Is frank commentary at risk?

[mike_malone]

 I'm concerned about the reaction to Scott Warren's EC comments. I myself have heard that certain people have taken personal offense at comments I have made on here about some highly rated courses.  In my opinion the purpose of this site is to be very critical of the most highly regarded courses to narrow that peak of excellence,

[John Moore II]

Anytime someone thinks a course, or anything else, is exceptional, they are likely to be taken aback by poor commentary about it. Thats just natural and will always happen. No, I don't think frank commentary is at risk, except for by those who may not wish to offend people by making comments. When I first joined this site, I did not use my full name because I did not want people in the business, my peers, to see me making bad comments about their facilities. So that is and always will be an issue. Just look at the bashing Tom Doak took when he ran a few top name courses through the dirt. It happens.

[Pat Ruddy]

Gentlemen,
Frank commentary is never at risk so long as it is fair and reasonably knowledgeable.
But when commentary is based on wild surmise and turns to stalking what can the stalker expect but a response?
that response in itself, assuming it is well based, is a commentary also ...is it not?
Contrary to what Scott Warren says .... I have not approached and argued with half the world on this site.  In fact, he is only the second person I have had occasion to counter-attack in this way.
Anyone who wishes to trace Mr. Warren's attacks on my links over the past Winter on this site and in his own "the globalgolfer" will see that this isn't commentary but the rantings of a young man with a burr up his butt. 
While it is flattering that he finds my links to be so important as to devote so much time to with negative comment after negative comment is flattering. But, surely, it is remarkable that everything else on the golfing planet is lovely as evidenced in his much softer comments on other places.
He is a man with an agenda.  He is also a man who seems to know how much shaping was done at The European Club although he has no basis in fact for this. 

I know that The European Club is not perfect.  No golf links is.  But it is pretty good and I am very proud of it and of the fact that it gives a lot of pleasure to a lot of people and is highly regarded by so many highly respected and knowledgeable people. worldwide.

Comment onwards!  But play if decent and fair as if playing golf itself.
Pat Ruddy

[Mark Pearce]

Mike,

I wouldn't worry.  Scott's a big boy and we can all read Mr Ruddy's posts (and Scott's) and form an opinion as to what's going on here.

Pat,

Your time would be better spent and you would benefit more, from actually discussing Scott's specific comments, which don't seem too unreasonable, rather than resorting to absurd paranoid ramblings.

[mike_malone]

  I do think it is intimidating for the average poster when the owner or architect responds with remarks about the poster rather than the architectural critique. The frank commentary is about golf architecture not opinions of people.
 
   

[Ulrich Mayring]

I wish I would be taken seriously enough to warrant personal attacks over my course reviews

Seriously, I read the thread and now I have my opinion. But this should not resort into a gang brawl, where some people take that side and some support the other. Nothing enlightening is going to come from that and unfortunately some of our members have already fallen for making it a personal issue. So show some restraint and dignity, will you? Yes, you, Mr. Reader

Ulrich

[mike_malone]

 Ulrich,

   Your opinions are so perfect that they are unimpeachable. Now your handicap

[Pat Ruddy]

Mr Pearce
I am not paranoid.  Nor do I ramble.  But I'm not willing to take continuous bashing of my career and business without response.
I don't know what is your business or what are your achievements .... but imagine them being out here for attack and  how you would like it when someone latches onto you and persists in unfounded condemnations MONTH AFTER MONTH (in order to compound the damage).

I have avoided bar rooms and the like all my working life because they are full of experts. The web is a sort of bar room magnified and the talk can be just as enlightening.  So, I visit here only when extremely provoked by people who move beyond fair comment to downright assault.
 
I don't know why I should reply to Mr Warren here as he clearly knows it all already!

Mr Malone
I really do not understand this....."The frank commentary is about golf architecture not opinions of people. "
Surely, all commentaries are expressions of opinions of people! 

However, if a man is willing to go on the worldwide web to post stinging criticisms of another's business and work, month after month,
it is truly sad if he then feels intimidated when the sleeping dog turns and bites back.   Try being the victim of a stalker.

I doubt if you are the timid type and fair dues to you!

Meantime, gentlemen, I wish you both very well.   I have done you no wrong.  You have done me no wrong.  Let's keep it right there.

Pat Ruddy

[Melvyn Morrow]

Perhaps Scott you will learn a lesson, because you do love your little comments.

I’m totally with Pat on this one.

Melvyn

[Scott Warren]

I don't know why I should reply to Mr Warren here as he clearly knows it all already!

I have an opinion, Pat. That's all. No more, no less. I have invited you to respond to those opinions, but whether you see fit to is entirely up to you.

It was raining in London today so I went to the National Portrait Gallery for a wander.

I was sitting looking at three side-by-side portraits of Queen Elizabeth I and thinking about our difference of opinion. See, three painters had each depicted QEI at the same stage of her life, yet the three paintings looked like three different women.

Is one better than the others because it actually looked more like her, or because his version is more technically correct? Or are each of them valid in their own right because they represent what the artist saw?

How about songs? Do they strictly mean what the writer meant for them to mean? Or if you and I each listen to the same song and take away two different meanings are we both just as correct as each other because when we interact with a work of art we have an experience unique to ourselves?

In both instances I would go with the second option.

A golf architect builds what he sees in the land, and no one can say they were wrong to build what they saw, but by the same token, every person who plays that course will form their own unique opinion, as is their right. To them, that's what the course is.

When artists create and share, they invite their audience to react. In my opinion, golf architecture is no different to painting or photography or sculpture in that regard.

I think it's either tremendously ignorant or tremendously naive for an artist to create something, allow others to see it, then react aggressively and incredulously when some people don't react the way the artist feels they should.

Mike: There will always be opposition to debate. And there will always be people who want to censor opinions they disagree with. But whilever passionate people are willing to be honest the kind of debate and discussion this site thrives on will continue. Just my two cents.

[mike_malone]

 I think the vast majority on here are too afraid to share any specific negative comments about courses. First of all, it is only an opinion. We don't have the voice of God.  Too often the responses to negative opinion aren't specific ; they often pick apart what someone is saying rather than responding with any valuable information. So why bother?

   My Friar's Head topic was an exception. I thought the defenses were of a high caliber because it went beyond" it is obviously a great course; you need to have your head examined!".

[mike_malone]

 BTW, I played EC in 1996. I loved the course. It was my first links course experience. So, I had no frame of reference to judge it. But I truly enjoyed all of the holes near the shoreline.

    I think it is critical to see the great courses in order to make comments that have validity. But they still are just opinions.

[mike_malone]

 In an effort to learn more about art and support my Aussie friend we are leaving now to see "The Square".

[Michael Dugger]

4 - 5 years ago there was no fear of telling it like it is.

[Bill_McBride]

Pat Ruddy defends his brand as vigorously as Apple (or any major corporation) defends its logo.

[Michael Whitaker]

Mike - I see Mr. Ruddy's comments having the opposite effect than the one you suggest... I think most of us truly appreciate Mr. Ruddy sharing his thoughts and concerns on the criticisms (and compliments) of The European Club. The fact that he openly participates on this forum encourages many to jump into the conversation who wouldn't otherwise. Tom Doak's participation has the same effect.

I hope Mr. Ruddy will continue on this forum and go into more detail about his design concepts and theories.

[Bob_Huntley]

I have heard some rather unfortunate comments on courses far and wide from any number of friends on this site. I have often felt that when offering an opinion or commentary it would be a good idea to preface it with a single phrase, "It would seem to me that x misses the boat here, because of y."


At least, the creator of that which displeases you, knows what you are talking about and may find that you haven't a clue as to the reasons for the so- called faux pas.

If I created a golf course  and received a ration of grief from an amateur or anyone who didn't know the front end of a grader from the back end, I think I might react like Pat Ruddy.

Bob

[Mike Sweeney]

Here is Scott's original review that threw Pat for a loop:

http://theglobalgolfer.blogspot.com/2009/10/european-club.html

Interesting post to me and he covers the good and the bad (in his opinion). I have never met either party.

[Richard Hetzel]

Pat,

I would GLADLY play here anytime, without regard to anyone's reviews just based upon this ONE picture!

[David Lott]

I wish I would be taken seriously enough to warrant personal attacks over my course reviews

Seriously, I read the thread and now I have my opinion. But this should not resort into a gang brawl, where some people take that side and some support the other. Nothing enlightening is going to come from that and unfortunately some of our members have already fallen for making it a personal issue. So show some restraint and dignity, will you? Yes, you, Mr. Reader

Ulrich

Agree, Ulrich. A polite way of saying "put a cork in it."

[Peter Pallotta]

Mike - for me, it's a shame that a man might not express himself honestly for fear of retribution; but it's a greater shame that a man might have lost even the capacity for personal and honest expression, and this in the face of an overwhelming consensus opinion.   The former deprives the world of one more opinion about a golf course (no great loss, no matter how valid the opinion); the latter deprives the world of a free-thinking and independent human being (a much greater losss).  And the challenge is that consensus opinion is/can be such a powerfully subtle narcotic , seeming to change and transmute (on the surface of things) while becoming ever more fixed and intransigent (at the core).

Peter

[Pat Burke]

Commentary is what this place exists for.  "FRANK", can be a whole different issue.
I t seems, all too often, on this forum, and society as a whole, there is an enormous growth
in the "I'm right, you're wrong" mentality.  At that point, frank becomes attack.  Discussions should be about honesty, opinions, and respect.

I know there have been times when I am just as guilty, but the inability to accept another's opinion,
is REALLY rampant on the net in general, and all to often, on this forum.

Many have left, many hang in, many just stay to argue, that is fine.  But let's not forget, Mr Ruddy, Tom Doak,
our supers, and the (many) others who avail themselves to us for questions, criticisms, and approval, are much of the beauty of this site.
As always. we are free to say what we believe, but also remember, those on the "other" side are also free to respond.
Let's just all (me included) listen, or read a little slower before we jump to respond, maybe

[mike_malone]

 As Peter says there is value in the non consensus opinion. It challenges the conventional thought of the majority. I think it is the essence of criticism.This doesn't make it correct, just valuable. For a forum like this to be vibrant we need to tweak the majority view .

[Bill_McBride]

Mike - I see Mr. Ruddy's comments having the opposite effect than the one you suggest... I think most of us truly appreciate Mr. Ruddy sharing his thoughts and concerns on the criticisms (and compliments) of The European Club. The fact that he openly participates on this forum encourages many to jump into the conversation who wouldn't otherwise. Tom Doak's participation has the same effect.

I hope Mr. Ruddy will continue on this forum and go into more detail about his design concepts and theories.

I dunno, I think the only time we hear from Pat is when he feels he and his course have been besmirched.

[Michael Whitaker]

I understand, but if encouraged maybe he will continue the dialog and share some of his design thoughts with us. I'd rather have Mr. Ruddy participating in some manner than not at all.