Golfclubatlas biased?

[T_MacWood]

Matt
I do not believe that I mentioned your name. I'm sure there are those who do judge Rees from previous mistakes, just as there are those who will defend whatever he does. I do however think it is perfectly acceptable to analyze a photo or to ask questions based on a photo -- from what I read not single person was offering a judgement of the entire Bridge from those photos. That is why the reaction was an over reaction. Isn't there a Shakespearean saying, "Me thinks thous protest too much" or something along that line.

I'm all for the free exchange of ideas and disagreement, I'm not in favor of courtroom tactics to stifle that free exchange.

[Ran Morrissett]

Tom P.,

Consider the following quotes:

"With all this endless chatter on various threads about the danger in generalizing about the work of different architects, I thought this a good time announce that Jack Nicklaus has evidently been kidnapped by space aliens."

"It is not my nature to sound this gushy about anything(editor's note: except for every course in Oregon  ), but Mayacama completely shocked me. From Grand Cypress to here is an almost incomprehensible leap."

Tom, Are you telling me the man who wrote the above doesn't have a massive bias AGAINST  Nicklaus as an architect?!

[The PC GCAer]

BillV and Jim Kennedy:

Sorry for the grammatical errors, I'm just too worried about being "PC" as opposed to getting it right.  And Jim, I wasn't sleeping in class, I was protesting outside the class!

Dan Kelly (real name):  The quote you allude to me was put in quotes because it is attributable to Matt Ward as an example, in my opinion, of someone who has the right perspective on being balanced and fair.

Steve Okula: I love your additions to the "PC" list.  

Regrettably, you could DIRECTLY QUOTE numerous examples of posts to support each and everyone of the "PC" list items from this discussion group.  But it probably wouldn't be "PC" to embarrass anybody by so doing.

I've now got to get back to Senator Hillary... (I wish I knew how to put one of those darn smiley faces here!)

[Steve Wilson]

Tom MacWood:

Shakespeare indeed "Methinks the lady doth protest too much."  Hamlet

Rich Goodale raised a most interesting point in one of his earlier posts: with all the emphasis on Golden Age architecture and with generally accepted bromide we all learn more from our mistakes than we do from our successes, shouldn't there be more emphasis on the failings of the Golden Age architects with an analysis of why it is bad and how it can be improved.  

We might even get into discussions of the weaknesses of revered architects--were some bad features systemic or isolated cases?  Was it caused by the limited ability to move ground or was it just a bad choice by the GCA (also an acronym for Golden Age Architect).

Brad Klein's magnificent book (despite the negative snippet reported on this site) makes the point that the style of Donald Ross changed and matured as he discovered in fact if not theory TEPaul's beloved line of charm with his hazards.  

Are there any features that have been made obsolete and deserve their fate?  Topped shot bunkers come to mind as the topped drive is no longer likely to run as far as a well struck drive?

We know what we like and most of us here prefer older courses.  I lack the experience of most here, but I have always preferred the old courses to the new ones.  Maybe because they are shorter and reward guile and cunning more than brute force?  

It would be an interesting exercise to take a nearly universally esteemed course from the GCA and disect its weaknesses or failings and debate why it comes up short and why the architect made those decisions?

While it is undeniable the older architects worked under less constraints (primarily environmental restrictions) than architects today to, I am sure they had their share of troublesome memberships, etc.

Just some thoughts as the days draw in and the imminence of winter ensures that soon the fairways in my neck of the woods will be bogs or ice sheets and the greens will be chocolate pudding or the perfect site for a snowman.

[T_MacWood]

Steve
I think that Rich's idea is a good one and would result in a much healthier debate than disecting modern work. It is almost impossible to not see the good when looking for the bad, except when someone doesn't want to accept the bad, and then everyone's focus is almost always on debating the negative aspects.

[BillV]

I wasn't referring to grammar, I was referring to the relative degrees of horrible.  (One two or three piles of merde-it always sounds better in Frrench!)  

And maybe, just maybe all those aren't even all bad (Novel idea for here sometimes and some people sometimes).

[TEPaul]

Ran:

Forget it, I'm not answering, I don't even want to think about it, it just ain't worth it to me! I'm almost sorry I posted this topic. The next time I see a post or topic about bashing or bias or even how things might be getting better, I'm going to click to the next topic down!

[Gib_Papazian]

Oh Pithy One (i.e. Ran for all the lurkers),
I consider your post to be a ridiculous misrepresentation of my thoughts.

If John Waters suddenly made a film like "Ordinary People" or "Sense and Sensibilities" after a lifetime of work characterized by "Women in Trouble" or "Polyester" or "Pink Flamingos," don't stand here and tell me or anybody else that you would not be shocked.

Gib was not kidnapped by space aliens either so I am hardly going to begin to sing the praises of his work based on one good effort.

At least give me credit for evaluating it with an unbiased eye. Just because I am surprised does not mean I am biased, just that my EXPERIENCE BASED ON A LIFETIME OF PLAYING HIS COURSES has led me to develop a perception (read: judgement) of his work.

Opinions can change, and if he continues on this path I shall sing the praises of his courses that present AN INTELLECTUAL CHALLENGE INSTEAD OF A PURELY PHYSICAL ONE.

I have not changed my mind about most of his previous work. If that makes me dogmatic and another mindless disciple of the Emperor, well so be it. Guys like Naccarato may have opinions, but they are based on what they have seen. He was critical of Schmidt and Curley and yet was the first person to state the Crosby National was terrific!  

I like what I like and don't give a flying f*ck about ratings. If somebody creates good stuff all the time, my evaluation of their body of work is going to be positive. If not, well I take them as I find them and rate them as I see them. Remember, this is only my opinion - I do not pretend to have the definitive evaluatory skills that some of the other GCA'ers feel blessed with.

MPCC is pretty good and Rees did it.

Talking Stick South is a horribly generic golf course that astonished me in its mediocrity. Why the surprise? Because everyting else by this duo was IN MY OPINION ONLY damned good.

You want to talk dogma?

I LOVE the work of John Harbottle and Todd Eckenrode and I'll bet that I am in the minority here in the Treehouse. That is because what I have played has led me to believe they have the goods.

Neal Meagher has the goods in spades - but coming from me it would sound inappropriate.

RT Jones Jr's staff over the years has created some superb work - whether he did it or not. Yet he gets ignored here - except when somebody decides to nitpick something he has done.

RT Jones Jr. has done some terrible stuff, but his best work is amongst my favorite anywhere . . .

Where is the prejudice Ran?

How can I be guilty of preconceived notions when Mayacama bowled me over?

Maybe Jack has rehabilited himself! Who knows? Just like recovering alcoholics, indugent architects or pedophiles, anyone can eventually become productive members of society if they just take that first step!

Just say NO to indulgent architecture. It worked for Nancy . . .

[Gib_Papazian]

And please let us not turn this into another waste of time like that thread on Bridges.

FOERGETTABOUTIT!!!!

[Ran Morrissett]

Gib,

Remember: a backhanded compliment only highlights a person's bias, and if you don't think it was backhanded, ask yourself if the architect would be thrilled to read it.

The definition of bias - at least on the east coast - is a predisposition or prejudice towards something.

We all have certain biases when it comes to golf course architecture, and generally, the more well traveled the person, the more biased the person becomes, which is can be unfortunate.

Nonetheless, if you cared about coming across as non-biased, your post would read, "I have just played a great Nicklaus course and here are the X features that appealed to me the most." Gib, your writing contains far more joie de vivre, but at the same time, your bias shines through.

If Mayacama had been built by Doak or C&C, the tone of your initial post would have been completely different and you wouldn't have concluded it with "Mayacama completely shocked me."

Cheers,

[TEPaul]

Will you just look at this mess? Now we're fightin' and fussin' with our own Paton Saint and he's fightin' and fussin' with us.

We're getting more like Osama and the Taliban every day. I might even get blackballed, in which case I'm going to blow up Golfclubatlas!

No seriously, Gib, excellent explanation! And I didn't know Ran was such a connoisseur of the "backhanded compliment". You went through the laundry list and the spectrum of architects as well as the lists of the work they've done and gave your opinions on the architecture. All seems fair, balanced and "architecture only focused" to me! Sort of like a good blind taste test!

But this particular thread devolved into an argument of what "bias" is or means, not the architecture involved. So it seems we can not only not figure out how to agree or disagree on architecture but we can't even remotely figure out the meaning of the verbs, nouns, adjectives and adverbs we use to describe it!

By the way, Gib, I liked almost all your last post but there is something I need to take exception with you on. I believe I may have known of one or two pedophiles who never needed to take any first step and were otherwise extremely productive members of society right on through!

[Jim_Kennedy]

I am biased: I love this whole site.

Talking about biases seems more meaningful  if discussing clothing or tires than it does in trying to figure out if someone here is biased or not. I only ask : does it serve any useful purpose in the discussion of GCA?  
Let me amend that last sentence. If you said to me that RTJ sr. liked to put his fairway bunkers on the "bias" of a hole, then that would be a proper introduction of the word into a discussion of architecture.

I hope I didn't offend anyone.

[Mike_Cirba]

Negative Bias to me assumes a proclivity to close one's mind to the positives of the object or person in question, and to purposefully look only for the negatives, despite any evidence to the contrary.  A positive bias does strictly the opposite.

The fact that Gib was pleasantly surprised by the new Nicklaus course doesn't indicate that he's biased; in fact, it proves just the opposite.  

Instead, it simply means that he hasn't enjoyed previous courses by Nicklaus that he's played, and was pleased to see something more in a style he thinks is a positive evolution for Jack.

I think a number of us said the same thing in relation to Rees Jones, who seems to be building the best courses of his career after over 30 years in the business.  

Look, why should any of us wish that any modern architect fail in their attempts to build great or successful golf courses?  That's silly on the face of it.  We should all wish that Fazio, Rees, Nicklaus, Doak, Brauer, Blaukovitch, Clifton, Robinson, and every other architect builds GREAT courses in each and every attempt.  Wouldn't it be wonderful if all 400 or so new designs that opened in 2001 were AWESOME???  Why would we wish otherwise.

However, they aren't, are they?  Is that our fault here on GCA?  Because we know this to be true, should we compliment these courses anyway, just to show what nice and unbiased fellas we are?

Should we just serve as a blind marketing arm of modern architects and their courses, or should we continue to call 'em as we see 'em, and let others determine our credibility by how well we explain ourselves?

[Gib_Papazian]

Touche'oh pithy one.

Forgive me for tryin to interject some fun and levity into the deadly serious tone of our Treehouse.

In the future, I shall refrain from postings of a less than deadly serious tone.

[Tags:]

Tags: