Loyalty vs Intelectual Honesty

[John Kavanaugh]

One of the questions I have always struggled with is if one should be loyal to a private club that is kind enough to allow you to play their course.  By loyal I mean protect their secrets and don't reveal their flaws.  I would guess most any club understands that a one time visitor will mostly not be loyal.  I would also believe that when an individual enters into a relationship with a club where they visit on no less than a biennial basis they have entered into a moral contract of loyalty.  Very few people read our obscure blogs, a few more read this or sites of similar nature.  Where is or should there be a line when we keep our mouths shut and our blogs dark?

[Bill_McBride]

I personally believe that if you are a guest somewhere you don't say anything bad about them.  The old rule is, if you can't say something nice about somebody (or place or thing), don't say anything at all.  Sometimes I guess silence can speak volumes.

[Rick Shefchik]

Secrets and flaws are two different things. Flaws are a matter of opinion, and while it's not polite to be overtly critical of one's host, I don't see how a private club can expect a guest to stifle any and all honest opinions.

I wouldn't expect to learn any secrets about a club to which I didn't belong. I'm having a hard enough time learning the secrets of the club I do belong to.

[John Kavanaugh]

Secrets and flaws are two different things. Flaws are a matter of opinion, and while it's not polite to be overtly critical of one's host, I don't see how a private club can expect a guest to stifle any and all honest opinions.

I wouldn't expect to learn any secrets about a club to which I didn't belong. I'm having a hard enough time learning the secrets of the club I do belong to.

Yea but aren't secrets fun?  I remember researching the most exclusive midwestern course I have ever played and finding a "Penthouse Letters" style story written with the club as a backdrop.  The club is so exclusive most golfers have no idea that it exists, or is of such high quality, that the motivation for choosing that particular course has always interested me.  I'm sure the author had some ties to the club.  Who knows, it might have even been true.

[Tim Pitner]

When it comes to commenting on the golf course itself, I don't think we should treat private courses with kid gloves.  One ought to be able to do that without being rude. 

[Bill_McBride]

When it comes to commenting on the golf course itself, I don't think we should treat private courses with kid gloves.  One ought to be able to do that without being rude. 

Let's say you are someone's guest at a private club.  Would you feel okay if you politely posted some negatives about the course on a public forum, knowing your host could see them?   I wouldn't.

[Tim Pitner]

When it comes to commenting on the golf course itself, I don't think we should treat private courses with kid gloves.  One ought to be able to do that without being rude. 

Let's say you are someone's guest at a private club.  Would you feel okay if you politely posted some negatives about the course on a public forum, knowing your host could see them?   I wouldn't.

Bill,

I wouldn't go out of my way to do so but, yes, I think we have to believe that's okay.  Otherwise, the discussion becomes skewed--frank commentary about public-access courses, but less than frank commentary about private courses.  Most members of private clubs who are interested in GCA are aware of flaws in their courses.

[Matt_Cohn]

I think you can do whatever the heck you want, understanding that your actions might have consequences (good or bad) to your friendships and your ability to play the golf course again. Hopefully we're all smart enough to figure out the potential consequences of what we say or do!

[Adam Clayman]

I can't help but think this thread is in response to some of Mr. Pitners posts. Is it?

[Jeff_Brauer]

JK,

One of the questions we should always struggle with is if anyone really give a rats ass about our opinions of their course.....

In truth, we shouldn't struggle with it at all, because, blogging world aside, no one ever does care about what we have to say.

[Tim Pitner]

Adam,

A response to some of my posts?  Sorry, I don't follow you at all.

I assumed this thread was a response to Mr. Pioppi's thread about Boston Golf Club.  

[JMEvensky]

JK,

One of the questions we should always struggle with is if anyone really give a rats ass about our opinions of their course.....

In truth, we shouldn't struggle with it at all, because, blogging world aside, no one ever does care about what we have to say.

Apparently,some clubs and their members do care.

So long as someone was willing to say the same thing to a member's face that they'd type anonymously on the internet,I'd probably say that it's fair.


I think there are problems inherent in this website's "authority".As example,Jeff Brauer and I can each opine on course X.As a professional architect,his opinion has value--mine has none.

What happens when a member at course X reads Brauer's opinion here and assumes that mine must be equally valid because I'm allowed to type my opinion here?

[RJ_Daley]

It seems to me that there are quite a wide variance of what might be considered a 'secret' not for gossip or publication, and what is a matter of criticism where loyalty to an invited status seems too much to ask for as a member who does the inviting.

By that I mean... if a private club member invites a person like most of us here on GCA who actually come on this site to discuss or offer 'frank commentary' on golf course design and related matters, well then I'd ask; doesn't it follow that they might express their opinion on such matters because that is their demonstrated interest?  So, if I were invited to a particular club, because the host knows of my commentary or has struck up a friendship or dialogue with me here on GCA, and after one or more hosted invites, I might opine that I don't like a certain aspect of the design, or maybe find the course overly soft and overwatered for my tastes; then shouldn't that host be expectant that such observation and commentary is the basis by that which we share here on GCA?

I think there are definite limits.  Certainly, gossip or fact about a financial situation that is not known in the public domain may be an issue where it is not good manners or behavior to gossip about such matters.  But, that does involve a real situation of confidentiality if not in the public domain VS a situation that could be known by anyone at any rate, regardless of if the member implied the issue is confidential, when it is not really confidential at all. 

Of course, there are even more personal 'secrets' that are way off limits, IMO.  Things like a private relationship of a member with someone else that is none of anyone's business (i.e. who is banging who sort of affairs stuff) or who is a regular private member golf buddy of someone else, etc.  Gossipy stuff is a matter of loyalty to your host, and while there is no hard and fast rule that prohibits such gossipy behavior, there is always the fact that a loose mouthed gossip who spreads 'secrets' is a pariah and will eventually become known as a disloyal person and will be shunned anyway. 

[Peter Pallotta]

Interesting question John and good responses. To me the most interesting (and sad) part is the implicit assumption that we've become such attention-starved and blabbering ego maniacs that we can't imagine playing a course WITHOUT then writing about it -- as if the WRITING about it is more important than the playing itself.

Peter

[John Kavanaugh]

I can't help but think this thread is in response to some of Mr. Pitners posts. Is it?

Pit is not on my radar.  So no.

[Jordan Caron]

Interesting you bring this up John.  This instanced happened to me on a recent trip.  My blog is in the beginning stages and doesn't have much of a following.  I mentioned the courses I was going to play but nothing more than that.  

There were two separate instances that shocked me that could occur at such clubs.  Being a guest at these courses and reciprocated thanks to my Canadian PGA status I felt it was in my best interest to keep these instances to myself.  If the member felt it was an issue then they have every right to discuss this with the club but coming from a guest, it's not my place to bring to the attention of the club.

As for any secrets or what goes on at these clubs, I feel best to keep these experiences to myself and not to openly discuss them. 

[Jordan Caron]

Interesting question John and good responses. To me the most interesting (and sad) part is the implicit assumption that we've become such attention-starved and blabbering ego maniacs that we can't imagine playing a course WITHOUT then writing about it -- as if the WRITING about it is more important than the playing itself.

Peter

It's crazy to think that this would be the case.  This is a small form for a very niche interest/hobby but I have seen first hand the reach.  I made a post on here a couple years back criticizing a golf course I was an Assistant at about their decision to choose a certain Architect for their master plan to improve the course.  Within a day my General Manager received an email and I was asked to take the post down.  It was out of line for me to make such comments given my position but I didn't think it would ever come back to my club, let alone so quickly!  It was a valuable lesson learnt no doubt but the good news is things worked out for the club.

[Tim Pitner]

I can't help but think this thread is in response to some of Mr. Pitners posts. Is it?

Pit is not on my radar.

Happy to keep it that way Kav.

[John Kavanaugh]

It may surprise people that I believe that any club that allows unaccompanied play by a rater, blogger or someone willing to pay a high fee has to live with whatever they get.  That is a fair trade.

My issue is with those of us who have ongoing relationships with clubs either through friends or some con we are running.  Anytime you visit a private club three times in five years you have become an associate member and the rules change.  I personally can think of at least five clubs where this is the case for myself.  They have given so much to me that I owe them in return.  This is also a lifetime deal in that you can't decide that you will never be back in the area and start dropping bombs.

I can also tell you from first hand experience that you are not only held accountable for what you say on this site at clubs you visit, you can also be called where you are a member.  The first rule of golf rumor mongering is that your super knows their super and they talk.  I think they take a class in chatty kathy 101.

[Mike Hendren]

In truth, we shouldn't struggle with it at all, because, blogging world aside, no one ever does care about what we have to say.

Jeff, therein lies the issue - there is  no such world anymore where the blogging world can be set aside.

I recently was taken to task regarding another poster I've never met about a golf course I've never seen or commented on and a membership where I don't know a single soul. 

It's a dangerous world out there.

Brushy

[SL_Solow]

One of your more interesting threads, Barney.  It raises fundamental questions about good manners as a guest while also raising issues regarding our ability to discuss courses on this site.  Ordinarily, the rule that as an invited guest, one should not speak ill of one's host or anything he holds dear is a good one absent special circumstances.  However that would mean that the only analysis, other than fawning positive critiques, would come from members, professional critics or raters.  Otherwise only public courses could be discussed.  Perhaps that is why in the early days of this site, most used assumed names so they could be free to violate standards of decency without being held accountable.  I am not sure I liked the results of that ethic.  For some, such as myself who hold positions in golf associations, we have additional constraints

So what do we do unless we want to limit our discussion to public courses, theoretical problems or arguments with raters?  I am not sure I have the answer, particularly since I confess to enjoying theoretical problems.  But I suppose it starts with the recognition that as  guests we owe our hosts courtesy and that if we plan to post we should say so.  Second, if we do post, we should be honest but polite and, absent some special qualifications, we should make it clear that our opinions are our own and we should try to explain our opinions.  Thus to say that the 16th hole at a course is "horrible' is merely insulting and really tells the reader nothing.  To suggest that it is overly narrow and that the green is shaped poorly given the likely angle of approach, gives the reader and club member something to consider and identifies the author's prejudices.  Thus even the club member can evalute the criticism.

As far as the types of "secrets" that are best classifed as rumor-mongering", I suggest that those have no place on this site.

The difficult balance is trying to engage in frank, honest and open discussion about a topic we enjoy while maintaining our status as decent and considerate guests.  Having hosted Barney, I know that he appreciates his status as a guest and I appreciate the thread as an effort to deal with a sensitive problem.

[Mike Nuzzo]

... finding a "Penthouse Letters" style story ...

You just happened to find this? 

[John Kavanaugh]

SL,

I had a great time that day you generously hosted me at your club.  Above someone said that silence may be read as a negative.  I still am so impressed with the interior design of your clubhouse that my mind leaves little room for opinion about the architecture of the course.  It is museum quality modern retro.  This in no way is intended to be a poor reflection on what I remember as one of the finest courses i have ever played en total.  Reading silence can be a dangerous business.

[Sean Leary]

JK,

Can you fix the title, please. Intellectual is one of those words that seems wrong to have spelled incorrectly.

[Tim Martin]

JK,

Can you fix the title, please. Intellectual is one of those words that seems wrong to have spelled incorrectly.