Does my participation here discourage honest discussion of my work?

[Tom_Doak]

Don't flatter yourself, Chris.  I wasn't addressing your glom-on post.  I don't view you and Tom as at all similarly situation on this issue. Not even close. I was only noting that, IMO, Tom and Don are in a tough position here because of their association with you.  What once might have been construed as constructive discussion is very likely to look like piling on because of your inclination to constantly protect your investment and fly off the handle is so doing.  See your recent series of posts to me as the most recent example.  

Even here, some are trying to actually trying to have a productive discussion and you are still at it.  Perhaps your time would be better spent tending to the thread you started, or is it veering too close to an actual substantive discussion for your tastes?  

Would it be stifling discussion too much to ask one or the both of you to be the big boy and stop answering the other?

[Chris_Hufnagel]

Don't flatter yourself, Chris.  I wasn't addressing your glom-on post.  I don't view you and Tom as at all similarly situation on this issue. Not even close. I was only noting that, IMO, Tom and Don are in a tough position here because of their association with you.  What once might have been construed as constructive discussion is very likely to look like piling on because of your inclination to constantly protect your investment and fly off the handle is so doing.  See your recent series of posts to me as the most recent example.  

Even here, some are trying to actually trying to have a productive discussion and you are still at it.  Perhaps your time would be better spent tending to the thread you started, or is it veering too close to an actual substantive discussion for your tastes?  

Would it be stifling discussion too much to ask one or the both of you to be the big boy and stop answering the other?

It might depend on if you do it on the board or in a private message...

[John Kavanaugh]

Tom did not shut down the "pillow fight" thread, I did. I begged Eric to stop the thread because it made no sense when we can discuss our thoughts at the upcoming 5th Major. Now we have four more long and boring threads about Dismal in its place. I wish they would all stop and we could enjoy our course in peace.

As far as Doak stifling conversation by his presence he has done quite the opposite. He has pulled back the curtain and the critics are making him pay for it. No one would talk to Crenshaw, Nicklaus or Norman with the same honesty that we talk to Doak. Doak can never regain the mystery that separates us from the gifted people we usually only gaze upon from afar. He has done a great disservice to himself while enriching us.

Chris,

I'll vote for you not posting any longer about anything that concerns Dismal. It's like a movie producer responding to critics on twitter. The fact that you have an open welcoming invite for anyone with the slightest interest in seeing the course is more than enough. Even that will hopefully have its limitations.

[Jason Topp]

To the extent it stifles conversation it does so because the poster is forced to be more polite and defend his position.  That is a good thing in my opinion.

We are not discussing rocket science but we are discussing the work of architects and the worth of creations that cost substantial amounts of money.  The possibility of a response from someone who is involved with a project elevates, rather than detracts from the quality of discussion.

[Chris Johnston]

Don't flatter yourself, Chris.  I wasn't addressing your glom-on post.  I don't view you and Tom as at all similarly situation on this issue. Not even close. I was only noting that, IMO, Tom and Don are in a tough position here because of their association with you.  What once might have been construed as constructive discussion is very likely to look like piling on because of your inclination to constantly protect your investment and fly off the handle is so doing.  See your recent series of posts to me as the most recent example.  

Even here, some are trying to actually trying to have a productive discussion and you are still at it.  Perhaps your time would be better spent tending to the thread you started, or is it veering too close to an actual substantive discussion for your tastes?  

Good grief, Charlie Brown! 

[Tom_Doak]

The other difficult aspect is the "unknown" aspects of your work.

For example, I'm no fan of the second green at Sebonack.
I've never experienced a dire event on that green, but, I believe it's "excessive" in terms of concept and play.
However, any criticism I'd offer might be misdirected.

I'd love to engage in discussions about specific holes or features, but the data base I have is limited, and as such, without knowing all the facts, I'm reluctant to engage in discussions, and I would imagine that most feel the same way.

The NDA [non-disclosure agreement] for the Rio project only extends through 2016.  The one for Sebonack didn't have an end date, and I'm not sure whether there is a statute of limitations that covers it. 

Politics played a role in almost every feature at Sebonack.  The 2nd green was the site of much discussion, and though we both approved it for grassing, it's possible that neither Jack nor I are happy with the result.  Which is a shame.  It was the best green site on the course, so it should have been the best green, and it's not that.  But there is also no guarantee that the next version would be better, instead of worse, so I'm not in favor of a change at this time.

Other than Sebonack, I'm generally open to discussing features on any of my courses, and have done so many times.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom - two points, interrelated:

1. I tend not to criticize architects or courses. But it's not because I want to curry favour or gain access, and it's not because I'm being dishonest or politically correct. It's because it's clear to me that it's totally unnecessary. No one is asking for my opinion-criticism, no one is paying me for that opinion, no one in the world is hurt by me not offering my opinion, and no one in the world benefits if I do share my opinion. So: why would I want to publicly criticize anyone when I gain nothing by doing so? Why would I want to risk hurting/offending someone for no purpose whatsoever? Well, I wouldn't, or at least I'd try not to.

2. Given what I've just written, I guess my answer would be "Yes, your presence does indeed stifle frank, i.e. sometimes critical, discussion". But, and this is the key, for me so too does the presence of Mike Young and Ian Andrew and Joe Hancock and Mike Nuzzo and Jeff Brauer and Don Mahaffey and Mike Devries and every other working architect/associate/super who posts here. If they are here and they might read what I write, I'm simply not going to post something critical about their work; again, because my silence does not cost me anything, while my criticism may cost them a great deal. The 'problem', if there is one (and for me there isn't) is not with your presence, it's with my approach/personal guidelines.

So, I'd forget all about this, Tom, and just continue on as you were. Besides everything else I've written, I say that because I believe that asking someone to examine/question not what they say or how they act or what motivates them but how their presence affects others is asking too much, or maybe something too personal. 

Peter

Peter,

I'm not sure I agree with all that you have said. We, in fact, may lose something if you and others aren't candid.

GCA discussions require input from people familiar with a course being discussed. If you really know a course and are familiar with a certain controversial aspect, those of us who haven't been there do lose something - an understanding of your perspective.

This doesn't mean you must speak up, but something could be lost if you didn't.

The most conflict I ever felt was with Doonbeg because of my love of Ireland and experience meeting the primary landowner before anything was done.

I opted to be very critical of the original architecture and have no regrets because it was honest architectural criticism. Some of the original design did appear far too much designed for a golfer with Greg Norman's skill in mind than I thought made sense. And, in fact, some was eventually changed, though I am not assuming my criticism was the reason.

[Bob_Garvelink]

Tom,

No I don't think having you on this forum prevents any of us from criticizing your work.  I'm a Tom Doak fan and love golfing your courses but I'm not afraid to criticize your work.  Keep up the good work and can you please tell us why in the Hell you buried a dead elephant under the #18 green at Black Forest?     

 I might get to rebuild that green one of these years, now that the original owner has it back.  We were trying to tie it in to a small knob in the back and the ridge on the right, and there was just too much elevation change to make that work.

Note that I could have blamed it on one or the other of my associates on that job, who are even more Teflon than me on this site ... Gil Hanse and Mike DeVries.  But the decision rested with me.

Tom,

For the record I'm a big fan of Black Forest and play it at least once a year.  If you do end up making changes to that green keep us posted.

Cheers!

Bob

[JC Jones]

Tom,

No I don't think having you on this forum prevents any of us from criticizing your work.  I'm a Tom Doak fan and love golfing your courses but I'm not afraid to criticize your work.  Keep up the good work and can you please tell us why in the Hell you buried a dead elephant under the #18 green at Black Forest?     

 I might get to rebuild that green one of these years, now that the original owner has it back.  We were trying to tie it in to a small knob in the back and the ridge on the right, and there was just too much elevation change to make that work.

Note that I could have blamed it on one or the other of my associates on that job, who are even more Teflon than me on this site ... Gil Hanse and Mike DeVries.  But the decision rested with me.

This is a less than subtle "throw them under the bus while pretending to not throw them under the bus" move.  Nonetheless....

The only time you chill discussion around here is when you discredit other people's opinions when they disagree with you or before they even have an opportunity to express them.  Usually it comes along the lines of (paraphrasing) "I've played more courses than you so I know better" or "you dont know as much as me so to the extent we disagree, I'm right."  The most recent case is in the Dismal thread that Chris just started where you said something along the lines of "you can have your opinion....but I'll know if you're right or wrong."  As if to say that someone's OPINION can be adjudicated right or wrong, and if so, you're the judge.  Because of your stature around here (see the Mt Rushmore thread), most people are thus reluctant to disagree with your opinions and then discussion is "chilled or killed."  Quite frankly, it comes across as pedantic and pompous.

As frustrating as that is sometimes, you ARE one of the greatest golf course architects of all time and you AREN'T the first to say controversial things.  That isnt the issue.  Your posts about architecture, thought processes on design and architectural merits of golf holes is absolutely invaluable whether it is controversial or not.  We are all very lucky that you are willing to share with us the inner workings of your mind.  But, just because you are THE expert doesn't mean that a) you have to pull rank on anyone who disagrees with you or b) have to dismiss other people's opinions, sometimes preemptively.  

This is what makes your print writing so phenomenal and among the best ever, because you're not reacting to anyone but just sharing your depth of knowledge.  In any event, please keep posting and sharing with us your knowledge, that part of what you do is greatly appreciated and I wish more architects and members of the industry would do the same.  Some day when you're retired I hope you and Ran sit down and go through all of your posts to compile another book on your thoughts of architecture and philosophy.

P.S. - It is ok to compliment another modern architect's work whose last name does not begin with C (just kidding....kind of)  

[Tom_Doak]

Note that I could have blamed it on one or the other of my associates on that job, who are even more Teflon than me on this site ... Gil Hanse and Mike DeVries.  But the decision rested with me.

This is a less than subtle "throw them under the bus while pretending to not throw them under the bus" move.  Nonetheless....

No, JC, that's my sense of humor.  I designed that green, and shaped multiple versions of it.  If I remember right, I shaped 13 of the 18 greens, Gil shaped four [I'd have to think a bit about which of them, but anyway I gave him the outline for what I wanted], and Mike shaped one [the 8th].

I only said it to point out that other guys are also above criticism here, and some of them once worked for me.

Your other points are well taken.  Everything in golf design is a matter of opinion, and I don't have a problem with everyone being entitled to an opinion.  Not all opinions are granted equal weight, by me or by anybody else, but that doesn't mean they're "wrong".  I'm not sure what on the Dismal thread you refer to about whether I can know that I'm right ... I only remember saying I'm confident there isn't a better routing solution, and I'll retain that confidence until someone suggests one.  I guess that's an opinion, of sorts, but I made my judgment on it long ago, when I settled on the final plan. 

[Pat Burke]

My instinctive answer??   Yes.

But I would also say it is limited, and far offset by your (and others as well) participation
from inside this world.
I would ask that you feel free to continue to express your thoughts, experience and beliefs as
you feel comfortable.

If I were still playing, I would probably wonder about the same on a golf discussion.
Of course, I'm pretty obnoxious and would just say outlandish things anyway!!

[JC Jones]

Note that I could have blamed it on one or the other of my associates on that job, who are even more Teflon than me on this site ... Gil Hanse and Mike DeVries.  But the decision rested with me.

This is a less than subtle "throw them under the bus while pretending to not throw them under the bus" move.  Nonetheless....

No, JC, that's my sense of humor.  I designed that green, and shaped multiple versions of it.  If I remember right, I shaped 13 of the 18 greens, Gil shaped four [I'd have to think a bit about which of them, but anyway I gave him the outline for what I wanted], and Mike shaped one [the 8th].

I only said it to point out that other guys are also above criticism here, and some of them once worked for me.

Your other points are well taken.  Everything in golf design is a matter of opinion, and I don't have a problem with everyone being entitled to an opinion.  Not all opinions are granted equal weight, by me or by anybody else, but that doesn't mean they're "wrong".  I'm not sure what on the Dismal thread you refer to about whether I can know that I'm right ... I only remember saying I'm confident there isn't a better routing solution, and I'll retain that confidence until someone suggests one.  I guess that's an opinion, of sorts, but I made my judgment on it long ago, when I settled on the final plan. 

Firstly, thanks for your thoughtful reply.  My apologies on not getting the humor, that's on me.  I think I've misunderstood you for a while which is why I wanted to put my post out there.  Thank you for receiving it the way in which it was intended.

I agree with you that not all opinions carry equal weight and yours, in my opinion, carry more than just about anyone's around here.  

I'm referring to your post on your holding of your opinion on the Dismal courses until the next Confidential Guide comes out (not soon enough).  Either way, I dont want to dwell on it.  

[Tom_Doak]

I'm referring to your post on your holding of your opinion on the Dismal courses until the next Confidential Guide comes out (not soon enough).  Either way, I dont want to dwell on it.  

OK, but go back and read what I said.

Of all the people who reacted to The Confidential Guide, the one who could have beaten me up for it and didn't was Pete Dye.  I owe my career to him, and not many people would take kindly to their former student criticizing their work.  But, Pete was not fazed in the least.  He has had more experience than most of having people criticize his work.  He listens to see if you are saying anything new; if not he just dismisses it all as opinion -- whether it's coming from a Tour pro or from me or from you.  I've really tried to live up to that standard, but confidence is easily portrayed as something less noble, especially by people who are friends of your competitors.

[David_Elvins]

I agree generally, but my question was more specific.  Does my participation in discussions of MY OWN courses stifle discussion about them?

Yeah,  I have been really disappointed that there have only been 93 threads on Streamsong.  Without you stifling discussion we could have reached 150+ easy.  

[mike_beene]

I can only assume that most in your industry look at this site whether they post or not and that most are good people you don't want to hurt. Still there is plenty of discussion and not usually muffled, good or bad.

[Tom_Doak]

I have been really disappointed that there have only been 93 threads on Streamsong.  Without you stifling discussion we could have reached 150+ easy.  

Randy Thompson was there today!  Maybe he'll start a new thread.

That's my sense of humor, too.

[JC Jones]

I'm referring to your post on your holding of your opinion on the Dismal courses until the next Confidential Guide comes out (not soon enough).  Either way, I dont want to dwell on it.  

OK, but go back and read what I said.

Of all the people who reacted to The Confidential Guide, the one who could have beaten me up for it and didn't was Pete Dye.  I owe my career to him, and not many people would take kindly to their former student criticizing their work.  But, Pete was not fazed in the least.  He has had more experience than most of having people criticize his work.  He listens to see if you are saying anything new; if not he just dismisses it all as opinion -- whether it's coming from a Tour pro or from me or from you.  I've really tried to live up to that standard, but confidence is easily portrayed as something less noble, especially by people who are friends of your competitors.

I understand it better now, thank you.  I do want to clarify that my intent is not to say that I take issue you with your confidence.  To the extent that you display confidence it is certainly well deserved.  My issue was (past tense) with with you being dismissive.  

In any event, I don't want to "chill" this Taster's Choice moment we have going on here so to borrow a line, I'm done here.  I have said all I wanted to say and I understand your perspective better now than I have in the past.

[Matthew Essig]

To make some of you happy, I have criticized Tom before. One example off the top of my head is I believe that some of the greens and green complexes at Old Mac are too sloped and contoured for the wind that blows so often. In comparison, Pac Dunes is much better. But this not what the thread is about, so let's move on.

To be completely honest, I am occasionally afraid of criticizing your creations; however, I feel like I have a valid reason to be. As an 18-year-old, I am at the point of life where my future is heavily influenced by what I do in the next couple of years. I am striving to be a golf course architect someday, and sometimes I feel that if I criticize you, I might somehow put this dream in jeopardy........It feels like some weight has been lifted off my chest now.

I do NOT want your participation to decrease. IMO, your input is needed. For some, including me, your input is wanted. I hope that just by starting this thread more people will be less discouraged by your participation.

Thank you for starting this thread.

PS That is how honest criticism and discussion can occur.

[Sean_A]

I can only answer for myself and it is emphatically no.  I have never played one of your courses so I rarely pipe up about your courses except to get a feel for the design.  To be honest, I often skip your specifics about holes because I don't know the holes  in question  

In general, I have found your contributions very valuable.  You are patient, willing to answer questions and don't get overly snarky when in a sticky situation.  I can't understand why folks would be afraid to go toe to toe with you in a friendly way.  If folks are timid thats on them, but I think they are missing great opportunities to "converse" with you if they don't pipe up.  It reminds me of university professors having office hours and everybody is too afraid to walk in for a chat.  The authority and expertise of the prof are the exact reasons folks should want to chin wag.  Anyway, keep on truckin' and don't worry about what others do or don't - its out of your control.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Tom,

Keep posting both in relation to your courses and other courses.

Your contribution - and that of other contributors herein who are in the business, whether they be architects, developers, construction and maintenance folk etc etc - is invaluable both from the current and from the historical perspective.

Go back in history. Wouldn't it have been great to have heard first-hand insights from course architects and developers in relation to their work. Just imagine asking Dr MacKenzie or Bobby Jones about ANGC and getting a prompt and insightful response.

Keep posting - and that goes for those other folk in the business as well.

atb

[Mark Pearce]

Tom,

The problem isn't your participation which is, without doubt, a good thing for the site and the standard of discussion on it.  Where a problem arises it is those of your fans on here who see it as their duty to stamp down on criticism of you.  Surprising, really, since all the evidence is that you are more than capable of defending yourself.

[Matt MacIver]

Tom - yes, a bit, because we've all seen how the written word can be taken out of context vs having a conversation...even those emoticons don't help enough to convey the message. So instead of being rude I might not say anything. But I wouldn't check this site daily if it wasn't for you and the other industry folks contributing; there are only a few layman posters that routinely have anything relevant and non-snarky worth reading.

[Jeff Spittel]

I am not a proponent of group think, which at times seems to be pervasive on CGA with regard to certain architects. However, as someone who makes his living issuing constructive criticism in an industry that is often noted for a heard mentality, it's important to understand that there are times when the consensus opinion is well reasoned and accurate. The seemingly universal praise of Tom's work on the site isn't contraversial, but it's not necessarily unwarranted. I doubt that sensitivity stifles frank discussion of Tom's courses.   

I don't possess the professional credentials to critically assess the work of any professional architect, let alone the work of a talent like Tom. My guess is that several of the other enthusiasts on CGA who aren't in the industry share that view. If Tom went on a forum that pertained to what I do for a living and starting criticizing my work, I doubt I would take it very seriously.           

[Bradley Anderson]

Tom,

I always thought that I knew a lot about the subject of golf course architecture because of all the years of working on golf courses and from the reading that I had done on the subject but I have learned a lot about architecture from you the other architects on GCA. YOur comments are especially interesting to me and I usually go to the pages that you are commenting on first.

It would be a great loss if you altered your participation on GCA.

[Ulrich Mayring]

It would be a great loss if you altered your participation on GCA.

Not sure about that - are we already as good as we can possibly be? No room to improve anymore?

Ulrich