Celebrity Stalkers?    Well that police report might go something like...

Upon the arrival to the scene, we observed the psychophant writer had bludgeoned the cranium of the object of his affectations... with a heavily an inky column...

Jay:

Offended, no.  Somewhere between flattered and embarrassed, maybe.  I've tried diligently in recent interviews to give a bunch of the credit for our work to my associates, but most of the pieces wind up being all about me, and yours especially since it tries to delve into my personality more than most.

It's a double-edged sword, too.  Tim Bert is correct, that Doug (and others) have more reaction to this piece because it is about me.  You've written glowing things about anything to do with Jim Engh, Brian Silva, and Mike Strantz, and though some may disagree, nobody takes nearly as much offense to those because they are not active participants here and because their work is not discussed as often.  

I'm well aware that some people are just sick of all the attention I've gotten in the past few years and they wish I would just go away.  Many also believe that my presence on this forum is just further attention-seeking on my part; it doesn't even enter their minds that I participate because I enjoy it and because I might learn something or educate someone on the subject.  I can't help that but it is their problem, not mine.

P.S.  I used to fight with everything I have, but I have a lot more outlets for it now.

Tom - I can't wait for the detailed discussion thread on "The Paradox of Proportionality." As you can see below it is my favorite quote from GCA.com but, like Jay, I am still puzzled by its true meaning. This subject first came up (for me) when you responded to a thread I started about a rater friend of mind who dislikes The Ocean Course at Kiawah because it is not "proportional" in its punishment of wayward shots. I would really enjoy a discussion on why the concept of proportionality is paradoxical.

No Tom; my edginess comes from a mistrust of all dogma, and the sense that what you consider excellent design philosophy has become, here on GCA, more akin to religious fervor. That kind of ideology is dangerously exclusive in all fields of human endeavor. It regulates other ideas to being just 'competition', to be defeated, rather than insights to be considered.

^This is an excellent point and, I believe, one of the reasons, among many, that more architects do not post here.

I can, with 100% certainty, state the any of the reasons that Mr. Doak gave in his recent reply on this thread regarding his perceived notions as to why reaction to the piece posted by Mr. Flemma were, in a few cases, somewhat strong, were in no way related to and had absolutely nothing to do with why I made my earlier comment.  My comment had no basis in regard to Mr. Doak's presence and participation on this discussion board nor any of his golf course design work.

1.  yes, psychophant is one of the funniest typoes I've seen since I wrote a paper in college about the Soviet Onion.  Is that where a pachyderm goes on a rampage?  Brother William, you always bring a smile to my face.

2.  Tom D.  Thank you for chiming in.  I hope you're not too embarrassed by all this candid discussion.  Tom, yes I write a lot of glowing things about other designers, but I always try to present what the drawbacks/detractors think too to paint a total picture.  I admit, maybe I don't do that with Strantz - partly because so many people agree that when you walked 360 degrees around him, there was no dark side and partly because the total cathartic sadness of the circumstances of his loss command respect.  As for Jim, Silva or anything else, I have this observation - I always ask myself when I read the sports page or watch an event, "What are they trying to sell me and do I believe them?"  I try NEVER to sell anything I don't believe in.  I am NOT (as some said) ENgh's publicist.  I believe in what he's doign and how.  Its a matter of taste.  I have been even-keeled in reviewing his work.  For example, my reviews of Blackstone and Sanctuary were a little more luke-warm than he expected, but the review of Pradera was higher.  The point is that if I write somethng, its because that's my honest, carefully thought out, deeply researched opinion.  I'm noit just pimping something because I went to media day and wanna fill space.

3.  Thank you all for the good feedback...despite my moment of grumpiness late last night, I drew alot of insight from several of your thoughts and will make a few amendments...it actually help sharpen some ideas I had that hadn't quite come into focus until other minds made observations.  I also found Eamonn Lynch's article from 2004 and read that as well, which had some interesting observations.

Jay:

I appreciate that you only write what you believe in, but it still comes across that you are selling it, as opposed to just observing or critiquing it.  In that case, some people are going to assume that the subjects have enlisted you to help sell their talents, even though it's not the case.  And I shy away from that, because (as you know) I dislike the whole sales process, somewhere down deep I believe I shouldn't need to sell myself, I just want to be judged on the merits of my work.

You've written glowing things about anything to do with Jim Engh, Brian Silva, and Mike Strantz, and though some may disagree, nobody takes nearly as much offense to those because they are not active participants here and because their work is not discussed as often.  

Tom,

Please take comfort in the fact that many of us take offense with everything Jay says about most any architect or course.  There is just no future in arguing about the irrelevant.

Quote from: Adam Clayman on May 24, 2007, 12:02:13 PM

I;m sorry, but his point was poppycock.

There's no dogma or religious fervor. There is just thoughtful design and the balls to not listen to the principle when they want what's proven BAD. Like too many trees on golf courses.

 

You needn't apologize.  I disagree that Mr. Ralston's point is poppycock.  I thought that it was insightful and succinctly stated.  In fact, I will say that your response somewhat validates his contention.

Good luck.

Thank you Mr Kern. I have a suspicion that Adam was being facetious though. Could be wrong [I often am  ]

Doug the eclectic

Quote from: Tom_Doak on May 24, 2007, 09:05:57 AM

You've written glowing things about anything to do with Jim Engh, Brian Silva, and Mike Strantz, and though some may disagree, nobody takes nearly as much offense to those because they are not active participants here and because their work is not discussed as often.  

Tom,

Please take comfort in the fact that many of us take offense with everything Jay says about most any architect or course.  There is just no future in arguing about the irrelevant.

Thanks, John.  If that's what you think, I'm glad.  If a guy like you is making nasty comments, I know I did something right.  In the immortal words of Dick Daley - "Barney, go F yourself."  Jealousy so becomes you...it's your avatar.

First off,

I think this thread has been completely awesome on so many levels.  Between the highly opinioniated opinions, great mis-spellings, and even a "Barney go F yourself" reference, how could this not be great.

As to the topic at hand, I do give credit to Tom for being an active contributor to this site.  He doesn't need this site and he doesn't have to take the time out of his busy schedule to contribute and provide the insight that he does, whether you agree with it or not.  If anything, in my opinion, it shows his true passion for what he does and constant desire to learn more/spread the good word.

As someone who does not work in the industry, I appreciate the comments and insights he shares as well as many others on this site.  He could hole up, build a wall, and only let his circle of friends in, but given that he continues to reach out and still speak his mind, is to be admired.

At the end of the day, wouldn't all of us much rather hear honest opinions about GCA as opposed to the flowery crap in most magazines and media outlets?  

Nope, I was serious. Courses that are reliant on one of the weakest designs elements (trees) for their primary defense suck the spirit of the game right out of many a newer golfer. Many great architects believed in no trees. Or at least their limited use. But this is about your disposition not any perceived religious affiliation.

Besides,

Mr. Ralstons mentioning of Art Hills was enough to push me out over the edge.



 

I like Forrest too!

The architect I most admire for posting on this site is Forrest...He opens a course he is respectively proud of and the best he gets from you hit and run pieces of crap is that you will stop by just as soon as you have a better offer in the area.  Thanks Forrest...we don't deserve you.

Jaka,

When you did your driving golf tour to LA, how many days did you spend at Forrest courses? You must have passed a few on your way to Riviera!  

Updated Double Standard Score: Jaka 2, Doak 1