Tommy your information is wrong

[Jeff_Brauer]

"In designing the fifth course at Reynolds Plantation, I got real lucky."

Jim, that's waaaaaaaaay too much information for a public web site!

[cary lichtenstein]

I have played all of Jim's courses in Colorado + Blackrock in Idaho. I have also had the pleasure to meet, greet, eat and play with Jim.

He is a regular guy, very smart and talented.

His courses are enciting and fun, sometimes he pushes the edge, but I like that.

Let's get this thread back on track. We should all be most happy that Jim has joined in on GCA.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Cary,

Jim created this thread....

Please tell us what the track is.

Cheers

[Brad Klein]

Adam

that's not Engh's design or hype; that's Reynolds'. The whole point of this thread is that Engh should not be judged by certain statements that he didn't make. It's one thing to have expectations and hopes. But the point is that when you're dealing with specific claims and statements, they at least should be ones he's made.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Brad,

Not to split hairs, but its not that we shouldn't judge anyone by statements they didn't make, we shouldn't attribute statements to public figures without proof.  I see the point being that internet posts ought to start moving towards the journalistic standards you have in print publishing, now that the internet is on even keel (or getting there) with print.

I know we aren't paid journalists, but its possible that the wrong comments could easily tarnish someone unfairly, so we ought to consider that when we write.

At least we should follow that old Abe Lincoln adage, when he said, "Whenever I make an internet post, I stick it in my draft drawer, and most times, I never send it."  (or something like that......its just the internet, so who cares if I got the quote exactly right. )

[Brad Klein]

Jeff,

fair enough. Quite agreed.

Reynolds does quite the marketing job -- hey, they even use my words at length to promote what they are doing. But I didn't design anything and I don't see any evidence that Engh said anything the least bit remarkable or unreasonable that's being attributed to him.

[George Pazin]

Jeff, I agree with what you're saying almost completely. The only difference I'd really have is that I'd say we should be held to a higher standard than the pitiful media!

I didn't see Tommy's initial comment - was it clear he was quoting someone else?

[Jeff_Brauer]

George,

Its apparently deleted now, but  Jim quoted it directly and as I recall it, correctly in the opening post.

BTW, I recall and regret the two or three instances when I either crossed, or at least stepped on the line of good internet behavior here.  I apologize to those affected and offended, even if its too little too late.  

At least one of those instances involved Tommy, so that includes him.  I also regret questioning on a public forum (and thought about this again last week with similar So Cal conditions) the drainage concepts of Gil Hanse at Rustic Canyon without really knowing the situation.  And,  I can't even recall who I compared (jokingly I think) with a Nazi years ago, but I am pretty sure that's over anyone's line in any context.  

We all make mistakes.  I try not to make the same ones repeatedly.

[Mark Smolens]

As a non-GCA reader of this site, I concur with the thought that it is the input from the professionals that make this place somewhere that I will spend my time.  As one of the golf dorks who adores the game, the chance to hear what Tom Doak (or now Jim Engh) has to say on a wide range of topics -- all for a meager yearly "contribution" to GCADG -- is way cool.  Where else is a lawyer from Chicago going to get into an off-site exchange with Pat Ruddy about the European Club?

As for the sometimes critical comments about or by participants on the board, isn't that the very nature of this type of discussion group?  Maybe if I were the one being criticized my view would be different (though I have to say that when my municipal clients don't like the way I've handled their cases, they sure don't hesitate to bash me or my firm).

[Patrick_Mucci]

There are times, as in the case of this thread, that I almost wish real world architects didn't participate in this forum.

Then we could go back to being a bunch of golf dorks who talk shit with nothing but our opinions to back it up.

Somehow that seemed to work better, IMHO

All this talk about how so and so will only help this board....so and so will bring a fresh perspective.

This is not addressed towards Jim Engh, necessarily, but the first thread he's started is refuting what someone else said!!!!

How about we get back to meat and potatoes, gentlemen?

Michael Dugger,

Your post has to be one of the most absurd posts I've ever read.

But, maybe I'm not clear with respect to your position.

You're calling Jim Engh out for defending himself ?
And, for being a participant on this site ?

For refuting statements attributed to him ?

Jim Engh has a responsibility to set the record straight.

I don't want to bring up a touchy subject, but, when misrepresentations ARE made, there's an inherent responsibility to bring intellectual honesty to the table.
How can you fault Jim for undertaking that task and participating in this forum ?

Since the alleged statements are attributed to Jim Engh, who better to discuss and refute them ?

[Tommy Williamsen]

 
We need a thread like this periodically. It gets tiresome but is also cleansing and serves as a reminder how much our statements impact others.  I have been contributing to this site for about five years.  In that time I have met some really great guys.   I venture to say that with very few exceptions the comments on the threads have been rather gentlemanly.  I know for me, I will write something of questionable taste and upon reflection delete my comments or amend them.  I am very aware that my comments are on a public forum and in a sense what I say reflects on the site itself.  

I for one feel privileged and humbled to be a participant.  The architects, supers and others who are knowledgeable in the field are an asset to this site and I look for their responses because they carry weight and always teach me something.  Before I began participating I thought I knew something about golf architecture.  After all I am 60 and had read extensively and played my entire life.  As soon as I found this site, I realized how little I knew.

As a whole folks have no intention of purposefully casting aspersions on anyone.  Yet as a visible person in my community I know how someone's seemingly innocent statements can cause trouble.   It doesn’t take much for unsubstantiated rumors to spread.  Once they do they take on a life of their own.  

Jim I have played six of your courses and have enjoyed them all.  You really take some chances on the greens, but they sure are interesting.  Welcome.   I look forward to hearing your thoughts.  I am also interested in your take on some of the impressions I have of your work and look forward to hearing your opinions on architecture in general.

[Kalen Braley]

As one who doesn't work in the industry I will emphatically second Tommy W's comments...well stated.

I very much appreciate the comments/thoughts of those who work in the industry and have geniunely learned a lot in the year I've been on the site.

I would hate to see valued members of the site feel alienated or otherwise by innappropiate comments and perhaps eventually leave.  Their insight, both current and future, would be sorely missed.

Kalen

[Lou_Duran]

In a sales seminar years ago, the speaker suggested that the sweetest words to the ear are one's name.  I tend to agree, given that one has a good reputation supporting that name.

A good rule to follow on the internet is never to post something that you would not be willing to say if you were face-to-face.  I would include the IM function and other backroom channels as well.

A second rule is never to form strong opinions or take adverse actions against someone based solely on third party accounts.  Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself; if you want the benefit of the doubt, you should be willing to also give it.  If something untoward comes to your attention and it causes you actionable concern, ask the party involved directly then evaluate the whole picture before reaching a conclusion.

Those who know Tommy are aware that his bark is much worse than his bite.  He is passionate, often running without a governor in articulating his opinions.  While these qualities probably endear him to some here, they can cause harm.

Jim Engh is right to make this public not only to set the record straight and protect his good, hard-earned reputation, but also to remind us that nothing good can come from loose lips and an unengaged brain.  

[Ken Fry]

Michael,

I have to agree with the questioning of your reasoning that architects maybe shouldn't be here.  It's fair to say maybe we shouldn't be on their forum as the non-participants in their industry.

Do you really believe any architect will be hurt by someone providing their thought out opinion of their work?  If that were the case in all walks of life, we wouldn't have any form of art.  These folks are big boys and if you want to air out a dislike of Tom Doak's, Jeff Brauer's, Mike Nuzzo's, Jim Engh's or any other architect's work that posts or lurks here, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

If someone passes on information, knowingly or unknowingly, that's not true, I'd call it out and want it corrected too.

Ken

[John Kavanaugh]

Before today I had zero desire to go out of my way to play a Jim Engh course.  Now his course down at Reynolds is the only course on my list (besides ANGC) that I will make an effort beyond the ordinary to see.

Engh is my new favorite glamour architect.

[JESII]

You recently made a post, that has since been deleted, regarding the Creek Club at Reynolds Plantation. You stated that;

"Jim Engh has proportedly guaranteed a Best New Private"


   

I think it has, Dan...

[JESII]

Doesn't it make your position with someone clearer when they tuck tale and run as opposed to offering some form of apology that could only be sincere if they hadn't made the original remark?

[Mike Sweeney]

Before today I had zero desire to go out of my way to play a Jim Engh course.  Now his course down at Reynolds is the only course on my list (besides ANGC) that I will make an effort beyond the ordinary to see.

Engh is my new favorite glamour architect.

Ran does not care for Carne. You now favor Jim Engh. Jim is doing the new 9 at Carne. Your last name is Kavanaugh. If there was ever a course that has your contrarian name on it, it is Carne. Get to Ireland!

Jim,

If you have any pictures of your work at Carne, I am happy to post them.

[Dan Kelly]

I've deleted my posts.

I had no business wading into this thread.

Apology to JES II.

[Jerry Kluger]

I have been watching this thread and it is obvious to me what the problem is with what Tommy did in his post on the Reynolds thread:

Tommy stated a very negative opinion about the course and attempted to bolster the validity of his opinion by pointing out a statement by Jim Engh; a statement which he knew   would be viewed by GCA as absurd and ridiculous.  

The problem with this is twofold: First, Tommy should simply point out the factual basis for his opinion and rely upon his reputation to give credibility to his conclusion.  Second, if he is going to critize someone for a statement they've made, then he owes it to them and to GCA to verify that it was actually said.  

You can't come back and say it was nothing personal when it is something personal that you are criticizing.  It would not be personal to criticize the design of the course, but it is personal to challenge a statement made by that individual.

[John_Cullum]

To be fair, note that Tommy apparently used the phrase "PURPORTEDLY guaranteed a best new"  when referring to the Creek Club. So that would indicate to me that Tommy is repeating what someone else told him, and I can accept that.

What I find interesting is the concept of designing for the rater panels. I would like to see that explored.

[Dan King]

I'm confused by the whole topic. It is acceptable for a course to bribe their way into the top-100, but would be wrong to design a course hoping to influence voters?

Cheers,
Grandan

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
 --Alexis de Tocqueville

[John_Conley]

He is a regular guy, very smart and talented.

I thought he embodied what the Tour is fearful of - a steroid-injecting ball-pounding golfing machine.

SHEEEESH he hits it a long way.

If he's regular, I'm either irregular or inadequate.

To Tommyknockers, hopefully you get to play one of his designs soon.  You won't nod off!  More importantly, you and I haven't met face-to-face either so maybe the three of us will connect some day.  Jim's a prince.  It'd be great if that were in fact 'regular'.

[Jim Nugent]

...Posting pictures of a course you have never played and criticizing the design and/or architect is counter-productive to this site ...

Dang,

I guess I'm going to have to burn my Confidential Guide.

Garland, I'll take it off your hands.