I don't know if I would couch it in terms of a desire to be "tolerant" or "non-judgmental" but otherwise think George may be onto something. Expressing one's own personal likes and dislikes is well and good, but that sort of thing is better left for opinion polls than it is for actual discussions of the merits of golf courses (or anything for that matter.) In order to have an actual productive discussion, those involved must be willing and able to move beyond their own visceral preferences to, at the very least, some understanding of what is driving that visceral reaction. But that is just a beginning. They should also be able to consider the broader issues that their particular personal preference might implicate, explicitly or implicitly. They should also be able to at least try and consider other frameworks from which to view the medium.
The way it works often works on hear is something like this.
I really liked X. Why?
It was challenging and fun. But what about all of the (some critical observation.) It is at this point that things fall apart, as the first party usually either denies the validity of the observation (
you aren't qualified to say, or
he doesnt do that any more, or
you just don't like the guy, or that
doesnt really happen) or the person simply doesn't care (
that doesn't bother me or
it doesn't impact me, or
that's just your opinion. In all these cases there is not much to talk about after this, at least nothing that will be immediately productive or at all advances the conversation. The conversation is effectively over, at least from their perspective.
I'm rambling, but I guess what I am saying is that this website needs to decide whether it is ready and willing to entertain open and frank
discussion and
debate about all aspects of golf course design, or whether it is simply a place where people come to express their personal preferences, visceral reactions, or deeply held (but often unsupported) beliefs, without meaningful discussion, comment, or challenge.
_______________________________________________________________________
Well now, for example...I spoke with a guy yesterday that has played Rock Creek and the Stock Farm and he said in his mind the Stock Farm is a notch or two above Rock Creek in every way...in fact he said he thought the Stock Farm is a better course than Hazeltine, Torrey Pines, and several others that I blanked out on mid way through his sharing of his opinion....
He said, for example that he did not like the "bumpy" tees at Rock Creek...
Your point? He was "wrong?" Or was he expressing his honest opinion, based on his own set of criteria - criteria with which you may completely disagree?
He is very likely expressing his honest opinion and "wrong." Wrong because I very likely disagree with him, but then I am entitled to my honest and heartfelt visceral reaction to, aren't I? But the problem with heading down this path is we are left with nothing to discuss. The reality is that his or your or even my visceral reaction to the courses is not really all that interesting, at least to me. I want to know the
WHY of it. That is what this place should be about.
So if this guy wants to provide a coherent description of his criteria, and he is able to place those in the larger context of golf design generally, then I'd be glad to hear what he has to say and consider it and discuss it with him. But if all he has to say is
I don't like bumpy greens, then I've not nothing to discuss with him because he has very little to say which is at all relevant to the larger discussion. The fact that people like him have this preference may be relevant and worth noting, but if that is all he has to say then this is not really the place for him. He hasn't yet broken through the "surface tension" between visceral reaction and actual coherent analysis and a more in depth understanding.
George, when it comes to golf course architecture, one can embrace the "big world theory" advocated by Tom Paul, and still make judgements about what courses you like, and what courses you don't. At the same time, I guess you're proposing that there are enough rules and regs about what constitutes good architecture that one can confidently say that some courses are bad and some are good, without adding an "imho" at the end.
This "big world theory" is a crock. It is an agreement to disagree, and generally cuts off all meaningful and relevant conversation. There isn't room in golf design for everything. Some courses are bad for golf design and bad for golf, whether they evoke positive visceral reactions or not. But I don't think George is proposing "one set of rules and regs" at all, but he does seem to be suggesting that we ought to be concerned with certain standards or bases or principles that ought to play a role in our analysis. These don't have to be shared by everyone and I would hope they wouldn't be, as these ought to be what our discussions are about.
What I don't get is that some people around here don't really seem to give a damn beyond their visceral likes and dislikes. That is well and good and the way most people operate, but WHY ARE YOU HERE? Certainly not to actually discuss golf course design.