Golfclubatlas biased?

[TEPaul]

For those out there (anonymous posting contrarians and such) who think Golfclubatlas is eternally biased have got to read Gib Papazian's "Mayacama" topic!

Not only does that thread lance the "bias" perception, but it's also one of the best hole by hole detailed analysises of why a formerly unadmired architect on Golfclubaltas has created some not just good but maybe really good work!

I don't believe this shift of opinion is in any way generated by the hectoring of those who claim bias either--I think it's generated by a shift in the architecture in question and close analysis of same. The same appears true of Rees too, despite the lagubrious thread on the Bridge.

Those claiming bias on the Bridge thread never really read the analysises anyway, they just screamed bloody murder at the   detection by others of one measly and extremely unattractive contaiment mound that ironically turned out to hide a temporary maintenance building and consequently may be temporary itself (hopefully).

Good analysis Gib!

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Paul:

Can we deny that many people perceive bias at GCA?

The perception is that classic era architecture is considered good and most modern stuff is considered bad. Moreover, people feel the work of certain modern architects is very well received whereas other architects (especially the big name guys) are routinely bashed.  Beyond that, I think people in the industry  often feel we don't understand what it really takes to build a course.

Having a decided preference for the classic stuff, this "bias" doesn't tend to bother me a great deal.  But, I do think it turns some or, perhaps many people, off.

[BillV]

Tommy Paul

I respectfully submit that a determined bias exists on GCA.com for certain dead architects more than others and certain live architects more than others, sir!  To a degree that is at times clearly unfair and undeniably present sir!  There are obvious transient exceptions, sir!

Respectfully submitted,

redanman, SIR!

[TEPaul]

Tim:

I think you're sort of correct in what you say but I think the subject needs to be looked into and aired better.

First of all, of course this site has a "bias" in architecture. It was intended to have one! One only needs to look at the prelude to this site in the site's opening page to tell that. But you, me, we have to be a little clearer (maybe much clearer) in what we mean (or they mean) by bias.

"Bias" can connote vastly different things to different people all the way from a leaning to out and out close-minded prejudice! One only needs to look in the dictionary to tell that. Recently on this site, by even some of our regular contributors, apparently accusations of "bias" is being used to connote things like total obduracy and even double standards towards certain architects.

That maybe true of a very few on this site but it's not the approach of this site generally by a long shot. I think that has been made patently clear in Gib Papazian's (certainly an architectural analyist with strong leanings toward so-called classic/strategic or strategic architecture) topic on Mayacama.

I don't for a minute think that some on here, like Gib, have changed their architectural leanings or preferences, they have just identified some architecture (from architects heretofore criticized for valid reasons) that has apparently shifted, and maybe dramatically, to something much more inline with their particular preferences, leanings (bias!?).

And I don't think this was done (Gib's reveiew) in any particular attempt to be fair for that reason alone. Things are changing, maybe slowly, but they are changing. What Golfclubatlas's role is in this shift or change I have no idea. But I do know that this site has the capacity and ability to notice changes like that, despite what some people think and say.

[Matt_Ward]

TEPaul:

When you say "Those claiming bias on The Bridge thread ..." let's be clear about who you are speaking about.

Tom, I pointed out specific key elements clearly different at The Bridge than in previous Rees Jones designs from years ago.

I also said that certain people who make comments about places they have neither played nor thoroughly walked, have no business issuing general opinions about those particular golf courses -- to wit, The Bridge. I have played The Bridge and nearly all of the most prominent courses that Rees has done minus Ocean Forest and Oxfordshire in England.

Too many of the people who chimed in on The Bridge thread were talking out of their butt because they simply assumed that one Rees Jones course is likely the same now as it was then. The bias was clear to see, in my opinion. All I indicated to those who believed that was to actually play or walk thoroughly the course and THEN make their comments -- not BEFORE.

I'll say this again -- there are certain people on GCA who simply believe that any course designed before WWII and associated with a name architect from that period is good and conversely, any course built from 1950 to today, with one or two exceptions, is usually ill-considered. I know that's a major stretch, but far too often becomes the battle cry for quite a few people on GCA.

I take a pragmatic position regarding courses. I say -- show me the product. When it was designed or who designed it really does not interest me. I look at the product and go from there.

I credit Gib with his commments on Jack's new design because he indicates an open mind backed up by solid analysis that I believe we should all try to follow. That was my main point on The Bridge thread / re: Rees Jones.

Designs and designers change. So should opinions from posters on GCA when they actually make visits to the sites in question. Opinions spouted from sloth and sloppy analysis show me and others that due diligence has not been carried out by that respective poster. Nothing more -- and nothing less.

[Ed_Baker]

Sure we have a preference for the dead guys work as well as a preference for the live guys work that have been influenced by,and have respect for the dead guys body of work!

The reputation we may have been labeled with of "Fazio" bashing specifically stems from that gentlemens superlative statements in print disrespecting the design principles and construction techniques of some of the "masters." that we admire.His better work has been well received here and his "Ca-ca" has been villified as has been the sub-standard work of every other architect dead or alive.

But I think by and large we do a pretty good job of telling it like it is too!

"It is, what it is," seems to be held as the analysis tenet most closely followed here, regardless of the name credited with the work.I can't remember when a good golf course was panned on this site by consensus.We have acknowledged many times the weaknesses in some of Ross' work, just as we have recognized the brilliance of his better work. "It is,what it is." One prime example would be Tom Pauls'acknowledgement of Perry Maxwells' contributions to Gulph Mills and the fact that the membership recognizes the "changed" holes from Ross' original design are better and are going to leave them alone during the restoration!

So while we have preferences, I don't think it is either fair or accurate to label us as being "biased" to the point of being close-minded to the point that we don't recognize or appreciate what's in front of us.
"It is,what it is."  

[ForkaB]

The answer to the question is "yes," for the reasons redanman and Matt Ward mentioned.  If we all really wanted to do some serious learning on this site we would spend much more time identifying and discussing the mistakes made by the dead architects and the interesting things done by the living ones, rather than just vice versa.  Gib's post is a refreshing one which will hopefull help us to get onto that more constructive path.

[redanman]

Rich

very nicely put

[T_MacWood]

If being biased means having a discerning opinion, then biases are the strength of this site. Is there anything preventing anyone from identifying and discussing the strengths and weaknesses of dead and living architects?

[TEPaul]

Matt:

Appreciate your post and although the Bridge thread is probably gone now plenty of people read the thing and I don't think I or anyone else needs to be real clear now about who said what or when or for whatever reason, lest we get right back into some counterproductive arguing and name calling for the wrong reasons.

I know there may be some people who react to certain architects the way you just described but my point is that even THEY may be changing now. And why is that?

I really don't think it's because you pointed out that they must play some course to make observant and intelligent comments about what they see, even if in photographs.

Some may have said that three photographs may be enough to totally analyze a course or the way it plays but I don't remember reading that at all. Some said that they'd heard from other people who weren't named that the course wasn't very good but clearly any reasonable analyist will take that for what it's worth.

There were plenty of positive things said about the Bridge which seemed to curiously have been missed by some who seemed intent on defending Rees Jones against the perceived bias against him on this site.

Even after some good things were said the mention of containment mounding seemed to freak out those that seemed intent on  automatically defending Rees against perceived bias. Why is that? You saw that containment mounding didn't you? What did you think of it?

Pat Mucci accused me and a lot of people of a double standard concerning Rees and Coore and Crenshaw and we got into a ridiculous series of posts about C&C's containment mounding (if it ever existed) and Rees's mounding. He told me I needed facts to discuss such things so we found out that the mounding at the Bridge hid a maintenance facility. I said maybe the maintenance facility could've been put somewhere else (seemed like a reasonable architectural question to me) and he asked me how I could have the nerve to ask such a thing without the facts. I'm not real good at finding out facts about things I don't know without asking first and that seemed to generate the fact that the containment mounding that was noticed actually hid a temporary maintenance building that probably won't be there much longer. I take that as a very good thing regarding the Bridge and Rees and although I didn't exactly hear it per se, I would assume then that the containment mounding that hid the damn building is temporary too and will hopefully be removed soon.

I realize Matt, that those discussions did not involve how the Bridge plays, but they did involve things that were clearly evident to some people who have not played the Bridge and I see no reason not to remark on them if they're at all evident or relevant.

Very few people from this site have played the Bridge apparently and very few may ever. But if somebody is going to take photos and post them on here I have no problem with people commenting on what they see in the shots.

We all know that it's gives anyone a clearer idea about a golf course and all its architecture if you can go see it and play it but that wasn't the point although clearly that was your point and you're still trying to make it the point. And it wasn't about Rees bias or bashing although a few people sure tried to make that the point too and will probably continue to do so.

This topic of mine here is to try to point out that things may be changing and maybe dramatically with the architecture of the architects involved in the bias or bashing posts (either accusation or defense), and that seems clear enough on the other threads about Olde Kinderhook (and the Bridge). And ironically much of that changing opinion was right here on Golfclubatlas as a result of some pretty good photographs, and from people who have never played either course.

And then Gib Papazian's post on Nicklaus's Mayacama was seemingly another good example of shifting or changing architecture. All that's good stuff, that's all.

[TEPaul]

Redanman:

What are you saying exactly? That there's a leaning on this site towards some past architects and some new ones? Really? Have I missed that these last few years?

Could you shed even a ray of light on what your 'transient exceptions' sentence means? May be some light too on the sentence before it.

Thanks

[ForkaB]

Tom

Bias actually means holding opinions which are NOT "discerning"--due to one's inability to recognize or overcome their own preconceptions.  In its most extreme form it manifests itself in an inability to even consider other people's points of view.  Fortunately there is not too much of the latter on this site, but what there is of it poisons our conversations and diminishes our ability to learn.

[.]

This website is imploding on itself

[redanman]

(Small "r", Tommy)

I'll let my post stand as is.  

[T_MacWood]

Rich
One man's biases are another man's discerning opinions. I don't see a problem, I don't see any evidence of poisoning views, I see differing opinions. I think it is unfortunate when people are accused of being biased because they hold a different view. If I question someones view or if someone questions my view, should either one of us be considered bias? It reminds of politics where labeling and name-calling are the norm between opposing camps.

[ForkaB]

Tom MacW

Bias implies prejudgement which is the antithesis of discernment.  Holding an opinion and being biased are two entirely different matters.

To all

Apologies for my use of the word "poisoned" in my post above. It was a gross overstatement.

[T_MacWood]

Rich
I understand what you are saying, I just believe strong opinions are sometimes mislabeled as bias from those discenting. I believe the most dangerous trend is a lack of respect or appreciation for differing opinions or view points. Questioning one another's views is healthy, asking someone to explain an opinion is good, disagreement is good and healthy. What I object to is the courtroom tactics that have entered the discussion group, where differing opinions are met with an attempt to discredit or disqualify. The Bridge post was illustration, where some of the most innocent observations were met with an dispoportionate assault.

[Matt_Ward]

Rich,

Appreciate your distinction between bias and the issue of holding an opinion. It's a formula we should all try to move towards in gaining a better understanding about golf architecture.

Tom MacWood:

Please be clear on who you refer to from The Bridge thread. I know what I said and I also know what others said.

People may be able to make "educated guesses" from pictures, but I don't believe a complete analysis can be gleaned in that manner. Either you play or walk the course thoroughly -- end of story in my book.

Second, yes, there are people who believe that once you see a "so and so" course from the past then every course that follows must be either good or bad respectively. You may not do that Tom, but there were those who did post that said essentially that once you see one Rees Jones course you've see them all and vice versa with their embracing all that is done by C&C. These tags then become lifelong "brands" attached to your name. Again, as I said above, I judge the product and don't focus on who did the design. That keeps my mind focused on what the holes are about and how they flow together. If it happens to be a Rees Jones course -- so be it. If it happens to be a Donald Ross course -- again, so be it.

I do not engage in mudslinging or to use your term "court room tactics," but I do defend rigorously my position that says an actual course visit beats analysis from photos any day of the week.  

TEPaul:

When you say that even "those people" (those not liking past Rees courses) are changing their mind -- I'll tell you why. It's simple -- people have made convincing cases that even the naysayers have had difficulty in disputing. And, those cases have come from people who have been to the actual course -- not just from photo analysis.

Certain people on GCA have "labeled" architects and continue with this label even when the facts go the other way. As I said before that's laziness and intellecutally dishonest. Gib's refreshing analysis indicates to me an open mind -- one that is not automatically predisposed to an out-of-date position because "so and so" designed the course.

The bias against Rees is not "perceived" as you mention Tom. Just review the posts and you will see it. Again, I am not here to promote / defend Rees Jones or any other architect ... alive or dead. But, too often people focus on the name of the designer and little is discussed on the actual final product. I respect your comments and those of Mike Cirba and others who keep an open mind, but you have to admit there are others who just lob grenades at an architect because it's easier than doing the due diligence and visit the site to make first hand observations.

Tom, too much time and wasted reponses came from a host of people (Pat particularly and others) on the mounding near the 9th green. There is more to The Bridge than this arcane triviality! When people focus on just the photos that were posted what do you think the topic of discussion becomes? Hello! It becomes those specific photos that were posted and all of the back and before banter about whether those mounds by the 9th green are permanent or if they are necessary, yada, yada, yada.

What about the rest of the layout? That is what I tried to point out as someone who has played the entire course. Focus on the total product and then you can get to the heart of the quality (or lack thereof) of the course.

I really do believe we are in alignment in our thinking but I just wish people who see those that defend The Bridge understand that I have come to my conclusions without engaging in the verbal bombardment that seeks to demean others. That's not my intention or desire.

Thanks.

[Dan Kelly (real name)]

Did anyone make a copy of that Bridge thread?

No?

Darn!

'Cause if we're gonna redo that whole thing, it would've been so much simpler just to copy-and-paste the danged thing here than to rewrite all of those posts.

Ran -- Please restore the original and classic "The Bridge -- Photos" thread. Everybody keeps referring back to it. How's anyone who wasn't there (and there to the Bitter End) going to judge the accuracy of those references, without access to the historical archive?

, to show that I'm kidding.

We're busy men, you know!

, to show that I'm kidding.

I'm not kidding now: TEPaul's 11-23-2001 11:36 AM ET (US) post, in this thread, is a perfectly accurate, masterful description of what I saw on that Bridge thread.

I won't deny (because I can't, because I haven't been here long enough) that there's been some Rees Jones "bashing" on this site. There may well have been. There may have been some thoughtless, uninformed dismissals of new Rees Jones courses, on the basis of a couple of pictures, or on the basis of not having liked his previous work.

But I, for one, saw none of that sort of objectionable thing in that Bridge thread -- no blanket denunciations of Jones or repudiations of the golf course in question.

My view, as a late-comer here: Rees Jones's defenders, in that thread, must have been replying to some earlier nastiness -- because, as TEPaul writes, that stuff just wasn't there in The Bridge thread!

What there was: There was specific criticism (amid a lot of strangedly unnoticed praise, for the Bridge holes depicted in Photographs 2 and 3) of a single, very specific feature -- the totally unnatural-looking mounds -- in Photograph 1. Turns out those are Mounds are there (Temporarily, we trust) to hide a Temporary Maintenance Facility -- facts we wouldn't have learned if no one had dissed those mounds.

If such limited critical commentary is not allowed -- or is allowed only at the risk of being accused of harboring some sort of blinkered Philistine pig-ignorance (nod to Monty Python) -- then this Discussion Group has no future worth caring about.

Now, would someone please address MY question in that Bridge thread? Namely: Why do we have to hide the Maintenance Facilities?

[The PC GCAer]

Here are some hints on how to be politically correct with your posts on GCA:

1.  Every golf course built during the "Golden Age" is great.

2.  Every golf course built by Coore and Crenshaw, Tom Doak, Gil Hanse, is great.

3.  Every golf course designed by Jack Nicklaus is horrible.

4.  Every golf course designed by Rees Jones is even more horrible.

5.  Every golf course designed by Tom Fazio is the horriblelest (if that's a word).

6.  Every golf course associated with real estate is a sell-out (sorry about that, Pebble Beach).

7.  Any golf course built with bulldozers bigger than a Cat is blasphemous.

You all know we've read alot of stuff on this site that unfortunately proves this list.  In a strange way, some posters are starting to sound as rational as the myopic environmentalists who oppose every golf course project no matter what the merits.

Reread Matt Ward's post:

"I take a pragmatic position regarding courses. I say -- show me the product. When it was designed or who designed it really does not interest me. I look at the product and go from there.

I credit Gib with his commments on Jack's new design because he indicates an open mind backed up by solid analysis that I believe we should all try to follow. That was my main point on The Bridge thread / re: Rees Jones.

Designs and designers change. So should opinions from posters on GCA when they actually make visits to the sites in question. Opinions spouted from sloth and sloppy analysis show me and others that due diligence has not been carried out by that respective poster. Nothing more -- and nothing less."

I look forward to and appreciate everybody's various opinions that are well-considered, thoughtful, and respectful (which fortunately is the majority), but loathe the "P.C." posts.  Let's keep the discussion positive and intelligent.

[BillV]

PC GCA-er

Are you sure of the relative horrible scale?  

[Dan Kelly (real name)]

The PC GCAer --

You write: "I credit Gib with his commments on Jack's new design because he indicates an open mind backed up by solid analysis that I believe we should all try to follow. That was my main point on The Bridge thread / re: Rees Jones."

I read that entire thread -- and there were no entries by The PC GCAer. Who are you? Or: Who were you then?

[Steve Okula]

To amend the PC items on the site,

8. Any golf course built before WWII is great, or at least it was until someone messed it over after the war.

9. Any dead golf course architect was brilliant, with the notable exception of Robert Trent Jones, who died too recently to be any good, and besides he built nothing but junk anyway, which leads us to...

10. No course of any value was ever built anywhere in the world from 1939-1990 (or thereabouts).

11. As for maintenance - manicuring, sharp lines, and above all green color, are RIGHT OUT!

[TEPaul]

Dan Kelly:

Super summation there of the Bridge post!

Matt:

I think most of us really are on the same page on all of this with the possible exception of analyzing photos. There's nothing wrong with it as long as those who do it stick to what they're looking at and don't translate something they might see to other parts of the course that they can't see or never have seen. I'm sure you know that can't be a bad thing.

Of course it's much better to play a golf course to get a far better idea of what it's like including the architecture and how the course plays but some people either can't or never will be able to do that and they too have every right to comment on photos. Many of these people on here are adept and able to analyze photos.

If there's something that looks odd and worthy of a potentially critical remark like the slope on photo #2 down by the green-end that I mentioned there's nothing wrong with mentioning it. I did say when I mentioned it that I couldn't see it very clearly in the photo.

And the thing I find just fascinating is there was plenty of complimentary remarks about the holes in the photos--what about those remarks. What about the really good photo analysis on Olde Kinderhook (a Rees course). I'm just sorry there weren't more photos of every hole on both courses--unfortunately that may take up a lot of whatever that computer space is required on here.

Sure there are some people on Golfclubatlas that have been generally critical of Rees Jones but they were critical of him for architecture that they felt deserved criticism. That might be changing because his architecture appears to be changing.

This is certainly what most of us hope for with high production and well known architects like Rees, Tom Fazio and Nicklaus. And if it happens and a guy with a discening eye like Gib Papazian sees it and reports on it then that's great and that's all I was trying to say on this topic.

[Jim_Kennedy]

To PC GCAer:

That would be horrible, horribler, then horriblest. Were you sleeping in class that day?

[Tags:]

Tags: