Loyalty vs Intelectual Honesty

[Mike Hendren]

JK,

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

It's not easy being a Hillbilly.  Trust me.

Bogey

[Tim Martin]

I think JaKa is correct in that after a number of plays over a number of years with the same host a sort of defacto relationship with the club has developed. I know that I like others on this board will play most every year at least once with friends at different private clubs. You will remember staff as well as other members who will also likely remember you albeit in a casual fashion. Loyalty is a key ingredient in any true friendship and should override the urge to say something that could jeopardize it. In the case where you are playing as an unaccompanied guest the circumstances may be a little different but you are still fortunate enough to be granted access. Contributors on this board should and can steer clear of threads where a relationship has developed if it is important to both parties. It being Easter week I feel as if I just went to confession.

[John Kavanaugh]

JK,

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

Sorry, but I guess you do not refer to the Urban Dictionary or know Emily.

[Ronald Montesano]

Sean, take this the correct way...

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

Should not a criticism on spelling be grammatically correct as well?

[Mac Plumart]

John and Sean...

You guys are both dum asses.  I'd never make a gramatical; or spelling mistake.  

Regarding the topic, Mr. Solow's right (as usual).

[MikeJones]

Well it's a bit like getting invited for dinner. While you may not care for the food you probably wouldn't tell your host exactly what you thought was wrong with it.

[John Kavanaugh]

Well it's a bit like getting invited for dinner. While you may not care for the food you probably wouldn't tell your host exactly what you thought was wrong with it.

That is better than saying it was great in person and then your wife posting on Facebook how it sucked.

[Kalen Braley]

Well it's a bit like getting invited for dinner. While you may not care for the food you probably wouldn't tell your host exactly what you thought was wrong with it.

That is better than saying it was great in person and then your wife posting on Facebook how it sucked.

John,

But you assume that GCA.com blokes actually speak to their wives.  I'm pretty sure you were the one who invented the creedo, "women should be seen, not heard"

[Tim Pitner]

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.  

Let's remember that many people hold public courses dear as well.  So the rule (in my view) ought to be to be respectful in one's commentary, without regard to the public or private status of the course.  

[Benny Hillard]

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.  

Let's remember that many people hold public courses dear as well.  So the rule (in my view) ought to be to be respectful in one's commentary, without regard to the public or private status of the course.  

I intend to use this site as an educational tool to gain a much broader understanding of golf architecture from as many different sources as possible.
As long as people can communicate their dislikes of a course in an way that allows others to judge their opinions (as discussed earlier) I have no problems

[BDuryee]

Not sure the invitation to someone else's home is a fair analogy. I haven't seen to many lists on best new wife, best contempory wife, best wife in state, I think there is usually an understanding and appreciation that your course is going to be "judged" when you invite a guest. Like anything I think there are those that judge with tact and those that judge with a hammer.

[jim_lewis]

It seems to me that it boils down to what you value more,  common courtesy or the need for the world to read your critique of a golf course. For me the answer is easy.

It has been suggested by some that it is ok for a rater to post his criticism of a course. That does not work for me. I am a rater, and I have had the opportunity to play a lot of private courses, sometimes at no or reduced cost to me. I consider my rating to be private. I will not share it with the club leaders and I will not post it. I just think it is poor form and bad manners to publically criticise a course where I have played as a guest or for free. I will always try to say something nice about the course to the pro, but they never know how I rate the course.

I know that if everyone here had the same attitude, there would not be much critical discussion on GCA. Well, I could live with that.

[Tom_Doak]

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.

John:

Interesting thread.

Fortunately, the only courses which I've frequented enough on the dole to feel guilty about criticizing are also places like The National and Cypress Point, which I don't really have to hold back on.

People sometimes ask me why I don't go back to such-and-such course, thinking that if I did, I would have a better opinion of it; but I think your rationale is one reason I don't go back.  I don't expect my opinion would change, but even if it did, it would be suspect.

[Tim_Weiman]

Jeff Brauer:

I don't know if it is true nobody cares what we have to say. A while back I made arrangements to visit two very high profile clubs that were going through some significant architectural changes. In each case an official of the club made it a point to greet me and show me around.

I was treated very nicely, but it was also made clear the one thing they didn't want was me saying anything on GolfClubAtlas.

The truth is I really didn't like what I saw at either course, but as keeping quiet was a condition of my visit I complied or at least I thought I did. Believe me, in one case the mere fact I acknowleged - on GCA - I visited the course to see what all the fuss was about totally pissed off my host.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Barney, I am with Bill on this for sure. If I am a guest of a Member, I am not going to openly run down his course, no more than I would insult his wife. If he/she were to ask me a specific question, I would answer it honestly to him. If in a crowd i would likely semi doge the question as a guest.

[John Kirk]

I recently offered criticism of a course I played.  I was a guest of the club.  I feel crummy about it, and I'm getting tired of doing it.

I think people do listen to our critiques, and when you criticize a course that is under financial duress, whether you know it or not, you are messing with people's livelihoods.

It's not the same as a corporate whistleblower, where illegal or unsavory business practices may actually bring harm to the public.  These are golf clubs.

It boils down to the role of a critic in society.  They do have value, but there's a price to pay.

It's difficult to frame all golf architecture discussion in terms of what works, and not what doesn't work.

[Don_Mahaffey]

There are way too many people who think they know so much about golf architecture, maintenance and club operations that they can critique based on one visit.  Its like saying the greens are bad because you played the day after aerification. (believe it or not I’ve heard that one)
An example, we had a guest to Wolf Point who was critical, in a very nice way, but critical nonetheless of how one hole played. His criticism, you couldn't chip to the hole if you missed this particular green to the right. The facts, on that particular day, with the pin in a particular spot, he missed the ball where it was very difficult to go straight at the hole, but not hard at all to go 10 feet left or 10 feet right. Had he missed his shot just a little shorter, or a little longer, he would have had a good look at the flag. He used that one instance to say the hole was unfair. This is from a very educated and traveled guy who I respect. But, you just don't figure out a course like Wolf Point on one visit and I do not know many people who have the ability to offer criticisms based on one trip around the course. It’s just not that easy to pick it all up.
If you’re going to offer public criticism it is best that you know what you’re talking about.

[John Kirk]

About your comment, Don...

Interesting that the type of criticism you mention was given by a respected analyst of the game.  Soetimes you short side yourself, and the best you can do is a long (20, 30, even 40) foot par putt.  This is true at all of the best golf courses.  The fact that Wolf point offers a chance to get closer than that by playing away from the hole is a big positive.

That's all.  So I wouldn't say something stupid like that.  I'd say something else stupid instead.

[Mac Plumart]

I think this might be getting a little off the course of the opening post, but educational nonetheless.

Let's be frank, if we are going to be intellectually honest then very few of us will know a golf course initmately.  Perhaps we will know one or two courses intimately, but the bulk of these courses we will see once or twice and can make some observations based on those few plays.  But to be honest, that is all we will have: basic observations.  

AND...if we talk about those observations and others share theirs, then we might be able to piece together a body of knowledge on a course that goes beyond our few isolated plays.  In fact, I think that is the idea behind these panels of raters and that entire process.  One rater might have played Course X in high winds, another in mild conditions, another in summer, another in fall, etc, etc, etc...compile their individual thoughts and you should end up with something more in-depth in terms of analysis.  

In fact, CB MacDonald said "I do not believe any one is qualified to pass on the merits of any one hole, let alone eighteen holes, unless he has played them under all the varying conditions possible---varying winds, rain, heat, frost, etc."  There can be no question that he is correct.  If we are indeed going to be intellectually honest, we need to accept this fact and simply offer our basic observations regarding courses where we haven't played under enough differing circumstances to make appropriate evaluations.

Anything less than that is hubris.

[John Kavanaugh]

Anything less than that is hubris.

Or an elaborate con to gain or exhibit power over others.

[Peter Pallotta]

John, Don - your comments seem exactly right and to the point: 1) people's livelihoods are affected by our critiques, and 2) a critique based on one visit is at best incomplete/uniformed. From these two points I come away feeling that it is irresponsible for most of us to be making negative comments.

But from there I'm of two minds. Part of me remembers a line by CS Lewis that says "The rules of chess aren't meant to solve problems but to create them, much like the rules of morality don't solve our moral quandries but engender them". The other part of me feels like telling everyone to "Just shut the f-ck up!".

Peter

[Bart Bradley]

I actually believe that the answer lies in the forum of the debate and the spirit of the critique.

If this forum is a serious intellectual opportunity to debate and shape the future of golf course architecture, criticism must be allowed and, in fact, embraced.  No learning or understanding of the topic can be complete unless all sides of the subject (both good and bad) are explored. 

The spirit of the critique is likewise of paramount importance:  one must be offering the analysis in good faith and with kindness.  Hidden agendas, conflicts of interest, etc must be avoided and divulged.

I certainly understand the argument that this forum may not meet the above criteria, and there seems to be a constant debate that occurs here:  Is this just a fun chat room or is it an important outlet for education and vehicle for progress (OR something in between)?

But, if you believe that critics can reward good work and discourage bad, and that the area of impact is a worthwhile cause, how can you stifle critical input?

Bart

[Adam Clayman]

Don, There's at least one poster on this board who, for the life of him, cannot separate his criticisms of the course based on his play. There's another who continually sites maintenance issues based on their one time visit, or reports, that are years old.

If you are going to credibly critique the architecture, you have to do exactly that. Not how you played it, or, how it was maintained the one time you visited.

As Shel so aptly put, justifications are the most important part of an opinion expressed on this website. Without that, all you're doing is wasting bandwidth. And there's a lot of wasted bandwidth in this DG.

Clean it up people or hold off on your self important one liners.

Well said Bart

[Matt_Ward]

Don:

Fair point -- but here's my take.

If someone doesn't want to know what I think -- don't ask me.

If they do want to know -- really know -- then be prepared to hear what I offer.

No doubt people can disagree and I don't doubt your original premise is quite valid -- multiple rounds can add much. But, a return visit can also mean a previous high grade can be lowered too.

Bart:

Well said -- unfortuately, in my many visits - the people who say they want to get a wide range of comments really only want to hear the good ones.

Jim L:

Your approach works for you -- so be it. But when you have site like this where the only true way to learn is to have open posts -- whether they be harsh or less so. If people are more concerned with the PC approach then frankly what's the point in having this site?

[JC Jones]

In fact, CB MacDonald said "I do not believe any one is qualified to pass on the merits of any one hole, let alone eighteen holes, unless he has played them under all the varying conditions possible---varying winds, rain, heat, frost, etc."  

CBM said this?  I thought it was Pat Mucci !?!