Are you kidding ? Yourselves ?

[TEPaul]

Gib:

Sure #11 green NGLA is manufactured looking and anything but "site natural" in all it's lines! It isn't the only one either. #1 is! #2 is from the rear. #3 is from certain angles. #7 is one of the most manufactured looking greens I've ever seen! #8 looks manufactured and very much so from certain angles and is made more manufactured looking by the 9th tees stacked up next to it even higher.

The interesting thing about all of the 8th green is it really isn't as pushed up in the air as it appears to be. You have to walk well out to the right, to the left and behind it to see why. It basically sits on a natural ridge running along the hole on the left and through the left side of the green and continuing well on out behind it. MacD and Raynor actually seemed to have "cut" on the low side of the green for their fill instead of on the other side which would have been more normal and ended up making the green look less up in the air!

But the all-time manufactured feature to me at NGLA is behind #3! They pulled that off somehow although I haven't  figured it out yet. Maybe it's got something to do with how they broke up the top line of it or maybe even that it's just so outrageous and "of an era" that it just works because of that! Who knows, it will always be fascinating.

And what you say about doing a course that is just "site natural" in almost every way?! That is a goal and a bit of a dream, but I'm sure it could be done. That was definitely a dream of the old guys that they were hoping would happen when the advancing technology and machinery would allow it and facilitate it. It appears the Modern Age let them down that way!

Almost all the green sites on the Ardrossan routing could be extremely "lay of the land natural" and they could really work well for golf with that too! And this site in Virginia could really be the same, even more so in fact. You can just look across the land and see them-the natural landform holes, including the natural green sites! All you really have to do is just mix in some bunker features and things to create cool and interesting strategies with the natural strategies that are already there with the topography-some gravity stuff and random bounces. It's not all that way though and there is a very complex area there that would really take thought, work and imagination!

But if it was me I would spend a thousand hours there finding  it and figuring it out before cranking up the D-8!

[TEPaul]

Thanks for the aerial of Fowler's hole. There's some amazing stuff going on on that hole. I couldn't see that cross bunker in the first photo and looking at the photo closely it looks like the approach plays very much uphill--very much.

Which might explain a purpose and function of those mounds.  I don't know how long that hole is but that enormous mound might give the approach some visibility on where the green is which of itself might be completely blind from way down below. So the mound might be primarily a bit of an aiming point!

That's an interesting thing to do if that's what he put them there for! I don't know Herbie Baby, I just don't know! And if that wasn't enough he put a drop-down tier on the back of that green which must make it play very interesting and maybe a little bit strange.

Mostly that kind of approach from down below would have a higher rear tier instead of a lower one. Why would he do something like that? Probably because the ground behind the green might go back down again or at least level off and to make the rear higher with an up-tier (to catch some visibility) instead of a drop-down would really get the rear up in the air and might look terrible from behind--so he created a drop-down tier back there and got the rear lower. I guess Herbert never saw the rear of #10 Maidstone! If you hit it back there you're waaaay below the green! And the rear of #10 Maidstone from #8 green really does look manufactured up-but somehow I'm not sure it really is!

He could have lowered the front of the green some but then he really would have the green blind and the visibility feature--the mounds would look even bigger than they already do.

[George Pazin]

Seems to me that if one of the modern whipping boys put in that mound & followed SOP, he would've moved it out 20 yards or so to the right(as viewed from approach), or placed it behind the green to act as a backstop, so that it would contain bad shots - he sure as h$&l wouldn't have used it to create a potentially blind & thus strategically challenging approach!!

Also, I don't think anyone is saying that the old guys NEVER created anything.

This attempt to prove a bias is grading out at an F--, IMHO. Let's stop this waste of time & start talking golf holes!!!

I want to learn from you guys who've played the best, not continually read arguments like this !! You owe it to the rest of us who haven't a chance to play the big boy courses. Please grow up & start some discussion with some meat to them.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tim,
I believe the lake at Stonewall is actually an old irrigation pond when it was a dairy farm. There is more to that, such as eco-issues that didn't allow them to fully utilize it or even touch it. Maybe Tom can answer.

George,
I totally agree with you regarding the nit-picking. In fact, I'm tired of my own attempts at adding humor to horrible design. However, I do think that when viewed in the light of what is being said by us three "T's" I think it is of a worthy and interesting effort for all to understand the interpretation of other great works.

[Patrick_Mucci]

How come when some on this site view a Rees or Fazio mound, they never suggest that they look at the other side before offering an evaluation ?

Tom MacWood,

The mounds at Beau Desert don't seem like they are natural to the site.
Have you ever played Atlantic ?  How many mounds are on the
7th, or 8th holes ?
Aren't most, if not all of Rees's mounds outside the strategic field of Play ?   Doesn't that make a HUGE difference, as the mounds never compromise the strategy in the play of the hole?

TEPaul,

Read your 01-12-02, 1:08 pm post, then read Tom MacWood's post immediately above it, and tell me that my
"Authorship Theory" isn't valid.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tommy:

Whatever the story behind it, that irrigation pond just works for me.  I can't articulate better than Tom Paul why it does so.

I wish you could see the negative example of mounding I cited at Boulder Creek.  It makes the Atlantic look like Shinnecock.

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

I think there is an overal problem with photographic evidence of golf courses.

Regardless of who the architect is, one or two pictures can seriously distort one's perception of a golf hole or course.  A good example is found in the Fazio book, the special edition for Sand Rdige members.  John Henebry's photography is brillantly clear, but his shot of #18 obscures the choices the golfer faces when playing the second shot.  Equally, how many photos of Augusta have you seen that adequately depict the topography of the property.

Anyone using photos on GCA will always have to be careful.  They can confuse and obscure as much as they illuminate.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Weiman,

I believe I covered that with a caveat in my second paragraph

George Pazin and Tommy Naccarato,

If it's profound discussion of architecture you want, look at my last paragraph in my original post, then ask why few chose to address the issue.  Including the two of you !

And George, I do think it is necessary to understand that the viewing and evaluating that exists on this site is sometimes colored by who the architect in focus is, rather than the architectual merit and playability of the feature, hole or course, and I would like to, and have been campaigning to get away from that.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I think this topic has had good and very comprehensive discussion. You asked the question though if I thought your "Authorship Theory" was valid. I'm sure you have lots of theories but I really don't know if your "Authorship Theory" is valid because I have no idea what that means or what it is.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tom,
Authorship Theory is a conspiracy theroy not unlike that of hidden gunman on the knoll and the one in the curbside sewer, of which I totally believe.

Please help, martians have invaded my county.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Paul
Thanks for posting the aerial it realy illustrates how the hole plays and I must say the course looks like it might be a hidden gem. I spoke with someone who is intimately familar with the course and he said that Fowler did a wonderful job of maximizing the natural features of the site. He described the golf course as exceedingly natural and he also said the club avoided publicity. Interestingly the site was originally treeless.

The fifth plays from a high tee on a hillside down into natural valley and then back up hill to a green. He said the mound dominates the strategy of the hole. The green is evidently long and narrow, with two distinct levels - unusual in the back level being lower then the front. The angle of the tee shot determines how much one must flirt with the mound and what type of trajectory the approach must have -- hugging the inside of the dogleg and the left hand bunker sets up the best approach. He felt the mound was brilliant and gave the hole interest.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
Your stated goal was to make two points. First to make the point that the evaluation of a hole seems to have its basis, largely in the name of its creator, rather then in the architectual merits of the specific hole. And you attempt to defend Rees and Fazio as two who are unfarily treated. You seem to be following the Matt Ward line that there is bias toward certain architects and against Fazio and Rees in particular. (Certainly they have been criticized, but that criticsm is not universal and there are many who point out both quality and weaknesses in their work) But from your post I take it you believe that there is absolutley no difference in the overall quality of the former group and the latter two. That is the dilemma. You do not see the difference in the methodolgy of design -- there are clear differences. You have very simplistic outlook and really have never attempted to identify why certain architect's designs are more appealing than other architects.

I'm not quite sure if your goal was to discredit the evaluating abilities of a few or to defend Fazio or Rees or to point out the weaknesses of the past or maybe all three. I do think it is interesting that you and Matt did not participate in the analysis of the unnamed photos that Tommy posted. Certainly there was no bias involved there and was a blind excercize in simple evaluation.

I recieved an interesting phone call out of the blue last week from a prominent individual who everyone on this site would no doubt be familar with. I had never spoken to him in my life, I had once sent him a note expressing my admiration for his work, but I had not talked to him. He told me he liked to lurk on the site, but preferred not to post, although he was tempted on occasion. He wanted to let me know that he agreed with a lot of what I had written and he had enjoyed my recent essay. He went on to comment about the thread regarding naturalness and we discussed why we thought certain individuals didn't seem to understand what was clear to us both. I said I thought some were excellent golfers and may have felt their golfing ability translated into an expertise about golf architecture. But that so called interest in golf architecure for some odd reason didn't include studying architectural theory and they seemed to be opposed to picking up a single book on architectural theory. He agreed and said that many good players are so focused on their games and getting from Point A to Point B that they miss the actual details. I said that he was very good player so why did he see things differently and his attitude was he could play better if he understood and appreciated the architecture -- so he studied.

But he had different take as to why those few did not understand. He said it had nothing to do with intellegence or reading or even being a really good player, but that they were simply unable, incapable of seeing the naturalness and aesthetic qualities of a well designed golf course. And it actually wasn't their fault, they simply didn't have the proper lense, their brains were wired differently. He likened it two individuals standing in front of great work of art and one sees the subtleties and the greatness, and other simply thinks it looks nice, but so do the paint by number works on finds at a Flea Market. Some people are born color blind or tone deaf, these individuals are born aesthetically challenged.


Your second point and most important point was to ask if it was OK to create a feature not in harmony with its immediate or distant surrounds, if it serves a valid architectual and/or playability purpose. (Now that I think about it, I suppose it sepends on your diffinition of harmony and don't you have to utilize nature in the first place to be in harmony with it?) And I believe I answered that question, I'm not sure you agreed with my answer or not. Did you read my essay on Arts and Crafts golf? As usual you seem to look at this issue in a very simplistic black and white way. You do not seem to understand the difference between utilizing the natural features of the site (the common denominator of the golden age) and creating features that emulated nature (a popular theory held by some, but not all). The importance of utilizing nature and the importance of variety (which relates to the randomness of nature) seem to be the common threads -- and we can credit Horace Hutchinson.

You seem to be focused on the mounds at Beau Desert, no doubt because of the popular criticism of Rees' mounds. But the single mound that Fowler uses is nothing like what Rees has used to contain his flatish fairways, both from frequency standpoint and strategic standpoint. There is distinct difference in how each designer looks upon Nature's role and how much they assert their hand. You must agree that Beau Desert looks to be a golf course blessed with natural attributes, no matter what your opinion of the mounds might be. I'm sure Shoreacres, Essex County, Banff and Somerset Hills all possess features that are not natural to their sites, yet all are extremely natural designs. And for the 15th time, no I have not played Atlantic, although I've seen plenty of photos. You think creating mounds outside the strategic field of play is a good thing?

I'll leave you with another taste of Fowler's good work.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,


When I first came on this site the Bias was substantive,
and if you're denying it, you obviously didn't read the posts carefully or have a simplistic view on equitable treatment.

One only has to look at the Atlantic/Bridge/Nantucket/et. al.
posts to see the clarity of the double standard.

Your photo sure looks alot like # 16 at Innescrone, what a remarkable resemblence.

How do you know what I've read or not read ?
What Arrongance !

And, you have no Idea about what I THINK about architecture, only an idea about what I WRITE about architecture.  And one may or may not be reflective of the other.

I liken your analogy about art to the scene with Steve Martin,
in L.A. Story, another example of Arrogance.  
You understand art and architecture, but I, and others don't.
Well maybe you do have a better understanding of art, perhaps you understand the art created when an Artiste throws cans of paint at a canvas and calls it art, and tries to sell it for $ 100,000.  I call it .......

How do you not use the natural features on a site ?  
Isn't it all a pure function or byproduct of routing ?

Let me say again, that if those pictures were of a Rees or Fazio hole instead of Fowler, the interpretation, and evaluation
would have been substantively different, and you can't tell me those Fowler mounds fit in with THE NATURAL flow of the land.  At least Tom Paul conceeds that fact, even if it is simplistic.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
Is it possbile you are confusing bias with being discerning?

Did I say anything about your reading?

That's a good one, I don't know what you think about architecture only what you write - you've playing clever mis-information campaign on GCA, throwing us a curve. You actually dispise the work of Rees Jones.  

Who said you don't understand art or architecture - you're awfully defensive. I take it you're not a big fan of Jackson Pollock. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

How do you not use the naturally features of a site - see Nantucket. What do you make of the photos of the Sanctuary in Links? There are half a dozen questions on my last thread that you for some reason overlooked, maybe by answering them we might better understand our respective views. As far as my view of the Fowler mound re-read my previous posts and my view of features that contrast with the natural surrounds. Is it possible that you are too caught up in the Fazio and Rees against the world view, and it really doesn't lend itself to interesting architectural evaluation and criticism?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I hope you're not telling me that my interpretation and evaluation of those mounds would be substantively different if they were built by Fazio or Rees Jones instead of Fowler.

If you are though it probably has something to do with the "containment mounding" hiding the "temporary" maintenance facility at The Bridge and what I said about that. That topic is gone now but I stand by everything I said about that "containment mounding" hiding the maintenance building at The Bridge.

I did write a lot about my interpretation of Fowler's mounds on here today so it's right there for you to see.

But I think there is a distinction between Fowler's mounds here and Rees's mounds and it's a distinction you made on here today about Rees's.

You mentioned Rees's mounding and made the point that Rees's was well away from the line of play and as such could not compromise the strategy of the hole. And you went on to ask wouldn't that make a HUGE difference.

Actually I do think it would make a difference. And that would be that Fowler's mounds here seem to me to have real strategic value to this hole but Rees's mounding being well away from the line of play wouldn't have any strategic value at all, would they?

So I would ask you why would he built them? What value do they have in that case, and particularly when they really don't fit into the natural landscape.

In other words, if a feature is going to look manufactured, at least give it some strategic purpose and good strategic purpose at that. I think we can agree that NGLA has plenty of examples of that, but certainly little if any examples of manufactured features with no strategic value at all and also well away from the line of play.

At least I think that's what you said about Rees's mounding. I see you think that Fowler's mound here is unnatural looking but did you say anything about it's value to the strategy of the hole?

[Rich_Goodale]

Pat

The answers to your questions are:

1.  Not conscsciously
2.  Yes

This opinion is confirmed by the volumes of text above.

PS--congratulations on your "Doyenhood."  I'm sure that Tom Paul is happy too, as he must have been feeling lonely since that bleak day when both he and I lost our "g :oodhood."

Tom MacW

Your mystery caller has made a very wise decision in choosing to channel his thoughts about GCA and aesthetic pyschology and philosophy through you.  If I were someone as prominent as he I would not wish to express such twaddle directly in a public forum either.  You are being a good solider.  Keep up the good work.  

Third Tom (Tommy)

Thanks for injecting your sense of humor into this discussion.  Seriously.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I am capable of discerning bias from being discerning

You don't have to attempt to make your point with an anonymous source.  If someone called you and put forth their views, and you quote or interpret their views and use them in a post, say for example, "Ken Bakst said this, or Tom Doak said that, or Brad Klein said the following".  Especially when
the post is attempting to dismiss individuals as being incapable of seeing nature and the art in architecture.
If you want to give weight to your/their opinion by expressing how qualified they are, listing their general credentials, use their name.

Yes, you did say something about my reading.
I can't believe that someone, so qualified to see the subtleties in almost every form of art, can't remember the words they wrote a few hours ago, so let me help you in my simplistic way.  When I stated that it was arrogant of you to assert that I hadn't read about architectural theory, and to posture that you knew what I had read, it was based on the following words you wrote.

Tom MacWood:  "I said I thought some are excellent golfers and may have felt their golfing ability translated into an expertise about golf architecture.  But that so called interest in golf architecture, for some odd reason didn't include studying architectual theory AND THEY SEEMED TO BE OPPOSED TO PICKING UP A SINGLE BOOK ON ARCHITECTUAL THEORY."  

With respect to you stating I was being defensive, I wasn't being defensive, I was just defending myself, and my siimplistic views from an elitist opionion that postured that I and others know nothing about architectual theory, and you and select individuals do, as partially evidenced by the synopsis of the mystery caller's conversation with you.

Neither you, nor anyone else has any idea with respect to my views on the Fowler mounds.  I referenced them because they clearly don't fit in with your NATURALNESS MANDATE, and had they been Fazio or Rees and not Fowler,  the outcry would have been pronounced.

I didn't participate in Tommy's bunker picture posting because I thought the exercise was flawed.   Are you stating that because Matt Ward and I didn't participate, that somehow that detracts from our architectual eye or disqualifies us from offering intelligent opinions ?  What difference does it make if we participate or don't participate on a thread, or are you capable of discerning our reasons ?

It would appear that your preference or perspective is more oriented to architecture through art, whereas mine is more oriented to architecture through playability, which I feel is the primary and ultimate test.  Where both exist golf course architecture is at its best, like NGLA for example.  A brilliantly contrived golf course.

I don't believe that all architectual features have to be in complete harmony with nature, I don't believe that is the primary criteria for the architectual merits a golf hole.

Lastly, if Tommy Naccarato, or Ran, or anyone creates a thread with a view, I may decide to debate that particular view, but that doesn't reflect my thoughts on architecture, I doesn't tell you what I think about architecture.
And, six months later, someone could post what amounted to my views on the same subject, and I could take the opposite viewpoint, and ..... you still don't know what I think about architecture, only the perspective I've chosen to champion on a particular thread.

TEPaul,

I happen to like Fowler's mounds.
And, it just dawned on me, after typing this post, that I had seen similar mounds before, but where and by whom ?
Pete Dye, Old Marsh.

If Ree's containment mounds are outside the strategic fields of play, then they are of no consequence in evaluating the strategic merits involved in the PLAY of the hole, which has been my point for some time.  And if a mound is used to hide an unsightly feature, or bury debris, it serves a valid purpose even if it is removed from the fields of PLAY.  

I hope you agree that not all mounds are bad, not even Rees's, that a good deal depends on function, in and outside the fields of play.

From your recollection, are those  containment mounds that border the right side of the 5th fairway at NGLA ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I am capable of discerning bias from being discerning

You don't have to attempt to make your point with an anonymous source.  If someone called you and put forth their views, and you quote or interpret their views and use them in a post, say for example, "Ken Bakst said this, or Tom Doak said that, or Brad Klein said the following".  Especially when
the post is attempting to dismiss individuals as being incapable of seeing nature and the art in architecture.
If you want to give weight to your/their opinion by expressing how qualified they are, listing their general credentials, use their name.

Yes, you did say something about my reading.
I can't believe that someone, so qualified to see the subtleties in almost every form of art, can't remember the words they wrote a few hours ago, so let me help you in my simplistic way.  When I stated that it was arrogant of you to assert that I hadn't read about architectural theory, and to posture that you knew what I had read, it was based on the following words you wrote.

Tom MacWood:  "I said I thought some are excellent golfers and may have felt their golfing ability translated into an expertise about golf architecture.  But that so called interest in golf architecture, for some odd reason didn't include studying architectual theory AND THEY SEEMED TO BE OPPOSED TO PICKING UP A SINGLE BOOK ON ARCHITECTUAL THEORY."  

With respect to you stating I was being defensive, I wasn't being defensive, I was just defending myself, and my siimplistic views from an elitist opionion that postured that I and others know nothing about architectual theory, and you and select individuals do, as partially evidenced by the synopsis of the mystery caller's conversation with you.

Neither you, nor anyone else has any idea with respect to my views on the Fowler mounds.  I referenced them because they clearly don't fit in with your NATURALNESS MANDATE, and had they been Fazio or Rees and not Fowler,  the outcry would have been pronounced.

I didn't participate in Tommy's bunker picture posting because I thought the exercise was flawed.   Are you stating that because Matt Ward and I didn't participate, that somehow that detracts from our architectual eye or disqualifies us from offering intelligent opinions ?  What difference does it make if we participate or don't participate on a thread, or are you capable of discerning our reasons ?

It would appear that your preference or perspective is more oriented to architecture through art, whereas mine is more oriented to architecture through playability, which I feel is the primary and ultimate test.  Where both exist golf course architecture is at its best, like NGLA for example.  A brilliantly contrived golf course.

I don't believe that all architectual features have to be in complete harmony with nature, I don't believe that is the primary criteria for the architectual merits a golf hole.

Lastly, if Tommy Naccarato, or Ran, or anyone creates a thread with a view, I may decide to debate that particular view, but that doesn't reflect my thoughts on architecture, I doesn't tell you what I think about architecture.
And, six months later, someone could post what amounted to my views on the same subject, and I could take the opposite viewpoint, and ..... you still don't know what I think about architecture, only the perspective I've chosen to champion on a particular thread.

TEPaul,

I happen to like Fowler's mounds.
And, it just dawned on me, after typing this post, that I had seen similar mounds before, but where and by whom ?
Pete Dye, Old Marsh.

If Ree's containment mounds are outside the strategic fields of play, then they are of no consequence in evaluating the strategic merits involved in the PLAY of the hole, which has been my point for some time.  And if a mound is used to hide an unsightly feature, or bury debris, it serves a valid purpose even if it is removed from the fields of PLAY.  

I hope you agree that not all mounds are bad, not even Rees's, that a good deal depends on function, in and outside the fields of play.

From your recollection, are those  containment mounds that border the right side of the 5th fairway at NGLA ?

[Tom Doak]

Pat, I'm going to agree with you, by way of a good story.

Three years back, before they were famous, I had the pleasure of playing Lost Dunes with the brothers Morrissett.  After the round, Ran was having some problems with my second hole, which has a large mound covered with dune grass at the immediate front left of the green.  [It's pretty severe for a 430-yard hole.]

Ran was having trouble with it because it was an artificial feature.  He was quite surprised and pleased when I told him it was there when we started -- a leftover from the sand quarry operation which we built the hole around!

At which point I began to wonder, what's the difference?  It was the same hole, whatever the origin of the mound.  [I happen to think it's one of the best holes I've built, too, but that's beside the point.]  The point is, I probably never would have thought to build a feature like that in a spot like that if it hadn't been there, but if I WAS that clever, it would be just as good, wouldn't it?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

Your example brings up a question I have always pondered.

Forgetting the incredible disparity in sites, how does one view the 17th at Prestwick, and the 5th at Old Marsh, especially  in the context of the approach to the green ?

[Paul Turner]

Tom Doak

Have you seen Beau Desert since writing The Confidential Guide?  The club appears to keep a really low profile and I'd never heard of it until Ran put it in his Next Fifty.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Rich
It is a personal choice if one participates or not. And didn't you recently post something about a friend who knew a friend who knew a friend who was a USGA official who refused to time Nicklaus? Perhaps you might detail exactly your disagreement with his views, one man's twaddle is another man's insightful comments. His stated reason for not invovling himself, firstly his very private nature and secondly because of his belief in aesthetic deafness he didn't want the frustration. He'd prefer I beat my head against a wall.

Pat
How have you determined that that it is bias you detect and not difference in taste. You your self have admitted not playing many courses of either man. But you obviously disagree with some others assessment, which is fine, but a disagreement is not a bias. If one man is discerning and the other man is not, how can the non-discerning man possibly know what is a bias and what is not?  In my view to prove a bias, you need articulate why X designs are good or bad, and why Y designs are good or bad. Not looking a single feature on a single hole and calim this is the proof - that proves nothing. I'd rather see people with strong opinions about good and bad architecture, than those who think everything is good.

And as far who the person was, it was none of the above -- as I said before this person did not participate on this site. And that is my last comment on the subject.

Are there persons who are tone deaf? Are there person's who are colour blind?

Did I mention your name when I discussed reading? Stop being so defensive about being defensive.

Very interesting thoughts about your views on GCA not neccessarily being your architectural views. That's a new one. Perhaps you can put a short disclaimer in small lettering below your posts, The following should not be construde as my architectural opinions.

I'll assume in this last post of yours you didn't mean any of it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Perhaps our differences are: you seem to decide which man is discerning and which man isn't.

Tom, surely you saw the bias when one individual posted that Rees Jones designs don't make you think, and no one  objected or challenged that ludicrous statement.  As I said, therein lies the bias.

Surely you saw the bias when Brian Schneider posted that he visited Hollywood ONLY after the restoration project and that Rees Jones ruined it, especially, he claimed, with the typical mounds that REES put in on the 4TH and 7th holes,
WHEN, THOSE MOUNDS HAD BEEN THERE FOREVER,
and Brian had never seen Hollywood PRE REES.  

Now, you tell me, is that BIAS or difference in TASTE ?
Is that a specific enough example (x and Y) for you ?
If you don't see the above examples of bias, then you are either biased or incapable of discerning bias.  

I don't believe I'm alone when I say that I felt your retelling of your anonymous phone conversation was directed at me.
Nor do I believe you would tell me if I hit the nail on the head.

Perhaps I also view public forums differently then you.

I do have strong architectual views, but a given post may not necessarily express or reflect them.

[Paul Turner]

Tom Doak

But do you still stand by: "Yet it is the subtle and small-scale hazards that have the most pleasing effect: obviously artificial mounding identifiable from any distance detracts from the otherwise pristine landscape" ?(From The Anatomy of a Golf Course)

You  go onto to write "Sometimes, too, an obstacle many architects would destroy because it is not a traditional hazard can become the centrepiece of a unique hole".  Which sounds like it might be the case for that mound at Lost Dunes

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

The following are my honest views:
Pat
Someone saying that Rees Jones designs don't make you think is an opinion, an opinion that you may not agree with, but an opinion none the less. Disagreement should not be characterized as bias. And as far as the Hollywood thread, I'll take your word that Brian was mistaken (although to this day I'm not totally convinced he was wrong, he made his observations, you would check your sources and come back a day or so later with different facts, you obviously were not certain yourself and I'm not sure who your source was or the accuracy of that person, and I'm still unclear as to who did what at Hollywood, who is Issac Mackie?). When is a mistake in judgement a bias and not a simple mistake? When it effects someone you respect? He obviously didn't see the course pre-Rees, but you never saw the course pre-Wilson or Garden City pre-RTJ or pre-Colt, that shouldn't prevent educated observations. And now unfortunately since your brow beating one of the more passionate architectural obserers rarely if ever participates.