I think I could make MacKenzie, Tillinghast and others better architects

[Sean_A]

Yeah, but you said the "2012/2013 contributors" were "listed in red", not just the 2013 contributors.

And you know that the list is not a cumulative list of everyone who has ever contributed, right? So you can't look at that list and accuse people of what they have or have not done.

Plus there are or were some folks who contribute anonymously.  I tried it at one time, but for some reason it was hard for Ran to get the message. Besides, Pat gives enough for at least 6 people - so no worries.  Anyway, I reckon whoever raises the subject of not volunteering to hand over a cheque should be cited for poor form and be made to a $25 contribution fine. 

Ciao  

[JLahrman]

As an example, if it would help this very worthwhile discussion...I have contributed multiple times (including 2012), and used to appear on the list, but for whatever reason I do not appear on the current list (and I have not yet contributed in 2013).

Not that I care if my name shows or not. But some apparently do.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Yeah, but you said the "2012/2013 contributors" were "listed in red", not just the 2013 contributors.


When do you think the check that arrived on Jan 3rd was written, in 2012 or 2013 ?
Don't you know anything.


And you know that the list is not a cumulative list of everyone who has ever contributed, right?

I never said that the list included everyone, I merely said it was the list, and that GJ Bailey's, Will Lozier's, William Grieve's and Mark Pearce's names didn't appear.

So you can't look at that list and accuse people of what they have or have not done.

I never accused anybody of anything, I merely posted the list and noted that GJ Bailey's, Will Lozier's, Willaim Grieve's and Mark Pearce's names didn't appear.  Are you incapable of reading ?

Isn't it time for you to go whining to Mike Sweeney ?

[Steve_Lovett]

I'm just seeing this thread for the first time. Could've been a fabulous topic - except that the discussion went to hell in a hurry.

As to the original topic:
Mayo Clinic is, in the opinion of many, the gold standard of health care in the U.S - maybe the world.
I learned recently from a Mayo physician that he's never once seen a patient invoice. He has no idea how the business aspect of Mayo works.
Mayo's structure emphasizes physicians doing what they were trained to do. To practice medicine only.
This is great in a highly technical profession where necessary services and scopes are clearly defined. Like medicine.
In the creative/design profession each professional practices differently and the client's needs are always different.
Scope of work is associated directly with each project's needs/objectives - and the business relationship proceeds accordingly.
In that respect, it's easier to engage in the creative process when there is NO business limitation.
I don't know that a business manager would unlock more creativity or make them better architects - if anything a business manager might look to increase the designer's accountability to operate profitably, and that could add pressure and reduce their effectiveness as designers.

Either way - being independently wealthy with no financial pressure is the ideal scenario. You can do what you want without financial consequence.

[Michael Moore]

I never accused anybody of anything, I merely posted the list and noted that GJ Bailey's, Will Lozier's, Willaim Grieve's and Mark Pearce's names didn't appear. 

No, you said that those people had not "contributed a penny toward helping to support this site", which is impossible to determine from looking at the list of recent contributors.

[William_G]

Yeah, but you said the "2012/2013 contributors" were "listed in red", not just the 2013 contributors.


When do you think the check that arrived on Jan 3rd was written, in 2012 or 2013 ?
Don't you know anything.


And you know that the list is not a cumulative list of everyone who has ever contributed, right?

I never said that the list included everyone, I merely said it was the list, and that GJ Bailey's, Will Lozier's, William Grieve's and Mark Pearce's names didn't appear.

So you can't look at that list and accuse people of what they have or have not done.

I never accused anybody of anything, I merely posted the list and noted that GJ Bailey's, Will Lozier's, Willaim Grieve's and Mark Pearce's names didn't appear.  Are you incapable of reading ?

Isn't it time for you to go whining to Mike Sweeney ?

exactly the point again, thank you

Go 9ers

[Will Lozier]

If you'll go back and reread this thread, you'll see that it as Will Lozier who took it off topic and personalized it by involving me, then Mark Pearce and others joined in, so William, if you want to start admonishing people, start with the ones who redirected the thread and got personal, instead of whining about me.

Patrick,

Read the title of your thread!  It was personalized by you when you typed the third word of the title of your thread! You claimed you could have enhanced the legacy of the greatest golf course architects of the Golden Age! You said "I (you) could make [them] better architects"! Read the title again...it is the height of your arrogance and has been disputed by nearly every response for a multitude of reasons.  In the response you accuse me of taking the thread off topic, I made light of your infallible knowledge and incredible powers to improve the work of some of the greatest artists to have ever lived - in any art form in my opinion - and mocked your proposal that you could have saved them from "dying in dire straits" despite having to live through the worst economic disaster of our country's history!?  What is not hilarious about that? You continue to act like a catty freshman chick calling people names (kind of like I just did) and bitching continuously. It is unworthy of this sight (but sadly funny to think of you churning out your insults in the wee hours while sweating profusely in front of your glowing green computer screen).

By the way, I contributed a very small, humble, and anonymous (no longer) donation before I was a member of GCA.com when I knew nothing of the discussion board but only immersed myself in Ran's course reviews.  Just like I do to my 22-month-old's preschool, the school where I teach, and NPR. But what the hell does that have to do with any part of this thread or the others that you are whining about being ganged up on?!  Stupendous...you are a legend in your own mind.

Don't stay up too late, you probably have to play another great golf course tomorrow!  I am jealous!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Read the title of your thread!  It was personalized by you when you typed the third word of the title of your thread!

Only a moron could infer that.
you conveniently left off the qualifying portion of the title.
do you teach your students to follow your example of misrepresentation ?

You claimed you could have enhanced the legacy of the greatest golf course architects of the Golden Age! [
Thats correct, by pairing them with an astute business manager/administrator who would free them up to concentrate on what they did best.
didn't you read the Mayo Clinic post ?[
Or, do you prefer being dishonest ?/b]

You said "I (you) could make [them] better architects"! Read the title again...

it's disingenuous, but typical that you would misrepresent and omit the complete title, which clearly defines my role.
it's a sign of dishonesty.
And you're a teacher of children ?

it is the height of your arrogance and has been disputed by nearly every response for a multitude of reasons.  


No it has't, in fact it's been reaffirmed by others.
Just because you don't understand the concept doesn't mean it's not valid.
There's no question that if they were free to pursue the design aspect of their practice to the exclusion of other duties that they would have been more productive.
that you don't understand that doesn't surprise me


In the response you accuse me of taking the thread off topic

that's correct.
You deliberately took the thread off topic, something you're prone to doing
let's just call it a character flaw

, I made light of your infallible knowledge and incredible powers to improve the work of some of the greatest artists to have ever lived - in any art form in my opinion -

Your opinion on the matter is worthless since you have no understanding of the concept regarding the "division of labor"
If these fellows could be freed of mundane, non-productive chores, they'd be able to spend more time designing and building courses.

But, when your world is confined to academia, spending all day with pre-schoolers, i can see why you wouldn't get it.

and mocked your proposal that you could have saved them from "dying in dire straits" despite having to live through the worst economic disaster of our country's history!

I didn't say that I could save them, rather that a skilled business manager/administrator could have made them more efficient, more productive, ergo more successful.
your inability to understand that basic concept betrays your moronic conclusions

 What is not hilarious about that?

Your inability to comprehend is what's hilarious


You continue to act like a catty freshman chick calling people names (kind of like I just did) and bitching continuously.

with good reason, you deliberately attempted to take the thread off topic
and, you did so either absent an understanding of the concept or deliberately misrepresenting the concept.
in either instance it confirms your "moron' status.


It is unworthy of this sight (but sadly funny to think of you churning out your insults in the wee hours while sweating profusely in front of your glowing green computer screen).[color=[green

shows you how delusional you are, that you would think anything you could say would make me sweat.
laugh, deride, chastise, yes, but never sweat.
[/color]

By the way, I contributed a very small, humble, and anonymous (no longer) donation before I was a member of GCA.com when I knew nothing of the discussion board

Not much has changed, you still know nothing

but only immersed myself in Ran's course reviews.  Just like I do to my 22-month-old's preschool, the school where I teach, and NPR.
But what the hell does that have to do with any part of this thread or the others that you are whining about being ganged up on?!  
I never whinned about being ganged up on.
i rather enjoy it.
with your reading comprehension skills i hope the town/state has recertification requirements for teachers at your school


Stupendous...you are a legend in your own mind.

At least give the original author credit for that line

Don't stay up too late, you probably have to play another great golf course tomorrow!  I am jealous!

It's snowing out so i don't think i'll be playing much golf tomorrow or anytime soon.

[Mark_F]

That's absolutely untrue.
Just ask the artists who create music for films.
Talent on demand.

You clearly have no idea on how a film is scored, Patrick. 

Ah yes, those evil entepreneurs who risk their capital with no guarantee of return, who create jobs and contribute to society, vis a vis taxes, charity and community service.  Those guys are real exploiters all right.

These are some statistics I found.

In 1978, the typical male US worker made $48,000 a year (adjusted for inflation). The average person in the top 1% was making $390,000. By 2010, the median wage had plummeted to $33,000, but at the top it had nearly trebled, to $1,100,000.

Which jobs are they creating and how are they contributing to society? 

[Bradley Anderson]

Not that I am against drinking but I wonder how much alcohol had to do with the deterioration of their fortunes?

Ross was not a drinker and maybe that made all the difference in his habits and his work ethic.

[Bradley Anderson]

Ah yes, those evil entepreneurs who risk their capital with no guarantee of return, who create jobs and contribute to society, vis a vis taxes, charity and community service.  Those guys are real exploiters all right.

These are some statistics I found.

In 1978, the typical male US worker made $48,000 a year (adjusted for inflation). The average person in the top 1% was making $390,000. By 2010, the median wage had plummeted to $33,000, but at the top it had nearly trebled, to $1,100,000.

Which jobs are they creating and how are they contributing to society?  
[/quote]

I doubt that these statistics are unbiased but even if they are accurate why do you lay the blame on the wealthy?

There are thousands of lawyers in Washington who are paid to make new regulations - regulations which become law without the review of congress. The regulatory agencies have taken a huge bite out of our earnings. No one ever talks about this. Just as no one ever talks about how pouring more funny money in to the economy lowers the value of our savings.

Of course the wealth of the upper tiers will grow faster in this type of government. What else should one expect from a system that attacks the earning power and savings of the masses? To a point there is little you can do to protect yourself against progressive policy making until your wealth reaches the level where you are able to make the kinds of investments to protect it.

Middle income people would protect their wealth from progressive policy makers too if they could.

But it's easier to just blame the wealthy and cast them as the demons.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark,

Your statistics are flawed because you're comparing the top 1 % to a median group.

In addition, no matter what happens, the TOP 1 % will always look better by definition alone

A more valid comparison is to compare all percentiles, 1 % versus every other %, not medians

[Garland Bayley]

As an example, if it would help this very worthwhile discussion...I have contributed multiple times (including 2012), and used to appear on the list, but for whatever reason I do not appear on the current list (and I have not yet contributed in 2013).

Not that I care if my name shows or not. But some apparently do.

Like I said Patrick, you lie! You can't believe everything you read on the internet.

After all you have admitted to "misleading the opposition" when someone has shown you were not telling the truth. So, you must truly understand that you can't believe everything you read on the internet.

[Garland Bayley]

Folks,

This is called misleading the opposition.

Speaking of contributions, I noticed that neither you, Will, GJ and William Grieve haven't contributed a penny toward helping to support this site.

I never said that the list included everyone, I merely said it was the list, and that GJ Bailey's, Will Lozier's, William Grieve's and Mark Pearce's names didn't appear.

[Patrick_Mucci]

As an example, if it would help this very worthwhile discussion...I have contributed multiple times (including 2012), and used to appear on the list, but for whatever reason I do not appear on the current list (and I have not yet contributed in 2013).

Not that I care if my name shows or not. But some apparently do.

Like I said Patrick, you lie! You can't believe everything you read on the internet.

We're not talking about the internet in a universal sense, we're talking about GCA.com and I tend to believe what Ran and Ben post about their site

After all you have admitted to "misleading the opposition" when someone has shown you were not telling the truth.


Now that's a lie, a blatant lie.  You're the liar and have lied on repeated ocassions.
.
What I said, when discussing Donald Trump and his project in Scotland, is that just because he says one thing and does another doesn't mean he's lying, that he's just negotiating.  I then went on to cite the example of "Pawn Stars", whereby Rick Harrison will say, "$ 1,000 is the most I'll pay" when someone wants $3,000.  Then, when the seller says, "I'll take $ 2,000,"  Rick says, "$ 1,500 and we have a deal".
So, was he lying ?  Or just negotiating ?  And that's what Trump does, it's a negotiating tool.  It wasn't something I said when you claim I wasn't telling the truth, that's your deliberate attempt to distort the facts and the truth, showing that you're not to be trusted, that you'll lie, distort and misrepresent in order to present your side.

You aren't to be trusted

For you to state that "I" "admitted to misleading the opposition when shown that "I" was not telling the truth."  is a blatant lie, and an incredible distortion of the facts and proof that you're a scum bag, and not, or rather, never to be trusted to be honest
."
So, you must truly understand that you can't believe everything you read on the internet.

There's "reading" what's been stated and then there's deliberately "misrepresenting" what's been stated, and I know the difference.
evidently you don't and have stooped to misrepresenting and lying, repeatedly.

As to what to believe on the Internet, I know that by your own words that you're a liar and not to be trusted.

If there's an error on the list of contributors, have it corrected, but, until you do, your name is NOT  on the list of contributors, and that's a fact.

[Sean_A]

Speaking of contributions, I noticed that neither you, Will, GJ and William Grieve haven't contributed a penny toward helping to support this site.

Not that it should matter, but for some reason it does to you.  When are you going to back up this accusation?  Or is this just more bluster?  Check that, I don't care if you can't back it up. 

If there's an error on the list of contributors, have it corrected, but, until you do, your name is NOT  on the list of contributors, and that's a fact.

So do you or don't you know if the list includes all donors?  What weight does the fact of names not being on "the list" carry?  You have raised this issue a few times in the past and on this instance chased it like a dog after its tail?  Why? 

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

Speaking of contributions, I noticed that neither you, Will, GJ and William Grieve haven't contributed a penny toward helping to support this site.

Not that it should matter, but for some reason it does to you.  When are you going to back up this accusation?  Or is this just more bluster?  Check that, I don't care if you can't back it up.  

Sean,

The moron bug has evidently hit you.
I merely quoted the list that Ran & Ben publish in the contributions section.
Do you think Ran & Ben are misrepresenting the facts ?

If there's an error on the list of contributors, have it corrected, but, until you do, your name is NOT  on the list of contributors, and that's a fact.

So do you or don't you know if the list includes all donors?  

It says it does, why don't you take the time to read it instead of asking questions that the contribution section answers


What weight does the fact of names not being on "the list" carry?  

How do you know if any names have been "left" off the list ?

You have raised this issue a few times in the past and on this instance chased it like a dog after its tail?  Why?  

When someone mentions "contributing" to the site, there's more than one area where contributions can be made.[

To a degree, contributing to support the site seems to be a matter of putting your money where your mouth is.
A reinforcement of your commitment to GCA.com

You've contributed to support the site as well as contributing by initiating threads and engaging in discussions.

When some start complaining about the content and tone of the discussions I think it's relevant to see how committed they are to "protecting" the site, vis a vis their "contributions".

[Mark_F]

I doubt that these statistics are unbiased but even if they are accurate why do you lay the blame on the wealthy?

Are you serious?  Wealth = power.  Power is the ability to mold lawmakers to create laws that benefit you, at the expense of others.

Middle income people would protect their wealth from progressive policy makers too if they could.

Key factor being if they could.  Which they can't, because that would impact upon the wealthy, and heaven forbid they have to give up a dime.

But it's easier to just blame the wealthy and cast them as the demons.

I'm not casting them as demons - you can cast out demons with a few well chosen words and a little holy water.  The wealthy keep threatening to leave, but don't. 

Mark,

Your statistics are flawed because you're comparing the top 1 % to a median group.

In addition, no matter what happens, the TOP 1 % will always look better by definition alone

A more valid comparison is to compare all percentiles, 1 % versus every other %, not medians

Patrick,

I'm not sure my statistics are flawed - perhaps not entirely accurate, since I doubt the average American has suffered a wage drop of that extent, but I have seen enough similar statistics to believe it is somewhere around that.  That is perhaps the main reason the Western world has been mired in an economic slump the past five years, with no prospect of recovery.  No doubt you believe it is because of the onerous burden of taxation and regulation people like you have to incur?

Of course the top 1% will always look better - the point is that the economic gains of the last thirty years have gone nearly entirely to them.  Or are you denying that there is a massive inequality in the USA that has grown exponentially  the last 30 years?

[Kevin_D]

With the Super Bowl on hold at the moment, I'm going to humbly try to steer this back on topic.

PM,

Were there specific architects that you were thinking of, who -- relieved of addressing practical bureaucracy -- would've produced more or better product?

One of them was AWT.
His body of work is rather limited, but the quality of that body of work is truly outstanding.

When you have to wear many hats, as is often the case with one man operations, it tends to dilute and prevent you from doing what you do best to the exclusion of other duties.   Hence had AWT and/or  others had an administrator or staff that would have freed them from the mundane but necessary tasks, they could have devoted more time to that which they did best, design more golf courses.

I marvel at AWT's work, especially in and around Mamaroneck
He designed four of the greatest courses in the world right next to one another.

Winged Foot West
Winged Foot East
Quaker Ridge
Fenway

Each distinctive, and each world class.
You have to marvel at that achievement.

There was an explosion in the number of golf courses in the early part of the 20th Century.
Wouldn't you have liked to have seen more of them crafted by AWT ?

I guess i'm saying, I don't think we got short-changed by many of the ODGs except Raynor.

I'm not so sure.
Ross seems to have been the only one to build an organization, and it was the efficiency of that organization that allowed Ross to be so prolific

Imagine if AWT had adopted that business model.

Sadly, at the present time, the golf course business and the economy are contracting, but when the ODG's were practicing, it was booming, and one man could only do so much when he was the Jack of all trades rather than the Master of one.
And that's one of my primary points.

You "get it".
Unfortunately there are too many morons who don't, who continue to divert threads and take them "off topic" 

Patrick, do you think that more quantity from Tillinghast (or others) would lead to more quality?

Sure, Ross was far more prolific, but I grew up caddying at a Ross course that was rated a 3 in the confidential guide. I also played a lot at another one that was a local muni - while not a bad course, no one would drive more than a half hour to play it.  Ross obviously designed many great courses but had some stinkers in that 400+ as well. 

It seems that a lot of great golf courses were designed by men who concentrated on building great courses every time rather than building a lot of courses.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kevin,

If you look at the quality of AWT's body of work, it's outstanding.
Volume wise he wasn't as prolific as Ross, but the quality is outstanding.

A good business manager/administrator might have prevented him from making bad investments including investing in a Broadwy show,
partnering with the PGA and embarking upon the time consuming National tour for a few years.
In addition he might have been able to convince him not to become an antique dealer.

When you consider AWT's time lost due to bad decisions, there's no doubt in my mind that he would have continued to have produced high quality courses.

AWT essentially designs his last active course in 1929, then does Alpine in 1931, then Bethpage in 1935/36.
He dies in 1942.
So you have a 4 year gap (1931-1935) and then a 6 year gap (1936-1942)
10 years with no original designs.

So, I'll ask you, do you  think he could have designed more high quality courses in those 10 years ?

From 1930 to 1942 Ross had about  17 courses, Bell 8, Brademas 7, MacKenzie 10, Flynn 5, Allison 14, Banks 6 (1930-1932), so it appears that there were ample contracts being awarded in those 10 years.

10 empty years that might have been filled with more great courses had AWT not been a ship without a rudder, a ship that a sharp business manager/administrator might have been able to steer to greater glory.

What do you think ?

Mark,

Yes

[Will Lozier]

Only a moron...yadda yadda yadda

Your standard response!  Thanks for all the kind words!

[V. Kmetz]

PM,

I looked at Tillie's Wikipedia page of courses which they delineate by

OD denotes courses for which Tillinghast is the original designer
R denotes courses reconstructed by Tillinghast
A denotes courses for which Tillinghast made substantial additions
E denotes courses that Tillinghist examined and on the construction of which he consulted

You're spot on about new, original designs but he has got a ton of work from 1930-39 i nthe latter three categories.  Combined with the fact that the Depression brought the Golden Age to a near-screeching halt (no new private member-equity clubs were built in Westchester County from 1931 - 1965) I'm not convinced that hsi activities in this period were so desultory.

Westchester is not the only place he worked and I do not challenge your interpretation of his "other activities" perhaps sapping him of vitality for increased original oeuvre, but it seems to me it wouldn't have produced THAT many more original designs.

In addition to Tillinghast, were there others you were thinking of?

cheers

vk

[Patrick_Mucci]

VKmetz,

Did AWT take the revisions because they were easy pickings, a quick buck ?

For a guy who produced such high quality courses his entire career, taking renovations to the exclusion of new commissions seems like a sharp departure for such a creative, talented guy.

Imagine if C&C or Doak stopped original design work and only accepted renovations, wouldn't you wonder why the change of direction ?
Why the cessation of the creative spirit ?

But if AWT was in financial straits, which apparently he was, wouldn't quick fixes in the form of renovations bring him quick money without a lengthy committment ?

Will,

As usual, your posts bring nothing substantive to this site

[Sean_A]

Speaking of contributions, I noticed that neither you, Will, GJ and William Grieve haven't contributed a penny toward helping to support this site.

Not that it should matter, but for some reason it does to you.  When are you going to back up this accusation?  Or is this just more bluster?  Check that, I don't care if you can't back it up.  

Sean,

The moron bug has evidently hit you.
I merely quoted the list that Ran & Ben publish in the contributions section.
Do you think Ran & Ben are misrepresenting the facts ?

If there's an error on the list of contributors, have it corrected, but, until you do, your name is NOT  on the list of contributors, and that's a fact.

So do you or don't you know if the list includes all donors?  

It says it does, why don't you take the time to read it instead of asking questions that the contribution section answers


What weight does the fact of names not being on "the list" carry?  

How do you know if any names have been "left" off the list ?

You have raised this issue a few times in the past and on this instance chased it like a dog after its tail?  Why?  

When someone mentions "contributing" to the site, there's more than one area where contributions can be made.[

To a degree, contributing to support the site seems to be a matter of putting your money where your mouth is.
A reinforcement of your commitment to GCA.com

You've contributed to support the site as well as contributing by initiating threads and engaging in discussions.

When some start complaining about the content and tone of the discussions I think it's relevant to see how committed they are to "protecting" the site, vis a vis their "contributions".

I have no reason to believe Ran isn't representing the facts correctly, but in the case of the donor list I don't care.  I certainly wouldn't peruse it in the hope of finding an arrow to sling at someone.  You quoted the list and made an accusation.  I merely asked if you know if the list is accurate and why it matters.  Okay, you have essentially stated that guys shouldn't bitch if they don't contribute financially or otherwise.  That is a sentiment I can get on with, but as I understand it the folks you singled out were not bitching about Ran or his site.  They were bitching about member conduct.  While I think they have a valid point, I wouldn't go so far as to call it bullying, just instances of poor form. No matter what the behaviour is labelled, I don't think whether or not one has contributed financially is material to the discussion.  If you have concerns about protecting the site why not ask folks to contribute - without naming names or pointing fingers?  Raising the issue in the middle of threads is, well, poor form. 

Ciao

[Kevin_D]

Patrick,

I had a similar thought to VK - didn't the depression and WWII limit the amount of new work even possible in the 30s and early 40s?  Also, as his business manager I hope you can go back and advise him to short the market in mid 1929!  I wasn't aware of his personal history but he is clearly far from the only person to lose a lot of money on investments in that era.

But setting that aside, of course the world be a better place with another AWT course in it.

My point is that if you, say, doubled the amount of courses AWT did, we might get another gem or two, but I bet the level of quality would have to drop off at some point and the average AWT course would not be as great.  Perhaps one of the appeals of, say CBM or MacKenzie courses is that there aren't that many of them?

I think I remember reading somewhere that a lot of great courses, especially from that era, were their architect's first, or one of first, designs (PV, NGLA and Merion come to mind).  Sometimes, creativity and passion are highest at the beginning of one's career.

Kevin