"I don't know that I want to go too deep into this.  But I'll ask Matt, of those courses that you had rated that you have visited significantly more than once, were there any that you initially didn't find all the positives and negatives on the first play and then altered your thinking upon getting more familiar with the course?  If so, which were more oriented to routing, walkability, and visual stuff, and you later found those impressions had mitigating circumstances by virtue of playing nuances that outweighed you first impressions?"

RJ:

I don't want to go too deep into this either, but do you know what, with Matt it really isn't necessary to go too deep into these things. Matt's not really looking for that much in architecture anyway other than a fleeting first impression, how he plays the course, of course----he probably has no real idea what to look for in depth anyway so for Matt one visit per course is probably all he really requires!! Plus he thinks he needs to rush on to the next course so he can tell all of us how many golf courses he's played and how that alone makes him a real expert on architecture!

I can't remember which course it was but about a year ago Matt offered some opinions on some course somewhere that really was sort of insightful. That must have just been either luck or an accident, however!

Note:  I am not asking you to repeat your approach for the millionth time.

I am asking you why you don't feel anyone but the good player (read: Matt Ward) is qualified to follow this approach??  

Matt hasn't answered this question, has he?

Can't speak to the rest of this post, but the answer to this question is definitely no, and I'd challenge anyone to show otherwise. Sorry, Matt, it's true. You seem to apply a different standard to the rest of us.

David M:

Guess what David -- my comments on Rustic Canyon came from me playing the course. You are in error regarding when I posted them. I could not come up with such a listing from not playing it. I don't presume -- I played the course. I also liked the course in a number of ways -- however, with noted elements stated. All of those details I listed about Rustic came from me playing the course.

David -- on the subject of course analysis -- anyone can base their comments upon anything they wish. If Joe Sixpack or Mary Wineglass has even a brain fart analysis more power to them. Frankly, my comments are only important to me. If what I say is so out-of-bounds do yourself a favor and simply ignore it.

One other thing -- the last quote you listed from me was simply a question about the length of the par-3's. I did not state any summary feelings on the holes until I played them. That's a big diference David -- it's all about context and you simply cut'n paste what you wanted to. Very classy indeed.

I interviewed Graham Marsh last week for the Golf Hazards book Forrest Richardson and I are working on.  Graham shed some light on many of the questions posed in this discussion.  Forrest and I will share his interview in our book when it comes out along with the views and philosophies of many other architects (it has been very fascinating and enlightening to talk with so many architects).  Guys like Doak, Hanse, Hills, Hurdzan, Coore, Cornish, Strantz,...and many others have been very gracious with their time and support.  Forrest and I just spent four hours or so meeting with Gil and Jim and Rodney up at Boston Golf Club touring the site (we also played nine of the holes as well) but that is another story.  

Anyway, the point I want to make here is that there are so many factors that go into "the course routing" that most of us will never know about unless we get to the source.  I guess it makes for fun debate about why the course turned out like it did, but as Dan King once told me in these paraphrased words, "I don't give a damn what the architect had to deal with.  All I care about is the quality of the course when it is finished".  Dan you can correct my quote to get it exactly the way you've stated it in the past    To some extent, I agree with you on this one.  

Mark

Sorry Dan Kelly, it was Dan King who said that!  I'll correct it.  

Kelly:

I think your comments about Tom Doak are out of line. From what I can see Tom raised an architectural design issue (relating to routing) and didn't engage in any personal attack on Matt Ward.

What followed was an expression of alternate views:

Matt expressed why he doesn't prefer "out and back" routings; others (e.g., Dan Kelly)  took a different perspective.

Nothing wrong with any of that.

By contrast, reference to "butt boys" is a step backwards: it's a personal attack on GCA participants that is inappropriate.

Kelly Blake Moran,

I didn't find you choice of words "harsh".
They conveyed the same meaning as "most favored nation",
in my eyes.

In analyzing your recent posts I've concluded that you should be prohibited from posting within 7 days of the consumption of Southsiders.

I warned you about them.

Kelly 'Buttboy' Moran.   I dont believe in disappearing posts . . ..  Might I suggest that it is not us but you who is setting Mr. Doak on a pedestal.  Why should his opinion be constrained while the rest of us (including you and other architects) seem to have carte blanche to say whatever they want (see your deleted butt boy post above.)      

As for your buttboy theory, dont you think it a bit self-important to dismiss our posts as those of 'Doak buttboys,' while at the same time excepting your own posts.  After all, you are right here posting with us.  The main posters on this thread do battle with Matt regarding these issues on an almost daily basis, regardless of whether Mr. Doak starts the thread or not.  The idea that only you can objectively discuss gca  with Mr. Doak is laughable.  

Plus, you've got to admit that he has quite a nice butt.  

As for your political nonsequitors, we are Ran's guests so I it is irrelevant whether you and I think his requests/rules are a good idea.  I've plenty to say, but have managed to avoid politics except in response, so I am sure you can as well.  If you just cannot, then like it or not I'll likely respond.  

DMoriarty,

I barely understand the points of your remarks and will just chalk it up to my ignorance as compared to your surperior positions and knowledge about gca.  If someone is offended by my comments and it seems to be detracting from the discussion I think it best to delete.  I am guilty of sometimes diverting from the subject and that can be frustrating to others. You people will lock on one little tidbit that some one throws out and the whole thread veers off in that direction.  I would rather just delete the offending comment and move on, hopefully back to the topic of the thread.  There were plenty of other my comments that were germain to the subject and the one comment was the only one that drew attention much like your attention was drawn to my comment about Senator Fonda and you ignored the rest.  I do have great respect for Doak's work although the word pedestal may be appropriate for you it is a bit too strong for me.  I think given that I do very modest work it is a source of inspiration to see his work and read his thoughts on this website.  

I am uncertain why a checklist is so wrong.  Each of us at least carry a mental checklist when we commence any kind of work.  The degree to which we hold dear to the list may in fact help the project or could prevent the project from reaching a higher potential.  That is a whole topic unto itself.  But the mental checklist is unique to each designer, critic and rater, some borrow others checklists and never develop their own.  Probably the more interesting designers allow greater fluidity in their own "checklist" as they experiment from project to project.  Some maybe hold too fast to their checklist and never expand.  I know from my own experience playing courses in the Northeast, particulary at the Creek Club this past week, I really do not need to see another Redan hole for a while, I mean to me there were some outstanding original green sites, or least green sites I had not encountered before but the one par 3 that appeared to be another Redan, I beleive #8, seems like a missed opportunity to do some fresh like, #5, #6, #15, and  a few of the other green sites.  Therefore in my view those designers desire to include a Redan, which seems akin to having a checklist, I think eventually works against them.  In terms of raters or critics like Matt I do not see how you can approach that job without a fairly well defined checklist.  Argue the merits of their checklist point by point like some have done here, but to lambast him for having a checklist at all does not seem fair.  

Mr Hearst:  I believe that your post intended to be humorous, and I thought to great effect.  Very witty, but I hope I do not misunderstand you.  It is hard to know anymore since there are so many prudes on here.  Nice job with the english language....I think.

Mr. Moran-The post was an attempt at humor.  I do appreciate your plain honest talking, your politics (must be Texas background on both), and your contributions to this site.

David M:

I have no issue with others having a so-called "checklist" provided they can defend the points they make. I have specific items I look for in a golf course -- frankly, my "checklist" is quite elastic and includes a wide swath of different courses by different architects. Ah, that would not apply to certain individuals here on GCA who are stuck in their narrow universe of "most favored" architects.

David -- it's one thing to "raise" issues but the only way to confirm these elements is to play the course. I did. There are many people here on GCA who only "raise" issues from the simple observance of photos or even from walking the course BUT then they never do the most important step -- play the course to see if their initial observations / grapevine discussion is correct. I don't just lob opinions from the cheap seats -- I go to the courses and see what is there by playing the course and from the other elements I include when making a visit (e.g. talking with club personnel, observing other players, etc, etc).

I listened very closely to the comments of many people prior to playing the course and eventually had the opportunity to come to RC and play with yourself, Tommy and David Kelly. I thank you for your comment on my "astute" observations -- they all came from playing the course and posting afterwards.

The simple fact is that I took in all the elements of the course after playing and put forward a series of comments -- we spoke immensely here on GCA about the shortcomings (my word) on the bailout area in the driving zone on the 11th hole, to name just one example.

I enjoy Rustic Canyon immensely but my final comments on that course (and any other for that matter) are held until I have played the course. I can only rate what I play -- not what others tell me no matter how much I respect their opinion.

David -- you are too busy on attempting to nitpick and find issue with the smallest arcane item. Do yourself a favor -- how bout you do the legwork before lobbing the verbal grenades?

 PLEASE DISREGARD AND MOVE TO THE NEXT POST IF YOU ONLY WANT TO TALK ARCHITECTURE

KBM

I understand your sentiments regarding posts that detract and might offend, but disagree with your fix.  My thought it is that once it is out there for some to see, it should be out there for all to see, in only in fairness to those at whom you are taking shots.  

For example, if I recall correctly (hard to know once you pull it) in your deleted post you criticized Mr. Doak, attacked all the posters who also raised issue with Matt as "Doak's Buttboys," and insulted me.  That was out there for all to see for more than a little while.  But what if Mr. Doak was off working or if I was on a two day bender or enjoying a very long nap--  Shouldnt we get a chance to read what you've said about us (along with everyone else) and perhaps even respond?  

Here is an idea, if you feel that you cross the line, why not apologize and ask us to disregard your above comments.  That way it is up to us whether we think it worthy and of good taste to respond online or off.  Deleting just seems in bad taste and perhaps a bit cowardly, like talking behind someone's back.  

Why is refusing to honestly take responsibility for one's words and actions so out of vogue in Texas these days??  

"Mr. Fonda."  Gee that is a funny one.  Did Rush pilfer that one himself?  You Texas right-wingers are downright dangerous on domestic or foreign policy, but you've sure got the market cornered on 30+ year old deception and cliche.