Architectural deimse -Tommy Naccarato is right

[Wayne_Freedman]

Tommy,

Only the insensitive would discount such efforts.

Others would feel intimidated in making such a contribution.

It depends on what you, and everyone else, wants this place to be.

I do sympathize with your concerns. In fact, I'm a 'big fish' on another,  industry website, and in the same span of recent weeks, the tone, there,  has turned OT, as well. But, in four years there, I've seen it ebb and flow. Eventually, people and websites resort back to type.

It'll happen here. You'll return to deep discussions of obscure reverse redans, bunkers en echelon, transitional waste areas,
or the philosophical differences between Robert Hunter and Pete Dye---and the superficial chatter will die away.

Guys such as me won't post as much...but we'll still be reading.

Cheers and goodnight.
 

[ForkaB]

Let face it guys.....

There are just so many things you can say about Golf Course Architecture and those of us who have been on this site more than a year or two have said it or heard it or both--far too many times.  Most "on topic" topics are old news and what stuff is new is often so esoteric that few people can or want to comment on it.

So....we mostly lurk, make jokes, make friendships and play some golf--all along the way knowing that we are bound together by a love for the game and its architecture.   Is this such a bad thing?

[TEPaul]

That's a nice post Rich--it's true and apropos!

Did I ever tell you what a smart guy I think you are?

[ForkaB]

Thanks, Tom

There is, of course, the "problem" that whenever someone tries to pose a highly legitimate but previously undiscussed non GCA-PC question, e.g. "Is the Old Course 'great' or just a fascinating museum", the hounds of GCA Hell descend upon them, full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing.  Even those of us who can take the calumny refuse to play that cheap game.  So, topics that could be really great get buried in the archives, never to be seen again............

[TEPaul]

Rich:

Would you please try to refrain from using that word--calumny---in the future? I hate that word--it makes my buccinator muscles lock up!

[THuckaby2]

With absolutely no qualifiers or other disclaimers or anything, I say:

I agree completely with Rich Goodale.

Wayne Freedman is absolutely right also.

All the rest is just much ado about nothing.

TH

[Steve Lang]

 

WHERE WILL YOU BE WHEN THE QUARTER MILLIONth POST IS MADE ON GCA.COM?

OT: WHAT WILL YOU BE WEARING?

[Brad Swanson]

Yea,
   Asking "How good is Seven Oaks?" is code for "I'd like an 8:00 tee time for next Saturday at National".  Gimme a freeking break.  Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Cheers,
Brad Swanson

[David Wigler]

100% agreement with Rich Goodale.

Tommy,

Although some "What would you play in xxx" are clearly "Can you get me on xxx", to say that they all are, is silly.  I do not think Huckaby was looking for freebie's in Puerta Vallarta.  I think the last two times I had such a thread were Hawaii and Kansas City.  I clearly had access and simply was curious where someone with one round would play.  I am about to post a similar thread on Omaha.  It has nothing to do with freebies and everything to do with taking advantage of the fact that we have a knowledgeable group of people.  That is why I respond to those threads (Without an invitiation) when I can help.

[Bill Gayne]

Tom M,

I think this site has improved over the last year and a half with a couple of changes. First change is the elimination of posters with psuedonyms. There are still a few but they've been on the site for a long time and for the most part they're known. I think this has made many of the posters less aggressive and "in your face." This has also help to cut down the baseless rumor and inuendo although it still does exist.

At one time if you made a positive post about certain architects the immediate response would be that it stinks and you can't possibly know anything about GCA if you liked something by this architect. I think this approach has diminished greatly and there even appears to be some acceptance of Tom Paul's BWT.

This group travels and sees alot of different golf which results in the knowledge base of the group continuing to grow.

I also like the increase use of the posting of pictures. I love seeing the pictures from golf courses that I haven't been to and golf course that I have played. Even the dog pictures are okay but I wish somebody would get a dog of some size .

For the most part the OT stuff is good with me as long as it's not offensive in tone (sexism and racism). Fortunately most of the posts are rebutted pretty quickly.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Yea,
   Asking "How good is Seven Oaks?" is code for "I'd like an 8:00 tee time for next Saturday at National".  Gimme a freeking break.  Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Cheers,
Brad Swanson

Brad,
You missed my point. Thread like that aren't what is in question, but threads like Mitchell Cooper's are. The last thing this site needs is a reputation for access to the world's most exclusive country club's.

David,

Given I know the nature of how busy you are with your work, I'll give you a credit, but how come we haven't seen a complete history of Plum Hollow for an In My Opinion piece from the club historian that could have been done over an extended period of time?

Now my complaint isn't with the David Wigler because I know he doesn't have the time with work and all--heck this is the first I have seen David Wigler on here in weeks, but this website is what you put into it, and it just seems as there are too many that want to take from it and never give back.

I hope I'm making my point.

[THuckaby2]

Tommy:

Is something that detailed, that researched, that LONG, required to meet the standard of "giving back" to this website?

Jeez man, that is a very high standard.  You can't possibly expect every regular user to do that... For one thing, most of us do have lives.  For another, many of us don't have courses to do that about that anyone else would care about.  Does the world really want a detailed review of Santa Teresa Muni?  Finally, aren't regular posts here a contribution in and of themselves?  Don't the financial contributions we make to Ran count?  Doesn't pleasantness to visitors to one's area, and the sharing of information about such, count as well?

I know the point you are trying to make.  I just don't agree with it.

And come on man, this place has had a reputation for access to great places straight from the start, as had its predecessors.  That is never going to change - the genie is not going back into the bottle.  I know it must be annoying and difficult for those who can grant such access, and it's not the greatest situation in the world, but it can be handled with proper decorum, and for those who abuse it, well...they just get ignored.

That's my $.02.  The sky remains right where it is, and is not falling.

TH

ps - I sure as hell didn't ask for or want any freebies in Puerto Vallarta - I just figured some here must have gone there, and since I knew nothing about the courses there, I wanted to know where I should spend the marital capital to play.  Sure there are threads where it IS a code word for "get me on somewhere there free" but how much success do those people have with those?  It's damn easy to see through.  Hell when I see those I just laugh.

[T_MacWood]

On a similar line to Tommy, maybe you don't have the time do write a IMO or My Home Course, but you should at least strive to say on topic. If you look back at your last 50 posts (or 8000 posts is some cases) and more than half of them are unrelated to golf architecture...there is a problem.

[David Wigler]

Yea,
   Asking "How good is Seven Oaks?" is code for "I'd like an 8:00 tee time for next Saturday at National".  Gimme a freeking break.  Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Cheers,
Brad Swanson

David,

Given I know the nature of how busy you are with your work, I'll give you a credit, but how come we haven't seen a complete history of Plum Hollow for an In My Opinion piece from the club historian that could have been done over an extended period of time?

Point taken.  You are absolutely right.  I have been meaning to do this for three years and have not gotten around to it.  I will go take some pictures over the next two weeks and promise to have this done by the end of the summer (In time for those who plan on coming to Detroit for the Ryder Cup to see how special Plum is).

[ForkaB]

This thread is so OT I'm surprised that Tommy and Pat initiated it, Tom MacWood contriubutes to it and Ran hasn't deleted it!

[THuckaby2]

Tom M:

In your mind that is a problem.  In others, it's not.

Man does not live by golf architecture alone.  Nor can that topic possibly exist in a vacuum.

TH

[THuckaby2]

This thread is so OT I'm surprised that Tommy and Pat initiated it, Tom MacWood contriubutes to it and Ran hasn't deleted it!

Rich:  good point.  It's also rather telling that Mr. Mucci himself has contributed to recent OT threads as well... do as I say and not as I do, I guess.

 

[T_MacWood]

TH
I'll be sure to pass that along to Ran. Maybe he can create sub-DGs for those of us interested in wine, art, literature, football, sex, religion and family photos.

[THuckaby2]

Tom M:

Sounds great to me.  I"ll just keep contributing to this one though, thank you very much.  Enjoy the others though!

 

[Dan Kelly]

I, too, endorse Rich's statement -- particularly the second paragraph of his first post.

I don't really agree, though, that it's *all* been said, and too many times. Some of what might be said has been said, and some of what has been said has been said too many times -- but I do think fresh architectural content is possible here, and will always be possible here.

It just won't be *everything* here. Nor, in my view, should it be.

If Ran disagrees -- if he wants this site, his site, to be All Architecture All the Time, without any detours -- he should change the wording about non-architecture threads from "will be deleted" to "are unwelcome."

I, personally, think that such a change would eviscerate the site -- that Man does not live by Golf Architecture alone, or even Golf alone.

But it's Ran's site, not mine.

P.S. to Tom IV -- I'd have quoted you on Man and Golf Architecture -- but you posted yours while I was composing mine.

[THuckaby2]

Dan Kelly:

Very well said.  Very well said indeed.  In my discussions with Ran, he's never had any complaint about off-topic discussions... in fact the impression I got is that he has a fine sense of humor and enjoys them from time to time.  Now of course if that was ALL THERE WAS HERE, than that's too much.  And obviously different people tend to have different standards about what is too much on the OT side.  That's cool.

But in the end, if Ran does want this to be 100% architecture every post, all the time, then he could decree such.  I agree that it would evicerate the site, and to put it another way, make it way too censored and limiting and serious and un-fun.

But it is Ran's site, not mine - or anyone else's, for that matter.

TH

[T_MacWood]

TH
100% of anything is unrealistic (IMO 80% would be a huge improvement), what Ran wants is spelled out clearly on the front page. The reason very few non-architectural posts are deleted is due to 1) it would become a full time job for him and 2) he doesn't read the site any more.

Can imagine going through your 8000+ posts and deleting all the non-GCA related posts?

[THuckaby2]

TH
100% of anything is unrealistic (IMO 80% would be a huge improvement), what Ran wants is spelled out clearly on the front page. The reason very few non-architectural posts are deleted is due to 1) it would become a full time job for him and 2) he doesn't read the site any more.

Can imagine going through your 8000+ posts and deleting all the non-GCA related posts?

TM:  Well said, and points well taken.  Except for the last one, that is.  Methinks it wouldn't be nearly so difficult as you claim.  But that's ok, I've never been able to change your opinion.  Cheers, man.  Have a wonderful day.

 


ps - what Ran wants is spelled out, but I tend to favor Dan Kelly's interpretation of such.  I also trust what he told me in person.  

[JakaB]

It sure is easy for a bunch of raters to slam anyone who can't gain access to any course they choose....maybe you should think back about before you had your card before you look down on a guy who would like to play someplace nice on a buisness trip too.....Asking about what courses are in a town are not the only veiled attempts at access around here.....sucking up to architects, panel members and those of status on the panel are just as transparent.   This is not a slam on raters....I have gained close to unlimited access myself due to their generosity....it is just a wake up call to the large majority of people on this site that are raters and know when they travel..or lets say to...Omaha or San Diego...that there are other Willy Lomans out there that like to play a new place now and then without having to sell Biff for the rights to play.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayne Freedman, Tom Huckaby, et. al.,

Gyroscopes and/or inertial guidance systems are invalueable in bringing those lost, or off course, back on track.

You can't view the titles of the recent threads and their subject matter and tell me that they are related to "Golf Course Architecture", which, is the purpose of the discussion group.

Tom Huckaby,

If you would review the titles and subject matter of the numerous threads I've initiated, you will see that they are all related to golf course architecture, with rare exception, as are Tom Paul's and Tom MacWood's.

I would ask you to utilize the wonderful education that you received to initiate golf course architecture related threads, rather then pander to the many OT threads.

I would ask all of you to be creative and initiate your own threads that deal with golf course architecture rather then inane off topic items.

Rich Goodale,

While many topics have been discussed, repetitively, that doesn't mean that a new perspective isn't welcome, or open to debate.