[Tim_Weiman]

On another thread Mike Cirba mentioned a name I never heard of before: Kelly Blake Moran.

So, I went to Moran's site (www.kellyblakemoran.com) and nosed around a little bit.  There I found one interesting commentary:

“Some thoughtful analysis has been made of the "classic" courses and their architects.  Sometimes, the analysis includes derogatory comments such as today's architects not being able to shine the shoes of the "old masters".  This type of analysis over time has actually created an us versus them mentality, causing advocates of the old masters to gather into a loosely organized lobby group.  Rather than this group shining a light on the subject of classic design, giving thought to the good and the bad, all toward the goal of educating, they have fallen into the worst habits of an advocacy group that sees only the good in their way of thinking, and only evil in others that do not fall in line.”

Not knowing the first thing about Moran I wondered if he was referring to GCA.  Can anyone shed light on Moran?

[jim_lewis]

I don't know anything about Kelly, but he/she must be a regular lurker on this DG. He/she certainly has this group pegged!

[Mike_Cirba]

Naaaahh....Tim...Ya think??

He was probably referring to one of the many other loosely-knit lobby groups for classic design.  You can hardly step out the door these days without bumping into them.  

Sheesh....talk about a misinterpretation!  Good and Evil?  

Should we be wearing hoods or something?  The ironic thing is that I any mention of his "modern" courses I've seen on here, including my own, has been largely very positive!  

[Mike_Cirba]

You know, just the fact the Jim Lewis and I would have such completely different responses/reactions certainly belies the belief that we are some monolithic mass of group-think!!!

There is more arguing and debate going on in here than in a household with 10 children!  

I would only wish that Mr. Moran would perhaps participate here as well, as he seems rather schooled in classic design principles.  We're really not all that "evil".  Sheesh!

[jim_lewis]

Mike:

I don't know Kelly and can only speculate that he is not as careful and precise in his choice of words as the veterans of this DG. I bet he really didn't mean to use the word "evil". He may have intended something closer to "ignorant, mis-informed, or mis-guided". It seems to me that posts on this site often seem to be communicating something along the lines of, "If you were as well traveled, well read, well connected, and understanding of the nuances of architecture as I, you would agree with me." But then as you say, that's the way my siblings and I speak to each other all the time.

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim,

I've read much of Kelly Moran's website in the past after having played Hawk Pointe, and he seems to be a very thoughtful and intelligent man.  

And I do agree that there is sometimes an informality and even belligerence in here that might be off-putting to the uninitiated, or even to the veteran.  I have to admit to cringing at certain things I've read at times, and perhaps some have had the very same negative reactions to things that I've written at times.  

Still, I think that really speaks to two things...1) Passion...even when we disagree, or even when we are hard-headed, it seems that the people who participate here uniformly have a deep love for the topic of golf courses and their architecture and sometimes such passion gets heated and things are said that come off poorly. and 2) Knowledge...There is an incredible body of knowledge among this group that we can all learn from even when we vehemently disagree with each other's subjective opinions on the real "meaning" of that knowledge.  

As far as biases, I think we all have them, borne of our own experiences and tastes.  However, it's when we stop being open-minded to understanding the views of others that such biases become self-defeating.  

Still, if someone believes that all courses by one architect are great and all by another are crap, I think each of us can individually consider the source and make our own determinations.  

For my thinking, this forum has some of the brightest minds, eloquent writing, and passionate people of any public group on a single topic I've ever seen.  I also believe that the decorum, although sometimes extremely opinionated, sometimes lighthearted and jocular, and sometimes even moving, is something I take pride in being part of.  

[Matt_Ward]

Kelly Blake Moran used to work with Von Hagge Associates. I've played one of his solo designs -- Hawk Pointe in Washington Township (NJ).

The course benefited from having a good degree of acreage that used to be farmland -- however, the land is relatively flat and not in the same catgeory of terrain you will find at The Architect's Club in Philipsburg (NJ).

Hawk Pointe plays 6,907 yards from the tips and features a few greens that are really neat in their overall presentation. However, I found the course to be rather similiar in appearance and the shot demands are OK but few are outstanding.

The final hole is a solid closer as it dog-legs around a large pond that makes you think how much can you cut off. Last I heard the course was in the process in possibly going private.

Anyone who is in the area should go by and see it. It's certainly one of the better public courses in the Garden State.

As far as his comments are concerned -- I think extremes by any person, on GCA or outside, are usually a bit much. I'm amused when people use the word "evil." I guess we must be from the Dark Side here on GCA!

[TEPaul]

Jim:

Funny post there and probably very true about the apparent attitude of many of the contributors to this website; (....you don't know as much as I do so the implication is that you're wrong).

Odd remarks from Kelly Blake Moran though. Particularly since as MikeC said noone here has criticized him or his work, quite the opposite actually. And if he has read golfclubatlas and truly thinks these people on here are ignorant, misinformed and misguided, My God, what could he think of the Everyman golfer who thinks very little about golf architecture and actually admits that he cares not enough to even say he knows anything about it?

I haven't seen any of Kelly Blake Moran's work but I have heard good things about it from some others. If he's referring to Golfclubatlas in that quote my impression of his work won't necessarily change but my impression of him will!

[BV]

I believe Kelly Blake Moran is well aware of this DG, whether or not the comment is in the regard of this group only he can answer.  I met him at Lehigh briefly this year and he knew of this DG, he was eating lunch with at least 3 names known here who either participate or read regularily.  The likelyhood of the discussion of discussing the discussions on the discussion group here was likely discussed.

Not far from The Architects of golf in Phillipsburg, NJ, is his Hawke Point in Washington, NJ, which is worthy of a visit.  It is near the intersection of NJ 31 and NJ 57.

[jim_lewis]

I would not want to unintentionally contribute to a condemnation of Kelly for the view expressed on his website. Actually, except for the use of the word "evil", I pretty much agree with him (if the quote is his).  I have reason to believe that he is not a regular lurker on this site and that the quoted comment does not refer specifically to GCA. Maybe there are, in fact, others out there who admire the works of the old masters, only.  But, "if the shoe fits......."

By the way Mike, I agree with everything you said. I admire passion as you do, but there is a fine line between passion and blind fanaticism.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kelly Blake Moran is a thoughtful, intelligent, capable individual.

Hawk Pointe has received positive reviews.

When individuals express a desire to have architects participate openly on the GCA site, you have to ask yourself several questions,  

Do they perceive that they are entering a hostile environment based on the history of the prior posts.

Do they perceive a bias toward modern day architects ?
Do they feel a focused bias toward specific archiects ?

Do each of you who view this site and post, have any desire to have 500 or so novices review every aspect of your job, the quality and quantity of your work, and work effort 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year.

Heck, some of you hide your time on this site from your wife,
which would appear to be an aversion to scrutiny.  

Heightened scrutiny has forced many an individual to avoid politics, or the spotlight.

What purpose would serve the modern day architect who would participate on this site ?  

In the ultimate, the success of the golf courses they design, and the total environment they designed them in determines their fate, and place in history, not us.  

Let's not hang a person based on one word, be it evil or inept!

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

I agree with you, and you raise many fine points.

However, I would also argue that not many of us have jobs where we are responsible for producing works of art and recreation for thousands of people on hundreds of acres in a very public arena, even if the course is "private".  

As you have mentioned many times in the past, without healthy criticism, progress is impossible, and I would add that it is also impossible to advance an art form without thoughtful criticism.

My reaction was based on how "black and white" the criticism of "classic golf lobbyists" on Mr. Moran's site sounded, ironically while criticising mass generalizations himself.  Generalizations of any type rarely tell the whole story, and are inherently limiting.

What's more, if this site is so biased against modern architects, then why have I read (and written) such largely positive praise for Mr. Moran's courses on here??  

He's not the only one...what about modern architects like DeVries, Horn, Eckenrode, Engh, Kay, along with the usual suspects who get mentioned here all the time?  Yes, we do reserve some of our biggest criticisms for some big-name modern architects who take on a ton of high-visibility projects simultaneously but once again, that comes with the territory.

I think the history of design largely proves that architects who take on too much, while personally successful, inevitably have their art suffer from the impossibility to bring full attention to every project.  In contrast, Mr. Moran's "on site" approach that he discusses on his site seems to be a healthy exception, but also seems to recognize the same problem himself.    

As I mentioned numerous times here before, Moran is a modern-day architect whose work I would seek out, and I would love to see him participate here, if only to help in the education process that we all seem to enjoy, whatever our persuasions or personal tastes.

[Tim_Weiman]

Patrick Mucci,

My intention was not to "hang" KBM.  Hell, I don't know the first things about the guy!

Like Mike Cirba, I read quite a bit of his web site and came away feeling that he likes to write, discuss golf architecture and might even like participating at GCA once in a while.

I'm one of those folks who would like to see more industry people, including architects, developers, superintendents, journalists, etc., contribute to GCA.  I'd like to see the "treehouse" community grow.

We can't offer protection from scrutiny or bias.  And we frequently.....or should I say, sometimes have a hard time maitaining basic common courtesy.

But, we can offer a reasonable good time, a chance to share a passion, and who knows, maybe even some business will spinoff as a result.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
Do they perceive that they are entering a hostile environment based on the history of the prior posts?
For those designers who have been regularly criticized by a super majority I'd say yes. For the rest including Moran, the answer is no.

Do they perceive a bias toward modern day architects?
No. Modern courses are naturally scrutinized more often due to the fact they are new - that has always been true within the arts. The greatest critics of modern architects are other modern architects. Some of the most hostile comments I've read directed toward 'visting' architects on this site have come from anonymous sources and a number of them I suspect are other architects. That might prevent some from participating, but most on this site look upon anonymous shots as sour grapes or professional jealousy.

Do they feel a focused bias toward specific archiects?
The ones who are unknown might, the few that are regularly criticized probably (but I doubt they could defend themselves anyway and why bother when you have others carrying your water). Some architects are better than others (Bendelow v. Ross, am I biased in thinking Ross was the greater architect), they have more talent.  I think recognizing talent is sometimes mistaken for bias. Some designs are good, some designs are bad, and I think most of this group judges each course individually no matter the designer. A problem with modern day attitudes, lets not be too critical, we don't want hurt Johnny's feelings, everyone does good work - not in my mind! Sometimes Johnny sucks.

Do each of you who view this site and post, have any desire to have 500 or so novices review every aspect of your job, the quality and quantity of your work, and work effort 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year?
What does that have to do with visting this site? Has that ever happened to a 'visiting' architect? I think there is generally respect and admiration for those architects who participate on this site. If you are uncomfortable having 500 or so novices review your work you better stay out of design.

The advantage of participating for a modern day architect: exposure which may be alluding him through the major media, he could explain his design tenants, his influences, his likes and dislikes, explain the realities of modern golf architecture, bounce ideas off of a knowledgable group of golfers, and who knows he might even pick up something.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tom MacWood,
Beautifully put.

However, I do have a few novices at my work called General Foreman and Superintendent that criticize each and every move I make. I listen to them with disdain in my heart and only the hope that 10 hours goes by pretty fast!

[TEPaul]

I've been around this website a long time now and have read and written a lot on it and my take on this particular topic subject is that sure this website focuses on classic architecture, classic architectural principles and the like! That's what it's here for, it says so right in Ran's front page! So what?

What are we supposed to do praise everything that's produced or even odder are we supposed to dole out criticism even to those architects and their work that we admire just to appear to be totally even-handed with some architecture's work that many on here don't think much of and say so now and then? That's ridiculous to me! What is this--so much political correctness that every architect and any of his work should have a 50/50 quota of praising and panning?

Maybe there is a slant towards certain architectural principles and styles and the architects that embrace them but the perception of this site as totally biased is a claim that it seems a few contributors on here make almost every week. They seem to me to be the main reason for some of the negative perceptions of golfclubatlas! They should just cut out all this hollering about double standards and constant bias towards certain architects and if they don't like someone's comments or opinions about some architectural specific they should just say why!

All of us should try not to be so thinned skinned and if something bothers you explain it in architectural specifics and detail--if you can!

[Craig_Rokke]

Just looking through the GOLF DIGEST Best new awards will
show you that there are quite a few talented architects out there that just don't get a lot of press--both here and elsewhere. In fact there are a number that I don't recognize at all from GCA. So threads like this can be good, and I hope similar threads will turn up in the future. I'd venture a guess
that we stand to gain much from exploring the work of some of these guys. I'm going to try to check out his local course next spring, and I'll report back if I do.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

You can't look at an architects work as if it was created in a vacuum.  While it may be a work of art, and open to public viewing, one must delve behind the scenes to see what was the mandate his employer gave to him, what were the driving design and financial forces imposed on him.

You and I and others loved AppleBrook, but what if there was a desire by the employer to incorporate that feature behind the 18th hole elsewhere on the golf course ?

I don't think an architects art suffers if he takes on too much, as you say, if he produces what his master directed him to produce.

Sometimes I think we forget some important collateral issues.

I did say,
"without CONSTRUCTIVE criticism, progress is impossible"

I think Tom MacWood is correct, in that the new site has reduced or eliminated many anonymous posts which were mean spirited or unwarranted, and perhaps this is a better environment, but it will take a little time for the site to distance itself from its past in that area, before some are comfortable coming on board and participating.  I  would think it would enhance and elevate many a discussion, though there  could still be plenty of room for debate.

Tim,

I didn't mean to direct criticism toward you, I was only trying to state that perhaps a short blurb on a Website shouldn't be taken as the Gospel.  

TEPaul.

An example of unfair or biased criticism would be the initial attacks on Shadow Creek, many made by people who never saw or played the course.  Steve Wynn, like Arthur Goldberg is/was a highly intelligent, successful, forceful individual, and Fazio was clearly in his employ, to do his bidding, perhaps even on a collaborative basis.  But, until Tom Doak, and perhaps Brad Klein or someone else came on here and reaffirmed that the course deserved high marks, it was panned, brutally, and for a lot of non-golf architectural reasons.

I also feel that if the classic architects we love tried to build their very same courses today, environmental issues would prevent it in many places, and those great courses might not exist in their present form.  Surely, that must be factored into the comparative equation.

Tom MacWood,

I think the new GCA may be more conducive to active participation from other architects, but, I feel it may take a little more time to establish a comfort level, before they hit the "reply" or "start a new topic" button.  It sure would be a great addition.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

To be honest I really don't remember anyone on here panning Shadow Creek's architecture. Some have said it's excellent architecture in my recall.

Some have mentioned how site unnatural it is and there's no doubt of that but that isn't exactly its specific architecture. That's only what I recall and personally, I wouldn't know as I haven't seen it and really don't plan to.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

Sorry for misquoting you.  I used the term "healthy criticism", as opposed to "constructive criticism", but assuming much the same thing.  

However, I don't think criticism that is overly harsh, or even based on ignorance is truly valueless.  Oftimes, it proves the exact opposite point quite perfectly!

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

We believe in specificity and accurate description on Golfclubatlas, so I would appreciate it if you'd try harder to be specific. Mentioning 'that feature' behind #18 green at Applebrook just does not cut it for accurate description!

Are you referring to the upslope/'Kick-up" effect behind #18 green or are you referring to "THAT FEATURE" between #18 and #9?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I had the opportunity to spend some time talking to the man behind the project.  He was delightful, enthused, open and seemingly knowledgeable about golf and his golf course.
Afterward, nearly everything I saw about the clubhouse and golf course confirmed my feelings about his love for golf and his desire to create something special, his living legacy.

And then I saw it.  I subsequently discussed it with him, and he said he saw this feature in Palm Springs, I believe, liked it, and wanted to incorporate it into his course.  Since he is the
"Boss Man", we know what happened.  This is what I alluded to in another post, the exportation of bad ideas, rather than the positive ones.

But, perhaps it serves a useful purpose.  Unfortunately, the condo's present a bit of an eyesore to golfers, so perhaps the distraction, or refocus of the golfers eye, to that feature, may serve a purpose.

The for profit reality is, that financial considerations, in this case caused a magnificent looking golf course to have a blemish or two.  It's unfortunate that a better solution couldn't be found, or executed.

But, I still love the look and feel of the course, and am anxious to play it this spring.

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

I have been lurking, which I take as not being proper behavior, for the past two days after someone notified me about this discussion group.  The quote you provided here is mine.  At the time I was dismayed by comments made by two golf writers whom participate in this web site.  I was not specifically targeting any of you.  The discussions here are very interesting, and beneficial to golf course design.  The most important aspects of design strategy are learned from personal experience, and the opinions of other persons whom are equally attuned to strategy.  While I have little time for things other than golf and family, I will like to participate more in this discussion group because it seems a very worthwhile adventure for thise of us whom love this game and the way it is played.  I do write with passion, and I have been too nasty toward the aforementioned golf writers, but I truly do not wish to offend by my comments, but would rather my comments contribute.  For some who write with passion, it is hard to avoid the bibical references of good and evil, but I do not believe that the discussions about golf architecture are of bibical proportions...just slightly below that.  

[BillV]

Thanks for stopping in and being so forthright.  Your work at Hawk Pointe speaks volumes, I look forward to more of your work.

[TEPaul]

Kelly Blake Moran:

I'm delighted you came on to this site and I sure hope you'll continue to as much as you can! Sometimes some of the regular contributors and others on here appear to beat each other up a bit and also a few architects but it appears much worse than it really is--as you say it's probably just passion in the writing and most of these people know each other somehow anyway.

But this is an advocacy group for what I would call certain architectural principles, not just for certain architects as we have been accused of being! And I think that most of us on here are aware that those principles can be applied and designed in all kinds of ways and maybe ways that haven't been experimented with much (if at all), particularly in America. To me that does not necessarily mean creating architecture in the future that must be like or even look very similar to the "Golden Age" courses, for instance!

And another thing that sometimes skews the perception of this website as a small band of closed minded golf architecture addicts is the perception that we want to see these principles or a certain style(s) sweep the world at the exclusion of others that are out there and apparently enjoyed by numerous golfers and would seem not much admired by those on here!

My feeling on that is, again, golf and its architecture is a great big world and there is room in it for everybody and everything! My hope is only that some of the valid, interesting and enjoyable principles once applied and apparently so well applied by the "golden age" era will get a wider reception in the future than they have in the last fifty years or so. And I think most on here realize and understand that many of the things to do with golf architecture became sort of skewed and somewhat corrupted in the melding of one era into another and the distinct principles, features, maintenance practices etc between the so-called "Golden Age" and "Modern Age" of architecture.

In this way really good and researched based restoration as opposed to corrupting redesign is a big part of this site, at least it is to me.

I haven't seen your work but surely hope to next year. Those who have like Mike Cirba, one of our best and most level-headed analyists has said very fine things about it as has Fred Behringer in sending me some material.

Next year I would really like to see this site get out and see and also discuss much more of the work of designers such as yourself and some others that seems to be very good and doing interesting work that appears to be adhering to some of the basic principles of architecture that very much does seem to be the hallmark of this website.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()