The following was written for rec.gardens.roses and was posted in response to comments made by Petrose (Bob Martin) who has very high standards for roses (as a prominent exhibitor and judge) and has made some disparaging statements about folks who grow roses a bit more casually than he. He considers gardeners who do not spray, water regularly, or spend many hours fussing over their roses to be negligent and he has little good to say for their results. Though I appreciate and honor BobŐs dedication to his hobby, I disagreed with him about his criteria for rose excellence and the exchange below is my response (a friendly one) to his salvo in the group. Bob and I remain good friends and continue to differ on this particular subject.

Well, Petrose, you *did* get me to nibble on your bait in the Short Lists post, but I wasn't able to really engage in an exchange about Xeriscape roses or rose tolerances, etc. (mainly due to various computer problems, which I have managed to circumvent). Now, I can see that in dealing with you, semantics are extremely important. You did throw in the modifier "thrive" after your initial post, so some of us jumped on that. "Grow" and "thrive" offer two different sets of criteria, I'll admit, and we need to get our terms straight here. And I'm beginning to think that perhaps you have your own meanings for words and we may need to make our definitions more precise. Growing roses for exhibition purposes is really just one area of pleasure indulged in by rosarians. Even though this is *your* primary interest, you gotta acknowledge that many (dare I say *most*) people never intend to show a rose. They want them looking nice in their gardens and decorating their living rooms. Naturally, for these purposes they want healthy, vibrant, attractive blooms -- but these adjectives can be applied to many roses that don't *quite* meet exhibition standards. So cut us all some slack, Judge! I'm going to include a couple of quotes I came across since this thread appeared and disappeared -- just for the sake of semantics:

On the first page of the introduction to Climbing Roses Steve Scanniello writes (in reference to climbers): "Many are so rugged and disease resistant that they can thrive and produce spectacular blooms even when they receive no care at all." In your terms, this is a pretty radical statement. He says "thrive," "spectacular blooms," and "*no* care at all." His selection of cultivars is heavy on the antiques, but he includes plenty of modern roses as well. This guy *does* know what he's talking about. Then there is no less than the redoubtable Tom Liggett in the recent American Rose Annual, discussing the SJHRG (a garden that you have raved about). Tom writes, "This leads into something that has become a huge part of my personal and professional philosophy as a rose grower and nurseryman; the establishment of realistic goals for the maintenance and appearance of roses and gardens. If we work too hard at growing roses, or any other fun pursuit, we will add to the stress of lives that today are already stress-filled. At that point, we might quit the hobby. What a loss that would be, both to ourselves and to the greater gardening world." I like Tom's use of the word "realistic." Now, you've said, in so many words, in the past that people who don't "care for their roses" (by your standards) might just as well not grow them -- wasn't there some crack about azaleas? Tom seems to think that this would be a loss and I agree with him.

Then Sam [McGredy] offered a comment about how sad he feels to see neglected, tired roses in worn-out soil. I can't agree more. I recently stayed in a motel that had roses planted in strips between parking areas and the soil was dust -- thin, grey, dead. It made me itch to dump a few wheelbarrow-loads of manure on them and get busy with my secateurs. But, of course, I didn't. I just averted my eyes and went into my room. There are lots of roses in the condition of these and I can't save 'em all. I am most definitely *not* promoting *neglect* of roses. But I *am* letting people know that they can find great satisfaction in their roses without being slaves to spray schedules, heavy watering, and other forms of the endless fussing that people often do with roses. With careful selection of varieties, they can grow 'em in many places that wouldn't be recommended as "ideal" for roses and be pleased with the results of their efforts. The roses that I recommend as "easy-care" are generally not HTs at all but are selected from the vast array of older classes and cultivars. There are roses and there are *roses*. I make an effort to provide my roses with a good place to grow -- a site that is comfortable and suited to the individual plant, good fluffy rich soil, the "right amount" of water. I'm not interested in having a garden full of scraggly, unloved-looking plants -- no more than you are. *But* (and here comes one of my big buts) I am also able to find intense pleasure in a rose that has a spot or two on a leaf or a flower that doesn't quite reach the glory of a coffee table book photo. They smell as sweet.