GCA.com's mission ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Shouldn't one of the missions of GCA.com be to get more green chairman and green committee members to tune in to the site ?

When I recently played a Donald Ross golf course that was suffering through an era of narrow ribboned fairways, with the wide playing corridors abandoned to rough, I couldn't help but think how much this site might help educate those in charge of preparing the golf course for play.

What can be done to get more green chairman to tune in ?

[Mike Benham]

Patrick -

If you want the Green Chairman to effect change on their course, back to the original design concept, I don't think having them tune into this website will accomplish that.

I suspect they would need to spend hours searching and reading the archives to get the message.  I bet that they will get bored of the process and log-off unless they are personally committed to venture into this world open-minded and willing to listen, read and learn.

It may be easier to invite them to the grill room, pull out the history books, the original drawings, the previous work of the architect, successful renovations and a good bottle of scotch to get them to see the errors of their ways.

Mike

[Mike McGuire]

Patrick -

Excellent idea. I was looking forward to playing a Ross course last year. It was so overgrown with trees I had to laugh/cry.

This site should be required viewing for green chairs/committee members. There is so much to learn here. One person on a  committee armed with this info can make a huge difference.

I have no idea how to accomplish this.  Perhaps Ran will let us change our yearly donation to our average score for 18 holes. This could   fund a small perpetual ad in Golfweek or Supernews.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Pat

I think that's a wonderful idea.  I was thrilled to see Scott Ramsay, the new Yale superintendent, here on the site and I can only believe that Green Chairmen and committee members would benefit from a forum with ideas and bright people like this one bring to the table.

I agree that it would be beneficial to have some way to search the site more conveniently for there to be access to the information at a person's hand.

The chit chat on here is all well and good and creates bonds between us but there could be so much more of real value and education.  If I can be of any assistance please let me help.

[A_Clay_Man]

While it is an obvious benefit, that those with the power, learn about the justifications (or lack thereof) of why certain aspects of a golf are the way the are, or should be the way they should be. It does not gaurantee they will learn, or do the right thing.

You can lead the whores to water, but can you made them think?

Maybe if the USGA had been more diligent in their gaurdianship, this wouldn't be an issue and they'd already have the wealth of knowledge that can be found within all this bandwidth..

[scott_wood]

this is a topic which has been extensivley bandied about here, and is close to my heart for a variety of reasons ...

imo, GCA can be an incrediblely powerful resource for THE GAME.....so, IT"S TIME FOR ACTION!....

specifics can be determined but the concept is incredibly SIMPLE......the end user ( green comm members, anyone interested) need a DEDICATED section of GCA (like "courses" , "discussion group") to refer to....

within that section ( named "course resources??) there should be further sections that would be designed to EASILY get good information/resouces to the reader.......

As an example, Dunlop White's excellant articles re "Trees" have many resouces cited.....these type of things could/should be hyperlinked for easy viewing.....

Let's take GCA "to the next level", and be that positive force we know we can....!! I know nothing of the specifics, but am willing to help, in any way that might be appropriate...who to lead?  

[Alex Chehansky]

while excited about the opportunity to have greens chairmen and their committee's onboard, are we willing to lose the intimacy of the site and open it up?  That is one germaine issue we must discuss before destroying virtual anonymity of the site.  To date, only the Tom Doak article in last years GD really plugged the site and I assume caused an influx of members.

With that said, if we choose to open the site and grow for the good of the game, I suggest we work in conjunction with the USGA marketing department and devise a plan that will be as openly limited as possible to include those that we wish to include on the site.  I say this not to be discriminatory, but to try and derail any possible rash of OT thoughts with new members looking for "access" or wanting to discuss the newest driver face or golf ball or how did tiger hit the ball so far.  That is not the nature, nor goal of this site.  Regardless, whatever is decided in this topic area, the ramifications of it must be considered carefully.

I will be playing golf several times this week with the CMO of the USGA and would be happy to bring this up with him...any thoughts???

[scott_wood]

simple solution might be to allow READING (and printing)access to GCA, but not PARTTICIPATION access.....

USGA is/has been/will be an "organization" "bureaucracy", with all the limitations that come with that.....

imo, keep it "simple".....and 'GCA's/ours"... adn help THE GAME!

[Bill_McBride]

I have actually put GCA.com into action to make a point with our young superintendent in my (now past) role as chair of the greens and grounds committee.   I was not getting my point across that we needed to mow the grass in front of our fairway bunkers as fairway rather than rough --- we've had this discussion here a number of times but it really is a problem when superintendents are under the gun to meet budget --- and took our guy into the office, logged onto GCA.com, and walked him through a number of profiles of courses where the grass is cut to the appropriate height.

We still have some of that rough but at least he got to see some pretty pictures, and we made some progress.

That is one of GCA.com's greatest values, as a repository of well-illustrated profiles of traditional golf courses.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Alex,

I would cite Fox Chapel as exhibit A.
Or, proof positive as to how well the concept can work.

My suggestion for Ran, which needs refinement, would be to create a section, specifically designed to provide access to verifiable green chairman and committee members, along with superintendents.

Adam Clayman,

It's not the USGA's fault that a green chairman or a committee member doesn't have the education, expertise and experience to understand all issues they come in contact with.
Blaming them is not fair or productive.

[RJ_Daley]

I agree with Pat and Scott.  A separate section of GCA.com, that is monitored more strictly to keep posts, questions and responses on topic.  The monitor should be an individual that has a depth of knowlege in aspects of being a greens chairman and knows his way around the concept of maintenence meld and course restoration-remodelling.  

The USGA has a greens section, and I think it is a fine resource.  They disseminate important information on course maintenance issues.  Yet, it seems to me that the bureaucracy of the USGA, including touchy politics seems to be a hinderance when it comes to expressing any strong directives when a particular green chairman leads his committee to some obvious inappropriate decisions that tend to ruin a recognized good golf course.  

I know the slippery slope that exists about some entity telling a private club's committee that they are going in the wrong direction.  Yet, there seems to be so much ego involved, that a strong personality, well respected for real knowledge on these subjects ought to be able to "lay down some smack" as the kids say.  

As far as being critical here on GCA.com, of a club's direction over the years which is controversial, or contrary to basic design and maintenence principles, I think that things ought to be said in an unvarnished manner, yet not insulting manner.  We don't need to have knock down drag out fights in order to critically bring to light what is observed to be negative aspects of a course's direction.  Then the merits of the criticism should be discussed to the benefit of that club's decision making process (if the green chairman is wise).

We do that now, if a green chairman is truly interested to go out and research some sources.  But, to focus the discussion further on a separate section might be even more beneficial.

[Tom_Doak]

Are any of these things really the mission of Golf Club Atlas, or are they just projections of different people's own motives for participating?

There are plenty of good resources for clubs which need advice, beginning with architects.  Now I'm sure that all of you believe you are experts at helping an inexperienced green chairman choose the RIGHT architect, but really you all have somewhat different opinions based on your own biases, which is not necessarily of any help except to someone who shares your viewpoints.

Or are you saying that the collective wisdom of GCA would be to focus on cutting trees and expanding greens and rebuilding bunkers based on sound principles, without the help of a good architect?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

Often committee chairs and members are reluctant to indicate that they don't have a broad base of knowledge or understanding on a topic.

A seperate section could help familiarize them with those areas that they seek help in.

And, those areas wouldn't be confined solely to architecture.

[RJ_Daley]

Now I'm sure that all of you believe you are experts at helping an inexperienced green chairman choose the RIGHT architect, but really you all have somewhat different opinions based on your own biases, which is not necessarily of any help except to someone who shares your viewpoints.

TD, I for one am getting a little tired of you putting this group down just because they are enthusiastic and embrace a passion like GCA and express their opinons about it.  I don't think many of us really think we are experts.  I think it is a characterization of technical ignorance that you are ascribing to a generic group like us that isn't really based on anything more than reading those various opinions we express here and somehow thinking that only thou hast the insight worthy of expressing an opinion.  If it weren't for all these psuedo experts going ga-ga over your work, you wouldn't be anything more than a regional architect trying to talk your way into your first big job let by a big patron.  It is word of mouth (our mouths) that feeds your reputation.  If there weren't folks that made the effort to learn more about GCA, and went to great lengths to seek great GCA out and study it, you would not have near rock star reputation.  Reputation is built by word of mouth.  Experts are a dime a dozen. Afficianados or fans may not be experts but they have opinions, and you'd better hope they keep expressing them, techically right or wrong, or you couldl end up an historical footnote in GCA.

Not everyone that follows Sting, has Tommy N's knowledge and appreciation of music.  He is not an expert, yet he is more than a mere fan.  Yet, some people by virtue of their passion talk like they're experts on music and can't play a freaking note on a kazoo.  Yet, they love Sting.  Go figure.  I say it is the same phenomenon like you. Did you ever hear Sting say these people think they are experts in music, yet they aren't like me, don't know the intricacies of my music and have different opinions of which selections of my music they like, so they really can't advise or encourage others to listen to my music or any other artist's.  Only I, Sting the musician can do that because I am a trained expert.  

I'd like to think I'm off base and misunderstand you.  But, I simply get the impression that sometimes you bite the hand that feeds you.

Finally, just for the record to make sure you know where I stand on respecting the collective group on GCA.com, I have high confidence that a significant number of contributors here are infact better educated in the subjects, understand many aspects of GCA and course maintenance, and history of golf courses and their remodelling, etc., than most green chairman. Maybe hardly any one individual has all those sets of knowledge, yet each contributor may have one area or the other that they have studied more carefully, and are entitled to a well informed opinion.   In fact, I'd trust or respect a collective wisdom expressed on here on many subjects ahead of many architects working today.

[scott_wood]

Tom, couldn't agree with your point more...a good Architect is a MUST, even those on a budget....imo, this "gca section" would provide "educational" material, and wouldn't, at all, be "do this , do that"...even the mere use of hyperlinks to material you and your bretheren "utilize/refer to/respect" would be helpful.....how about info on: "ways to utilize an architect on a  limited budget", or " the positive utilization of trees in golf course architecture....

Big Picture Point: not the "how to/must do/this is it" approach, but a "here's some "thoughtful" ideas on issues facing all clubs" ......this isn't the GCA Mission, but it could be a Contribution we make to the Game.....

[ian]

RJ Daley,

"If it weren't for all these psuedo experts going ga-ga over your work, you wouldn't be anything more than a regional architect."

Sorry RJ, your way out of line on this one. I'm a competing architect with Tom (in theory ), and I can still comfortably tell you that I think Tom does excellent work. He is a very good architect who has earned the respect he gets for his work. You may have an issue with his personality or his style, but it's hard to knock the golf courses.


The other issue is many people on this site have very strong opinions that are not always applicable to each situation but they don't care. How is an opinion like that going to be constructive. There is a lot of good on this site, but there is a lot of bullshit that tries to pass for knowledge.

There is a thread on here where a group of people don't think a Master Plan is constructive, is that the opinion that the green's chairman need?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Scott Wood,

Have you read Dunlop White's work ?

Have you read Bob Randquist's work ?

Every Green Committee Chairman and member would be well served by reading the work of these gentleman.

Do you think it might help green chairman and committee members if they knew that many people don't endorse narrow fairways, high rough, the flattening of greens to accomodate higher speeds and longer golf courses ?

What I find interesting about Tom Doak's comment is the fact that most alterations, most disfigurations of wonderful features, holes and golf courses were done UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF AN ARCHITECT.

So, perhaps, there are more global issues that transcend the employment of an architect.

[ian]

Pat,

So are the current architects to shoulder the blame of architects that made changes before they were in practice?

That is what you are implying.

And don't you think more damage was done at the green's chairman level than by architects, often clubs tell an architect what they want (18 new greens etc.). Is the architect at fault for giving them what they asked for?


Everybody should read Dunlop and Bob's work, not just green's chairman.

[RJ_Daley]

Ian, I hope you and Tom find my caveat that I placed in my post to say that I'd like to think that I do misunderstand the tone of Tom's post.  I got the impression however, as I have on other posts, that he is in a manner dismissive or even sarcastic of other's opinions about GCA, because some expressions of opinions aren't strictly based on formal knowledge in technical areas.  If simply having formal training in GCA-LA qualified one person over another from forming an opinion and defending it, then there would be no GCA malfunctions, so to speak.  There are plenty of golf course disasters out there, designed by formally trained experts.  Should they go unnoticed or not critiqued?

The whole value of this little treehouse is in the collective sense.  Not even Tom or you are "experts" in all integral aspects of all disciplines that eventually go into the final product of a golf course.  If that were so, no trained architect would ever have a failure or negative experience with specifying a turf species or cultivar undsuitable to long term success in a region.  No architect would have any mistake made on specifying an irrigation system and components.  All aspects of the design would function as conceived by the architect.

Yet, wouldn't you agree that no matter how good the architect, sometimes the merits of a golf hole aren't fully understood or evaluated until after the hole is in play for a good long time.  Isn't it the case that sometimes the pre-construction and design period of a golf holes evolution might be thought of as being superior, yet falls into the realm of quirk, non-acceptance, or doesn't live up to the architect's own pre-construction desires of how it will play.

The collective posters of GCA.com are not experts.  But, we always skirt that grey area called criticism where opinions are expressed for discussion, sifting and winnowing, in an attempt by the collective to arrive at consensus, or atleast further or wider understanding.  That wider zone of understanding is valuable, IMHO, for the green chairmen to puruse and take from it what nuggets of wisdom they may find that lies within the process of the discussion.  

I certainly am learning more about the ideas of a master plan on the other thread.  I don't know how anyone could read that series of opinions and not start to form some thoughts ones self.  If I were a green chairman, that debate would be helpful to me.

I don't worry too much about the BS that is passing itself off as knowledge on this site.  It is almost always smoked out.

The only real trouble I have noticed on this site is when respect for each other's opinion is reduced to put downs, sarcasm, or dismissal out of hand.  Debate isn't for the shy, yet respect for everyone's right to express an opinion, at whatever their particular level of knowledge, is key to exploring ideas further and finally getting to a consensus where a modicom of truth may lie.  

[ian]

RJ,

Appreciate the reply.

I'll give you my perspective. About half of golfers think they know everything there is to designing a golf hole. Half of those will tell you to your face they know more than you (despite working in another profession).

This does not happen at this level in law, accounting, or even business; so why is it different with golf design? Mainly because golf architecture is a fairly easy hobby to take on, books, available experiences, GCA, etc.

With law there is no LAW.com for learning about legal issues, nor is the focus quite so interesting.

Golf Architecture has some similarities to art. Everyone thinks they know what great art is. We all have an opinion. Many think they can do better, because it's or natural instict. But very few actually have the talent to create art and then explore its forms to further the art.

It is much easier to sit on the sidelines and say what isn't art or what is not very good. It is another issue to try and create art that is enjoyed or revered by many.

Now think of golf architecture as creating art. I hope through this anology you see the frustation of being an artist where everyone else thinks they understand our craft without actually particpating themselves.

I love the discussion group, I enjoy the imput, but it comes with frustration reading some of the uninfomed opinion that professes to be knowledge.

I don't know everything about Golf Architecture, and never will, but admitting that means I will continue to learn and grow as an architect.

There are many opinions that have not grown in the 7 years I have been here. A stagnant position is ignorance.

ian

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ian,

So are the current architects to shoulder the blame of architects that made changes before they were in practice?

That is what you are implying.

No, It's not.
That's what you are infering.

If you read my recent post on Master Plans, you'll get the gist of my comments.

Architects do good and bad work, generally the product of the directive by the committee.

My comments are made in the context that an educated committee is in a far better position to understand golf course architecture, especially as it applies to their club, and thus, they are better prepared to retain an architect for all of the positive reasons rather than the negative reasons.

Architects, past, present and future will make mistakes.
They're not infallible.
Your comment would have us believe that from today forth no architect will be responsible for the disfiguration of any feature, hole or golf course.
But, we both know that's not the case.[/color]

And don't you think more damage was done at the green's chairman level than by architects, often clubs tell an architect what they want (18 new greens etc.). Is the architect at fault for giving them what they asked for?

Again, if  you'll read my recent post on the Master plan thread you'll see that I said essentially the same thing.

I think the majority of the damage begins at the feet of the chairman and committee.[/color]

Everybody should read Dunlop and Bob's work, not just green's chairman.

Let's get the green chairman and committee first, then we'll work on the rest of the membership  [/color]

[RJ_Daley]

Ian, I agree that stagnant positions tend towards the ignorant.

I don't agree with your comment about other professions, where we don't see the level of lay people, non-practitioners of a profession, etc., not experiencing the same level of self appointed experts.  They are called "wannabes".  I come from a law enforcement profession.  While not a lawyer, I needed to know a good deal about the law myself.  We used to have at least two kinds of non-professional practitioners in the area of law.  The frustrated policeman (who thinks they know everything there is about policing because they watched every episode of NYPD Blue or Third Watch etc.)  Then there are what we call the "--ithouse lawyers".  Sometimes they are cons in prision that have nothing to do but read law books and appeal their own cases. Sometimes they are out of prison on the street and tell every other con what the cops can and can't do.  Yet, believe it or not, sometimes they are right about certain subjects they studied whilst in the can.  Not all the practitioners, formally trained, have or should have the last word.  Hell, I even won cases acting as counsul for my union in arbitration cases, where the respondent in a case was represented by a trained lawyer.  Non-experts can attain some measure of expertice, and can have validity or effectiveness.

There are all kinds of successful, non formally trained businessmen.  They don't have MBAs, yet they are more successful than 1000s of MBAs that only wish they had the instincts that some of these people have.

BTW, I didn't google it, but I'm pretty sure there are DGs along the lines of LAW.com, and some pretty smart, and some pretty dumb people go there.  You just gotta sift through it.

[John_Cullum]

So now we have a mission?

[Sean_A]

Ian

Tell me about experts in a field.  As a former teacher, it was truly amazing to find so many lay people out there who knew how to do my job better than me.  Strange how none of them were standing next to me on Monday mornings.  I spose this was part of the reason I got out.  Teachers didn't "own" the profession like doctors and lawyers own theirs.  This is most  likely the fault of teachers and that is probably true of GCAs as well.

Ciao

Sean

[James Bennett]

As a course chairman, GCA.com tells me (regularly) how much I don't know, although some of the gca arguments here are certainly PhD matters, not GCA 101.

In understanding the task at hand, there are two key outcomes for a course chairman - day to day conditioning, and the custodianship of the course design.

On the first matter, if you can improve the condition of the greens year round, then you are well in front.  Remembering that the Course Supt knows more about these matters than the members always helps.

On the second matter, if you understand the heritage of the course, you are also in front.  The course could be in better long-term shape at the end of your term than it was when you started.

As part of undertaking a Master Plan, our club was encouraged to review the historic documents and photo's over the last 40 years.  I was personally disappointed that I was not aware of these documents before undertaking this work, and that I had been Chairman for nearly two years before becoming aware of them.  And I regard myself as an educated person.

We uncovered the original course design, and the plans for an amendment to 5 holes made 12 years ago.  The original plan was a real find.  From that, we can see where we have 'lost the plot', and where we varied from the plot..

The Master Plan is likely to have a significant impact on trees on our course, something that has been on the agenda for 30 years but not pursued.  It was not an initial aim of undertaking a Master Plan, but the priority was identified through that process.

This is a little OT, and relates to the other Master Plan thread.  I would add that I would dislike having this Plan cast in stone for future committees.  I hope that the current committee (and future committees) implement as much of the Plan, as quickly as they consider reasonable.  However, if committees decide to do nothing for a year or so, so be it.  If committees want to deviate from the Plan, I just hope that they do this with the current architect, or go through a process to select a new architect.  This is likely to result in far less re-work, or wasted work and disruption to our golf course.