Over the last few months, I have been seeing a slow conversion from the following:

1. I recently took the lead partner in our golf course project to Beechtree which he really loved. We were traveling separate ways after the round. He must have called me 3 times in the car, and once I even heard him make mention of the balls "bouncing". Now if he could only figure out the permitting !

2. My partner in my day to day business has said the following over the past year !

a) I really like the rough character of Yale.
b) I can't stand Mill Pond and those stupid mounds !!
c) What time do we tee off at The Black?

Okay he did ask if we were walking or riding at The Black, but it is a step by step process.

Mashie1 -

A fact may be a fact, but a historical fact can certainly lead to different interpretations, as least in my opinion .

The thread I was referencing was in regard to who deserves credit for designing Pine Valley. Paul Turner & Tom Paul both presented much factual material, things like who was where & when, who drew certain plans, etc., & yet there was no real conclusion as to who deserved credit. In another thread, Pat & Tom MacWood argued over whether Rees left his distinctive mark on Baltusrol. Tom M quoted Rees' website as to the work done, while Patrick maintained that someone playing the course could not tell the difference without examining photos closely, etc. They disagreed over whether Rees left his distinctive marks, but I think they agreed on the general facts, like making changes to greens, bunkers, etc.

This is what I'm referring to - sorry if I didn't use the word fact precisely enough. If I didn't know better, I'd think you were Rich Goodale making another semantic argument.

P.S. I never said Barney was all bad. I disagree with his opinions on the effectiveness of the site & the judgment of the posters. Everyone I've ever spoken with has said Barney is a great guy. I hope to meet him someday.

P.P.S. There are certainly lots of facts presented in legal cases & plenty of disagreement of the interpretation of them. OJ's blood was at the murder scene - some people think it was planted, I think he did it - even though when the news was first announced, I felt bad for him that his wife was killed & it didn't even occur to me that he could have done it.

"Now, what I want is, Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else. You can only form the minds of reasoning animals upon Facts: nothing else will ever be of any service to them. This is the principle on which I bring up my own children, and this is the principle on which I bring up these children. Stick to Facts, sir!" -- Thomas Gradgrind, in Charles Dickens's "Hard Times."

Great book. (Opinion -- or fact?)

 

George Pazin,

Tom MacWood and I disagreed on the extent of Rees's work at Baltusrol.  I maintained that he never altered a single footpad of any of the greens, that he never touched those greens.  Tom MacWood read and posted that he mowed a small segment of the fringe, into green, on two greens.  
If that was all he did, where are Rees's distinctive marks on that section of the fringe mowed to green.  What seperates that part of the green from the other section of the green, and what about that new section of the green is distinctively Rees's ?

So, we differed on the facts, and the conclusions that Tom drew, namely, that Rees's distinctive marks were all over Baltusrol.  And, Tom MacWood has never seen Baltusrol to observe what the greens, bunkers, fairways and tees look like.  And, if he's never been there, how does he know where Rees's distinctive marks are ?

I'm still waiting for Tom to tell me what are Rees's distinctive marks and what and where, specifically, they can be found at Baltusrol.

DMoriarty,

I believe that Fazio and his firm were retained and in charge of the work done at the short course at Pine Valley and the bunker work at Merion, and as such, since Fazio is THE principle of his firm, the ultimate authority, I feel the term "oversaw" is accurate.

Overseeing work doesn't require constant micro-management,
24/7 as you would seem to think.

Do you think that Tom Doak is at every one of his golf course design and construction projects 24/7 ?   Do you think, that in spite of his absence, that he oversees, and is the ultimate decision maker on his projects.

DMoriarty,

I believe that Fazio and his firm were retained and in charge of the work done at the short course at Pine Valley and the bunker work at Merion, and as such, since Fazio is THE principle of his firm, the ultimate authority, I feel the term "oversaw" is accurate.

Overseeing work doesn't require constant micro-management,
24/7 as you would seem to think.

Do you think that Tom Doak is at every one of his golf course design and construction projects 24/7 ?   Do you think, that in spite of his absence, that he oversees, and is the ultimate decision maker on his projects.

Patrick thank you for attempting to clarify what you mean by 'oversaw.'   And thank you for proving my point for me.  

You are relying on what you "believe" and what you "feel" is accurate.  "Believe" and "feel" are hardly in the vocabulary the undisputable.  While such methods of classification may have worked for Potter Stewart, they dont really get us much closer to "fact," do they?  

And do you really mean that anyone who is the principal of a firm and therefore its ultimate authority is the overseer of all of work for which the firm has been retained?  Wow . . . there are probably quite a few principals out there who are "overseeing" work of which they aren't even aware!  What if the firm has 10 projects, or 100, 1000, or 10,000 . . . is the principal still the overseer?
 
You also note that overseeing doesnt require constant micromanagement, 24/7.  This is pretty obvious, isn't it?  And it doesnt really move us any closer to a useful and meaningful understanding of what it means to "oversee," does it?  

Oh yeah, this was supposed to be about facts.  What are the facts, again?  Don't we need to nail down these facts before we even consider drawing any conclusions?  

Patrick, please keep in mind that I am expressing no opinion regarding Tom Fazio, Rees Jones, Tom Doak, or any other architect.  I don't know how much time Tom Doak spends on his projects.  I doubt he is at any of them 24/7-- I assume he has more than one project going at once so this would be quite impossible.  If you are really curious how Tom Doak spends on his time, you may want to ask him.

It is a funny image though . . . Tom Doak out on his course all by himself, down the road from the middle of nowhere . . . living like a hermit in a tent for months on end, waiting for the grass to grow.  I wonder if he would miss gca.com?  

Ladies and gentlemen, keep your seats!  The dancing bears will be out next!
Let the sideshow begin...

Patrick;

I believe there is more work going on at the regular course at PV that is being "overseen", or perhaps "consulted" by Tom Fazio over the past couple of years.

As redanman mentions, it seems that a good deal of it is to "clean up" the wild areas, and otherwise formalize and rebuild bunkers.      

You may choose to try to nitpick and dispute the facts, but the facts are that Fazio oversaw the work at Merion and Pine Valley.

Patrick, I am not disputing any facts.  Just asking you to support your conclusion that Mr. Fazio oversaw the projects in question.  (How about Riviera, did he oversee that too?)  You see, I learned somewhere on this site that we should not put forth our opinions and conclusions, unless we have at hand the supporting facts.  

Funny thing, language.  One man's request for supporting facts is another's nitpicking.  One man's opinion is another's bias . . .

If you have in your possession, facts that prove that someone else oversaw those two projects, please present them.

I have no facts in my possession that prove anything about either project.  But then I am not the one offering my opinions and conclusions about the projects, am I?

It did? Well, then, the least I better do is read it!

guesst...

Fine post my man.  By being born in America you have the right to contribute to this board.  Based on your comments you are a welcome addition.

Bravo! and keep 'em comin'

That's all right, Joe.  I did admit in an earlier post that I have sometimes been referred to as *one of the boys*, did I not?  ;-)  

It may take awhile for everyone here to realize I am a queen... or at least a woman.  But I am the soul of patience.

Maybe I should change my moniker to "Leggs" . . . ?

"It may take awhile for everyone here to realize I am a queen... or at least a woman.  But I am the soul of patience."

OhmyGod---I'll be double danged! guesst's a woman!? Well, that just made my week! We haven't had any of "them" on here in about two years--maybe since John Morrissett's wife last posted. That's wonderful. Do you have any women friends who'd be interested in coming on here for a little added perspective although we don't seem to be all that polite sometimes no matter who you are?

Realizing now that you're a women, I do apologize for my "Boys" remark if it incuded you. But still, you should realize that although I'm from Philly and knowing you're a woman would never have used the "Boys" remark in referring to you that still does not hold true with our southern brethren down yonder. Down there if you're gonna participate the way you have on here so far--excellent post above, by the way, it's not much different than going out gator hunting or barroom brawling--woman or man you're just gonna be "one of the boys" to some of us.

And lastly, you're a woman and you're the soul of patience too?

Well, I'll be triple danged!