Wow, DMoriarty,

that was fantastic, see what fun wife analogies can be.  Excellent piece of work, and I am not at all insulted.  Yes, to your question about my courses, I am extremely fond, and critical of my work and it cuts to the bone to see it ignored or dismissed.  I do not see that as dismissive of my relationship to my family.  Jesus, god almighty, if I am going to spend as much time on my course, invest as much of myself as I can into and then just clock out at the end of the day that would be sad to me.  The architects that do that are a sad lot to me.  Life can be big enough to encompass one's work within all of the emtions one has for their family as well.  Yes, DM my work my courses mean a lot to me on the very highest emtional level.

Your piece was a classic, and I hope you found some satisfaction in writing it because it was real wit and humor, I laugh ever time I read it.  Sorry for my offensive behavior toward you, it is a topic I will remember never to delve into with you.

Tim,

No being in the arch. business is nothing like what your friend experienced.  It is a very satisfying business whether you get recognition or not.  What your friend experienced is basically cultural rape by men whom like to see naked or near naked women in publication.  I will say that some critics want to see the "pretty girl in the underwear" when they look at a course and do not seem to want to know more about the thinking aspect of the girl.

And wasn't it Kelly Blake Moran, who got all sanctimonious about comments on that photo of Christie Kerr, kissing that unusually shaped trophy?

Golf is different.

When you open a golf course, you get the appropriate form of peer review every 8 (hopefully, 10) minutes.  

Sure, within the architect circles, it makes sense to have peer review -- archies to archies.  And Dave is right.  There isn't enough candid commentary there.   But I don't need to be told how my watch was built; I need to know what time it is.    

Shivas, I disagree.  The peer review every 6 to 10 minutes doesnt really get you that far.  I think it is pretty much acknowledge on this board that the average golfer could care less about the intricacies of strategy and architecture.  What good is review from a bunch of golfers who dont know or care what they are reviewing?  Also, golfers are not peers of architects, at least I hope not.  I like to think that architects possess a greater level of skill and understanding than do most architects.  So I am not sure what the golfer can say other than, "nice . . . I'll come back" or "yucky . . I won't"

Golf is a strange mix of entertainment, art, and science.  All of these (including entertaiment aspects) may be beyond the current comprehension of the average golfers.  Now dont get me wrong, I am not knocking golfers.  They are capable of more and would probably enjoy more, they just dont have any leadership or guidance.  All I am asking is that magazines and/or architects start to provide this guidance.  

Say I am buying a car.  Sure I will test drive it and make sure it feels nice, but I will also base my opinion on expert reviews, safety studies, technical explanations, reputation of the manufacturer, etc.  It helps if I have access to honest critical information when making my decision.  

if golf is still a gentlemans game,so is golf design..
  we constantly critique each other ,and others past ,but internally, not in a forum basis..thats bad everything......

Ok now try it in English.

paul cowley,

I agree that both golf and golf architecture should be "gentlemen's games."  Yet I disagree with your implication that there is anything ungentlemanly about engaging in public discourse about the  principles that drive one's work, and the application thereof.  

In fact I think it rather ungentlemanly to keep the golfers out of this potentially enlightening discourse.   They are the ones with the most to gain, and the ones who could use a little leadership and direction.  And they are also the ones who ultimately commission the architects' projects.  

Plus, I have a hard time beleiving that behind the scenes architects are engaged in the open exchange of critical thought and ideas.  I can't imagine Tom Fazio calling up Tom Doak and saying, "Hey Tom . . . I had a chance to look at your new Texas track . . . Good try, and your heading in the right direction, but I think you still missed the boat . . . It might have worked better if you'd tried X instead of Y . . . Maybe take another look at Shadow Creek Nos. 5-9 to help you understand what I am saying . . . anyway, my best to you and yours, talk to you next week."

Matt Ward:

I share your perception that it is very difficult to say negative things about a golf course.

paul,

perhaps if you try to think of it from the golfer's perspective for a moment you might understand a little more what I am trying to say.

Might it not be interesting, enlightening, and/or beneficial to the interested golfer if architects occasionally clued them in regarding "areas where [architects] might not share the same philosophies?"

-david

Dave:

Let me put it another way.  At the end of the day, who gives a damn what other architects think of a particular course?  Really.  Who?
. . .
But in golf, the only thing that matters is whether people like the course.  It ain't peer review.  But it's what matters.  
. . .
The only review that matters is what golfers think.  

Shivas. Sorry, I missed this earlier.  

Before I try to answer your question, I have a question for you:   If you really feel this way, why the hell are you wasting your time on a website dedicated to discussing the architectural merits and demerits of golf courses, sometimes ad nauseum?  If it is all just a popularity contest, then we shouldn't have much to talk about, should we?  Shouldn't we just find out which courses are most popular, and there we would have it?

Lets apply your approach to art.  How should we discuss, review, and critique art?  Well, why dont we just find out what the buyers think?  Let's see . . .

"THOMAS KINKADE is the most beloved and widely collected artist of our day.  Each year, millions of people around the world are drawn to the luminous quality and tranquil mood of the Thomas Kinkade collection."  --http://www.kinkade.com

Well there we have it, Thomas Kinkade is the best.  What else is there to say?  No need to discuss or critique art any further.  

How about we do the same in literature?  Harlequin Romances are pretty damn popular and successful, therefore they must be quality literature.  No need to discuss it further.

Journalism?  Those newspapers at the checkout stand always seem to sell.  Lets give them all Pulitzer Prizes for popularity.  

Turning to your question.  Who gives a damn?  Well, I give a damn.  I also suspect that others might give a damn if given the opportunity to give a damn.  People might just need some leadership so they know what to give a damn about.  Some activities are like that.  

Take a look at my original post.  It doesnt have to be architects, it could be critics.  Review by architects is a framework but it is certainly not the only one.  It is just that architects are uniquely situated to understand architecture, don't you think?  They are architects, after all.  

You say that you don't have to have won a major to review what happened at a major.  I am not so sure.  Yes, anyone can review the score, shots, etc.  But how many can actually tell what it is really like to tee off last on Sunday morning with the field gaining, the course hardening, and the weather turning worse?   Who better to distinguish V.J.'s 63 from Johnny Miller's 63 than Johnny Miller?   Sure Johnny is bias, but he was also there, and knows what it felt like to shoot one of the greatest rounds ever to win the US Open.  I cant really adequately review that.  Can you?   Same goes for anything.  Some things you have to have done to be able to really understand and review.  
__________________________

Matt,  I don't doubt that some golf courses think of reviewers and journalists as whores, and always expect to be told that they are great.  But while this may help explain the way things are, it certainly does not justify it.   It seems like the Gary McCord situation.  Golf writers have to decide whether or not they are journalists, or just part of some big industry infomercial.  Deciding they are journalists will certainly have consequences, but that is the journalism business, isn't it?  

Architects do reviews? Nice idea. but notice that no architect actively contributes course reviews on this site for fear of pissing off their colleagues.

A few brave souls actively post - Brauer, Richardson, Doak - but Doak has curbed his prior enthusiasm for actually writing reviews. The profession is too polite, folks are afraid of chasing potential clients away, and people don't have the time.

Writing is a skill, so is photography and so is architecting. They are not the same skills and they don't readily cross over. Besides, there's also the element of time.

A great idea - if they would do it, because I know from private conversations that architects are insightful observers of other courses on their strengths/weaknesses. But only confidentially speaking.

Academics, by contrast, don't have to worry about job security when they get tenure. But when they are younger the tend to be a bit more cautious in their public criticism

Adam:

I can't independently "confirm" such a thing but I have faith in the people who told me. I am not going to dignify such a cowardly attack by printing the name of the club, but suffice to say I can provide additional comments offline.
 

I have been reading this topic with interest though I'm sorry Kelly chose my name for his analogy!  (But no need to apologize, Kelly.)

I haven't had any constructive calls from Tom Fazio just lately as David guessed ... in fact, to be honest, I can only remember a couple of examples of any fellow architect giving a thorough critique of any of my work.  The only truly valuable feedback I've ever gotten is from friends and associates whom I know well enough that they don't have to worry how I'll react to a constructive criticism.

I still like to write reviews of courses, though I try to limit them nowadays to courses by dead architects, or to courses by modern architects for which I can be genuinely enthusiastic.  The compounded effect of my previous writings and my current position seems to make my opinions of modern design work a flash point.  If I make so much as an offhand negative comment (as happened a couple of weeks ago here) I am challenged to make a more thorough and balanced review, and I just don't want to go there.  Literally!  I'm sad to admit it, but there are some courses I've avoided seeing because I am afraid someone will ask me about them, or in a few circustances because I was interviewed for the job and it's very hard to be objective once you started working on your own design.  (I got roasted by Matt Ward for that, too ... he thought I was being dismissive of Karsten Creek and Olde Kinderhook, but my real point was that it would be hard to see either and not think my original ideas would have worked out better ... which makes it hard to imagine that they are now two of the 50 best courses in America.)

Frankly, I think it's sad that the business has to work this way.  I'd love to know what Tom Fazio honestly thought of one of my courses ... I might learn something, and I'd dismiss the rest to him having a different viewpoint.  But I don't know him well enough to expect that, and there are actually some architects who don't want to pass on their "trade secrets" to others.  

Likewise, I believe there are a bunch of architects working today who would benefit from a few simple words of advice (my two favorites would be "tone it down!" and "pay more attention to the way your greens tie into their surroundings"), whether it came from me or anyone else.  But most architects seem to surround themselves with people who have the same viewpoint (low handicaps with other low handicaps, etc.), or their other friends aren't giving it to them straight.  One of Pete Dye's great advantages was having Alice around to provide a different viewpoint ... of course she was a great player, too, but she always remembered the limitations of average players.  One thing I've concentrated on is having guys with different backgrounds for sounding boards ... Jim and Don and Bruce and Eric and Tom Mead all come at golf from different angles, and now I'm able to include clients with differing perspectives, as long as they don't want their view to dominate.

I don't even see Brad Klein or Ron Whitten giving such advice very often, probably because both of them are straddling the line between writer and architect themselves, and because they want to remain friends with architects who serve as sources for their writing.  And, I've called Ran Morrissett out a couple of times for doing just that with his own reviews here.

Golf architecture really, really needs a form of criticism as David suggests.  Few of us have built even one or two courses which measure up to the best courses of the past; clearly we could all benefit from getting out of our comfort zone a little.  I do think it would be better if it came from just one or two voices instead of many, because criticism is better received if the reviewer's biases and background are known.

It's just too bad I didn't think to use a pen name way back when!

I thought Mr. Doak had written some reviews and pieces under the name of Thomas Harry.....

If you want to read, or if you do read, a review of any course by any other architect, this should suffice,,,,"I would have done it differently....and better!

Seriously, as one who has reviewed work of other architects at least in the privacy of my own staff! or with other architects, the problem I see is that most of us have trouble seeing courses in terms other than "what we would have done."

I'm not sure this would benefit the golf world at large.....since we are also, gasp.....biased!

What's really important is for people to understand that when raters / reviewers / journalists actively participate as course consultants and the like or even go so far as to design courses themselves they begin to eliminate the line between the role they serve in one capacity versus that of someone who is in the business -- to use a baseball analogy -- you can't be an umpire and a player at the same time.

Clearly, full disclosure is needed but even when that's done it still doesn't eliminate the possibility that reviews from such persons will be tempered by their own business affairs or ones they wish to pursue sometime in the future.

Tom Doak:

You might have done better than what Rees Jones and Tom Fazio did at Olde Kinderhook and Karsten Creek respectively. You're entitled to your opinion that you believe you would have fared better but that still doesn't mean the finished products that exist there now are less deserving. Until you've played them both I think such a pat-on-the-back to your considerable talents is a bit premature don't you think?

Tom MacWood:

Let me just say I can't confirm what was told to me but the club is a private one and when I say the word "banned" it refers to any future situations / visits that might arise. By the way -- the people at the clubs in my "neck of the woods" are aware of who I am. Lastly, in my mind, it speaks volumes of the character of the people involved when they insist that all comments about a golf course tow the line the way they see it. Last I checked the Soviet Union is no longer in business.

To the Group:

The reviews of golf courses are opinions but it's clear that a small noisy minority don't want candor -- they want reaffirmation all the time. When I visit a facility I make no promises on anything but an honest opinion. Todays golfers are very sophisticated and the whole purpose of GCA, IMHO, is to discuss quite frankly the merits or lack thereof of many courses and the architecture attached to them. Like I said before -- Colonel Jessup said it best in "A Few Good Men" -- "you can't handle the truth." Most can but there are those who only want the superlatives lobbed their way.