GolfClubAtlas.com > Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group

Del Paso CC-Fowler? Soon to be redone?

<< < (18/23) > >>

George Pazin:
Rich -

If you've read the thread, then you've seen that I did in fact agree with Sean that any opening attacks were not warranted.

If you've read the thread, you've further seen that I stated that the folks you love to belittle tend to view statements like "design in the spirit of" in a highly skeptical light. This is probably the biggest difference between us & Sean. He seems much more willing to give the benefit of the doubt to Mr. Henry (& by extension, Kyle Phillips) than the rest of us - kudos to him for his faith in the common man, I guess we're just a tad more cynical. Some might even say this is borne of experience.

If you've read the thread, you can easily infer that I flat out DON'T BELIEVE YOU when you so cavalierly say that you're always looking for ways to improve Dornoch, at least in the manner that seems to be forthcoming at Del Paso. Mr. Henry's post sounds a lot more like redesigning a course than tweaking. Talk is cheap, actions speak louder than words, etc., etc. If I knew more cliches, I'd spout 'em. When you call in Kyle Phillips to redesign Dornoch in the spirit of those who preceded him, I will concede that you were consistent in your beliefs all along.:)

You can denigrate my comments all you wish, your opinion of my posts matters not in the slightest to me. It is, after all, your opinion and nothing more. I don't generally like to waste my time cheering on or taking cheap shots at others' posts, but will do so if the occasion warrants, so by all means, go ahead & keep spouting. I appreciate Tommy's words, but that's not why I'm posting.

While we do need to encourage frank & open discussion on this site (& all of life, really), I'm not sure how much pussyfooting around situations like this help anyone. That is what I was trying to convey to Sean, not any defense of anyone's tactics. If you choose to read Mr. Henry's comments as positive, well, again, that's your opinion.

George Pazin:
Forrest -

Wish I could say I understand your opening comment, but I don't. I do find the statement "well said, until" kind of curious, since that was my opening comment. I guess you didn't think much of the rest. :)

As for why we choose to engage in conversation online instead of in person, well, I'm not going to be with you, Tom M, Tommy, Patrick, Rich & Sean anytime soon, so that's my reason. What's yours?

Tommy_Naccarato:
George,
It occured to me that we are in the beginnings of the cold winter months, and its probably really biting cold and rainy just across the Firth, plus it allows for all of about 6 hours of sunlight, if it can peak through the dark heavy clouds. This means no golf today for Rich, and thus, hopefully, the attitude. I would hate to think it was to spite any of us for our endeavors.

Forrest Richardson:
The point of asking the question about conversation is to point out that all things in life are not ideal — nor are they supposed to be. Pseudo approximations are OK in the real world — in manmade environments and with artifacts built by mankind the authenticity of something is often the approximation of an existing condition, space or formerly created object.

When we see great landscape design it is often from nature or other designs — true also in golf. And conversation by phone, pen, smoke signals and maritime flags is no different. While it is not quite authentic, it is, without question, "OK" and acceptable. It signifies progress many times. Other times it is taboo.

I do not consider the adoption of style and continuation of a design legacy to be taboo in all instances. If Fowler's original design can be uncovered and if what is found is appropriate — great. Embrace them. But, if like the transformation of The Old Course from so many holes to so many new ones, the change is a continuation of the site and its demands, then behold the old while embracing the new.

SPDB:
George - Please don't mischaracterize what I'm saying. I'm only keeping this going because to me it appears that everyone here (except, of course, Rich and Forrest (and Neal Meagher for about 4 minutes)) has taken leave of their (common) senses.

As far as what is on the surface (not in the recesses of Tommy and Pat's brains), everyone is too eager to jump to conclusions based on inferences drawn in an entirely self-serving way. Whether these inferences later turn out true is of little value, since it is equally possible that they could be wrong.

Suit yourself, but Rich is keeping me going.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page