[cary lichtenstein]

It appears to me, that there has been a tremendous amount of negativeism on this site of late. Frankly, it is turning me off. I do not know if there are others who share this view.

[JakaB]

quasssi,

You just said nobody would notice The Deuce without any backup or explanation why...that reeks of negativity.  Were you insulting the course or people like me's ability to see great architecture unless we are led by the nose...

[DPL11]

quasssi,

I am in full agreement with you about recent threads being very negative. It's unfortunate, but I figured that the GW ratings had caused it, even though it started before that list was published.

I have been on this site less and less for the same reasons.



Doug

[cary lichtenstein]

When I played Pinehurst #2, I was extrememly disappointed. It just may be my personal inability to recognize certain types of architecture that others consider great.

There are several courses like that, e.g., Seminole where I have posted a thread asking for others to explain to me what I am missing. I don't doubt the greatness of National, Pebble, etc they sort of thrust it in your face.

The ones that I don't understand are perhaps the subtle ones, like #2. I am willing to learn. What I don't want to do is get into an argument with anybody. Learning and appreciating it why I like this site. I also enjoy its great sense of humor.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Quassi,

Different people see different things.

One hopes, that if it's not inate, that they can learn to see everything.

Successful architects seem to have that talent.
Armchair architects aspire to attain it.

As to NGLA and Seminole, somethings are less obvious then others, and some just don't have the vision of others.
 
Don't get fooled by the scale of things at NGLA as there is a good deal of sublety at NGLA which requires many visits for most to recognize and understand.  Return trips usually reveal unnoticed features.  At least that's the way it's worked for me over the last 30 years.

Negativism can be invalueable, an asset to the site.

Many people like fountains in their ponds or lakes, especially with colored lights.  Others like red, white and blue flags on the greens to indicate the location of the hole on a 3,000 square foot green, still others like plastic/artificial markers in the fairway at the 250, 200 and 150 yards, despite their inability to hit the ball 150 yards.

Should we accept all views as valid ?
Should we be politically correct ?

Or should we be critical, disagree on any given topic, and offer constructive criticism, which might bruise a posters ego, or level of sensitivity ?

I believe in not beating around the bush, in being direct,
so, I'll say it again.  TEPaul is wrong !  

[Mike_Sweeney]

When I played Pinehurst #2, I was extrememly disappointed. It just may be my personal inability to recognize certain types of architecture that others consider great.

Quassi,

I had a similar decision last summer with only two rounds to play in Pinehurst. I tried to hook up with Ran for a round (they were away), but he was clearly leading me towards others and I ended up at Tobacco Road and Ran's home course Southern Pines. Great day.

My point is learn to read between the lines and the people that write the lines. When people talk about the turtle shaped greens at #2, I need more to get me there for that price.

[Brian_Gracely]

Mike,

Have you seen this, http://www.golfclubatlas.com/pinehurst1.html?

As far as #2, I think many people fail to see Ross courses as a whole and instead look at them on a hole-by-hole or shot-by-shot basis.  This causes heartburn for alot of people.  

If you look at Pinehurst #2 as a whole, you'll see several things:

1) Because of the challenge of the greens, the course plays equally difficult from 6500 or 7000 yards.

2) While many people state that Ross builds courses that are playable for great or average players, few people talk about the give and take of #2.  I'd classify the holes like this:

Give (easier): 3, 4, 8, 12, 16, 17
Take (tougher): 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11-14, 15

And many of these could be flip-flopped with excellent or poor shots, but Ross gives you the ability to score low after giving you great challenge on a previous hole.

3) The variety of Par 3s and 4s is outstanding.  

4) Individually, holes #2, 5, 9, 10, 14 are as good as any holes worldwide.  

I could go on...

[A_Clay_Man]

Nein, nicht, nyet. In a word, No.

Open discourse!

Should others be less civil, who does it ultimately reflect on?

[Carlyle Rood]

Thank you for bringing this topic up.

Comments are negative more frequently.  Personal attacks are made more frequently.  Civility on this board is in decline, and so is critical thought.

When previous posters have appealed for better behavior, they have been lambasted for trying to stifle dialog.  Some will suggest that this boorish behavior somehow stimulates discussions.  

It does not.  Instead, a few people end up dominating the discussions.  They begin to attack the critic's credibility rather than the criticism.  Ultimately, this culminates with a few people bickering back and forth.  It's pitiful and unfortunate.

If we genuinely want this board to be about stimulating and entertaining discussions, then we have to begin being more cordial with one another--especially newcomers.

Disagreeing is fine.  Disagreement is encouraged.  But I wish we'd make a more concerted effort to be more tactful.

I haven't always honored the above principles on this board; but, I'll damn sure try from now on.

C

P.S. Bring back the stymie.

[Gary_Smith]

"Take the whole mess and filter it"

Now that is some good advice.

[Jim Thompson]

This may be the best case I've heard for an "ignore poster button" to date.

I thoroughly enjoy the opinions and ideas exchanged on this site.  To some extent it has played a role or at least made us consider various options in the development of our new project.  I would offer a maxim that has been behind desks in my family for years now; most of us have a small sign, which says:

Great       people talk about    Ideas
Average    people talk about    Things
Small       people talk about    Other People

If we could all strive to be a little greater in our sharing I believe the both the substance and the enjoyment of the site could reach new heights!

Optimistically,

JT

[Chris Pike]

I believe that most of the negativity on GCA can be directly attributed to the member makeup of the board.  GCA seems to be a largely homogenous society of males whose personalities can be classified as abrasive, at times.  In fact, when flipping through some recent golf periodicals, I saw one that referred to Mr. Shackleford as a "curmudgeonly" and another that characterized Mr. Doak as "grouchy".  Surely, if many of our names were more "public", we too would be subject to similar scrutiny.  But, would we have it any other way?  ABSOLUTELY NOT!  Remember, "all creeds and opinions are nothing but the mere result of chance and temperament" (J.H. Shorthouse, John Ingelsant).      

[A.G._Crockett]

I think the concerns over "negativism" probably stem from the GW ratings threads, which have been less about the ratings than the raters.

I find the discussion of ratings, based on the merits of courses and often negative in tone, to fascinating and educational.  The discussion of individual raters and what might or might not be their motives is tiresome and somewhat pointless, since it involves going from the instance to the generalization, a technique that is rarely helpful.

[Paul Richards]

quassi:

Sorry, but I agree with you.

GCA has become too personal on its attacks.  

It used to be that when rankings came out, some intelligent discussion followed.

Now, it's just a forum to attack anyone and everyone.

I, for one, have decided to spend MUCH less time at this site.

I believe I may have been the first guy to 1000 posts on the old system, or maybe Tom Paul beat me.  I just remember being at Wolf Creek and discussing that fact with someone there.  

Now I spend very little time here.

Sad, I'd say...

[cary lichtenstein]

Paul:

Very well said

[Norbert P]

Great       people talk about    Ideas
Average    people talk about    Things
Small       people talk about    Other People

Thanks Jim.  Now scribed on a Post-it note facing me from my computer monitor.  I'll try to evolve.  

[Mike_Young]

Paul,
I agree.

[Paul Richards]

Amen!

I know of many other 'old-time' GCA guys who feel the same way.
 
So sad.

[Dan King]

Jane, you ignorant slut. Bagged out, dried up, skunk meat like you and Michelle Triolla know the rules. If you want a contract, sign on the dotted line. Oh, but let's all shed a tear for poor Michelle Triolla. There was only testimony that she had sexual intercourse over 40 times with another man while living with actor Lee Marvin. But I suppose that sort of fashionable promiscuity means nothing to you. Someone like you, Jane, who hops from bed to bed with the frequency of a cheap ham-radio. But hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, and Michelle Triolla like a screeching, squealing, rapacious swamp sow is after actor Lee Marvin's last three million dollars. I guess what you and Michelle are saying is, that when you're on your backs, the meter is running. Well please spare us gals, and tell us the rates at the top. Then we can choose which two-bit tarts and bargain basement sluts to shack up with.

Dan King

Sir, you are like a pin, but without either its head or its point.
 --Douglass William Jerrold

[Steve Curry]

Dan,

You make me feel stupid sometimes.

 

Steve

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()