Some time has passed since the magazine rankings catalyzed the usual and predictable pot shots and sniping regarding whose ratings are better, more accurate, less bias, etc.   I am not trying to start another round of the same, but instead would like to generally impugne all the magazine ratings and reviews.

The problem?  Not enough bias.  No perspective.  No consistent voice.  Too diluted by politeness and/or the views of a bunch of raters about which I could not care less.


Give me good old bias any day.  Give me cutting commentary by those who have a viewpoint and who arent afraid to express it.   That way, I can put a face with an opinion;  really understand from where the review eminates.  Hear the voice and use that as a guide as to how to understand the words.  

That is the way it works in every other medium with which I am familiar.  Why not with golf course architecture?

And what is this nonsense about architects being too bias, and therefore unreliable reviewers?   I should hope they are bias and think highly of their own approach; this is what they do for a living.  They should blast work which offends their sensibilities.  That is what critique is all about.

 So why can't the magazines take it to a more civilized level, where architects and other experts are willing and able to blast and insult inferior work?  We'd all be the better for it.  The reviewers might become better architects.  And it would be much more entertaining as well.

A suggested framework:  When a course of note opens, for example a Doak course,  send Rees Jones to go take a look and tell us what he thinks.  Like an acedemic review.  Critical in the best sense of the word.   If it sucks, write that it sucks, and then tell us why it sucks.  If the course is of enough note, send two architects who come at it from different perspectives.  Send Kidd and Fazio to review the latest Nicklaus design.  Or send Engh and Hanse to review the latest Kidd.  Stir the pot and make them justify their opinions.  

A good review sometimes says as much about the reviewer as it does the subject.  Why not give these guys a chance to teach us something about others' work as well as their own?

David M:

Your idea is not possible. Why? The nature of people today is not to speak frankly and candidly -- it's done under the cloak of darkness.

Architects will not be drawn into public forums (one or two may quality as exceptions) and for the most part the nature of many golf / travel publications is to perform the role of cheerleader because of the desire to capture ad $$.

Architects clearly have opinions but the nature of the people in a particular field is not to speak "ill" of another. Think of it like the "wall of blue" often attributed to police personnel.

I do agree that getting people to speak openly and "for the record" is what's needed. But, I've said this before, if you remember the movie "A Few Good Men," when Colonel Jessup says at the end of the film when being cross-examined by the Tom Cruise character -- "you can't handle the truth." Most facilities can't and simply want to be reinforced that their facility / course is one of the very best.

Clearly, when you do get some critical essay / analysis it's often a very small percentage of what one normally finds IMHO.

David M:

Your idea is not possible. Why? The nature of people today is not to speak frankly and candidly -- it's done under the cloak of darkness.

Matt this might be true of the golf architecture, but it is not true of most other disciplines.  Pick up an academic journal in just about any discipline, and you wont see many punches pulled when it comes to honest and critical analysis.

Plus, you are certainly open and honest, and you havent been totally shunned from the industry, have you?  

DMoriarty,

I think architects should be allowed to criticise other work but I am uncertain if it needs to be done as a public service, or as you say in a way that everyone benefits.  Writers do critique other writer's work, but I bet if you study them they are pretty soft on each other, with some exceptions.  I think the exceptions are when two cultures clash, when two people from very different philosophical islands collide.  

I can not imagine many hands-on architects having the time to review other architects work and submit copy.  Do you really want your favorite architect leaving their work to others in the company because they have a critics job with a mag?  And how important is it to you in LA to read a Doak review of a Rees course in Florida?  How does that serve the public good?  Does that really enrich your life? I think you know what you get when a Ree course opens.  I mean there is a corporate culture, a creative culture within every company, particularly the big guys and I bet from job to job it shows in a way that you can almost predict what you will see before you even arrive at the course, so what good is an analysis by another architect of the course.  Now it would be helpful if the analysis used the course to better illustrate the big ideas that drive that architect rather than to do a hole by hole critique.  Again, use the critique to illustrate the cultural or creative divides.  I don't get this need for everyone in the country to know all there is to know about all these courses springing up.  I guess it is because like Matt said most of the criticism is in promotion of the course because the course probably bought an ad, or probably paid for the article!!  There is no real criticism available in any magazines.  There is one I can think of where the architect has a guest column which they use to illuminate architecture using their courses, plus they take out ads in the mag, plus the mag critiques their courses!!!  Sweet.  No, Matt I am not talking about you so don't go off on me for not naming names.  

And if you have the opportunity to see and play the course what value does someone else's opinion have over your own opinion?  Again, some value can be gained if that opinion delves into the corporate culture that produces these course, but you never see that type of analysis.  It is not just the particular course that needs a hard look by an expert critic, it is the corporate culture that needs illumination, the big ideas that drive that architect and his/her company.

Why don't you let Doak take your wife for a week and then give you a blow by blow critique of how she was?  Is his opinion going to change your opinion of her?  

Why don't you let Doak take your wife for a week and then give you a blow by blow critique of how she was?

That could be the biggest hanging curveball of a straight line I've ever seen! I wouldn't touch it with a ... 10-foot pole.

Seriously: The problem, for most forms of criticism in most publications, is advertising.

We need a publication without any advertising. That would ALLOW qualified writers to say what they thought, without pulling any punches.

Would they do so? I doubt it. Not many would -- because any such qualified writers would be constantly tempted to pull their punches, so as to stay on the good side of course owners.

Ask yourself: How much no-holds-barred movie criticism would we see if the critic had to ask permission from the moviemakers to see the movies?

Andy --

Two thoughts:

1. The movie and TV studios need those publications far more than golf courses need the golf magazines. That's why the studios cave.

and

2. The critics for those TV and movie magazines have no need to curry favor with those studios in order to keep reviewing their products. That's why those critics don't cave.

I wonder, though: how feasible would it be to start up a small-scale publication (16 pages every month?) called "Golf Course Review" or something like that, featuring no-holds-barred analysis from people who can write and know a thing or two about architecture? By that definition, at least three-quarters of the regular posters here could qualify as contributors - and if space needed to be filled at the end of the issue, Tom Paul could write an essay!

Seriously, it's not *that* bad an idea, is it? I wonder if it would sell...

Cheers,
Darren

David- I was trying to be general about my speculating about industy doctrines(any industry) that are archaic and so ingrained that the real reality takes time to show the establishment it was not completely accurate. Medicine was were I was first exposed to this and the film "lorenzo's Oil exemplifies these medical blinders. As it related to golf, I recently said something to an asst pro about his classicaly designed golf courses greens. His response showed me that while he gets paid as a professional, he has done little to learn the history of the architecture, or even why he should consider recapturing some of his lost greens. That's not the only instance in Golf that I've run up against where the person who is suppose to be a professional person, doesn't really know what the hell they are doing other than exactly what they want to do. After all, it's me me me and all about me(not me , them)

'll ask this: If the ASGCA put out their rankings of all the golf courses in the world, how many would be from designers (alive) not in the association? Now thats a different kind of Bias than the one you expound. Isnt it?

Kelly Blake Moran:

I think architects should be allowed to criticise other work but I am uncertain if it needs to be done as a public service, or as you say in a way that everyone benefits.  Writers do critique other writer's work, but I bet if you study them they are pretty soft on each other, with some exceptions.  I think the exceptions are when two cultures clash, when two people from very different philosophical islands collide.

I agree that critiques are a good way of identifying and exploring the clash of cultures.  It seems to me that golf architecture is long overdue for this type of "colliding" critique.  

But peer review is certainly not limited to "writers" and practitioners/critics are very seldom easy on each other.   Scientists, academics, doctors, lawyers, philosophers, sociologists, and those in just about every other profession which is potentially cutting edge continually face candid public criticism from their colleagues.  It is expected and welcome and seen as a necessary tool by which the genre is advanced.   Sure they aren't necessarily outwardly rude to each other, but their criticisms can be pretty biting nonetheless.  And this isnt just criticisms from different schools.  Some of the best discussions in any genre involve hashing out the details even when many of the basic tenants are common.  

I can not imagine many hands-on architects having the time to review other architects work and submit copy.  Do you really want your favorite architect leaving their work to others in the company because they have a critics job with a mag?

 

This seems a cop-out to me.  I expect that architects have a vested interest in knowing what is out there if only to better perform their own work.  Also there are a lot of architects out there.  If 12 architects wrote reviews for a magazine, that would only be 1 course a year.  If 24 wrote reviews, that is only one course every two years.  I don't think that one review every year or two is much to expect from those who are supposed to be at the cutting edge of their profession.  

Plus, I would think it would be in the interest for aspiring architects to write reviews if only to give them access to an audience and increase their name recognition.  But you would be better situated to comment on this than me.  

And how important is it to you in LA to read a Doak review of a Rees course in Florida?  How does that serve the public good?  Does that really enrich your life? I think you know what you get when a Ree course opens.  I mean there is a corporate culture, a creative culture within every company, particularly the big guys and I bet from job to job it shows in a way that you can almost predict what you will see before you even arrive at the course, so what good is an analysis by another architect of the course.

How important is it to me?  Who cares?  I am not talking about me but about the golfers, developers, club members/ potential club members, and anyone who might pick up a magazine.  The vast majority of these people have either never heard of Rees Jones or (1) know him as the "Open Doctor" and (2) have only heard what the television/magazine commentators have said about him as the "Open Doctor."  I doubt that this creates much of a complete picture of his work.  So I think a candid Doak review of a Rees Jones' course would be enlightening to a much broader audience than just me.   As for me, I'd read it and probably buy the magazine, even if I wasnt going to be on a plane.    

 

Now it would be helpful if the analysis used the course to better illustrate the big ideas that drive that architect rather than to do a hole by hole critique.  Again, use the critique to illustrate the cultural or creative divides.

 
I agree but you are never going to get this until people start being frank and backing up their opinions.  

I don't get this need for everyone in the country to know all there is to know about all these courses springing up.  I guess it is because like Matt said most of the criticism is in promotion of the course because the course probably bought an ad, or probably paid for the article!!  There is no real criticism available in any magazines.  There is one I can think of where the architect has a guest column which they use to illuminate architecture using their courses, plus they take out ads in the mag, plus the mag critiques their courses!!!  Sweet.  No, Matt I am not talking about you so don't go off on me for not naming names.  

I didnt say every course, I said courses of note.  I think there have been enough courses of note built in the last 100 years to keep us busy enough so that we need not worry about "every course springing up" for quite some time.  

I know there is very little real criticism in the magazines.  That is what this post is about.  As for the magazines being beholden to the courses, I dont understand this and am not really convinced that this need be the case.  But that might be another thread all together.  

And if you have the opportunity to see and play the course what value does someone else's opinion have over your own opinion?  Again, some value can be gained if that opinion delves into the corporate culture that produces these course, but you never see that type of analysis.  It is not just the particular course that needs a hard look by an expert critic, it is the corporate culture that needs illumination, the big ideas that drive that architect and his/her company.

 

I may choose to spend my money elsewhere if a review convinces me that a particular course or particular architect is not my cup of tee.  I certainly don't have the resources to play them all and decide for myself, nor do I have the knowledge.  I want golf to be a learning experience, where someone gives me a helping hand understanding what I should be looking for in a course.  I need a golf docent to appreciate the art I am viewing/playing.

As for your opinion that understanding the "corporate culture" and "big picture" is the key to understanding modern architecture, this sounds like the makings of an interesting review, and it sounds like you have the knowledge and passion to write it.  

Why don't you let Doak take your wife for a week and then give you a blow by blow critique of how she was?  Is his opinion going to change your opinion of her?  

One of my beginning tenants is that it is best to read the review through the personality/style of the reviewer.  If I read this sentence alone I would conclude that the writer is an oafish boor who lacks the decorum to avoid tasteless analogies involving my wife.  If I had come to this conclusion, I wouldn't give you the courtesy of responding to such a disrespectful display.  But, since I am somewhat familiar with you and your writing style from past posts, I will assume that your words were merely thoughtless and that no insult or disrespect was meant.  That being said, I'd appreciate it if you leave my family out it your colorful analogies in the future.  
_____________________________

Andy and Dan, I am starting another post regarding the link between advertising and reviews.
______________________________________

Darren, I'd like to see that, but you might you'll need more pages if you plan on TEPaul contributing.  

I'd prefer to see something more mainstream though, so as to reach out to those that don't know what the hell we are talking about.  

Darren,

What would this magazine offer that Golfclubatlas doesn't already offer?

Um, what do magazines offer that the internet doesn't already offer? By this logic, why would anyone go out and buy Doak's Confidential Guide when they can come here? Granted, the general standard of writing isn't as good as Doak's; it's not always easy to find what you're looking for; you can't take this website on an airplane with you or to the club to show to your friends; people casually browsing a magazine rack at a newsstand aren't going to randomly stumble across Golfclubatlas.com; it takes hours for those of us without broadband internet access to download all the pretty pictures...need I go on?

This website is fundamentally for people already interested in golf course architecture. The magazine I'm thinking of would be for people interested in playing and reading about good golf courses (and would like to know which ones are good and which ones aren't), which is a much wider audience. People here talk all the time about spreading the word and educating the general public about architecture - but without a vehicle for doing so, how is that ever realistically going to happen? If I may make a strained analogy, it's a bit like the difference between Marx and Lenin - the former came up with a bunch of radically different ideas about economics and sociology which weren't exactly widely known, whereas the latter found a way of putting them into practice and thereby made "Communism" a household name. Wouldn't it be nice to take some of this treasure trove of material here at GCA and make it more readily available to the public, or better yet to write new stuff and more intelligently gear it for the needs and wants of the general public? (You might even make some money that way, which really would be the best of all possible worlds...)

Cheers,
Darren

Dave

This is hypothetically a good idea, but one which fails the test of practicality.  What evidence do I have for this opinion you (might) say?  Well........this forum.  Some of the most passionate and informed observers of and participants in GCA spend inordinate amounts of time on here, and few if any are willing to construtively criticise other courses (or hear constructive criticisms of THEIR course) except sporadically.  And, what happens when this happens?  Well, afficionados spend bandwidth trying to dump guano on those brave enough to ask honest questions and learn about why some things work for some people and some things don't work for others.  At least, IMHO..........

You mean you can make a name for yourself in the golf architecture business based upon the insightfullness and wisdom of your critiques?  

Didn't Tom Doak do just that? Didn't more people in the golf architecture business know him from his "Confidential Guide" and "Anatomy" books than from his courses in the early part of his career?

By the way I am not married so disrespecting my wife will have no effect on me.

Kelly Blake Moran:

Your post reminds me of one of my sister's high school friends, a beautiful girl who did a fair amount of lingerie modeling in major fashion magazines.

Though Katie never became a household name, she knew the less glamourous side of the modeling business.

"Here's how it works", Katie once explained, "all these girls come in dressed in underwear and they have only a few seconds to impress......most are quickly dismissed.....it is not glamourous at all.....it is pretty tough....I like the money but really it sucks".

So, I wonder if golf architects face the same kind of thing. Despite all the work that goes into a project, a critic might quickly sum it all up by saying "it sucks".

That's life, I guess.