"Instead they chosethe [SP] path to criticize others work and insult an entire membership of a club."

The sensitive reaction to my disdain for the Rees Jones redo (two-times!) of Robert Trent Jones's original Atlanta Athletic Club upset quite a few readers, including the club's general manager, Chris Borders, who so graciously posted both under his name and under "Anonymous" (matching IP!) on the thread about AAC landing the NCAA Championship:

You guys didn't do your research. Geoff wrote the history book for Riviera. He got paid by them so he likes them.

Okay, I gotta interrupt there. Yes I'm a Riviera fanboy. I have a thing for timeless design that can be enjoyed in temperate climates.

Maybe the Athletic Club should have hired him to do their history book. That's the way writers make a living.

That's true, we do get paid for our work (sometimes) and some travel writers who do the quid pro quo thing. But last I looked, there aren't any John Grisham's writing club histories.

Otherwise they'd be in a real position, creating jobs for people, managing challenges, helping employees solve problems, creating revenue for a business and community and contributing something of lifetime value.

Yes, yes, we writers are a lowly group, not having to do real work like choosing a menu for the mixed couples luncheon or managing challenges like when the fountain in No. 18's lake isn't spouting at Bellagio-style heights for the Watts Gunn Fourball. Go on...

Instead they chosethe path to criticize others work and insult an entire membership of a club. Would be interesting to know the club where he is a member. I'll bet the manager regrets that approval!

Chris Borders

Let's be clear, even though we live in America and most of the readers here reside here, I know that some sectors of our country do not believe in free speech or in criticism of any kind. And certainly, voicing an opinion is always dangerous business, even when it's on your own website. But here goes.

This is GeoffShackelford.com. I am Geoff. I write about golf and at times, share my views. They often do not reflect those of the majority of golfers who are perfectly entitled to go about paying good money to tackle mundane bunkering, holes devoid of strategic interest, and in general, courses that have to be reconstructed every decade in search of a soul. God bless 'em.

Yet you'll have to forgive me because I was raised to believe that this freedom to express one's views about an art form like golf architecture is what makes our country interesting, but I know better! In the case of Atlanta Athletic Club, I walked all 18 holes in search of design character prior to the most recent redo of the last redo, and found nothing that screamed out greatness. Furthermore, I do not get why golf keeps returning to Atlanta courses for major summertime events when they offer little in the way of lasting design interest, tolerable climate or a market that has a true thirst for golf. That's my view. I also share similar negative views about the prospects for other recent major sites. It most certainly does not mean I'm right, but last I heard, I am entitled to these views. Right Chris?