[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I made a comment a few weeks back about how hard it to have candid discussions about the work of certain archtects when you one know them and two have a tremendous respect for their professionalism and work product. Yet to me that is a big part of what this site is about and it is important we maintian a free flow of open discusion. A unamed well know architect called me yesterday to complain that I had it in for him and was personally attacking his work. Obviously I told this gentleman this was not the case. There is no dening how badly I felt that I had created the impression I did not respect this mans work. I hope Ran will chime in but my point is I could not have more respect for the work of the architects of the courses we discuss. Most of these are in a club with the top 15% of the courses on earth. The designers are generally at the top of their chosen profession. Yet this site is absolutely about an open discusion of golf course architecture. It is equally relavent to discuss the highlights of the course as well as the bust or lesser points. I hope from time to time Tom Doak, Mike Young Jeff Brauer and many of the other professionals on here to remind their contempries that very few if any of us have agendas other than honest discusion and no ill will or intent is there. Please do not let this become a guessing game as to who it was. I have been critical of any number of courses by many different designers several of whom I consider friends.

[John Kavanaugh]

I hate it when people make mountains out of mole Hills.

[Mike_Young]

John,
You can always bash my stuff....the guy should be thankful he has enough out there for you to bash......IMHO any architect needs to be able to take the heat and not worry if some don't like it.....because all you want is to have a bout a 50% like/dislike and you should be ok......main thing is to keep getting work..not to worry about who thinks what on some website......that is no different than a football coach calling up a chat room that says he cant coach his team.....

[paul cowley]

 

[Neal_Meagher]

As I see it, the true golf architect is more of an artist than an engineer, businessman, landscape designer, historian or noted luminary.  And it is due to this trait that many golf architects find it difficult to digest honest criticism meant only to question intent and not to offend or disoblige.

And, additionally, since I can neither fathom nor appreciate the accolades afforded the high priests of the art of golf architecture (yet) I can in no way speak for those who may peer into our little world here and not appreciate what is being said about one of their creations.  And that is the crux of my post here.

You see, as many of you know, but as some may not, to create a new golf course or to substantially modify an existing one, takes much time and creative energy.  In the case of a new course years are involved and the accrual of many frequent flier miles.  It is difficult to not become emotionally involved at some level with the work being done or else why do it?  That is the case with anyone who truly is at one with their chosen profession, be it design, investments, education or even writing........

So, Mr. Bernhardt, since I have had the pleasure of meeting and playing golf with you in the past, I cannot imagine not actively listening to what would surely be honest critique of a work of mine.  For someone who has not personally made your acquaintance that may prove slightly more difficult.  But, to conclude this post, at the heart of this issue is just that, the love and heart that a designer brings to each and every project be it large or small.  This is no reason to cease the criticisms, but to me, only a call to increase it so that we can all look deeply within and try new things that may work or may fail, but at least we did try. 

[John Kirk]

Tiger,

Thanks for sharing.  I try to offer my honest opinion about golf courses.  I also try to respect and honor the architect's work.  I believe it is possible to offer criticism in a way that doesn't offend, but it's a fine line.  Publicly criticizing an architect's work could damage his/her future business prospects.

It helps to have a positive attitude, and rather than dismiss or criticize, ask questions about the motivations behind decisions.  Why was this done?  Why was this routing selected?  And so on.  I do not always possess a sunny disposition, and I have to watch it.

On the Old Macdonald "Short" thread about a month ago, at a time Tom Doak was receiving the lion's share of the attention, one of our participating architects made a comment along the lines of "I don't want to post a picture of what I'm doing.  It just looks so plain compared to that."  I felt that was bad for GolfClubAtlas that one of our own felt shy about promoting their work.  We can't let that happen.

[Michael Dugger]

It comes down to being tasteful and/or being downright rude.

Observations and opinions backed by evidence are one thing, slinging mud then vanishing from cyberspace for two weeks is another.

Some people can take the heat, others wilt.  The world has always been like that.......

I imagine, like in every walk of life, there are some real (&^$heads in the golf design biz.

Ignore 'em

[jim_lewis]

Tiger:

I have long thought and argued that our discusssions are much better when we focus on courses and not architects. Discussions of individual courses can be very specific. Discussions of architects tend to be spoiled by generalizations that are usually flawed. Even worse, comments about architects sometimes  become personal and offensive.

I assume that we all, architects included, are "good"  guys with "good" intentions. Sometimes we just have different ideas of what is "good".  We can have the highest regard for an architect and still have candid and critical discusssions about an individual course.

Jim

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

Good point, to which I will modify to say individual holes, since a course is actually 18 little design projects.  It can't be possible to dislike every feature of each and every hole!  Any gca reading could easily accept that someone doesn't like the third at Tiddly Links.  They can accept that someone likes a different style (ie. ragged bunkers) knowing why they didn't create those in that situation.

But, it has gotten personal at times and with certain posters. Damian Pascuzzo got labeled "666 Anti-Christ" and lesser slams include "Rees Pieces" (which might even get a bit of a pass because it is clever at least!)

I think the other thing gca's would love would be some context.  Talk all you want about my Sand Creek course in Newton, KS, but don't compare it to nearby Prairie Dunes, concieved as and on land to support a world class course.  SC is on flat ground and is partially subsidized by a developer, and designed to be run low cost because Kansan, like everywhere else, needs affordable golf.

I would prefer you judge that course on how well it serves its function, if you discuss it at all.  I have no problem with the idea that most of you want to discuss the greatest courses, or the courses you see on TV.  Just remember that most courses were lucky to get built at all, and luckier in this day and age to stay in business, and do well enough to maintain themselves well.  Somehow, I always figured that ought to factor in the discussions here, as its more representative of golf architecture in America than the top privates.  (which may have been representative when Thomas chose that book title!)

[jim_lewis]

Jeff:

Your post motivates me to make a comment that I almost made on another thread regarding the "worst course".

I prefer to think that there are no "bad" or "worst" courses. All courses are good (same with beer!), it's just that some courses are less good than others.

When discussing a course on this site, I think it is appropriate to discuss any relevant factor regarding how and why a course was built/evolved/re-desined/restored. However, when rating a course, I think raters should evaluated the course as we find it and ignore all of the other issues, challenges, cost, and alternatives that were factors in its development.

Jim

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

Your comment echos what Dick Nugent and Ken Killian once told me when I was grousing about being assigned the $800K Lake Arrowhead job in Nekoosa, WI and Bob Lohmann got the Forest Preserve National $2.5M job (about 1979, but I have the memory of an elephant)

They said:  "Which project does more for golf - affordable or high end?

"If you can build a good course for $800K that the members enjoy, idid you do better or worse than the a higher budget?

From my perspective, there are no bad design commissions.  Getting something good - with power lines, wetlands, low budgets, you name it is a fun challenge - even if there is no chance to get something great given the circumstances.

As to discussing courses on this site, I think its human nature to start with perfection (i.e. your world top ten) and start taking away points from there.  Think how frustrating that is for our side of the table - you course isn't perfect, let me count the ways!

[Mark Bourgeois]

See, Jeff, this is where my patent-pending "VORD" system could be so illuminating.

(VORD = Value Over Replacement Design.)

The idea is to take a gross score for a course, say a Doak score, and adjust it for design constraints such as the quality of the land, the budget the architect was given, whether houses were part of the deal, etc.

The basic idea is to judge the final design given its starting point. For example, a high-VORD course is one where it would be difficult to see how another architect could have done better. (Note: the "D" stands for "design" not "designer!")

Tom D and Ian offered several high-VORD nominations, but Tom noted the difficulty (impossibility) of coming up with an actual quantification.

We will see about that.

I have figured a way to quantify at least one category of constraint, but some are impossible without delving into the guts of a project and / or having a professional level of competency on this stuff.

So for now maybe I start with that-you may sleep at night, however, in the knowledge that here at the Golf Sabermetric Institute the research continues, sometimes into the wee small hours!

Mark

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark,

I applaud the thought. I think you "get it."

That said, wouldn't you be happier with a "real life?"

More seriously, I was just reading a TePaul thread about how true evaluation requires a site visit, extensive study, etc.  I was struck by how little a gca fan gets out of his inner  enlightenment beyond the satisfaction of "knowing" (or in many cases, thinking they know.)

Why do you do it, man? (BTW, that's a real question to the board, not a rhetorical one!)

[John Kavanaugh]

I'm not sure who is the biggest little bitch here.  John "Tiger" Bernhardt for whining about getting called out for posting an honest opinion...or...A "well known" architect for calling up a Golfweek rater/internet poster for not showing enough respect.  I'm leaning towards JTB for being the one at fault because life really can be simple if you post under your own name and face the music for what you say.  JTB has failed at both.

I am only speculating but feel that John "Tiger" Bernhardt has left out an important professional connection he has or had with the "well known" architect.  In all reality, how many architects have our numbers and call us at home.  Another reality of this situation is that JTB has never said anything warranting such a call, at most, he simply did not say enough good things to pacify a friend.

[Bill_McBride]

Mark,

I applaud the thought. I think you "get it."

That said, wouldn't you be happier with a "real life?"

More seriously, I was just reading a TePaul thread about how true evaluation requires a site visit, extensive study, etc.  I was struck by how little a gca fan gets out of his inner  enlightenment beyond the satisfaction of "knowing" (or in many cases, thinking they know.)

Why do you do it, man? (BTW, that's a real question to the board, not a rhetorical one!)

I think the average GCA.com aficianado (not an architect but a fan of golf architecture) has played enough golf courses and traveled enough to be able to make reasonably intelligent evaluations of a variety of courses and perhaps design styles.

That's not to say anybody has to pay any attention whatsoever to our opinions! 

[Jeff_Brauer]

"And now starting in left field for YOUR Ran Morrisetts.........John... BBBBBBBBAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRNNNNNNNNEEEEEEEEYYYYYYYYYYY............KAVAN (rest drowned out by applause......)

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bill,

Oh I think they do.  My question is what do you feel you get out of those years of study, internal debate, etc?  On your death bed, will you say that cumulative ten years of your life was well spent?

[Bill_McBride]

Bill,

Oh I think they do.  My question is what do you feel you get out of those years of study, internal debate, etc?  On your death bed, will you say that cumulative ten years of your life was well spent?

Who says it's only ten?

[TEPaul]

Why don't some of the architects on here do some really candid and honest and blunt critiquing of some of the critiques on here of some of the contributors?

I suggest the salutations of their posts beginning with ones of this nature;

1. "Dear Dumb Sh.."
2. "Dear F... Idiot"
3. "Dear Architectural Mental Midget"
4. "My Dear Troglydyte"

[Mark Bourgeois]

Jeff

Actually, it's a welcome respite from my life's work of painstakingly documenting off-color Italian hand gestures.

To answer your question, I will say there's a part of me that doesn't want to know any of the behind the curtain stuff or especially the designer's intent because I feel entitled to own the meaning.

This is not to say it is anyone's meaning other than mine, or that my meaning is superior to anyone else's.

By the way, I recall from my hazy college days this basically what Michael Stipe told me when I asked him why his band didn't publish lyric sheets.

Michael Stipe, striking a blow for ignorance!

Mark

[John Kavanaugh]

The true crime against man and architecture is when a poster on this site tells an architect his work is 7.5 for all to see and marks it 6.5 in the shadows of his lair.  This practice is not limited to raters as I have personally witnessed the whispers of discontent by the very same people who fawn over work in their posts.  Just to use Doak as an example - It does the world of golf no good to have him believe that we want to see the same green over and over an over.  If not us then who is going to stand up and scream to stop the madness.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Why don't some of the architects on here do some really candid and honest and blunt critiquing of some of the critiques on here of some of the contributors?

I suggest the salutations of their posts beginning with ones of this nature;

1. "Dear Dumb Sh.."
2. "Dear F... Idiot"
3. "Dear Architectural Mental Midget"
4. "My Dear Troglydyte"

I've done that! But then I follow Abe Lincoln's advice to put it in the trash bin before hitting send......at least I think that's how Abe said it.

And, in grand opening talks, speeches, etc. I have often used those phrases mentally. Every so often, I have to ask my self, "Did I say that in my head or out loud?"

I think that when gca's refer to their DAMM critics, they are really using an Acronym for No. 3 above.

[Mike_Young]

Why don't some of the architects on here do some really candid and honest and blunt critiquing of some of the critiques on here of some of the contributors?

I suggest the salutations of their posts beginning with ones of this nature;

1. "Dear Dumb Sh.."
2. "Dear F... Idiot"
3. "Dear Architectural Mental Midget"
4. "My Dear Troglydyte"

TO: Tom Paul,
"Dear Dumb Sh..","Dear F... Idiot","Dear Architectural Mental Midget","My Dear Troglydyte":

Thank you for your post....you are a great American and golf Critic.....why don't you wear socks with those little thin sole loafers?

Mike

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff

Actually, it's a welcome respite from my life's work of painstakingly documenting off-color Italian hand gestures.

Actually, if there was ONE profession I would have considered over gca, it would have been that! But, job openings were even slimmer than the design field.  Hell, slimmer than Eithiopia's verson of Twiggy.

quote author=Mark Bourgeois link=topic=33894.msg678850#msg678850 date=1206624154]

To answer your question, I will say there's a part of me that doesn't want to know any of the behind the curtain stuff or especially the designer's intent because I feel entitled to own the meaning.

[/quote]

That concept really deserves its own thread.

[Sean_A]

Without a shadow of a doubt it is better to talk about courses rather than archies, but after a while most of us tend to gravitate toward wanting to know more about archies for a variety of reasons and this inevitably lends itself toward comparison. 

I can understand Jeff's plight and would generally agree that there are no bad courses.  I have always thought that assuming we are talking about good courses there isn't all that much difference in gca in terms of quality.  The difference lies preferences.  I have a certain sympathy for the reasons why I prefer course A less than course B, but that is never going to be enough to make me want to part with my cash (again) if I am unimpressed with a course unless it is so cheap it doesn't matter much.  So long as I have a choice I will choose good value (an undefinable mix of quality, price and other aspects) purely over quality or price.  I will admit that there is a streak in me which admires a professional who can deliver a fairly high quality product on a fairly low budget.  If the cost translates at all into higher green fees, I  also admit that I expect more from the more expensive course.  It is often the case that I may prefer the more expensive course, but that I don't think the extra cost is justified because the course may not be that much better. 

I spose the bottom line for me is that if I am paying, I am justified in my opinions (which are usually effected by drainage issues as much as anything) regardless of what the archie was trying to do or how the course was mucked around by someone else for whatever reason.  This is why it is better to focus on the course - so much is out of the archie's control.  On the other hand, its easy to categorize courses and thus our reflective opinions by the archies even though we all know that at least on some level this is superficial!

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()