News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


TEPaul

Where is GCA in architecture's spectrum?
« on: August 12, 2001, 09:16:00 AM »
Reading through some of these topics and posts it really makes me wonder. I know this site and a lot of the knowledgeable contributors get dissed a lot but I have the feeling that this site as a resource and research vehicle is light years better than anything ever before it.

I know that the architects on here (and not on here) often take exception to that because many of us aren't in the profession but by their own admission many times they don't really feel willing or able to express what is really on their minds. This is completely understandable to me because often they might have much to lose.

But we don't have anything to lose. There are some really good people on here who have the knowledge or certainly the ability to find info and do research which is invaluable to particularly classic courses and restoration efforts.

I'm seeing more and more how much people who are running many of these courses fall far short in knowledge and understanding than many of the people on this site. And many of those people running these clubs are good people probably out to do the right things if they only knew what they were. I see it so starkly at my own club.

How can this site do a better job of bringing those people in here for knowledge and information without being didatic and overbearing? There has to be a better way!


brad_miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Where is GCA in architecture's spectrum?
« Reply #1 on: August 12, 2001, 10:25:00 AM »
Tom, I had been thinking much of what you just said. The feature interview's, a few of the in my opinion's and a couple of the great books about golf course architecture should be required reading for all GC and board members, along with a significant understanding of the courses oringinal architect. There is not enough "I don't know, but lets study and find out" There is plenty of people thinking they have all the right answers, that don't, most of whom haven't done the work and/or reading.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Where is GCA in architecture's spectrum?
« Reply #2 on: August 12, 2001, 10:37:00 AM »
TE:  Just to play Devil's Advocate -- has anything from Golf Club Atlas been any direct help in what you're doing at Gulph Mills?

I agree there are many golf club boards and committees who don't know where to go or what to do.  I'm not sure how you can help them.  In the end, you'll probably come across as trying to sell a particular architect or group of architects.

P.S.  I don't know exactly whom you were talking about, but I do feel willing and able to express my own mind!  However I have grown up to realize there are just times when it's counterproductive!!


TEPaul

Where is GCA in architecture's spectrum?
« Reply #3 on: August 12, 2001, 10:58:00 AM »
In a way I'm sort of sorry I posted this topic.

So often this site and some of the people on it are accused of being arrogant asses--"know it alls" and architect, committee and club bashers.

I'm not real sure what we're doing wrong although from a recent email off this site I certainly do realize that I very much made a mistake about someone and a golf club. I certainly plan to apologize too without any excuses.

But there must be a better way to have a dialogue about architecture without appearing to be offensive. Even some of the architects and others who are criticized on this site (and who look in here all the time) should just come on the site and tell some of us a better way to do it. I can't really believe that any of them could honestly say that this site has no real value and should be shut down for the betterment of architecture.

I would really like to see some of those who read on here and don't contribute but get pissed at this site tell Golfclubatlas how to do this in a better way for all.

Maybe one way would be for some of the inveterate purists on here to get used to and accept the fact that golf is a great big game and there is room in it for all--and that certainly includes its architecture--all kinds of architecture!

Why does it always have to be black and white, right and wrong? Why can't it just be this and that?

I do draw the line at some of the great old classics being totally and thoughtless screwed up though. That does deserve the anger of the people on here. But if something can work better than anger to prevent it from happening then forget the anger and use what works!


TEPaul

Where is GCA in architecture's spectrum?
« Reply #4 on: August 12, 2001, 11:26:00 AM »
Tom:

"Has anything on Golfclubatlas been a direct help to Gulph Mills?"

No it hasn't, other than what I've learned from this site and passsed on to the members and committee people. I have mentioned the site to members but as far as I know nobody looks in here. I guess they just aren't interested or feel they don't really have the time.

When referring to architects, supers, etc who are unwilling to speak their mind on here I was referring to those who have been on here and said so. That certainly doesn't include you--you're probably the most outspoken member of the profession on this site and I hope that doesn't stop.

But it's the others I was referring who I know read on here and never contribute. And they get pissed frequently! I was hoping they could come on here and tell us how that could be prevented from happening so much--without shutting the site down, of course.


Tommy_Naccarato

Where is GCA in architecture's spectrum?
« Reply #5 on: August 12, 2001, 11:30:00 AM »
Tom and Tom,
Since I have always been really quick to speak my mind on any topic, I too side with TE "Tom Paul" in wanting to bridge some sort of communication gap between myself and the architects I have lambasted over the years. I know this may sound stupid, but I do it for the love of the art and to hopefully see them become better golf architects.

What I wouldn't give to sit down and have a conversation with Rees Jones or Tom Fazio and peruse their minds on why they haven't given more back to their art after all their success in business.  It's not like these guys are busting their butts to study what was once great like you Tom Doak. I don't think they care. At least they have never shown me in their works, and to me that is their make-up. They only seem to care about jobs on the table and what is coming in as their measure of success.

I would like to see Bill Greenwood, Buddy Marucci, Greg Armstrong, or Tosh get online here and tell me why I'm wrong about Merion. However, they chose to not make this an outside issue and that too is understandable. Just don't think the court of public opinion is without credibility and isn't afraid to voice its concerns.

I don't neccessarily view GCA as the ultimate court of public opinion, but I do think it has opened the eye of many to promote great golf architecture and to hopefully inspire more suitable sites for golf instead of settling for them. However, I do think that GCA is both a think tank and a school of learning for the art of building and maintaining golf courses.

I think that any architect that doesn't want pay attention to personal critique is not allowing himself to become the best architect that he can be. We have a knowledgable group of well traveled golfers, both bad, good and average that understand and see things that can hopefully aid in all learning more about the art. What is wrong with that????

One of the more odd things is that it is a known fact that Rees Jones has seen either print outs from this site or maybe even checked it out while online. It shows to me that for all of the salesman that he is, he can't answer his critics to at least try to sell them on his architecture by explaining it.

The beauty of this site is that there seems to be an ettiquite that is very much like the one we use when we take to the links. We don't neccessarily cuss at each other like certain other websites, and even better, I have learned a great deal from everyone in return.

To me, there is little doubt that it would be tough to be placed on the GCA microscope and have his or hers works analyzed, we are tough to please. but I do think this only allows us some credilbility and merit.

How much better of a gauge would an architect need to see his work in a different light? I know for a fact that the information he could get form this site would cost him a fortune otherwise.


brad_miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Where is GCA in architecture's spectrum?
« Reply #6 on: August 12, 2001, 11:42:00 AM »
Tom, I didn't take your post and/or mine as bashing, I for sure don't know all the answers, only from this site and related reading am I beginning to understand the questions I would ask if I played a round on my home course with some of todays great architects. I believe the point here is that this great game and its wonderful courses would all be better off the more people knew about golf course architecture. I have tried in my own way through lending books and telling people about this site.

Patrick_Mucci

Where is GCA in architecture's spectrum?
« Reply #7 on: August 12, 2001, 12:25:00 PM »
Tommy Naccarato,

Rees and I are flying out to California tomorrow to analyze and evaluate your entire, lifelong body of electrical work.  


Tommy_Naccarato

Where is GCA in architecture's spectrum?
« Reply #8 on: August 12, 2001, 12:48:00 PM »
Patrick, As an insurance man, I think you can respect the fact that I need to be in good hands.

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Where is GCA in architecture's spectrum?
« Reply #9 on: August 12, 2001, 03:25:00 PM »
I really do not have any idea how much this website affects the thought process or the "pissoffometer" of the golf design business.  I feel that many of the "signature names " that are mentioned on here will not reply because if they acknowledge existence then they are advancing our cause more than their own.  And they have nothing to gain.

Also, after reading "doctor 2nd opinion" post for several days I would like to comment.  There has been much bashing of Tom Fazio.  I have had one intern go to work for Tom and he has had nothing but good things to say.  I know him to be a gentleman and to conduct his business in such a way.  I remember using one of his former shapers for several years who stated that when Fazio was starting that his key was to always do a little more than was asked.  It seems to me that these principles have put him in a position that many would envy.  Whether his advice is different from this site does not matter.  The people that pay the bill continue to choose him.  So, I ask what would someone such as Tom Fazio have to gain by commenting on this site?
Now, IMHO, I have often wondered how you lend credibility to such a site.  How about creating something similar to the Historic Preservation Trust except make it for golf courses that fit the qualifications.  Send out the info to the correct clubs and charge dues that would allow for administrative cost.  A form of discussion along with articles, "In My Opinon" etc. could be published and sent to Green Comm. at these clubs.  Architects etc could advertise but no favortism could be shown in articles etc.  This might give the justification to a group such as this.  You knoe sort of like "This Old House" Norm.

"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Neal_Meagher

  • Karma: +0/-0
Where is GCA in architecture's spectrum?
« Reply #10 on: August 12, 2001, 03:36:00 PM »
To all above:

Just please be patient.  This site is important and is making a difference as is the whole of the internet.  However, as in every field or industry, change is sometimes slow and most certainly evolutionary.  Even if an architect logged on here at the beginning and had some kind of epiphany only now would we be starting to see the results, so slowly does the wheel sometimes turn in the world of golf course planning and construction.

The architects Tom Paul and Tommy call on to participate and defend their work, both good and bad, do not choose to do so for probably a myriad of reasons.  First, there are still many who are simply not aware of the existence of GolfClubAtlas yet or are slightly computer illiterate. Also, many more are really quite busy and are juggling work, travel and family requirements like most people.  Additionally, many out there simply fail to grasp at this time the important outlet that this site is rapidly becoming.

I do not subscribe to the oft quoted derogatory statement that all this is is "a couple of hundred internet guys".  You're right Tom, there certainly must be so many more architects who lurk here on occasion, get royally pissed off and swear to never come here again.  Pity I say to those.  As I started out saying, in time and with some patience, we will all see that there are already beginning to be some tangible results of the existence of this site.  For all of those guys who have sworn off this site will, or should, eventually just get over themselves and see that this group does in many ways show them who their real clients are, or will be.  But ego and pride are real human feelings and to even engage someone in a meaningful discussion of a past project that may now be viewed less than, shall we say, enthusiastically, means that the shield must come way, way down.  Some simply can't or won't allow themselves to open up to an admission of something even remotely resembling failure on any level.  

However, all real learning comes from a close and painful scrutiny of the past and I honestly believe that, eventually, the naysayers will see the value of this site for doing so.  In time.  But in the meantime, perhaps this positive evolution can be aided by a sometimes more civil and less emotional tone in the discussion.  When this happens I believe that you may soon see the level of dialogue expand far beyond what is now is.  In time.

The purpose of art is to delight us; certain men and women (no smarter than you or I) whose art can delight us have been given dispensation from going out and fetching water and carrying wood. It's no more elaborate than that. - David Mamet

www.nealmeaghergolf.com

ForkaB

Where is GCA in architecture's spectrum?
« Reply #11 on: August 12, 2001, 03:40:00 PM »
Tom P

Great question and very ineresting that your answer to Tom D's query essentially said "almost off the radar screen," even for someone as well connected and thoughtful as yourself!

I think this site is a lot of fun, and contains a lot of intersting historical information, and offers the chance to make new golfign friends, but if I were the Greens Chairman at an old semi-neglected Ross course, I'm not sure what I would get of the site other than the names of a few people to contact.  If I were a budding architect, I'd get a sense of what the top 5% of golfing gourmets look for in a new course, for whatever that would be worth to me.  If I were Fazio or Rees or Nicklaus or even Pascuzzo I'd say--is it worth my while to be bitch slapped daily while I search for the hidden gems which are buried under lots of pleasant and interesting chatter on this website?

Unfortunately, every time someone tries to raise the level of architectural disucussion (e..g Patrick Mucci's recent thread on what makes a hole great) nobody seems to want to contribute in depth or breadth.

So, we end up with a lot of generalities, but very little deetailed discusion about what really makes Course A or Hole B or Shot C really work or not work.

If I were Ran I'd segregate the site into 20 or so sections, rather than the 1 (with a rump Course Comments section) we have now.  Have separate forums on "Short par-4's", "Raynor Greens", "Links Golf", "Bunkering," "Resoration vs. Improvement", "Modern Architects", etc.

I think this would be much more useful to us, as well as real and potential lurkers......if, we want to have influence.  If we just want to have fun, the status quo is just fine with me.


Craig_Rokke

  • Karma: +0/-0
Where is GCA in architecture's spectrum?
« Reply #12 on: August 12, 2001, 04:18:00 PM »
There are undoubtedly plenty of architects who lurk, but don't post at GCA. For those that do post, have you ever felt, in retrospect, that a post you made, or your involvement with GCA, hindered you professionally in any way?

T_MacWood

Where is GCA in architecture's spectrum?
« Reply #13 on: August 12, 2001, 05:42:00 PM »
I believe this site was developed to identify, profile and discuss the great golf courses of the world - both new and old. I'm not sure golf has seen a better resourse than GCA, the quality of the courses profiled and the quality of the profiles is unprecidented.

Add to the profiles the interviews of many of the games greatest contemporary talents, both designers and writers - the site is a tremendous resource. There are many off shoots -- historical off shoots, design theory off shoots, preservationist off shoots and golf course and golf architect critique off shoots -- but all relates to great golf courses. This site is many things to many people and will continue to evolve and develop -- but it is more than anything a forum devoted to great golf courses.


Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Where is GCA in architecture's spectrum?
« Reply #14 on: August 12, 2001, 05:47:00 PM »
Craig, I don't know if anything I've said here has "hindered me professionally."  I say what I think; if that hinders me, then it's my own fault.

However, I have had a couple of people get upset over their interpretation of something I said about them.  Usually it's a misunderstanding of an offhand, tangential remark.  So, I am trying to watch those carefully.


Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Where is GCA in architecture's spectrum?
« Reply #15 on: August 12, 2001, 06:52:00 PM »
TE Paul:

I enjoy GCA and look forward to more people participating on the site.

How can the discussion group part of the site improve?

People I know who occasionally lurk but don't post are turned off by general comments about specific architects.  They would prefer the discussion remain focused on specific examples of golf architecture.

In sum, I agree with Rich Goodale.  The more we discuss "course A, hole B and shot C", the better off we will be.

Tim Weiman

Mike_Cirba

Where is GCA in architecture's spectrum?
« Reply #16 on: August 12, 2001, 07:17:00 PM »
During my college days, a group of radical students regularly published an "alternative" newspaper called, appropriately enough, "The Gadfly".

Because it was interesting, fairly well-written, and was willing to take on the powers that be, it was regularly read.  However, I now look back and have to say that it didn't make any impact whatsoever on what was happening at the college, town, or world in general.  Most here might see it as yellow journalism.

In my most cynical moments, I fear that is what we might have become.

However, I really don't believe that.  There are a LOT of seminal issues at the fore right now that will determine the future of the game.  Issues related to the cost of the game, the direction of architecture, the impact of equipment, the disparities between classic architecture and modern trends, the pure aerial game, environmental issues, etc.

If there is not a public forum for those issues to be addressed and information shared between concerned individuals, then the game is none the better.  

It seems to me that most of the people who post here, while we may disagree on particulars, favor a game that is simpler, less costly, more fun, more in tune with nature, more basic, more strategic, more taking advantage of natural resources and attributes than modifying them, and more challenging in a way that respects the past, recognizes the present, but seeks to educate for a better future.

As Neal Meagher suggests, now is hardly the time to become discouraged or disenchanted. I think we are much more read than is generally acknowledged and if there is a more urbane, knowledgable, and articulate group discussing any subject on the Internet, I haven't seen it.  

What's more, the simple fact is, WE ARE GOING TO PISS PEOPLE OFF!  If we disagree fundamentally with a person, or club, or company, or ruling body, they are not going to like what we have to say one bit.  Not that we should go out of our way to be impolite or purposefully insulting, but I certainly reserve the right to say that the work I've seen of architect X is boring, non-interesting, and a pile of dung.  I'll be happy to discuss why I think so, and will listen carefully and open-mindedly to opposing arguments.

That's called honest discourse, gentleman, and we shouldn't be ashamed for engaging in it.

Look at this another way.  In my view, a golf course architect is producing a functional work of art.  At each architect's disposal are hundreds of acres of God's green earth, expensive property in capitalist terms, and probably the most public and visible canvas of any professional endeavor I can think of.

Where the Hell did we ever get the idea that the men who shape this land for our recreational pleasure are somehow beyond criticism and reproach???  

In other cases, an architect is charged with preserving or improving an already wonderful work of art.  If they screw it up, should we just sit back and say..."oh well, guess he had an off day!  What's gone is gone".

Of course not!  Does anyone really believe that there is not even a subliminal benefit to the fact that people know that there is a very public forum where work will be discussed passionately??  

Once again, if I were to suggest anything, we should keep our comments to the work itself, and not to personalities and personal attacks.  That might give us some more general acceptance, but I'd also hate to see the passion I sense in many posts diminished in any way.

I am continually impressed with the level of knowledge and passion of those who post here.  I think, as Neal suggests, that we are simply saying the things that need to be said, and that we will ultimately be a force for positive good in the game.  

 


BillV

Where is GCA in architecture's spectrum?
« Reply #17 on: August 12, 2001, 07:23:00 PM »
My observation is that the board tends to be pretty reactionary (i.e.Beyond conservative) and intolerant of differing opinions.  Pretty   simple, actually.  I think those removed from earning a living in the field may not understand just how much of architecture must be political.

Be more tolerant of miscreants who just don't get it!    Although I have tried to stir the pot at times, it often doesn't get a reaction, interestingly.


RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Where is GCA in architecture's spectrum?
« Reply #18 on: August 13, 2001, 08:34:00 AM »
I couldn't agree more with Mike C.  And, Neal's caution to be patient because change in a field like GCA where the products take years to build and get up and running properly can only respond to ongoing trends and collective discovery or enlightenment over a significant period of time.  GCA is the vanguard of serious golf design minded people - period.  Here is where one can get through the sifting and winowing process efficiently and cut to the core with people that spend an inordinant amount of time thinking about GCA issues.  You could go to any given golf/country club and maybe find 2% of the member-players that really talk about these issues in depth.  But a small percentage of people interested in these matters gather here to make up a focused group; so here is where you should come to find out what the core attitudes are about your craft if you are an archie.

It is understandable to me why some architects would read but not post their views.  I'm convinced and comforted that many working archies and construction people are indeed looking into the ongoing discussion here.  I have a greater appreciation however for the ones that will actually contribute their views without overly worrying about fallout from their contributions herein.  

If you were a practicing archie and very committed to ever improving your craft and understanding, where would you go?  You'd join professional forums and associations and exchange ideas with your peers, and you would seek out the thoughts and needs of your clients, both patrons and end-users.  If you are a guy like Fazio, who are your client-patrons?  People that are only going to build "high-end" facilities and pay a million bucks for your established name.  They want sizzle and don't care about the origin or quality of the steak because they are going to "sell" it.  And, those end-users pay a lot and want their ideal of a golf course that is born out of the glitzy marketing that tells them perfectly manicured and framed is better.  Do you think that Fazio goes to the local muni and joins in with the regular playing public to try and understand their golf issues and desires. That ain't where his business is at! What if Rees and his brother and Jack and the other big names took the time (which they apparently don't have) to spend weeks getting to know the real golf playing public.  Maybe spend time in GB&I with the real folk.  Would their views and trademark models and styles change?  If they cared, wouldn't they look in on this ongoing discussion as a substitute for hanging out with the guys in the grille room to find out what a focused bunch thinks about current architecture, and what made older efforts held in high regard by serious players of the game.  If you just hang around PGA locker rooms and listen to them yammer about their issues, you're going to build stadium courses where lots of people come out to see and adore you and your life is not complicated with quirky things on the field of play.  Most of the pros aren't in it for the fun and glory like the serious amatuer playing public, they are there to make a living.  

But there are GC designers/archies that DO take the time to poll the end-user public.  They are the ones that are seeking to improve their craft.  I've met a bunch of them and we have a number of them weigh in on GCA.  They are the ones that will sit down with you as an end user and discuss their work over a beer and really want to know what you think.  We know there are a bunch not weighing in, but are reading and absorbing the GCA highly opinionated and knowlegeable end-users.  This is an important aspect of our ongoing debates and comments that we should always be mindful of, and keep comments that are critical or complimentary focused on the subject matter when ever possible.

No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Gib_Papazian

Where is GCA in architecture's spectrum?
« Reply #19 on: August 13, 2001, 08:41:00 AM »
We can dance around the issues and try not to offend anyone, but what purpose would it serve?

One of my college professors was Dr. John Hospers, who taught a class in "The Philosophy of Aesthetics."

Fabulous course, but one that sought to identify and gauge the reason for human reaction in the contemplation of art.

The problem is, IMHO, that art is based in  emotion. Those who are touched most deeply are going to express their reactions with a measure of love, hate, distaste, frustration or outright astonishment commiserate with their feelings.

To suggest we somehow temper our words to spare the feelings of guys like Fazio, Rees or Pascuzzo because we are afraid of alienating them . . . . well their golf courses are alienating some of us!

There are only so many projects to go around - especially because permitting is such a hideous nightmare - so I think a measure of anger is appropriate when a fine piece of land like the Preserve ends up being a wasted opportunity.

It is aggravating.

I invite any of those big names to come on this site and defend their choices. Why do I have to drive 2 hours outside of Phoenix to some gawdforsaken hell hole like Globe, AZ to play a great golf course?

Because all the projects closer in are snapped up by guys who repeat the same empty-headed stuff overandoverandover, dumbing down the knuckleheads who cough up $100 to play a pretty golf course with little or no strategic or intellectual content!

We have along way to go in reaching the average Green Committee guy too. Remodeling University was held at my home club and there was exactly ONE member attending the lectures. No, not a comitteeman who god forbid might actually learn something either. Just a lone Armenian sitting next to the famous Pajaro Pete.

Most of the guys running the clubs are too lazy to actually delve into the subject, so hopefully the real professionals ought to be counted on to guide them on making sensible decisions about their golf course.

The only problem is that most of the big names obviously look at these committeemen as fresh meat and a source of revenue.

Like everything else in America these days, down is up, left is right and common sense has jumped out the window.

Fazio, Nicklaus and Rees are household words. Forse, Doak and Hanse are not. How many opportunities for a guy like Todd Eckenrode to show his stuff are missed because another plum assignment goes to the factory firms????????

These guys may not visit the site regularly, but their drones do, and their silence is deafening.

A fine gentleman told me the other day that the key to making a good golf course great is "getting the last 20% right."

Those are the courses we revere here on GCA, not some generic 'dozer job that looks pretty. If they don't want to read the critiques, quit building schlock!

Or at least explain why they do what you do.

Jean Luc Goddard was asked once why he had so much blood in one of his movies. His answer:

"It is not lots of blood, it is lots of red."

In other words, perhaps we are missing something. But until Goddard (or Nicklaus or whoever) points out a reason for their choices and expressions, they ought not to wonder why we criticize their work so sharply.

End of Rant.


Gib_Papazian

Where is GCA in architecture's spectrum?
« Reply #20 on: August 13, 2001, 08:54:00 AM »
Wow, I just read back on that last post. Maybe Ran ought to offer anger management classes for GCAers who have fallen off the deep end. . .  :-)

BarnyF

Where is GCA in architecture's spectrum?
« Reply #21 on: August 13, 2001, 05:15:00 AM »
To my surprise Patrick Mucci said it best in the fewest words when he asked Tommy about him and Rees reviewing Tommy's body of electrical work.  How does Tommys' work relate to the great classical electricians such as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Edison or Marconni.  Why does Tommys' work only serve his client and not inspire them.  This does not make Tommy a bad electrician or does it require him to defend his work.  Every field be it electrical work or golf course architecture needs average work to judge greatness against.  Tom Fazio is a member of Pine Valley....Tommy wired his own house...sometimes its just so simple to see the truth.

Mike_Cirba

Where is GCA in architecture's spectrum?
« Reply #22 on: August 13, 2001, 05:20:00 AM »
BarnyF;

I have no complaints about "average" work.  There are several unheralded designers out there providing average, mid-level, affordable work that fills a market niche.  I do have complaints about "average", assembly-line work masquerading and marketed as classical and costing beaucoups of bucks.  


Lisa Luigs Morrissett

Where is GCA in architecture's spectrum?
« Reply #23 on: August 13, 2001, 05:35:00 AM »
Gib:

I agree with and like most of what you write, but I think callin Globe, Ariz., "a gawdforsaken hell hole" is a bit extreme and quite offensive to the residents. It wasn't that bad and the drive between out there was spectacular. . .


THuckaby2

Where is GCA in architecture's spectrum?
« Reply #24 on: August 13, 2001, 05:41:00 AM »
Food for thought:  the GCA is indeed discussed at Shinnecock, Royal Melbourne, Turnberry (as Ran happily exclaimed in another thread)... but it might as well stand for Good Cod Allthetime at my local muni.

By that I mean, I agree with Charlie Dusic.  A wonderful purist, traditionalist view is the accepted "dogma" here, but this is certainly not the majority view of the real golf world.

I love the site, continue to learn... but change the game?  Well, here's hoping.  It's funny, Dan King and I had this battle about 10 years ago re the "traditionalist" view... my thoughts were negative then and 10 years later I don't see much reason for optimism.  For every Pasatiempo renovation there are five new openings of courses like Cinnabar Hills and Coyote Creek here in San Jose (overpriced cart-ball tracks).  Today's average golfer continues to care way more about conditions and frills than strategy and architecture.  Perhaps I am overly pessimistic, but I don't see the change, other than for the bad.

I know, patience.  And it's great GCA exists to further this cause.  But the site to me does seem quixotic much of the time.

Doesn't mean I don't love it....

TH