[T_MacWood]

Rich
Don’t you think comparing a 1933 law designed to separate commercial banking from speculative investment in response to the stock market crash of 1929 to golf architectural critics who also dabble in design or literary critics who also writes is a major stretch?

A golf architect or writer or painter or playwright will ultimately be judged by what they create….if it is good it will be praised, if it is bad it will be criticized. A critic can not give himself a positive review, others will judge his work.

There are plenty of artists who advertise: architects, playwrights, authors, musicians, movie makers, etc. Does an artist need to be purely altruistic and starving to be true to his art? If he makes a comfortable living from his creativity, he is a ‘snake oil salesman’?

“Quite frankly, in what I have read of the articles golden oldie GCAs wrote, I see more narrow-minded bitching than constructive criticism.”  

What are some examples of narrow-minded bitching from the golden oldies?

[henrye]

There is a clear conflict of interest here, and while we all likely accept it (not that we could do much about it) some of us have are more put off by it than others.  Tom MacWood actually seems to endorse it.

From my perspective, I will look at Ron Whitten's articles more critically in future.  Prior to this topic, I had no idea Ron Whitten was working with Hurzdan and Fry, and I think Robert Thompson makes an excellent point.  These guys (Hurzdan/Fry) are notorious up here in the greater Toronto area for creating one of the biggest, most expensive earth moving excercises in the history of the area.  They allegedly, but quite famously, spent over a million dollars 20 years ago on the first hole of a design up here on land which was naturally perfect for golf.

I think if Ron Whitten is going to criticize Fazio, he shouldn't be able to recuse himself from exposing his relationship with  relatively well known perpetrators.  He really should have gone beyond Fazio, disclosed his relationship with Hurzdan/Fry and exposed some of their excesses - at least he should have an inside on getting accurate investigative information.

[T_MacWood]

Henry
If you look on the GD site and look up Whitten's profile/bio, it states who he's consulted for....its not like he is trying tio hide it. Shackelford doesn't hide the fact he helped design Rustic Canyon....just the opposite. Doak doesn't hide from the Confidential guide.

It sounds like you don't object to Whitten doing architectural work as long as it isn't with Hurdzan and Fry? Your complaint has nothing to do with conflict of interest, but your desire that Whitten be equally critical of H/F. Has Whitten not criticized H/F?

How many courses have H/F designed in Toronto and how would you compare H/F's entire portfolio to Tom Fazio's from budget stand point?

[Dan Kelly]

Conflict of interest ethics guidelines are much more important when someone actually has real power over something. Someone being a board member of Callaway and holding a post in the USGA I&B area, for instance. Or governors in Southern states engaging in real estate speculation in their own state while governor, as another example....

Critics give their opinion, they don't rule over anything.

George --

You don't seem to understand the conflict that we see. Here's the point:

Yes, you're absolutely right: "Critics give their opinion, they don't rule over anything."

Or, at least, you SHOULD be absolutely right.

What we're saying is: Maybe critics who get involved in the business where they have critical expertise WON'T give their true opinions -- if those true opinions, honestly expressed, might harm their fortunes as designers, co-designers, or consultants.

Again, I'm not judging Mr. Whitten's case, or any other; it's not my place to do so; that judgment is up to the critic/designers' employers. But I am saying: There's clearly a conflict.

[henrye]

Tom.  You are right.  I could have looked up Ron Whitten's bio, but didn't.  I was surprised to learn that he works with Hurdzan and Fry.  As for Shackelford or Doak, I read their opinions with full knowledge of their conflicts.  I never take their viewpoints as unbiased, whereas I did see that in Ron Whitten.

The issue I have as it relates to Hurdzan and Fry is simply that the Ron Whitten's article speaks specifically to the excess in modern golf design and development and from my perspective I find it ironic he works with the guys who literally started the ball rolling up here.

I personally don't have anything against Hurzdan and Fry.  I'll even admit to liking some expensive "excessive" designs, but the article spoke of this topic and his associates (I won't pretend to know the extent of his relationship with them) are guilty of creating some of what he is critical of.  I think he shouldn't go after one (Fazio: albeit, he may be the biggest offender) and let all the other perpetrators off the hook - particularly the guys he works with.

I'm not so much objecting to the conflict as I am objecting to the disclosure of the conflict.  Note taken, that I could have read the bio, but I didn't and I'll bet a lot of others don't as well.

I think you're probably right when you note that my issue is more to do with the irony of working with Hurdzan and Fry than the actual conflict itself, but I should say that the actual conflict is also an issue to me.  Whether Ron Whitten works with Hurzdan and Fry or for the Audubon Society is really of little consequence, but I think better disclose can educate the reader toward potential bias.

As for whether or not Ron Whitten has criticized Hurdzan and Fry - I don't know, but I guess I could research that as well.

I don't know how many courses Hurzdan and Fry have done up here - 4 that I know of.  Lastly, I can't compare the entire portfolio of the two golf design firms, but I think your point here is that Fazio has done more of the excessive type ones.  So what?

[George Pazin]

Dan -

I understand the perceived conflict 100%. I am also a HUGE believer in avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Would it be best if Mr. Whitten disclosed his relationship with Hurdzan Fry or whomever before, during or after the article on Fazio? Certainly.

However, as I pointed out, Ron holds no actual power over anyone. He is a critic (and a pretty good one, too, but that's not the point). In the past, he has, I believe, ruled that The Architect's Club ineligible for any of GD's awards, due to his involvement in the project. That is proper, and a much clearer example of how one is to avoid even the appearance of a conflict. Regardless of whether or not he would actively use his position to influence voters (and to be clear, I don't believe he would), there is no doubt that some raters might feel pressure to rate his projects higher than they otherwise might.

It is also completely fair to bring up his perceived conflict when discussing the articles.

To say he cannot engage in both his role as architectural editor for GD and continue to act in a consulting role with anyone is flat out absurd and is holding him to a standard that virtually no other critic is being held to. As someone stated earlier, he sought out Fazio in advance of publication and offered him the opportunity to respond.

Additionally, as I pointed out earlier, if one reads Ron's reviews, it is quite clear that he holds many different opinions on the courses rated/ranked than the GD raters.

So I ask again, how much of a conflict can there be, when Ron Whitten holds no power over anyone other than through opinion, and that very opinion is often not in agreement with GD's raters?

[T_MacWood]

Henry
If you are interested in seeing some low budget and medium budget H/F courses (some good, some not so good) come to Ohio. Hurdzan and his mentor Kidwell made a career on low budget designs...to include him in that article would have been asinine. On the other hand, the fact that H/F are now engaged in higher budget projects may have actually made his case stronger...regarding the negative trend Fazio is setting.

In the article Whitten explained why he targeted Fazio. Do you disagree? Do you disagree with the premise of the article?

Dan
What do you when a political reporter has strong political leaning? Is it possible to be a political reporter and be apolitical? What is your political leaning?

[henrye]

Thanks for the kind words, Tom.  I will, however, disagree on you suggestion of Hurdzan as the low budget minimalist.  

Check out their website at Hurdzanfry.com.  I don't see a lot of promotion of those low budget designs.  While there, under "Featured Courses" take a look at "Devil's Pulpit Golf Club" built in 1990.

[Robert Thompson]

Gosh, Tom, you've really gone to the wall with Whitten on this one.
While I fully agree with Mr. Whitten's ability to operate as a critic and dabble in architecture at the same time, I think it is suspect when he works for a Fazio rival that is notorious for moving tons of dirt on big-bidget projects. I understand the premise of his critique, but also understand that the same could be said of several other architects (Nicklaus, Norman, Hurdzan/Fry). As a writer, I also understand that a focused, singular premise makes for a much better column. That's what Ron has done here -- but it doesn't discount the fact that his comments could be applied to others besides Fazio.
And yes, of course you are right, Tom, in saying that Hurdzan developed a reputation for building lower cost courses for much of his career. That isn't the case since he hooked up with the talented Mr. Fry -- just take a look at the Club at Bond Head, the new Hurdzan/Fry course that is set to open in Ontario this summer. A huge budget and a $200 green fee. Sure Ron didn't consult on this one, but is the course he is working on a mid-budget affair where little earth is being moved? If not, then I think he could well be guilty of some of the things he accuses Fazio of.

[ian]

HenryE,

Some clarification:

The cost of Devil's Pulpit was $8,000,000. The first hole was a little over 1.2 million, because they did it twice. The pond and required engineering to achieve it was a majority of the cost.

Robert,

Erin Hills is an outstanding property. I doubt they moved anything more than some fiull for greens and tees. We have the existing grades for the project since we were also part of the competition for the project.

[Dan Kelly]

To say he cannot engage in both his role as architectural editor for GD and continue to act in a consulting role with anyone is flat out absurd and is holding him to a standard that virtually no other critic is being held to. As someone stated earlier, he sought out Fazio in advance of publication and offered him the opportunity to respond.

At the risk of re-repeating myself:

1. I'm not saying that he cannot be both critic and consultant. That's a decision for his employer to make.

I'm saying that there's a conflict between those roles.

2. As for no other critics' being held to this standard:

Newspaper critics are routinely forbidden to engage in the business in which they have critical expertise.

A critic at my newspaper was fired some years ago -- in part because he or she had entered into a business relationship with one of the entities whose work he or she was charged with evaluating critically.

If my sources are correct, a sports reporter at another newspaper of which I'm aware was reassigned off the Sports staff when it was learned that he or she had entered into a business relationship with the coach of a team he or she covered.

3. If Mr. Whitten read or showed Mr. Fazio his entire article prior to publication (I don't know that he did), he would be violating the general rule at every publication for which I've ever worked. Reporters are free to double-check the facts and double-check quotations and to read portions of their stories, to get reactions and to ensure fairness -- but they are not free to show any article to anyone outside the staff prior to publication. Reading them more than portions would require extraordinary circumstances.

I'll grant you that Golf Digest's publishing an article critical of Tom Fazio might, at Golf Digest, be considered extraordinary circumstances.

Additionally, as I pointed out earlier, if one reads Ron's reviews, it is quite clear that he holds many different opinions on the courses rated/ranked than the GD raters.

So I ask again, how much of a conflict can there be, when Ron Whitten holds no power over anyone other than through opinion, and that very opinion is often not in agreement with GD's raters?

You definitely misunderstand me here. I'm not talking about the ratings. Never have been. The ratings don't interest me at all.

My only issue is this: Will a critic engaged in the business he's criticizing be at least *tempted* to trim his opinions (forget the raters' opinions) to suit his business interests? My answer is: Yes, he will at least be tempted -- which makes such an arrangement dangerous.

[Dan Kelly]

What do you when a political reporter has strong political leaning?

I presume you mean "What does a good political editor do...?" -- because I have nothing to do with politics or political reporters.

A good political editor demands fair and honest reporting from his or her reporters.

A good political editor removes any strong political leaning that he or she finds.

A good political editor accepts calls and publishes letters from readers who find that the good political editor has not removed all strong political leanings from his or her reporters' work.

A good political editor re-assigns any reporter incapable of keeping his or her strong political leanings from coloring his or her reporting.

Is it possible to be a political reporter and be apolitical?

Possible? Yes.

Likely? No.

Is it possible to be a political reporter and be non-partisan (i.e., fair to all sides)?

Absolutely.

What is your political leaning?

As I have absolutely nothing to do with the coverage of politics at my newspaper, and as it is not relevant here, I respectfully decline to discuss my political leanings.

[T_MacWood]

Henry
I agree, they have gone up stream, no doubt. My point was they have designed a large number of low budget courses in the past, in fact they were known for it...that reputation ironically affected their ability to secure high profile jobs in Ohio.

Dan
The news media, especially the print media (which you are part of) has been employing biased columnists for years.  Turn on any cable news program any evening and you can identify the political leanings of many of the guest experts from the Washington Post or Wall Street Journal or whatever newspaper or magazine (and I assume they get paid to moonlight). Is there any doubt where Mark Shields, David Brooks, EJ Dionne or Paul Gigot lean? No.

So why is there no conflict for newspaper/magazine columnists?  I believe we (the general public) can stomach the bias of these political experts and opinion givers because there is a balance (some balance anyway). There is debate.

There is a balance with architectural criticism as well, at least that is the way it should work. Ron Whitten is the critic, Tom Fazio is a very powerful object of the criticism. If Fazio disagrees with Whitten, he is free to respond, if he doesn’t articulate his position, that’s his problem.

And Whitten the architect is fair game for anyone who doesn't like his design work...and there are plenty of critics around to do so. About 1500 on this site alone.

Robert
Fazio is in a class by himself when it comes to the sheer number of big budget jobs, and most importantly in having his newest big budget masterpiece making an immediate splash with the rankings (often followed by semi-quick fall). The article was as much self-criticism as taking Fazio to task. Whitten said that he and his magazine were also to blame for the current state of affairs.

There are a number of architects engaged in big budget projects, including H/F, but IMO Fazio is and has been leading the charge....there was no reason to list every architect involved with large budget project.

[Dan Kelly]

The news media, especially the print media (which you are part of) has been employing biased columnists for years.  Turn on any cable news program any evening and you can identify the political leanings of many of the guest experts from the Washington Post or Wall Street Journal or whatever newspaper or magazine (and I assume they get paid to moonlight). Is there any doubt where Mark Shields, David Brooks, EJ Dionne or Paul Gigot lean? No.

The men you've mentioned are all columnists, as you've noticed -- and are paid, as critics are, to give their opinions ... biased or otherwise.

If one of them were to run for office while continuing to write his columns, would you suspect that maybe he'd have a conflict of interest -- and that quite possibly his columns would be tailored to suit his campaign?

Would you suspect that maybe he'd write about stuff that would help his campaign, and would refrain from writing about stuff that would imperil his campaign?

Those are rhetorical questions.

Further, affiant sayeth not.

[T_MacWood]

"Would you suspect that maybe he'd write about stuff that would help his campaign, and would refrain from writing about stuff that would imperil his campaign?"

Dan
A number of these opinion makers and reporters (George Stephanopoulos, Pete Williams, Brian Williams, Chris Mathews, David Gergen...to name a few) have worked for administations in the past (and on campaigns)...using your industries logic if Whitten had taken a leave absence, advised and then returned to GD, he would have been OK (clean slate, no more conflict of interest).

Perhaps you should be addressing conflict of interest with your fellow journalists....it appears you hold newspapers, news magazines and tv news to a different standard.

To my knowledge Whitten has never reviewed his lone course...The Architects Club. It was both praised and criticized on this site....and Whitten responded to some of the criticisms. I criticized some of his choices of architects and examples of holes from arthcitects...and he responded. That is the way it should be.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()