[John Kavanaugh]

I'm glad Doak is an artist because how naive is it to think we can all do what makes up happy.  Damn roads..

[John Kavanaugh]

Well, I don't know how many guys would actually be happy scrapping around for work as a golf architect, it's not as easy as it looks, as all of us architects who participate here frequently relate.  There is a bigger equation to "happiness" than I can do for anyone but me.  I only know that for myself, I'd never have been happy unless I had a chance to build some golf courses on great sites, and I feel lucky and blessed that I have had those chances.  

It helps that you don't completely stink at it either.

[Jeff_Brauer]

John:  I don't agree with your last statement at all.  People should do whatever makes them happy.  When I was 17 I felt some pressure from somewhere (not particularly my parents) to make the best use of my math/science oriented brain ... so I forgot about a career in golf architecture and went to M.I.T.  By March of that year I'd figured out that all my classmates were just as capable and much more interested in those pursuits than me, and I went about starting to pursue this career instead.

Tom,

When I came home from my first round of golf at Medinah and announced to Mom that I wanted to be a golf course architect, her response was, "Don't you want to do something where you use your brain?"  

Admit it, your mom was your pressure!

And I wonder how you can get away with saying it would be hard sometimes to be a gca (or gca assistant) when I have suggested that and been taken to task in the last month?

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

Actually, my mom was extremely supportive of my interest in golf and golf architecture from the time I was 12.  Didn't bother her a bit when I felt the need to change direction; she knew it was something I loved.

[Jeff_Brauer]

There is no difference between banging the drum repeatedly for your principles, and banging the drum bashing a critic for having principles and sticking to them.

Check that, at least the first instance requires formulating principles in the first place.

George,

At what point does a critic become a crusader for a cause?  And when he crosses that point, can we consider him an unbiased critic?  Could a Republican give an unbiased review of Hillary Clinton?  

In the end, in the small world of golf course architecture and critiques, that issue isn't amounting to a hill of beans, as it might in a larger field, and of course, no one gets hurt.  Nonetheless, it struck me as an interesting topic to contemplate.

Tom Mac,

Leave it to you to elevate this discussion to a higher plane with a reference to Darwin!  I am not at all sure that we are more sensitive to critique now, as I simply can't channel all the guys who went before.  I bet Ross got the same star treatment and good reviews as the superstar of his day that say, Fazio generally gets now.  If its magnified, I think its just because the media has expanded so much. I could be wrong.

And I don't think ASGCA has ever changed its position on members critiquing members publicly and in a way to get work away from them for themselves.  I think that principle statement was in the original by laws, written in 1946 or 7 and apparently endorsed by Ross, Bell and some other old guys.

[PThomas]

announced to Mom that I wanted to be a golf course architect, her response was, "Don't you want to do something where you use your brain?"  

classic!

[Ed_Baker]

In my opinion, the ultimate GCA critics are every player that are fortunate enough to tee it up on one of your courses, most don't know s*** about GCA nor do they care, but every one of them has an opinion that they will espouse to anyone that will listen. I would think that word of mouth, and repeat play over a period of time,would ultimately validate or invalidate " professional" criticism.

The press certainly can have an effect initially on a new course, especially public and resort courses, but ultimately it's what is on the ground and how many players enjoy playing it for the myriad of reasons that is part of the human condition that will measure a courses success.

[SL_Solow]

I think Jeff Goldman got it about right but something else should be added.  We are all critics; even you Barney.  Everytime we make a judgment about what we like and what we dislike we are acting as a critic.  In a society where one has choices the act of criticism is impossible to separate from basic functions.  When Barney attacks critics he is himself playing the critic by judging the manner in which certain individuals have chosen to make their livings.   The professional critic is different only in that he holds himself out to be an expert.  His expertise is demonstrated by way of a combination of a number of factors including clarity of expression, education/experience, superiority of analysis and the like.  We are free to accept or reject the critic's conclusions but in order to truly engage him we must explain why we disagree.  It is not enough to reject his opinion just because he is a critic.  Nor is it appropriate to ignore the critic because he presents analysis which adheres to consistent principles so long as those principles are well thought out, clearly explained, and evenly applied.  Remember, it is only a "foolish" consistency that is the hobgoblin of little minds.  If you don't like the assumptions made by a critic; e.g. width is useful in creating interesting options for players of all levels;  then by all means say so.  But unless circumstances have changed so that the critic's point of view has become outdated it is unfair to expect him to change his point of view willy nilly.  Once you know his basic perspective, it becomes interesting to evaluate his analysis of an individual course and see how his perspective differs from yours.  In that way may be able to sharpen your focus and develop your own analytical approach.  Or, if that's too hard, you can ask who designed the course, pick the flavor of the month, and try to shoot the best score you can.  Its all about enjoying the game.  I can understand Jeff's frustration because the critics can have an impact on an architect's ability to find work.  But we all face that problem to some degree.  In my work Judges and clients are the ultimate critics and I don't usually have a forum to fire back.  But that's the way it is and I've learned to cope.  In the end, the best policy I suppose is to try to learn from criticism and try to become your own best critic. If you satisfy that critic, you should be able to sleep at night.  A last words, if the critics start to ignore your work, you have likely become irrelevant.  So take the commentary as a compliment.

[John Kavanaugh]

I don't deny being a critic...It is probably my greatest failure..

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff:

Actually, my mom was extremely supportive of my interest in golf and golf architecture from the time I was 12.  Didn't bother her a bit when I felt the need to change direction; she knew it was something I loved.

Funny, but I decided to be a gca at age 12 as well.  My ex hated that story, because she changed her major 12 times.

Ed,

While I respect Jeff Goldman's opinion, I kind of like yours better. As a music loving teenager, I can recall debating whether some little known band with incredibly complicated riffs, rythms and harmonies was better than the Beatles, who had the "commerical success" to validate them.  In short, some courses or bands appeal to a small group of intelligentsia, but I don't like the idea of appealing soley to those who "get it."  

If the majority of the target market golfers votes the course good with their hard earned money, then I consider it a successful design.  After all, gca is an artistic endeavor, but not one meant to be hung on a wall, but rather one to be enjoyed through playing.

[John Kavanaugh]

Funny, but I decided to be a gca at age 12 as well.  My ex hated that story, because she changed her major 12 times.

Jeff,

Did your ex fall out of love with you just once...or was it an on going process.

[Jeff_Brauer]

John,

I'll ask her and get back to you......

[John Kavanaugh]

John,

I'll ask her and get back to you......

Jeff,

When posting on this site do you ever get pissed just enough it effects your work...I could see tightening a fairway a yard or adding an aiming bunker and letting out an evil laugh.

[George Pazin]

Could a Republican give an unbiased review of Hillary Clinton?

Who would believe him if he did?

That's what much of this comes down to, no? Trusting someone is giving his honest opinion, and to a lesser degree, agreeing with it.

Extremely well said, Jeff Goldman.

Interesting post, Shel, but the only critic that Barney seems to believe has an impact on anyone's bottom line is Mike Cirba.

[Doug Ralston]

My extreme eclecticism makes me a radical middle of the roader when it comes to golf design. I tend to defend the green, verdant, target courses here, mainly because they are so ostricized. I like even those ugly, flat, brown, bouncy, hard courses occasionally [lol].

If this site was 'Reese and Art' positive, I would doubtless be an Okey Doaky defender of 'minimalist' golf and pretend St Andrews was actually great fun.

BTW, I rather enjoyed the Pete Dye in Lexington Ky called Peninsula. Very much YOUR style. I simply have much more experience on 'verdant green' tracks. And trees, I actually LIKE trees.  

Doug

[T_MacWood]

Tom Mac,

Leave it to you to elevate this discussion to a higher plane with a reference to Darwin!  I am not at all sure that we are more sensitive to critique now, as I simply can't channel all the guys who went before.  I bet Ross got the same star treatment and good reviews as the superstar of his day that say, Fazio generally gets now.  If its magnified, I think its just because the media has expanded so much. I could be wrong.

And I don't think ASGCA has ever changed its position on members critiquing members publicly and in a way to get work away from them for themselves.  I think that principle statement was in the original by laws, written in 1946 or 7 and apparently endorsed by Ross, Bell and some other old guys.

Jeff
No doubt Ross got the star treatment, especially later in his career. Macdonald got the star treatment too, so did Tillinghast and MacKenzie, but that did not prevent them from criticizing or being criticized.

In 1919 there was interesting article written about Ross's criticism of American golf architecture and its infatuation with length entitled 'Criticises golf courses'.

"Seventy percent of the courses in Great Britain are under 6,000 yards, and some of the finest links in the world are over there. In this country there seems to be a desire for length: The result is that we see layouts 6,500 yards long, and some of them will not begin to compare with courses a thousand yards shorter."

I'd love to read the original code of conduct for the ASGCA...if they had one. I'd be surprised if they prohibited criticism.

Restaurants, movies, paintings, buildings, music, literature are all critically reviewed. Shouldn't golf architecture be held to the same standard?

Why shouldn't golf architects criticize other architects? Golf architects often criticize the work of their contemporaries privately...it takes a certain amount of self confidence (and guts) to critisize them publicly...one of the consequences being you expose your own work to critical review.

That is the way it should work IMO...a very healthy situation.

[Mike_Cirba]

Interesting post, Shel, but the only critic that Barney seems to believe has an impact on anyone's bottom line is Mike Cirba.

George,

Are you trying to draw me into this melee?   No way, man!

Last time I spoke up I think I was starving children, freezing assets, and depleting trust funds.  

After all, now that Barney is a self-admitted "critic", I'm going to have to find a new biggest personal failing.  I'll leave paving the wide swath of critical destruction to him.  

[RJ_Daley]

The word paradigm has been bastardized in recent times to mean "mindset" or a mindset developed based on acquired set of assumptions and specific knowledge or experiences.

I have always suspected that the usage of paradigm has accompanied instances where someone was trying to get me or someone to change my mind.  I found part of a definition and discussion of the more original and accurate usage of the word as follows:

When enough significant anomalies have accrued against a current paradigm, the scientific discipline is thrown into a state of crisis, according to Kuhn. During this crisis, new ideas, perhaps ones previously discarded, are tried. Eventually a new paradigm is formed, which gains its own new followers, and an intellectual "battle" takes place between the followers of the new paradigm and the hold-outs of the old paradigm...

So, to try and follow or apply Jeff's wondering about the value of GCA critics undergoing a shift in their paradigm, I think he is correct that a GCA critic will or should evolve upon reviewing enough golf courses to discovery of anomolies (or quirks) that don't fit into the traditional or conventional pattern one had previously understood to be the typical example of an architect's work.  When those anomolies are found and described, sometimes the critic takes a radical or outspoken position that generates controversy.  That is a good thing.  It moves the ball forward in the profession.

If a critic doesn't or won't or can't change the mindset, or view anomolies of previously held evaluations of what makes a particular GCA work great, and with an open mind, then I think the critic becomes stagnant, irrelavant, and pedantic.

[T_MacWood]

I agree with SL's take when it comes to the necessity of the critic to alter his core principles.

"If a critic doesn't or won't or can't change the mindset, or view anomolies of previously held evaluations of what makes a particular GCA work great, and with an open mind, then I think the critic becomes stagnant, irrelavant, and pedantic."

RJ
What are examples where the critic didn't change his mindset or view of anomolies of previously held evaluations, which resulted in the critic becoming stagnant, irrelavant or pedantic?

[RJ_Daley]

Tom, there are many of them in the movie critic game.  That guy Blackwell comes to mind in the fashion world, even though I don't wear dresses myself.  I'm also no literary authority, but I read many times of other literary types that point to critics as pedantic.  Probably the same holds true for art critics.  There are food critics that are stuck in the same old boring mindset, french cuisine...

I guess I can't name them, because when I read or hear them, I tend to discount what they say and not remember their name, because they are stuck in the same old, same old which we've all heard before.  

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

If that ASGCA bylaw were changed to "members critiquing other golf course architects," instead of "other members," I think I would be much more likely to join.  The distinction speaks ill of the Society.  You either believe in good manners, or you don't.

[Mike_Young]

Why shouldn't golf architects criticize other architects? Golf architects often criticize the work of their contemporaries privately...it takes a certain amount of self confidence (and guts) to critisize them publicly...one of the consequences being you expose your own work to critical review.

That is the way it should work IMO...a very healthy situation.

IMHO most of what you would get would be hearsay.  Most architects would not have even seen the work of the guy they were criticizing and would just be going off of rumor and ill feelings because the got got a job from him.
And so......it is probably better to just remain silent.....
As TD says above.....good manners....

[Tom_Doak]

Amen to that, Mike.  Half the "criticism" I hear about my work is just misinformation.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff:

If that ASGCA bylaw were changed to "members critiquing other golf course architects," instead of "other members," I think I would be much more likely to join.  The distinction speaks ill of the Society.  You either believe in good manners, or you don't.

Tom,

I should probably know the exact wording of the by laws, and may not have quoted them just right, but presume that there is not really a difference between talking about members and non members. I agree that manners are manners and think that was the intent of the code of conduct.  As always, I could be wrong!

Tom Mac,

You can say that until the cows come home, but in addition to manners, I really don't see how I would necessarily learn from other gca's critiquing my work in public and I doubt that most golfers would.  The private critiques I hear could usually be summed up as "I would have done it differently", which is an entirely predictable situation.  

And, as Mike and Tom said, most would be hearsay since we don't get around to play a bunch of courses by other guys.  I also think we would want to know the probems faced by the gca in formulating our opinions-what the owner wanted, environmental constraints, you name it.  Talk of a critics paradigm - we would really have to hold ourselves to high standards if we offered public critiques, and frankly, we just don't have the time.  

I do find it funny that people find a way to turn a legitimate question about standards for critiques in the golf design industry back to the same old topics, while many seem hesitant to propose/endorse/consider what standards those who do critique courses professionally should hold themselves to.  Of course, most of you want to just simply "let it fly" but that is really no standard at all, is it?

[Mike_Young]

I do find it funny that people find a way to turn a legitimate question about standards for critiques in the golf design industry back to the same old topics, while many seem hesitant to propose/endorse/consider what standards those who do critique courses professionally should hold themselves to.  Of course, most of you want to just simply "let it fly" but that is really no standard at all, is it?

Standards for critic???
Did it meet owner requirements?
Is it economically feasible?
Does it fit the market?
Can it be maintained?
Is it strategically sound?
Does the critic like the bunkers and the greens?
Usually all I hear from the critics are the last two....that is on this site....but this is a small segment overall.....if not TF and RJ would have no work.....JMO

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()