How honest can we be?

[Patrick_Mucci]

A Clayman,

The names of the club, architect and principals wasn't important then and is not important now.

What is important was the principle issue, namely, can an architect who previously worked on a golf course and deviated from and changed the original architecture of the classic golf course on several holes be OBJECTIVE when they have been brought back in years later ?

Will they be able to say, "the previous work I did deviated from the original architecture and should be redone" ?

Human nature being what it is, how many architects could admit that perhaps they erred with their first bite of the apple,  and are now prepared to acknowledge that and correct it with their second bite of the apple.

It would seem to me, that rather than place anyone in that difficult position, and independent architect should have been hired, who had no predisposition toward the golf course.

TEPaul,

I never ordered a "code red".

[Dan Kelly]

I missed my tee time on this thread! Must have been "working" too hard this week, trying to keep up with the toxic  utterances of Garrison Keillor, on salon.com. Much to say now!
And some of it, strangely enough, has some fraternity with my thoughts about Keillor's vitriol.

Since I'm a journalist (or, at least, "proto-journalist"), it will surprise no one to
learn that I favor more openness and more honesty -- as much honesty, and as much
openness, as possible.

The truth will set you free -- or, at least, can! (I really do believe that. Silly me?)

I, for one, can handle the truth, unvarnished. And I, for one, can handle unvarnished
opinion, honestly expressed. (Even anonymous truth, and even anonymous opinion --
though, like my sometimes sparring partner Mr. Mucci, I vastly prefer signed posts.)

I'm with Mike Cirba all the way in this: "I'm starting to think that we risk becoming some
milquetoast, namby-pamby, politically correct version of what we used to be, where we
spend more time being contentious with each other in personal 'debate wars' than we do
engaging in seriously honest, critical discussion of golf courses, architects, and design
trends. We might not make any enemies in the industry (not that I think we should
purposefully do that), but we risk something much worse in my mind ... we risk becoming
boring...and ultimately completely irrelevant."

Of course, having said that (as they say), I must acknowledge that I, unlike many of you,
have little or nothing to lose from telling (or being told) the truth here. I don't make my
living from golf, and nothing I say or hear here will have any material impact on my or my
family's prosperity and well-being. Furthermore, I don't have the golf-club access that
many of you have -- so telling the unvarnished truth here can't and won't come back to bite
me in the ass. I, unlike many of you, have very little to lose!

So I do understand why many of you are reluctant to tell it like it is. If you tell it like it is,
you risk pissing off someone who has the power to get back at you. If you tell it like it is,
you risk the pain of a confrontation about it later on. If you tell it like it is, you may be
buying yourself, in a word, trouble!

Who needs trouble -- right?

My answer is: We all need trouble. If we don't risk a little trouble in this world -- if we
don't call the pinheads and the bullies on the carpet, and name their names, and enforce
some accountability -- they will continue to be pinheads and bullies, unchecked.

It is customary, at this point, to quote Edmund Burke's wonderful line: "The only thing
necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

For the good of the game, and for the good of gca.com, tell it like it is!

Specifically:

A while ago I posted on a subject, but was careful not to reference the club by name or
any identifying feature such as its location or the name of the architect involved.

Several posters made attempts to guess the name of the club and were incorrect.  Other
posters requested the name of the club, which I refused to do.

Yet, the architect who lurked/logged onto the site, obviously recognized my name, put
two and two together to figure out the club I was referencing, and wrote a critical letter to
the club with respect to my posting on GCA, and alleged that they were resigning as the
consulting architect because of the posting, DESPITE the fact that I never divulged any
information that could identify the club or the architect.  
The club then "called my onto the carpet" to discuss my posting on GCA.

I'm with Adam Clayman, Patrick -- in this particular instance, and in the instance of the
Unwelcome Poster, and in other such instances: "It is your duty to inform all future
principals who this joker is...."

Name names -- not for the pleasure of naming names, but (1) to alert and inform others
who might, in future, deal with this architect; and (2) to give this architect (and the other
architects lurking or posting here) serious pause before acting in this way again.

You can't let 'em get away with it!

Which club was it, up above in this thread, that made a GCA poster
"unwelcome" because of a few criticial comments? Who was the poster? What, exactly,
did he say? Name names, gentlemen! How else are we going to put a stop to such
nonsense? It does no one any damned good to report such an episode, unless one is
willing to call  the miscreants to account by saying who did what to whom.

I fully appreciate that naming names takes courage. I respectfully urge you all to find it, whenever you can.

[A_Clay_Man]

So Patrick, what I am hearing is that it was all ego and you must've touched a nerve or your being called on the carpet wouldn't have happened. I believe you were more than proper in both bringing up the question and in saving thier anonimity. My version of detriment to others rarely includes ego's as a criterior because they're like assholes, everyone has em. It's just that some are bigger than others.

[Patrick_Mucci]

A Clayman,

One of the major internal problems was the "process", or lack of a "process" for selecting an architect.

The committee was never given the oportunity to select an architect from a pool of architects.  The two co-chairman made an exclusive decision that was thrust upon the committee.  And, at the time of their decision, I don't think they ever pondered the subject of objectivity.  Especially in light of a potential conflict between the prior work and any future restoration effort.  Politics and ego won over prudence.

Dan Kelly,

I didn't mention any names initially because it would serve no purpose.  
The "issues" were the focus, not the cast of characters.  Nothing has changed in that regard.  
It is the "issues", not the "individuals", that are important.

A sympathetic restoration, not the continued disfiguring of a wonderful golf course is my sole concern.

[Tim Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

I think you handled the situation correctly and should stick with a non disclosure position. The club members who gave you a hard time come off sounding rather silly, but I share your view that getting into a tit for tat doesn't make sense.

We aren't here to attack or embarrass individuals. We are here to discuss golf architecture and hopefully, to encourage positive things to happen within the field.

Dan Kelly:

Sometimes criticism is justified and I hope anything newsworthy does come to light on GCA. Mike Cirba is right. If this doesn't happen, GCA becomes less relevant and joins other media which have already been co-opted into being marketing vechicles.

But, each person has to decide for themselves how they want to handle each situation. Circumstances may dictate refraining from commentary. I've experienced that myself.

In the case Pat Mucci described, I think he struck the proper balance between bringing something relevant to light and avoiding - as best he could - the situation becoming a pissing match that really doesn't help GCA grow and win respect.

[Dan Kelly]

Tim --

I understand what you're saying -- and didn't mean to suggest anything to the contrary in my first post. Clearly, you have it right when you say "Each person has to decide for themselves how they want to handle each situation. Circumstances may dictate refraining from commentary."

However, Patrick --

Dan Kelly,

I didn't mention any names initially because it would serve no purpose.  
The "issues" were the focus, not the cast of characters.  Nothing has changed in that regard.  
It is the "issues", not the "individuals", that are important.

A sympathetic restoration, not the continued disfiguring of a wonderful golf course is my sole concern.

You misunderstand my position. I am NOT suggesting that you should have named the course, the club, the architect, the committee members, etc., etc., in your original post in that old thread. That was and is totally up to you -- and, as Tim says, it's a case-by-case, poster-by-poster, discretionary deal. We didn't need to know the names of the players, so you didn't need to provide a scorecard.

BUT! (Big BUT!) ...

I AM SUGGESTING that these FACTS, as you reported them, do change things, materially: "The architect who lurked/logged onto the site, obviously recognized my name, put two and two together to figure out the club I was referencing, and wrote a critical letter to the club with respect to my posting on GCA, and alleged that they were resigning as the consulting architect because of the posting, DESPITE the fact that I never divulged any information that could identify the club or the architect. The club then 'called my onto the carpet' to discuss my posting on GCA."

You say it's the issues, not the characters, that are important -- and I agree with you, with this amendment: The modus operandi of this architect and that club IS AN ISSUE. It became an issue when they criticized you for expressing an honest opinion.

The architect's attempted intimidation is an issue. The club's attempted intimidation is an issue.

So long as people aren't called to task for being jerks, protected by this weird, clubby Code of Silence, they'll keep on being jerks. And those who sincerely care about the "issues," wary of the jerks' reprisals, will learn to keep their mouths shut. Is that what you want? (Rhetorical question.)

I may be a party of one in this deal, but I just HATE it when someone makes an allegation against someone, but refuses to name that person. I personally believe that, if one is not prepared to back up one's allegations with FACTS (names, places and dates), one should keep one's allegations to oneself.

Case in point: Remember when Tom Watson said there were cheaters on Tour, and everyone on Tour knew who they were -- but he refused to name them? That just infuriated me -- because it cast a cloud of suspicion over EVERY player on Tour ... except, of course, Mr. Watson. He should have been prepared to name the players and back it up, or he should have said nothing publicly.

That's my opinion, and I think it's a pretty good working rule not just for gca.com, but for life.

Yes, there will and must be exceptions to that rule -- but they should be the exceptions, not, as they are now, the rule.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

"A sympathetic restoration, not the continued disfiguring of a wonderful golf course is my sole concern." -- Patrick Mucci

Ha! Ha Ha! Ha Ha! Ha Ha! Ha!  You kill me!

[guest]

Tom MacWood- That last post really shows me that you are just a flaming asshole.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I disagree with you.

You entitled this post, "how honest can we be ?" and now you want to censor honest posts.

Let them stand.

They speak for themselves !

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

TE
If I knew how to delete, I'd delete my post and re-post it under the comedy and golf architecture thread.  

guest
I take it you don't find Pat's statement as funny as I do.  

[guest]

"A sympathetic restoration, not the continued disfiguring of a wonderful golf course is my sole concern."

Tom MacWood - What's funny about that statement?  You are a bigger asshole then I thought you were after reiterating your statement.  Are you the sole defender of old golf courses?

[Steve Lang]

Tom McW... certainly you know that if you're logged in you can click on your message's "Modify" area to the right of "Reply with Quote"

[Patrick_Mucci]

Steve Lang & Tom Paul,

Tom MacWood makes reference to a statement made relative to a golf course he has never played.  In addition, he has never walked the golf course, and he has never even seen the golf course.

He is not familiar with the architectural and political history of the golf course.

Nor is he familiar with my attempts over the years to protect the golf course from alteration.

How is his statement less rude and crude than the guest's ?

Or, is his statement merely an ignorant statement ?

There can be no question that Tom MacWood was seeking to incite the very contentious debates that he found deplorable and openly criticized.

That sounds like hypocracy to me, or maybe it's just the wrong time of the month.  

[TEPaul]

Pat and all;

OK, no big deal, let them stand in the name of honesty--no problem. I'll delete my post suggesting it.

[Tim Weiman]

Guest:

May I remind you that anonymous posts are a privilege. They should be used to bring perspectives on architecture matters that might not otherwise come to light.

The way to protect this privilege is to refrain from personal attacks. Each of us - yourself included - has an obligation behave accordingly. If you follow this site, then you are well aware of the expected protocol.

Please keep this in mind and focus your comments on matters of substance.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

guest
No I'm not the sole defender of old golf courses. Based on his track record, I thought Pat was making a joke about "sensative restorations".

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

With all your expertise, would you cite, for the participants on GCA, what my "track record" is with respect to sensitive restorations at the clubs I belong to ?  

[chairman]

dear tepaul
when i signed up, i was told by mayday not to use my real name.  i did not know any better. now i know why.  he was afraid that i would embarass him through our association. since then, i have seen several nicknames.  are they anonymous too??  and yes, i am an actual chairman at rolling thunder.  and because i stuck my neck out for actual and amateur architects by comping some people at our club, i will be the ex-chairman.  serious??  i'm very serious about everything. and i take everything seriously.  i'm mr. serious.  just ask mayday.  
the chairman(play on words from my favorite movie "my name is gladiator)
ps.  how about if i called myself "the ex club champion"?

[TEPaul]

chairman:

Well, you seem to be taking things in the good humor it was all intended! Or at least I think you are! But if you aren't, please do in the future!

We can be a rowdy crew on here sometimes but underneath it all we're all pretty lovable! It's a little like a cowboy town on Golfclubatlas except instead of a fist fight breaking out on Friday nights (standard MO in all good cowboy towns) a fist fight can break out here at any time of the week. But the good news is after we've beaten each other to a pulp we always pick each other up and have a drink (so to speak).

Welcome to the REAL Golfclubatlas!

[TEPaul]

chairman:

One other thing--

It's an unknown fact on Golfclubatlas exactly how many committee chairmen we've really pissed off on this website since the beginning of Golfclubatlas.com! And the ballpark number is something we not only would like to know but NEED to know too.

So since you're a bona fide golf club committee chairman (or were), it will be your mission---should you decide to accept it---to figure out how many club committee chairmen we ACTUALLY have REALLY pissed off!

And if you're successful at that mission--your next mission--(this one will not be voluntary)--is to make everything right again between all those extremely pissed off club committee chairmen and Golfclubatlas!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul & chairman (ex)

Some don't view the light of scrutiny as...... sunshine.

They prefer not bask in it, instead, hiding in the shadows of secrecy.

What is the shame in truth ?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
I've always thought of you as a 'mandate' and 'mission statement' kind of guy, not much for architectural detail. Measuring success at courses like Hollywood, Bel-Air, Ridgewood, ANGC, Bethpage, Merion, Baltusrol, Seminole, Quaker Ridge and Riviera not by how sensative the restoration, but by how well the mandate was achieved. So when you said, "A sympathetic restoration, not the continued disfiguring of a wonderful golf course is my sole concern," I thought you were trying to be funny.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I thought my post was fairly clear.

I was referencing a specific golf course that I have tried to protect from revolving green chairman, cart paths galore and the latest fads for many years, including the latest assault.
 
The mandate of the membership, or mission statement given to the architect, as I have said for many years, is not unanimous within the club, and I've used the term in the context of the directive given to the architect, especially when blame is hurled in their direction.

You're confusing your issues, and,

You're far to smart to have misread or misinterpreted my post.

[ghost]

OOOOOOOOOOOOOh Mucci..

Take two midol and stay away from the computer for a week.

You are toooooo sensitive on "some" matters of FACT.

You are insensitive to simple human decency in your current mindset.

You are obviously irritated.  

You are insanely correct.

You are, at times, demandingly irrelevent.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ghost,

You are OOO OOO OOOH SO COWARDLY !