David
I quite agree with you that it is absurd, by that I mean to go into a project blind without checking, is just asking for trouble. Clearly you and many others did did not read my post as you would have noted I used the word feasibility check and nowhere did I mention a full scale survey. Tom equated to the designer’s ability to judge a site and it potential which I would put down to his knowledge and experience.
Absurd is in fact making statements without reading previous posts on the subject. It’s becoming a regular occurrence on this site, which is in fact not just absurd, it’s bloody ignorant and these uninformed opinions can cause a least frustration and in some cases hurt to the individual.
My own commercial decisions in the past have been based upon years of being actively involved in my industry and we always checking prior to proceeding with entering a bid. Nothing absurd in trying to protect your company and employees, but of course you did not seem to understand my meaning, you like others of late jump in without reading the topic. I am not certain if you were just making a point or were indeed being rather insulting by using words like absurd.
Tell me David how does that make for a good discussion, it does not, it either kills the post forcing some to consider withdrawing from the topic or some will come out fighting. Whatever happened to consideration and courtesy to others? After all that Pat Craig has said about me, I still have not reacted in an aggressive manner, I have tried to conduct my replies in a calm way adding a touch of humour.
People moan on here about antics of others yet say very little to the likes of Pat or others, showing a total inconsistence and hypocrisy which is starting to become the norm for GCA.com. My understanding is that this is meant to be a discussion group and words like absurd, while mild compared to others comments is not conducive for a good discussion.
If I have upset you, please IM me and point out the statement that concerns you, I will explain or apologise as I do not seek confrontation, that I leave to others more skilled than myself.
Back to the topic, comments alone the line of ‘I needed the work’; ‘I had to keep the family fed’; or like a soldier, who was ‘just following orders’ are just excuses. If one agrees to do the project you have a responsibility like it or not. The only out is if you confirm to the Client in writing that you advise or recommend this or that and if he ignores your advice then you will not be held accountable or responsible.
I have been trying to say that good modern course and there are quite a few around (which I have never denied) should be acknowledged and designers given credit for them. Yet I am also saying that there are some terrible courses out there built as an afterthought and are I suppose a compromise offering very little in the way of normal golf. Not knowing the American courses I have never listed or run down any course (ever), I have been against non walking courses and all forms of distance aids as I feel that they detract from the pleasure that golf can offer the walking golfer. Back to bad or poor courses, has there ever been a list or notice of these courses published on GCA.com explaining why they are on the list. I feel that would be far more appropriate than listing the top 10, 20 or 100 course. The old ‘name and shame’ sometimes pushes course to improve yet if the initial site and design are compromised what they can really do to improve their image. IMHO that would be far more productive, in trying to assist and suggest ways forward instead of listing the best each time.
I hope that you now understand my comment and that you feel it no longer warrants being called absurd.
Melvyn