jeffwarne,
I understand that you are the head professional of a well-known golf club in the Northeast. Your several posts in this open Discussion Board castigating the USGA and presenting raters and the rating process in a very negative light are probably fine if you were a Joe Blow, but are they in your role as a club official? Are such comments expressed in an open forum no matter how heartfelt they may be in the best interest of your club and your members? Is there an objective in getting sideways with one of the two major ruling and organizing institutions in golf? Judging by what you say about trying to accommodate raters, I must assume that your club wishes to be rated. What purpose does relating your negative experiences with raters and rating panels on this open Discussion Group serve for your club. I can see contacting the relevant folks at the USGA and the magazines with your informed insights, but pasting them here?
Having said all this, I am not offended by what you write- I do wonder about your judgement- or much care whether you accept my reason for asking Tom Doak if he got paid. I just find it rather cheeky that you scold me for asking a short, simple question when you yourself delve in detail into subject matters which in your professional capacity are potentially offensive and damaging to your employers.
BTW, if your admonishment was not about Tom Doak, was it to protect the purity of this site? Don't you think that that ship has sailed more than a decade ago?
We tolerate a lot here, and rightfully so. I've been publicly savaged in this DG a couple of times to the extent of receiving several IMs, emails and calls asking me to take action. But I am not one to censure or cancel. Perhaps you missed those posts since I didn't see your comments to knock it off.
As far as your original query about Tom being paid, I was "protecting" myself(and Zac), not Tom, as I'm pretty close to the project in question.
I once asked a poster to lay off Tom because I appreciate his participation here as an architectural expert, and would like him to continue to paricipate and engage with us amateurs.
You're correct that I have not defended others who have been unfairly maligned, perhaps because I value their input on this architectural forum less than I do a highly successful architect and willing participant.
To your comments on my judgement as it relates to my duty to my owner and club(which are fair)
I was first introduced to GCA by the owner of my club who suggested I read the famous thread of 2002 trashing my club.
I lurked for awhile then joined GCA in '04, where I met many of the Treehouse regulars at The Dixie Cup at Cuscowilla.
Upon reading the now deleted thread, I was amazed at the vitriol and emotion spewed, by people who simply were disapointed by a golf course. Many of the comments about the course were accurate, a few of the the other personal comments were not. Many of their course concerns were addressed and enhanced in our work on the course over the years.
Rather than wade into those threads, I mostly just read and observed, and actually contacted a few with negative opinions to get their thoughts.
In fact. several I contacted have since visited and loved the changes we made, many of which were inspired by their comments.
For the record, we still have many flaws, and make many mistakes, like any business, and despite our substantial cultural and financial success, we are constantly working to make the course and club better.
As far as the USGA and GD course raters, I have have contacted both organizations about my specific issues, citing many of the same issues I have posted here in print(Topsy Siderowf was particularly responsive and was thrilled to take action after my email, saying she had had multiple comments about one rater in question and that it was the straw that broke the camels' back for him)-and yes I do get frustrated by the many raters who live an hour away that can only rate the course on a weekend morning in early July). But a vast majoritty of raters are fantastic people and I thoroughly enjoy my conversations and email exchanges with them on the topic of architecture.
I am not comfortable at all with the direction the game has taken in recent years due to technology, with the scale of the game changing dramatically and the costs/difficulty of the game and the time it requires going up, not down- due to perceived "improvements".
The most surprising part of these polite exchanges via email/letter is that the recipients (USGA/local Golf associations) are often in agreement, perhaps not entirely, but certainly in principle.
I also learn a lot from their responses, as they are generally very accomodating, polite and informative. From the responses I get, they just aren't sure what to do(equipment), and I would think having more stakeholders in the industry such as myself weighing in honestly, rather than with their pocketbook, would be good, not bad.
I just don't believe "growing the game" should kill the game we all grew up loving, especially in an era where sustainability and scaling down are the way of the future.
But I also repect the opinion of those who grew up in, or appreciate a different game and want to have a friendly back and forth on the topic.
As far as expressing an opinion about the state of the game while being the HP at a "well known" NE course, if not us "well known"(moderately) in the industry then who?
I will never allow my position as a HP, Radio Show Host,or GOLF Magazine Top 100 Teacher(or the politics of) to keep me from speaking out about what I believe can be better about this game that has given me so much.There are things that disturb me about the direction of the game, and increasingly there are many, many more expressing similar opinions, and not just on this forum. It is particulalry gratifying to see similar positions from such respected experts as Mike Clayton, Brian Schneider,Jim McLean and yes, Tom Doak, as well as many other well know industry people.
That encourages me and yes it probably emboldens me.
I have never once heard negatively from my sponsors, or had my on air conversations(where I express similar opinions) censored.But if I did, I would not change my expression of opinion, even if it meant losing a future contract.
Perhaps I type here a bit more tongue in cheek, but my message rarely changes.
My owner is doing just fine BTW-you'd like him a lot.