[mike_malone]

 The great percentage of commentary on this site comes from amateurs and also after first time plays of courses. As a result it lacks depth of detail except for those rare few with remarkable memories for detail or those who provide photographs. I think some professionals  and some posters resent this . They believe you need repeated plays in all conditions to be listened to.

     I believe that since golf course architecture criticism is just another form of  art criticism that first impression is valuable. It is more valuable if the first timer has experince in the art of this criticism. I see that coming from playing the great courses with an eye to the architectural features.

   I like Ron Montesano's suggestion that we want to learn something from our frank commentary. This makes sense to me. If anyone posts on here  with the thought that it is  truth and not an opinion they will soon find themselves disappointed by the responses they get.

   All commentary is subject to rebuttal. That is where the learning happens.

  I just think we need to realize that much commentary goes unspoken because of an intimidation factor.

[George Pazin]

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

In my experiences on here, the single most important factor in any sort of exchange on here is the attitude of the recipient of any criticism. One can temper one's words to the maximum extent, but if the individual being criticised chooses to overreact, it will all be for naught.

Look at the threads on Pennard for an example of how it should work.

[Brent Hutto]

George has it exactly right. If every critique thread on this forum caused such an overblown shit storm, its value as a source of frank discussion would eventually be eliminated. When the storm is entirely the work of one person it only affects the people involved and I don't think any forum is immune.

These two threads tell us worlds more about Pat Ruddy than about GolfClubAtlas.com in any case. I would not recommend trying to generalize to the site as a whole.

[Andrew Summerell]

These two threads tell us worlds more about Pat Ruddy than about GolfClubAtlas.com in any case. I would not recommend trying to generalize to the site as a whole.

Nicely said, Brett.

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

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

In my experiences on here, the single most important factor in any sort of exchange on here is the attitude of the recipient of any criticism. One can temper one's words to the maximum extent, but if the individual being criticised chooses to overreact, it will all be for naught.

Look at the threads on Pennard for an example of how it should work.

The Pennard thread has been highlighted as an example of a healthy debate with plenty of good points being made from both sides. Sean isn't the architect responsible for Pennard. He doesn't own Pennard and he has not spent the last 20+ years tweaking it here and there, constantly trying to make it a better course. There is a slight difference.

I am not making excuses for anyone. All discussions on this website should be conducted in a manner where the participants show respect to each other and refrain from personal or nasty comments.

[jeffwarne]

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

In my experiences on here, the single most important factor in any sort of exchange on here is the attitude of the recipient of any criticism. One can temper one's words to the maximum extent, but if the individual being criticised chooses to overreact, it will all be for naught.

Look at the threads on Pennard for an example of how it should work.

The Pennard thread has been highlighted as an example of a healthy debate with plenty of good points being made from both sides. Sean isn't the architect responsible for Pennard. He doesn't own Pennard and he has not spent the last 20+ years tweaking it here and there, constantly trying to make it a better course. There is a slight difference.

I am not making excuses for anyone. All discussions on this website should be conducted in a manner where the participants show respect to each other and refrain from personal or nasty comments.

Donal nails it.

First of all, frank commentary is often a thin cover for rudeness.
A course can be subtly panned or not recomended quite easily by what's not said or prefaced by explaiining a certain style is not one's preference.
I think of the best reviews and recomendations I've read from our own Mark Rowlinson, and I can't think of a diirectly negative or insulting comment about any of the courses he's reviewed, yet you can see which courses he prefers(and I've NEVER gone wrong with his recomendations).

When reading Scott's review of TEC, it was pretty clear it did not have the subtlety (or sensitivity) of Mark's reviews.
I'm not saying it didn't have positives, but it had some pretty harsh negatives which in my opinion could've been reworded to avoid insult to a man who has put his heart and soul into not only designing, but building, operating, and yes even bartending to make a dream work for him and his family.
That's not exactly the same as criticizing a Jack Nicklaus design that he's made 4 helicopter visits to.

Put another way, if I were the owner architect of TEC, I would've taken offense.
If frank commentary is fair game (and I actually don't agree that it is) ,why is a frank defense not?

[Mark Pearce]

Jeff,

A frank defence is fine.  Bizzarre allegations of "stalking" aren't a frank defence, they are paranoia.  Refusal to discuss the issues raised isn't a frank defence, it's no defence at all.  Personal attacks on the critic aren't a frank defence, they aren't a defence of any sort, they're just foolish and unwarranted.

I'd love to have a frank defence of TEC presented by its architect.  Sadly he has left others to offer a defence of his work whilst concentrating his efforts on a personal vendetta.

[Andrew Mitchell]

A frank defence is fine.  Bizzarre allegations of "stalking" aren't a frank defence, they are paranoia.  Refusal to discuss the issues raised isn't a frank defence, it's no defence at all.  Personal attacks on the critic aren't a frank defence, they aren't a defence of any sort, they're just foolish and unwarranted.

I'd love to have a frank defence of TEC presented by its architect.  Sadly he has left others to offer a defence of his work whilst concentrating his efforts on a personal vendetta.

That pretty much sums up my thoughts too.

[Pat Ruddy]

Frankly, Mr Pearce and Mr Mitchell, I do not offer a defence of my links.  Certainly, I don't owe anything to you.

I do not think my links needs defending.  It is there and speaks for itself and it gives great pleasure and
is highly regarded by many.  I, too, do not think the various rankings are perfect.  if they were they would
have The European Club in the top-10!!!!!!  However,  just as a restaurant is glad to have a Michelin, I am
encouraged by the fact that ALL THE RANKINGS done by panels of experts recognise us quite highly.

What I do defend against is the type of genius who arrives on a day of gales and leaves knowing more
about the place than I do after 25-years working there.
What I defend against is the same chap  who comes into my house and then goes away and feels a
compulsion to tell the entire world  that the wallpaper is hanging down or the furniture is grotty.
What I defend against is the same chap calling me a liar.   

If the same chap turned the same attention on you and your profession you would understand.
Pat Ruddy

[Mark Pearce]

Pat,

Sadly, in my profession it is not unknown for a client to criticise my work without just cause.  I long ago learned that I was better to explain why what I had done was correct (or, occasionally, to admit where I had gone wrong) rather than to resort to name calling.

You are right, you don't owe anyone a defence of TEC.  You certainly owe nothing to me.  But you should not have resorted to the attack on Scott that you launched.  He did not attack you, he merely criticised your course.  If you disagree with that criticism and wish to correct it, then it is your perogative to choose whether to offer a defence or rebuttal.  If you choose not to (as you would be entirely at liberty to do and could not be criticised if that was your choice) then fine.

[jeffwarne]

  In my opinion the purpose of this site is to be very critical of the most highly regarded courses to narrow that peak of excellence,

Perhaps that's where the split lies.
My ( perhaps false) assumption was to discuss and explore the architecture of the golf world and enjoy and learn(whether vicariously or eventually in person) from the experience of others.
It just often seems many don't want to embrace a Big World theory and have narrowed their views to a select clique of acceptable courses and architects.
Which is of courses fine as they're entitled to their opinion.

 A few have left this site as they felt they were wronged or no longer able to provide their "frank" commentary.
I'd say they were simply antagonists who weren't capable of (or at least often did not demonstrate) polite, considerate discussion.


I'm just amazed how some can come into someone's life's work for one day under perhaps extreme conditions and prepare a scathing evaluation without having some expectations that there might be some personal feelings and feathers being ruffled.
If I invited you to my house (which I built and designed) and you put out a scathing review(using the word "nothing" to describe my living room for example) on "this Old House" without contacting or questioning me prior to posting an internet blog about it, you get a pretty harsh response from me as well.

[Sean_A]

  In my opinion the purpose of this site is to be very critical of the most highly regarded courses to narrow that peak of excellence,

Perhaps that's where the split lies.
My ( perhaps false) assumption was to discuss and explore the architecture of the golf world and enjoy and learn(whether vicariously or eventually in person) from the experience of others.
It just often seems many don't want to embrace a Big World theory and have narrowed their views to a select clique of acceptable courses and architects.
Which is of courses fine as they're entitled to their opinion.

 A few have left this site as they felt they were wronged or no longer able to provide their "frank" commentary.
I'd say they were simply antagonists who weren't capable of (or at least often did not demonstrate) polite, considerate discussion.


I'm just amazed how some can come into someone's life's work for one day under perhaps extreme conditions and prepare a scathing evaluation without having some expectations that there might be some personal feelings and feathers being ruffled.
If I invited you to my house (which I built and designed) and you put out a scathing review(using the word "nothing" to describe my living room for example) on "this Old House" without contacting or questioning me prior to posting an internet blog about it, you get a pretty harsh response from me as well.

Jeff

Scathing review?  I would have called the review balanced, but Scott left no doubt where he stood.  That is, TEC is a good course, perhaps very good or even excellent, but does it deserve to be mentioned with the big boys?  

Again, the general context of this site has to be taken into account.  Most of the time we talk about only the top what, 10% or 5% of courses?  It is a given that TEC is a good course.  That is my read anyway.  

BTW: When you start charging the rates TEC does to have a look at your house, you better start expecting criticism - tee hee.  Any business invites criticism.

Ciao

[Gary Slatter]

Perhaps Scott you will learn a lesson, because you do love your little comments.

I’m totally with Pat on this one.

Melvyn

Happy to admit I Am 110% in agreement with you and Pat.  EC is a great course and so lucky to have it's creator still livng on site

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()