1- That put everything at loggerheads -- and eventually the club went out and found an architect who was willing to ignore history and photos (the architect in question has a history of doing so...).
2- In the end it is a philosophical difference. Ian believes in historical restoration where possible, and the raters in question believe in modernization.
3- So as some of you run off at the mouth,
4- perhaps you should take a look at Ian's writing, blog and website and find out what he's about first.
5- What he is saying is that raters have, in some instances, become self-described experts.
6- However, often times these experts are only interested in their own games and how the course changes might impact their handicaps.
7- When it comes down to it -- isn't that bad for golf and golf courses?
8- Isn't that why restoration is so in vogue these days -- because courses were fundamentally altered when they should not have been?
9- I think you'd find Mr. Andrew very receptive to informed opinion.
10- But I think, as he has shown, he's not particularly keen on those who "know" what to do, when they are neither prepared to do the research nor see other similar work.
1- So it was him venting or whining after losing a job?
2- Which mirrors the taste of the consensus public.
3- In response to Ian, who was running off at his.
4- Why? The source isn't relevant to understand the context of his comments.
5- I read what he is saying. No need for you to tell me your interpretation.
6- That's kind of the way it is at private clubs. I could share tons of stories illustrating this from where I worked.
7- Yes.
8- Yes. Probably altered by guys not on magazine panels as much of this was before their existence.
9- No, actually the contrary if this thread is representative. Brad sent him the handbook and it wasn't like he proclaimed, "Yes! This is how it should be!" He presumed all anyone needed is a low handicap and a pulse when the critera for each panel are actually quite varied.
10- Funny you should say that. A now-famous architect told me he loved the
Golfweek panel because it was comprised of a bunch of guys that would fly across the country to see his courses. "Nobody from Golf Magazine would do it," he said. Partly right, as Matt Lauer and Bryant Gumbel are pretty busy and many others are champion golfers in their own right - but you know Ran probably does and there may be more like him. Ian made no distinction between the different methods employed by each publication. I'm guessing these guys didn't want to go see his work because they'd already found him unwilling to compromise, which gets in the way of their agenda. Hey, I'm not saying I condone the behavior.
Robert, Ian led with a post implying that this is common when it may be just one person that caused his problem. If I had a bad experience with a girl from New Jersey one time it would be wrong for me to broad-brush the entire species. There's nothing I see here where the movement led by the significant golf magazines had anything to do with it. In fact, the results of recent rankings seems to run counter to his theory that they stand for undoing the work of Stanley Thompson and Seth Raynor.
If this person were a different sort - say the father of a PGA Tour player or maybe a television golf commentator - the result could be the same. Ian's problem was that the membership valued his opinion, perhaps because he's a panelist, and that the person felt compelled to pull rank.
It has got to be very hard to make a living as a golf architect. I feel for Ian, I really do. However, when someone goes into a profession that is highly competitive I'm not shocked when they tell me it is highly competitive. Schoolteaching doesn't pay well. Schoolteachers complaining that it doesn't pay well? Duh, you knew that when you started.
I hope Ian doesn't run into someone like this again. More importantly, I hope Ian is better prepared to handle it when he does because I'm sure he will.
On the other side of this is someone probably saying, "can you believe how rigid that guy is... WE'RE the customer!"