GOAT does seem to have set a tone.

'Indicative of' is probably more accurate than 'influence on'.

[Kalen Braley]

I have to say it didn't feel all that much like opinion -- it felt like 'truth'. And that letter 15 or so years ago has proven quite the influence on & reflection of our times.

How did it influence anything?

I was thinking along the same lines.  And on a related note has any of Tiger's courses had much of an impact on the biz, other than its one more shop to compete against?  I rarely see much talk about them here.

[Steve Lang]

   I've noted before that TW's Bluejack Nat'l. in Magnolia, TX is built upon the bones of C&C's (#1-12) & Mr. Bkake's (#13-18) holes at the Blaketree Nat'l course site, reusing routings, reversing some holes, adding some new holes.  So he perhaps did heed Brad Klein's advise to be like C&C and use their models there... with his own thoughts added.  too bad Blaketree didn't have the maintenance budget that's there now!

[Ben Sims]

Some recent posts by John, Sean, and Peter really made me think about the modern concept of the “review”. What is a critique vs a review?


(Caveat, let’s first dismiss the reviews released by the parties selling the product. A review of a golf course by the person that is selling memberships or tee times doesn’t mean much to me. Lots of consumer avenues these days are pumping marketing as “reviews”.)


That question to me comes down to compensation and intent. Critique’s seem to be reserved for professionals that are giving a professional opinion on the work and the result. Sometimes that is compensated and sometimes not. Reviews seem closer to consumer-driven feedback, often by consumers themselves.


Why is the the difference important? I think it comes down to intent. The intent of a critique is to identify and judge quality. Where I think a review stops short of judgement and merely identifies.


I’ve been writing for an outdoor gear company and in editing we routinely have to measure our judgements. Why? Cause it’s not our job to tell a consumer whether a bike is good or not. But it IS our job to identify the what bike can do, can’t do, and why. That allows us to make a judgement about who the bike is good for. Notice I didn’t say whether it was “good” or not. Perhaps golf course architecture discussion should be similar.


Outside of that, I’ll never understand why people flip out over the identification of negative aspects of a golf course. John, unsurprisingly, hit the nail on the head earlier. He’s been the protagonist on some pretty good threads that went tango uniform once someone saw something they didn’t like about someone else’s opinion. Even in this thread Rob showed up to defend his baby. Why? What does it need defense from? Selling out your tee times for 6 months seems pretty good to me.


Identify and discuss. Explain the what’s and how’s. Seek to inform golf consumers on why one may or may not enjoy the golf holes. I don’t understand why this is so hard.


(Speaking of identification. I’m identifying that posting on an iPad sucks Ran.)

[Peter Pallotta]

Ben's post reminds me of a compliment I wanted to pay both Sean and John K, for the excellent critiques-reviews they've provided here over the years. For me they are both very good at that task: they have the required experience/knowledge, but more importantly they have catholic tastes and dispassionate approaches.

What I mean is: while they have their preferences, they don't look at every course through that same narrow lens, i.e. they review-analyze a course based on *what it actually is* instead of what they themselves want it to be or what it *should be* -- they critique-review a course on its own terms. That's why John can critique Pumpkin Ridge as Pumpkin Ridge, and Stone Eagle as Stone Eagle, and Ballyneal as Ballyneal etc; and it's why Sean can review a Turnberry or Carnoustie as effectively as he can a Cleeve Cloud or a Sherwood Forest.

And then on top of that, both Sean and John are logical-lucid thinkers, not prone to emotional outbursts or angry rhetoric, or even to passionately overwrought expressions of appreciation. They keep things in 'proper perspective' -- an important attribute to have in order to offer "serious criticism" (which, by the way, neither of them equates necessarily with 'criticizing'). I think some of us (and me, as a prime example) often confuse a critique-review with a 'manifesto'.

Truth to be told, I've long thought that this, our very own beloved website, started life more as a manifesto than as a discussion board. Maybe that's the way it *had* to start, the only way it *could* start and grow and flourish. But maybe now, like a teenager turning into an adult, it's having more mature discussions.

 

[Tim Gavrich]

I just encountered a quote, attributed pretty commonly to Frank Zappa but apparently originated by Martin Mull:


"Talking about music is like dancing about architecture."


It's pretty elegant, and I though I don't think it's entirely agreeable to everyone, I wonder if the question of what constitutes "serious criticism" and what that criticism's function is has something to do with it anyway.


It seems to me that there's some minimum threshold of pleasure that the playing of a golf course must supply in order to create some generalized positive feelings about it among the golfing public. Two particularly important questions follow:


1. What golf courses meet this threshold?


2. What collection of factors comes together to allow a golf course to meet this threshold?


To the extent that a (the?) major goal of criticism is to help advance the art form with which it concerns itself, I have to think that in terms of GCA, providing clear and cogent arguments in favor of answers to the two above questions is crucial.


"Streamsong Red or Streamsong Blue?" is one of the most common GCA debates of the last decade. Part of what makes it spirited and fun to indulge in is its tremendously, almost hilariously low stakes. Both golf courses are, in absolute terms, superb, so the expression of a preference for Red over Blue or (in my case) Blue over Red comes down to some irreconcilable, individual mix of reactions to the way the courses interact with certain (mostly aesthetic in nature) biases golfers have.


Because the greatness of the courses relative to each other is relatively unimportant, the most important work a critic can do, IMO, is help readers understand that greatness in the context of the greater universe of golf courses. Doing that can inspire readers in a couple important ways that advance the art form. The first is that it will help open-minded golfers become interested in seeing the courses for themselves. The second is to make golfers understand the concepts at play such that they can recognize them at their home courses, and encourage their implement and enhancement where appropriate/feasible.


Academic detachment and attempting to wring "Truth" out of comparisons of objectively excellent pieces may be fine when the criticism has to do with literature or visual arts, but golf course architecture has both interactive and commercial elements that force it to demand a different set of criteria for its criticism.


Ben Sims' analogy of writing about bikes is spot-on. If he's writing about a bike, it should be safe for any reader to assume that the bike might be for them. So it should be not just with golf courses, but the major individual elements that form them. It was sort of fun to read when it first came out, but Pete Wells' takedown of Guy Fieri's restaurant in Times Square from a few years ago seems uglier and uglier as time passes.

[Tom_Doak]

Because the greatness of the courses relative to each other is relatively unimportant, the most important work a critic can do, IMO, is help readers understand that greatness in the context of the greater universe of golf courses. Doing that can inspire readers in a couple important ways that advance the art form. The first is that it will help open-minded golfers become interested in seeing the courses for themselves. The second is to make golfers understand the concepts at play such that they can recognize them at their home courses, and encourage their implement and enhancement where appropriate/feasible.

Academic detachment and attempting to wring "Truth" out of comparisons of objectively excellent pieces may be fine when the criticism has to do with literature or visual arts, but golf course architecture has both interactive and commercial elements that force it to demand a different set of criteria for its criticism.

Tim:


I'm not sure about your numbered points 1 and 2 . . . it seems like any course we are talking about should meet the first threshold, and #2 is only interesting when there is an unusual factor involved, or when there is a really unique take on one of the other factors [for example, the greens at Pinehurst #2].


But I agree completely with the two paragraphs you posted above.  The most important thing is to identify, why would I want to go there?  Doing that successfully will compel the reader to consider whether other courses can say the same.


I guess someone was bothered that I brought up drainage at Sweetens Cove, but I actually did so to explore the context of, is it okay for a course to be worth recommending if it might well be soggy when you play it?  And I think my take was that it was.  I mean, they could have just left the place as a flood plain and not played golf on it, and who would benefit from that?  Part of the reason the project was doable was that the drainage issues made the land affordable.

[Tim Gavrich]

The most important thing is to identify, why would I want to go there?  Doing that successfully will compel the reader to consider whether other courses can say the same.


I guess someone was bothered that I brought up drainage at Sweetens Cove, but I actually did so to explore the context of, is it okay for a course to be worth recommending if it might well be soggy when you play it?  And I think my take was that it was.  I mean, they could have just left the place as a flood plain and not played golf on it, and who would benefit from that?  Part of the reason the project was doable was that the drainage issues made the land affordable.

I haven't been to Sweetens myself; I would love to see it soon, given both the photos I've seen for years and Rob's stated admiration for Mike Strantz.


As for the extent to which the course can tend to get soggy, I would say that disclosing that fact is part of the due-diligence that someone writing about he course should do. As a future visitor, I'd certainly like to when the course is most likely to be dry and firm and fast, and when it's going to be wetter. When I played Trysting Tree in Corvallis, OR, in 2019, I appreciated head pro Sean Arey showing me a photo from earlier that year when the Willamette River had flooded, which it tends to do when all the snow melts upstream. All that was visible were the course's elevated greens, which I believe Sean said were built to stay above the 100-year flood stage. The rest of the golf course functions to hold that floodwater back from the town. That made me even more impressed with the course.

[Ben Sims]

Ben Sims' analogy of writing about bikes is spot-on. If he's writing about a bike, it should be safe for any reader to assume that the bike might be for them. So it should be not just with golf courses, but the major individual elements that form them. It was sort of fun to read when it first came out, but Pete Wells' takedown of Guy Fieri's restaurant in Times Square from a few years ago seems uglier and uglier as time passes.

Clutch observation Tim.


Exploring this a bit further. Generally I believe that the onus is on the reviewer (and the critic too, maybe even more) to review/critique as if there will be those that prefer and those that don’t prefer the thing they’re reviewing. Approaching golf architecture critiques as an objective good vs bad debate is boring and doesn’t serve to identify the qualities of the architecture. As a reader, sure, I can make that distinction. But I think it’s important NOT to make that distinction as a matter of criticism/review.

[Tom_Doak]

As for the extent to which the course can tend to get soggy, I would say that disclosing that fact is part of the due-diligence that someone writing about the course should do.

I don't know that anyone does that.  I only noticed it at SC because I was there in a rainy week and the pro shop addressed it up front.  [Good for them.]  I'd have never known if I had been there during a drought.  But I guess it's not unusual there, so I suspect that some correspondents must have actively suppressed the info in talking about the course.     I was quite surprised to find out.


I am trying to think of other well-known courses that have drainage issues like that.  I once played Chicago Golf Club when it was sopping wet -- drives plugging in the fairway to where you were lucky to find them -- but they seem to have addressed that.  The soil at The Valley Club at Montecito is like pudding during El Nino years, but that's hardly normal conditions in southern California.  I've seen a few modern courses that are drained by catch basins, where the water just pools around the catch basins when it rains and doesn't drain off very quickly . . . but not many where you can't recover your ball because the pool is twelve feet across and two feet deep.  And Bethpage Black was a rice paddy for its second U.S. Open.

[Tom_Doak]

Clutch observation Tim.

Exploring this a bit further. Generally I believe that the onus is on the reviewer (and the critic too, maybe even more) to review/critique as if there will be those that prefer and those that don’t prefer the thing they’re reviewing. Approaching golf architecture critiques as an objective good vs bad debate is boring and doesn’t serve to identify the qualities of the architecture. As a reader, sure, I can make that distinction. But I think it’s important NOT to make that distinction as a matter of criticism/review.

Well, almost.  I take a lot of flak for having the "0" score as part of The Confidential Guide, but don't you think there are some courses where you wouldn't recommend that anyone bother to play them, if it's not cheap? 

[Ben Sims]

Clutch observation Tim.

Exploring this a bit further. Generally I believe that the onus is on the reviewer (and the critic too, maybe even more) to review/critique as if there will be those that prefer and those that don’t prefer the thing they’re reviewing. Approaching golf architecture critiques as an objective good vs bad debate is boring and doesn’t serve to identify the qualities of the architecture. As a reader, sure, I can make that distinction. But I think it’s important NOT to make that distinction as a matter of criticism/review.

Well, almost.  I take a lot of flak for having the "0" score as part of The Confidential Guide, but don't you think there are some courses where you wouldn't recommend that anyone bother to play them, if it's not cheap?

I don’t remember reading much flak about the Doak 0, but I can only take you at your word. I think the Doak 0 was more of a pejorative for your book thirty years ago and also in what Peter above called the “manifesto” days of GCA. In that way, it served its purpose I suppose. It’s certainly provocative and I think it absolutely makes a point about the art and your opinion of what golf architecture shouldn’t aspire to.

But does the scale really need it? Only you can answer that. As you’re fond of pointing out, other people’s Doak ratings don’t really matter since it’s *your* scale.

Perhaps the existence of the Doak 0 does a pretty good job of explaining what I was trying to explain earlier about the difference between a critique and a review.

[John Kirk]

I don't notice nearly as much sensitivity about courses these days on GCA.com. I get the impression that most of those who get angry about this stuff have left.

Ciao

I agree with this, Sean.  An alternate explanation is the dearth of new development, the period of time when a course's financial heath is most precarious.

But yeah, things are a lot mellower on GCA lately.  It even seems the number of complaints about seeking access has declined to near nothing, leaving behind the people who like to analyze golf courses.  If you came here ten or twenty years ago to make friends and develop golf connections, by now you've surely accomplished your goal.  On the other hand, those GCA members with desirable club memberships may have tired of all the requests and hosting.

Ben Sims' analogy of writing about bikes is spot-on. If he's writing about a bike, it should be safe for any reader to assume that the bike might be for them. So it should be not just with golf courses, but the major individual elements that form them. It was sort of fun to read when it first came out, but Pete Wells' takedown of Guy Fieri's restaurant in Times Square from a few years ago seems uglier and uglier as time passes.

I've spent a fair amount of time the last few years hanging out with an informal group of classical music critics and fans.  Between the comments I've read there, and the music review books I've collected over the last forty years, I can confirm that music criticism has softened over the years as well.  The public's appetite for harsh reviews is waning.  I think I know the reason why.  Though it happens very slowly, times are actually much tougher than they were fifty years ago.  The future looks dim in comparison.  Sitting behind a computer and offering a withering critique is less tolerable.  People still do it sometimes.  If a prominent golf course project opened with water everywhere, flat greens and a ten mile walk around the course, you'd be compelled to identify the offending architecture and exclaim, "that's bullshit."

[Ira Fishman]

Wells takedown of Guy Fieri’s place was epic, but not in same league as the Per Se review. And in my mind, perfectly okay from a restaurant critic in NYC. There probably are as many restaurants in NYC even with COVID as there are golf courses in the US. People should be able to choose to steer away from ones that a good reviewer disses. Wells always wrote at length about his reasoning.


Ira

[Tim Gavrich]

The public's appetite for harsh reviews is waning.  I think I know the reason why.  Though it happens very slowly, times are actually much tougher than they were fifty years ago.  The future looks dim in comparison.  Sitting behind a computer and offering a withering critique is less tolerable.  People still do it sometimes.  If a prominent golf course project opened with water everywhere, flat greens and a ten mile walk around the course, you'd be compelled to identify the offending architecture and exclaim, "that's bullshit."

Waning hunger for brutal criticism as a symptom of the perceived deteriorating condition of Man is something I had not considered. I think that's really interesting, and probably has some truth to it.


Ira, I understand the position, but I guess I'm a little uncomfortable about the potential for collateral damage from a high-profile public bashing. To what extent should we empower a restaurant critic to potentially affect the livelihoods of the buspeople at the Guy Fieri joint via a devastating (rhetorically and, potentially, financially) review when he could simply decline to write that review and instead submit one of another restaurant he'd recommend?


I will say the Per Se review is a little different than the Fieri one, because at Per Se, Wells was adding his view into a discourse where that restaurant had been regarded as among the very best in the world for several years. By contrast, if I remember correctly, Fieri's place had opened recently, and it seems more like Wells was pouncing on an opportunity to create a bit of a sensation by punching down at a relatively plebeian restaurant. He certainly got more social media action by etherizing Fieri than he would have by propping up, say, an underrated Nepalese joint he'd recently discovered. Is that the highest use of his platform?

Clutch observation Tim.

Exploring this a bit further. Generally I believe that the onus is on the reviewer (and the critic too, maybe even more) to review/critique as if there will be those that prefer and those that don’t prefer the thing they’re reviewing. Approaching golf architecture critiques as an objective good vs bad debate is boring and doesn’t serve to identify the qualities of the architecture. As a reader, sure, I can make that distinction. But I think it’s important NOT to make that distinction as a matter of criticism/review.

Well, almost.  I take a lot of flak for having the "0" score as part of The Confidential Guide, but don't you think there are some courses where you wouldn't recommend that anyone bother to play them, if it's not cheap?

I don’t remember reading much flak about the Doak 0, but I can only take you at your word. I think the Doak 0 was more of a pejorative for your book thirty years ago and also in what Peter above called the “manifesto” days of GCA. In that way, it served its purpose I suppose. It’s certainly provocative and I think it absolutely makes a point about the art and your opinion of what golf architecture shouldn’t aspire to.

But does the scale really need it? Only you can answer that. As you’re fond of pointing out, other people’s Doak ratings don’t really matter since it’s *your* scale.

Perhaps the existence of the Doak 0 does a pretty good job of explaining what I was trying to explain earlier about the difference between a critique and a review.

I do remember a bit of a foofaraw about Tom giving the Castle Course a 0 in a version of the Confidential Guide. I think for the sake of consistency in my position my alternative would have been to simply not proffer any review of the course at all, and let that omission speak volumes (I consider that a fair strategy in my own course writing - give more paragraphs/better position in the piece to the courses I liked, don't dwell on the ones I didn't and let the savvy reader understand the implications). But I can't deny that the ensuing debate/drama was interesting to view from afar!


The Castle Course was changed/softened a bit after that review, wasn't it? If so, I suppose it ended up functioning as a sort of the activism that I've supported as a goal of criticism in this day and age.

[Tom_Doak]

I do remember a bit of a foofaraw about Tom giving the Castle Course a 0 in a version of the Confidential Guide. I think for the sake of consistency in my position my alternative would have been to simply not proffer any review of the course at all, and let that omission speak volumes (I consider that a fair strategy in my own course writing - give more paragraphs/better position in the piece to the courses I liked, don't dwell on the ones I didn't and let the savvy reader understand the implications). But I can't deny that the ensuing debate/drama was interesting to view from afar!

The Castle Course was changed/softened a bit after that review, wasn't it? If so, I suppose it ended up functioning as a sort of the activism that I've supported as a goal of criticism in this day and age.

The course was changed more than "a bit".  They took out all the weird little moguls and rough grasses in the middle of the landing areas -- one of the strangest features I've seen anyone build in many years -- and they did work on and around several of the greens.


Regarding the bad review of the Guy Fieri restaurant, I understand being sheepish to cost someone their job in this economy [although nobody seems to mind getting people fired if they ever said something politically incorrect years ago].  That's more like me dumping on a golf course that charged $30 to play and never made any pretense of being great, although presumably Guy's restaurant was doing a fair amount of self-promotion.  However, the waiters and buspeople at such an establishment could work at any restaurant in town; pulling your punches about bad food on their behalf is kinda silly.

[Peter Pallotta]

Asides:
Just as 'The Old Course' can provide an answer to every question, so too can 'The Godfather' provide a quote for every situation, eg:
"The Corleone Family Critics don't even have that kind of muscle anymore".
I'm glad criticism's era of sterile viciousness seems just about over, for the moment; I can hardly believe now how seriously some critics took themselves and their work, and how gleefully brutal they thought it necessary to be. And it's hard to believe how much power/influence some of those critics had, and wielded. [If you haven't seen it in a while, watch 'Sweet Smell of Success' for a 1950s version of the corrosiveness of that world.] But if critics no longer have that kind of muscle for ill, neither it seems do they have it for good; the fragmentation of media outlets and the audience likely means we won't soon have another Jon Landau "I have seen rock and roll future and its name is Bruce Springsteen" moment, or see a Pauline Kael able to single-handedly reverse the critical response to 'Bonnie and Clyde'.

I'm not sure if the trade-off is a plus or a minus.