[Ian Andrew]

NO

We occasionally fail to understand that what we say on this site should be what we would say in person.

Sean has called me out on my thoughts on Pennard - and I'm glad he did. 
That is leading to a wonderful discussion. We need to remember that we learn little from agreeing with each other and whole lot more when we don't as long as we listen to what the other person has to say.

I have no worries about the site - we just need to actively remove those who cross the line.

[cary lichtenstein]

Frank comments are always at risk, at this site as well as at work and social situations.

When I was in law school, our case book on constitutional law would in appropraite situations have the old supreme court decision followed by the dissents of those justices who voted against it. Many 5-4 decisions. Some of those dissents were down right nasty.

The next case I read was again a 5-4 decision, reversing the previous decision, with the lead dissenting justice, often times Justice Cardozo writing the majority opinion.

So when I went out in the real world, I found out that those in power don't like to hear something negative, and thoe who just went along with the flow were the most popular.

Nothing is different today. Go out to dinner with people who have different political views than you, argue with them and the evening turns into a disaster.

[Sean_A]

Frank comments are always at risk, at this site as well as at work and social situations.

When I was in law school, our case book on constitutional law would in appropraite situations have the old supreme court decision followed by the dissents of those justices who voted against it. Many 5-4 decisions. Some of those dissents were down right nasty.

The next case I read was again a 5-4 decision, reversing the previous decision, with the lead dissenting justice, often times Justice Cardozo writing the majority opinion.

So when I went out in the real world, I found out that those in power don't like to hear something negative, and thoe who just went along with the flow were the most popular.

Nothing is different today. Go out to dinner with people who have different political views than you, argue with them and the evening turns into a disaster.

Cary

Its only because people get too invested in their opinion rather than treating the conversation as entertainment.  There is nothing wrong with getting heated in a debate, but its still entertainment and should be remembered as such when folks say good night. 

Ciao

[Martin Toal]

Poor Frank. I didn't even know he was ill.





Frank comments should be fine. I make them all the time at work, at home and everywhere else, but frank comments beget frank responses, so if you don't want it back, don't give it out in the first place. I don't mind people saying what they want to me. I have thick well insulated skin.

Strongly held opinions, especially when they criticise others' views, will certainly receive frank responses.

Scott made comments which he is entitled to hold and repeat, but others, including myself, are entitled to respond. I don't know the European Club, but I was struck by his unshakeable certainty in being right (and the implication that others were wrong). Such certainty is almost always misplaced.  I don't know Pat Ruddy, other than by reputation in Ireland, but I can understand how he would see criticism of his pet project the same way as I would perceive someone saying my (naturally very handsome) eldest son is ugly.

[Scott Warren]

I was struck by his unshakeable certainty in being right (and the implication that others were wrong). Such certainty is almost always misplaced.

Martin,

Are you referring to my opinions about the merits of the course in general, or my claim that large quantities of earth were moved to flatten the fairways?

[Martin Toal]

I was struck by his unshakeable certainty in being right (and the implication that others were wrong). Such certainty is almost always misplaced.

Martin,

Are you referring to my opinions about the merits of the course in general, or my claim that large quantities of earth were moved to flatten the fairways?

Neither. T'was your description of rankings:

After playing golf in the UK for four months, I would say that the course rankings for this region are nothing but an organization's confident yet inaccurate opinion.

Much specificity is missing - which region, which organization (sic) and how inaccurate, but the confidence and presumed generality of your view is striking.

[Brent Hutto]

Martin,

You're kidding, right? Really, really?

There are numerous posters on this site who at various junctures have made more caustic remarks about various ratings and rankings than the quote you just offered from Scott. I may have even said something more negative than that somewhere along the lline. It is the nature of rankings that certain people are completely unconvinced as to their usefulness or validity.

You need to come up with something more damning than that if you wish to convince anyone of Scott's "...unshakeable certainty in being right..." or otherwise disparage his contributions to discussion here. Geez, I thought you were saying he was making factual statements that were falsifiable empirically. Not being willing to accept some ranking process as valid is nothing more than an opinion, a widely held one at that.

[Mark Pearce]

Martin,

I think that quote was from JNC Lyon, not Scott.  In which case it would seem harsh to base your criticism of Scott on a quote that wasn't even his.  

And what Brent just said....

[Scott Warren]

I was struck by his unshakeable certainty in being right (and the implication that others were wrong). Such certainty is almost always misplaced.

Martin,

Are you referring to my opinions about the merits of the course in general, or my claim that large quantities of earth were moved to flatten the fairways?

Neither. T'was your description of rankings:

After playing golf in the UK for four months, I would say that the course rankings for this region are nothing but an organization's confident yet inaccurate opinion.

Much specificity is missing - which region, which organization (sic) and how inaccurate, but the confidence and presumed generality of your view is striking.

You'll find it was actually John Lyon who posted that.

EDIT - Mark already pointed that out.

[Martin Toal]

I was struck by his unshakeable certainty in being right (and the implication that others were wrong). Such certainty is almost always misplaced.

Martin,

Are you referring to my opinions about the merits of the course in general, or my claim that large quantities of earth were moved to flatten the fairways?

Neither. T'was your description of rankings:

After playing golf in the UK for four months, I would say that the course rankings for this region are nothing but an organization's confident yet inaccurate opinion.

Much specificity is missing - which region, which organization (sic) and how inaccurate, but the confidence and presumed generality of your view is striking.

You'll find it was actually John Lyon who posted that.

EDIT - Mark already pointed that out.

You are correct. I apologise and withdraw the remarks.

is Frank still unwell?

[Louis Chanin]

I played Bethpage Black a whole lot back in the late 50's and early 60's.  Is it safe for me to list those specific elements of the holes that thave been designed out of them, and make the course less interestiing?  Bunkers added and enlarged for visual (TV?) purposes.

[Jud_T]

I think frank commentary is at risk both on here and in general.  I read Scott's original review and based on my one play at TEC on a fairly windy day, it rings pretty true.

[Ally Mcintosh]

So here’s my frank commentary:

People on here are too negative about courses where they know none of the practicalities involved in the building of the course.

Tom Doak has said that we should call out “Bad” design more frequently…. And he’s correct about that…. But I see no “Bad” design at The European Club. I see no lazy “That’ll do” design, no “I’ll let them away with that because I can’t be bothered to challenge them” design… All I see are personal preferences of the designer that many on here don’t agree with when theorising about course design (whilst of course having 1% of the facts)…

Did Pat Ruddy flatten micro-undulations?... well maybe… But is this a crime if he has his reasons?... Look to his answer 4 on Tony Muldoon’s open letter. In my mind, that probably holds a clue… or maybe the undulations weren’t there… Or maybe they were just too severe… Or maybe he wants to cater to the 99% of golfers who don’t seem to appreciate micro-undulations…

Does he have to give us his reasons?... Of course not!... Any information that any architects can share on here is worthwhile. There are plenty who don’t want to talk about their design philosophy in any detail whatsoever…

This is not directed at Scott in particular, although he does have to concede that in 6 short months, he seems to have strengthened negative views of The European Club without any return visits or new facts… One problem with a discussion forum like this is that familiarity breeds boldness and negativity where that wouldn’t necessarily exist in a face to face discussion / debate… (I don’t exclude myself from this)…

Anyway, that’s my “frank” take…

Frank commentary is not at risk… It should just be approached with manners…

[Sean_A]

So here’s my frank commentary:

People on here are too negative about courses where they know none of the practicalities involved in the building of the course.

Tom Doak has said that we should call out “Bad” design more frequently…. And he’s correct about that…. But I see no “Bad” design at The European Club. I see no lazy “That’ll do” design, no “I’ll let them away with that because I can’t be bothered to challenge them” design… All I see are personal preferences of the designer that many on here don’t agree with when theorising about course design (whilst of course having 1% of the facts)…

Did Pat Ruddy flatten micro-undulations?... well maybe… But is this a crime if he has his reasons?... Look to his answer 4 on Tony Muldoon’s open letter. In my mind, that probably holds a clue… or maybe the undulations weren’t there… Or maybe they were just too severe… Or maybe he wants to cater to the 99% of golfers who don’t seem to appreciate micro-undulations…

Does he have to give us his reasons?... Of course not!... Any information that any architects can share on here is worthwhile. There are plenty who don’t want to talk about their design philosophy in any detail whatsoever…

This is not directed at Scott in particular, although he does have to concede that in 6 short months, he seems to have strengthened negative views of The European Club without any return visits or new facts… One problem with a discussion forum like this is that familiarity breeds boldness and negativity where that wouldn’t necessarily exist in a face to face discussion / debate… (I don’t exclude myself from this)…

Anyway, that’s my “frank” take…

Frank commentary is not at risk… It should just be approached with manners…

Ally

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being negative about a course one didn't care for regardless of the reasons so long as those reasons are stated for all to either take on board or ignore.  I don't get the impression that most folks talk in term of bad design and instead speak about preferences of design.  It’s another story when specific details of a course are hammered as bad design when the person doesn't know the brief, design constraints or budget.  This is exactly why I am hesitant to talk in terms of "best" rather than favourite - I don't know enough about specific projects to determine "best" and "worst", but I sure can talk about favourite and least favourite - again, regardless of my reasons.  The bottom line is that courses exist and few people care why they were built as they were and this is the case for practically every product out there.  What people care about is the finished product (and a golf course for all the high fallutin talk about art is just a product designed to be consumed) and without question we have the right to hold an opinion about these products and voice that opinion.  I understand your comments about manners and sometimes people do cross the line in attacking certain archies, but there is a flip side of taking criticism on the chin as well.  In many ways, gcas face very little criticism about their products as there are very few outlets for criticism.  Jeepers, I would think most guys would have to go out of their way to find negative comments about the best known courses. The industry is so insular that frank commentary often isn't wise if one wants to keep earning a wage in the business. 

Scott has done what most educated folks would do - especially in the media business - ask questions rather than make accusations. 

One thing we have to remember on this site is that we spend an incredible amount of time discussing the world's very best courses and often times, just to be part of a discussion acknowledges that the course is very good.  What people are usually bickering over is how good - top 100, top 200 etc?   To me, this context of conversation is an important aspect to remember to help bring things into focus.   

Ciao

[Scott Warren]

So here’s my frank commentary:

People on here are too negative about courses where they know none of the practicalities involved in the building of the course.

Tom Doak has said that we should call out “Bad” design more frequently…. And he’s correct about that…. But I see no “Bad” design at The European Club. I see no lazy “That’ll do” design, no “I’ll let them away with that because I can’t be bothered to challenge them” design… All I see are personal preferences of the designer that many on here don’t agree with when theorising about course design (whilst of course having 1% of the facts)…

Ally,

No one has accused anyone of malpractice. It's a matter of preference and opinion. I'm certainly not claiming to be "right".

I love links courses that embrace the natural land. I love natural-looking greens. I love width and the options it brings. I love scarcity of sand (particularly around the greens when the land alone is enough of a defence). TEC is/has none of those things in any significant quantity. Just my opinion and tastes.

What you seem to be saying is that unless someone was present for a course's construction, or has gone through that process and knows the "practicalities" they don't have the right to comment. I disagree.

What are the 99% of the facts I don't have, but need for my opinion to be valid in your eyes?

Did Pat Ruddy flatten micro-undulations?... well maybe… But is this a crime if he has his reasons?...

As with the Carya/heathland thread you appear to be taking this to heart. A "crime"? Who ever said it was? Plenty of people have great reasons for artistic decisions that some of the eventual audience doesn't like. That doesn't make anyone right or wrong.

But it seems from this and the Carya thread that perhaps you are of the opinion that the punters don't have the right to question the designer or criticise his work, regardless of how valid their comments are. They should just turn up, play the course and keep their mouth shut unless they loved it.

Look to his answer 4 on Tony Muldoon’s open letter. In my mind, that probably holds a clue… or maybe the undulations weren’t there… Or maybe they were just too severe… Or maybe he wants to cater to the 99% of golfers who don’t seem to appreciate micro-undulations…

Pat has been invited by many people on this site to state how much dirt was moved at TEC and whether fairways were flattened significantly and he has repeatedly refused to answer the question. That silence speaks volumes.

It's absolutely Pat's right to cater his course to whomever he wants. But that doesn't absolve him from a negative reaction from those who don't and it certainly doesn't give him the right to attack my character for having not liked it.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Scott (and Sean)

Maybe Pat doesn't answer that question because there are a number of GCA opinions just waiting to say "told you so" if a dozer even sniffed the site...

I think everyone can hold an opinion about why or why they don't like a course. I completely agree with you.... But it is those that are asking him about whether he flattened the micro-undulations who are forming opinions on the process and not on the finished product...

Of course we can criticise but I guess it's better if we do it by asking questions... Maybe it's a fine line?... As Sean says, we should talk about favourites, why we like something and why we don't like something... I think too often we cross over in to criticising something without really backing our opinions up or qualifying that there may be reasons... Our criticisms are often too strongly worded...

And for what it's worth, I think Pat can be a bit confrontational in his responses... But he is only criticising your tone... whereas you are criticising his livelihood... So that's maybe worth remembering...

Fine line indeed...

[Scott Warren]

Ally,

Can you please talk me through how playing the course only gives a regular golfer 1% of what he needs to make an informed review and what the other 99% is comprised of?

That was a not insignificant claim from you suggesting I don't know what I am talking about, so I think it's fair that you explain how "the knowledge" is acquired. The inference from Reply #62 is unmistakeably that you have it and I don't.

[Ronald Montesano]

From an easy-to-access site dedicated to definitions of words, I give you the adjective, frank:
1.
direct and unreserved in speech; straightforward; sincere: "Her criticism of my work was frank but absolutely fair."
2.
without inhibition or subterfuge; direct; undisguised: "a frank appeal for financial aid."
3.
Pathology . unmistakable; clinically evident: "frank blood."
4.
Archaic . liberal or generous.
5.
Obsolete . free.

According to this definition and my aging eyes, frank has nothing directly to do with legitimacy and substantiation, and most everything to do with opinion and aim.  By these definitions, frank commentary is certainly not dead.

Interpretation is everything to art and artifice; the tyro has the potential to shine brightly while the expert's take can reveal a dull finish, and vice-versa.

Although there is evidence of it in posts from Melvyn, Mike Malone and Ben Stephens, Ian Andrew is the only poster on this thread to have utilized the verb "learn" with intent to advance.  I find that item to be quite revealing for our community.  It truly must be frustrating at times to defend something you know to be correct, over and over, against criticisms you perceive to be invalid.  In this particular case, we have a golf course being defended and a series of writings on that course also being defended.  More power to both authors.

We humans seem to have the tendency to learn better as youth.  This is nothing you haven't learned, but we are more flexible, less defined and quite open to alternatives.  As we age and carve out a space in this eventual march toward death, we become more aware of our finiteness and become more inflexible, to protect that which we have achieved, be it our opinions or our creations.

I attended a memorial service in Buffalo two days ago, for a gentlemen recognized far and wide for his legal successes, his financial achievements, and his participation in the community.  I have no knowledge of how successful he was as a lawyer, how wealthy he was, nor how deeply he touched those members of the community in which he participated.  Those who are so inclined, will participate in frank commentary on the man's life; some will be offended by the direct nature of frank commentary, others will respond, and still more will shrink away and sulk.

I for one, am not opposed to frank commentary, but I am even more inclined toward frank, substantiated dialogue.  My "Is Pebble Beach overrated?" thread was frank yet unsubstantiated and I received a fair coal-raking for it.  At that crossroads, I decided that future threads would be based on as much substantiation as I could muster, lending to their legitimacy and validity.  It seems to me that both Pat Ruddy and Scott Warren have justified their positions with various evidences and that we must now move on.  Is that so difficult?

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ally,

Can you please talk me through how playing the course only gives a regular golfer 1% of what he needs to make an informed review and what the other 99% is comprised of?

That was a not insignificant claim from you suggesting I don't know what I am talking about, so I think it's fair that you explain how "the knowledge" is acquired. The inference from Reply #62 is unmistakeably that you have it and I don't.

Scott,

That certainly wasn't supposed to be inferred... I have 1% of the facts also. I wasn't involved with the design or construction.... That doesn't mean you (or I) can't have a valid opinion of what we like or don't like about the course... I think it's just worth remembering that there were probably a good many constraints in ticking all the boxes that you or I prefer and a good many things that we are not privy to or don't understand...

You are drawing me in to an argument that I have no intention of having on a message board... Maybe over a pint some day...

[Mark Pearce]

Ally,

Unfortunately the natural extension of your point that Scott is criticising Pat's livelihood is that we should not criticise architect's work.  Frankly, if that's right, what is th point of this forum?

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ally,

Unfortunately the natural extension of your point that Scott is criticising Pat's livelihood is that we should not criticise architect's work.  Frankly, if that's right, what is th point of this forum?

I said that it is worth remembering when you choose your tone of approach... That is all...

If Scott and Pat were sitting in Jack White's Inn with a bottle of red, they'd be having a good conversation... Yet they have come to blows because they can't concede points on the internet...

And yes, I do believe that you should discuss the course... but be careful of criticising the architect's work unless you ask the question of why he might have made a certain decision....

[Pat Ruddy]

My observation of GCA over some years is that frank commentary will live safely forever.
 Frank commentary is good. 
Providing it is based on knowledge and considered thought and is not pure nonsense or malicious. 
When it becomes centred unfairly on one subject for attack, or is plainly wrong or vindictive .... it must be challenged.  But then, surely, the response is only frank commentary also?

Or is frank commentary to be reserved to the original frank commentator only? And is the original frank commentator to be viewed as intimidated when he/she choses to express aggressive views of another's work or place in the first place, without consideration to the possible intimidation of his target, and then "suffers" a reply.

It is only because Mr. Warren persists in posting NUMEROUS NEGATIVE COMMENTS on my work on the web .... presumably to stay there for years ... that I find it necessary to state my side of the equation.  Not to do so would be to allow his views to be read and reread for years to come and believed to be true as though he were an expert in the field of course architecture.

I draw no comfort from the fact that this is happening in a forum which has chosen to ignore largely or deride the works of many great architects of our age .... Jack Nicklaus (surely our modern day Old Tom Morris.. a great man and a great golf mind , a great and prolific designer of golf courses and a great  promoter of our game), Arthur Hills whose artistry is superb, the Jones family whose aggregate corpus of courses is magnificent, all of the designers in Europe (in a recent debate) and on and on.  To dismiss maybe 98% of modern design and designers out of hand is a mystifiying action.......

Anyway, back to my own case and that of the unfriendly Australian.

Mr. Warren's knowledge of The European Club is extremely limited.  On his own first post on GCA concerning us he stated:-
"I got a bit unlucky with the weather - with gusts recorded at over 100km/h (65mph) through the day: Foam from the sea was landing on parts of the course about 500m inland! - but a mate and I soldiered on and enjoyed using some imagination to keep the ball out of the wind."

It would take an absolute genius to study a golf course of any complexity in such a limited time, in such conditions and while striving to play golf.  But the imagination used in playing in a gale was then let off the leash in the matter of an expert commentary on my links.

Mr. Warren met me on the day and could have asked any questions he wished. I gave him the courtesy of the course and would have expected the courtesy of a letter if he had anything to say or ask.  Others have approached things differently  and I hope that they enjoyed the fact that  I gave them plenty of my time and maybe even  a spin around the links with stops to discuss various points.    But Mr. Warren just rushed away into the ultra-public arena of the internet to , in the guise of an expert .... because what other type of person could set up and maintain a commentary site of his own?, post a negative ....

After Mr Warren posted his negatives on the internet instead of first talking with me or writing to me I took the liberty of writing to him.   He went ballistic and remains so!   For a man who does not hesitate to bash another in public he has the thinnest of skins when it comes to private comment on vis own views.  And he has the gall to suggest that I am defensive or sensitive or wish to suppress views on me and my work!!!!   

Anyway, since I wrote to him he has effectively stalked me and I will give these few examples as the basis of my belief:

ONE-

Soon after our encounter, he started a topic "Holes that take you away from the ocean" and by coincidence decided to attack The European Club.....

"One that doesn't do the job so well, I think, is the 16th at The European. A NOTHING hole following the joy of 12-15, and it begins a pretty average closing stretch."

I took issue with him privately over the use of the term "NOTHING" but all that happened was that he went more ballistic still until pretty well nothing at The European Club was worth a damn in his eyes!

TWO -

Soon after that, on his Global Golfer he was full of praise for Silloth-On-Solway.  I am sure it is a wonderful place.   But Mr. Warren, with over 30,000 other courses to chose for comparisons (which can be odious things anyway) and 47 placed ahead of Silloth on the Golf World GB&I rankings ceased on the opportunity to attack The European Club thus:-

" The European Club is 30-odd places ahead of it in Golf World's poll and would get one, perhaps two, round(s) of a 10-Round Split between the two courses in my book. Silloth is golf as it was meant to be played - The European is an advertisement for the power and capabilities of heavy earthmoving machinery."


Ouch.....     If I may comment frankly .... THE LOUSE!  Sorry if that is an attack on his "character".

THREE -

Mr Warren is now in full flow and oozing hurt feelings.
So along comes the debate on the Best Holes in Ireland arises on GCA.
Mr. Warren bides his time but not for long.  When Chris Roselle posts an opinion on some fine Irish golf holes that were not included amongst the Best Holes in Ireland story:

"Here are some of what I think at the best...
#2 and #4 at Old Head
#3 at Waterville
#7 at The European Club
#15 at Portmarnock"

Mr. Warren is up like a flash.  Given a menu of four holes from four venues, and all of Ireland's other 7,200 golf holes, he pops the innocent question:

"#7 at The European Club
Can you talk me through why you are so keen on this hole, Chris?"

Now he has his old pal Pat back in the frying pan!  He knows that someone will rise to the bait and help him.   He basks for awhile. But  not for long until he is back with his coup de grace:

"That's the hole. I'll never understand how, but it was apparently named as one of the best 100 golf holes in the world."

Ouch  ....... 

So, there it is.  Some GCA people think I am sensitive, defensive and proud.   I don't think so.  I'm private as possible, concentrated on my work and my family, and think I have the mental capacity to balance praise and criticism of my work without emotion ... always considering all comments for content which i should consider .... and always admiring the good works of my fellow designers who, to a man, stick their necks on the line to produce the best golf courses they can in whatever circumstances prevail.

But I'm not for being bashed without reply and let the record show that I have counter-commented on this site  only twice in all the years.  It is my view that both men behaved badly and in a stalking fashion towards me and I am content that I have been justified in replying openly to both.  Not to do so would suggest that they might be right. Not to do so would be to allow them to contaminate the world of golf opinion against my work.  Beyond that I have no feeling towards them....

Of course, I won't be answering Mr. Warren's loaded questions.   Questions of the mode:  Have you stopped beating your wife yet?   A yes answer means you did beat her.  A no answer means you are still beating her.   He had every opportunity to get answers when he met me.  He could have done so in the weeks after we met and I made him welcome into my golfing home.   He has no right to DEMAND AN INTERVIEW with me or anyone else. 

Hopefully he will become more thoughtful and considerate with age.
 
For my part,  I do not propose continuing on this topic in this forum but I wish everyone well and hope that they enjoy their golf in 2010 and beyond .

Pat Ruddy

[Bill_McBride]

Pat, sometimes it appears you confuse criticism of your golf course with criticism of Pat Ruddy as a person.

Using the example of "have you stopped beating your wife?" only strengthens this conclusion.

No need to be defensive about moving some earth; it's the ability to do that and maintain the illusion of pristine naturalism that entrances the GCA fanatic.

All the best, I hope TEC is getting lots of play as we get into the decent weather of summer.

Bill McBride

[Mike Sweeney]

Pat,

Just to use the Irish American McBride/Sweeney tag team on you  , are you serious when you say:

"and always admiring the good works of my fellow designers who, to a man, stick their necks on the line to produce the best golf courses they can in whatever circumstances prevail."

Now I have not played anywhere on the East Coast of Ireland, but I can't imagine that a number of courses that were built in an American style around Dublin by some fancy PGA/Ryder Cup pro stopping off between rounds is really going to have the personality of TEC or the West Coast clubs made famous by Hackett and others.

Architects are like Doctors, some are better than others and that is the point of this site.

[JC Jones]

Architects are like Doctors, some are better than others and that is the point of this site.

Some architects are doctors.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()