Has GCA become just a website for devotees of minimialism?

[Jim Nugent]

OK, then answer me this:

Precisely why do people worship the ground you walk on around here if not for your minimalism?

Or better yet, if you build a Fazio tribute course, no, even better -- an entire Fazio Trail -- just exactly how do you think the guys around here would react to that?

That's what I figured....

My case will rest shortly ...  just as soon as everybody's eyeballs pop back into their heads when they read this.....

I agree there are lots of zeroists -- great term! -- or even negativists: they want to roll BACK the courses.  At the same time I greatly enjoy seeing their points of view.  This is a forum, after all.  Let the divots fly.    

[Matt_Ward]

Cary:

You raise a good point but let me explain it this way.

There are some on GCA who are the mullahs of golf design. They see golf courses in only ONE particular way -- they think of themselves of the "keepers of the flame" -- they believe in only one true style of design. Just like the jokers in Iran & Iraq.

Shivas is quite correct in the nature by which these self-appointed grand-high-exalted-mystic-rulers carry themselves. Those who don't worship at their altar are then defined as infatels.

What's also interesting is that some people can size up a course simply from looking at photos and within a few number of seconds they have the low-down on the ups and downs of any site. What a skill indeed.

The discussion that's taken place regarding Jim Engh is a good example. You have people weighing in on the totality of what the man is capable in doing either from photos or from limited personal sampling of his actual courses. The "talent" that it takes to do such a keen anaylsis is beyond words.

Too often these armchair quarterback mullahs have actually seen / played far too little but are quick to insert the infatel tag to people (often me and others) who don't bow down and kiss the minimalistic design or whatever else is the PC word for it today.

One last thing -- far too many people on GCA chase "celebrity" architects and then no matter courses / designers come forward the likelihood of "acceptance" from the mullahs is often quite rare.

Yes, Cary the undertone is quite clear and no less strident than the blowhards who dominate such stations like Fox.

[George Pazin]

A couple quick points:

No one should hesitate to share their opinion of a course, a photo, a technique, a theory, whatever - just be prepared to explain your rationale.

Disagreement is not bashing. At least not always. Don't expect universal acceptance of your opinion any more than you would universally accept others. There was disagreement over the Black Rock images (I know, I was one of 'em), but little that even approached bashing.

And the only people who get shouted down are the people who don't argue their position. Look at Matt & me. We disagree all the time, we shout AT each other plenty, but I don't think either of us would feel that he was shouted down. I know I don't, and I can't believe Matt would say he's shouted down either. We just have different viewpoints and repeatedly try to sway the other, generally to no avail. But, hey, that's the essence of discussion. As long as we try to avoid personal insults - and throw in an apology when one of us crosses the line - I think there is much to be gained over such disagreements.

Lastly, did it ever occur to the people who cry bias that maybe Tom's courses are simply better, in the opinion of posters in an arena that is highly subjective. I'll be the first Doak butt boy to proclaim that I have no real desire to play Stone Eagle. Maybe I'll get there someday, but I have a sneaking suspicion it is probably not much more suited to the bogey golfer than Black Mesa. I've already said I have no real desire to play Cape Kidnappers due to my problems with heights. Maybe, just maybe, when I praise The Rawls Course, it's because I genuinely loved my round there and genuinely loved the course.

Why do you assume that you can be objective, thoughtful and non-biased in your likes and dislikes, but do not extend the same courtesy to others? THAT, my friends, is bias, not the preferences expressed by many on this site.

[Billsteele]

Matt-Both you and Cary raise some valid points. However, I think the word you meant to use was "infidels" (someone who does not believe in or acknowledge your god or religion).
   

[Matt_Ward]

Many thanks Bill for the correction and yes George we often disagree but I don't consider you mullah just yet.

[TEPaul]

cary:

I think your initial post is a fine point about this site. I'm not sure I'd call it a closed-minded penchant on here towards minimalism, though. I don't intend to start a cat fight on here but for some years now I don't even think some of the so-called "minimalists" on this website fully understand what-all minimalism in architecture is or can be.

To use what's out there to the max and to move very little dirt is definitely only one form or one definition of "minimalism". Clearly there's another definition or form of "minimalism" which can be the movement of massive amounts of dirt in such a way that no one can really tell it was ever done.

But even despite that seeming misunderstanding I've always failed to see how anyone on here could describe Macdonald/Raynor architecture as either minimalism (minimal dirt moved) or appearing to be minimalism (not obvious what was manufactured).

I don't think it's a doctrinairism towards minimalism that's the problem on here, I think it's simply doctrinairism that what this site doesn't like sucks and that those who don't agree with what those on this site like "just don't get it".

When someone on here tells someone else "they just don't get it", what are they saying? Are they saying they don't get what they like if it's different from what this site likes? I believe so.

That "just don't get it" mentality on this site disturbs me too and it always has. To say the least, it's a lot more than just a little arrogant.

[RJ_Daley]

Because some folks express their core values when evaluating a golf course (even when they offer thoughts based on photos) doesn not a mullah make.

Matt, you are way off on your characterization.  In looking back on the Mike Dugger photo thread (unless someone withdrew a post I am not aware of) there are no mullah-like pronouncements.  Oh yes, I made some qualified comments based on the photos.  But, I acknowledged that.  Tommy made the briefest of somewhat predictable comments.  But, no one asked that Engh be brought forth to have his head chopped off.  

Speaking only for myself, I declare myself an agnostic literally and figuratively.  My posting status may be a YaBB god, but I assure you, I have no illusions that my pronouncements are mullah-like or inspired by devine insight nor do I express them with such zealotry.  I would like to think I am a novice golf course design critic, and reserve the right to have a point of view that I won't be dissuaded from giving.  I can't believe that anyone, especially Matt or Cary would take any comments I have as some sort of pronouncement of truth, light, and spiritual insight into GCA.  Yikes!

I couldn't possibly state things better than Wayne Morrison, Jim Kennedy or Craig Edgmand did.  

I look at Engh's work and acknowledge that there is great artistry in the LA.  But I have never heard my core principals on these matters expressed or summed up better than Tim Weiman's catch phrase, "people want to play more, not pay more".  That sort of design will never fall into that category and is just playing into all the worst trends that I personally believe is the demise of golf or the relegation of the game to a few in the wealthiest class.  Whether BR is an amusement park of LA or an excellent test of golf is not descernable to me until or unless I play it.  I already said that.  But, my comments on excess, extravaganza, and how that plays into access and maintaining the game as a popular one stands.  You may keep your head and go in peace.

[Paul Richards]

Shivas


>I was taught a long time ago that name calling and attacks are the last resort of the rhetorically desperate.  


Is this an example of 'transference'?

In other words, aren't you the pot calling the kettle black?

 

[Matt_Ward]

R.J,

My characterization is spot on partner.

Puhleeeze -- I know what others have written and I know how quickly the hounds can bark when someone toes a line not in keeping with what the mullahs prefer.

R.J. -- please help me out -- you quickly give total credence to people who take a particular view on the work of Jim Engh but I have to ask -- how many of his designs have you or they played? How does someone get instant credibility on the nature of what someone else designs when they have not played a representative sample to draw such wide ranging conclusions?

R.J. -- I don't take your comments in a mullah like fashion although I am beginning to wonder if you are being slowly co-opted by the dark side here. You need to read and re-read the definitive comments made by a few here on GCA regarding the nature of what Engh did at Lakota Canyon simply from the posting of photos. PHOTOS -- NOT THE PLAYING OF COURSE OR SEVERAL OF HIS DESIGNS.

I will bet the king's ransome that if another more favored or "preferred" architect had done the same exact course these same mullahs would be tripping over each other with gushing comments on what a superb job that's been done.

P.S. Who says one has to pay more for what Engh does? Try the costs of places like Redlands Mesa or Lakota Canyon Ranch. They are far cheaper than the minimalistic courses you often see touted as the "one true word" on golf design. When you begin to extrapolate trends and the like I have to wonder RJ if you have played a wide range of courses beyond the few that are selectively posted here as the poster child of poor designs.

[Paul Richards]

I think Tom Doak hits the nail on the head here:


>I do think the equipment thing is making the game less interesting for the best players, and therefore less fun to watch, and I think that's bad for the future of the game.  


In the past two weeks, I've watched The Open and the John Deere, both played on courses I have played.

Technology is definately making it much less interesting to me.  I LOVE TOC and actually am probably in the minority here, but I think the TPC at Deere Run is in the top handful of TPC courses.

What the pro's do these courses with today's technology is a sin.  And makes watching it MUCH less interesting.

 

[wsmorrison]

"There are some on GCA who are the mullahs of golf design. They see golf courses in only ONE particular way -- they think of themselves of the "keepers of the flame" -- they believe in only one true style of design. Just like the jokers in Iran & Iraq."

Matt,

You've made numerous analogies to members of this site and their views on golf architecture to mullahs and extremist Islamic fundamentals.  Not only do I think this is in bad taste but it is demeaning to a host of Americans overseas that are waging a war against the horrific terrorists that you compare to a group of golf architecture junkies.  It is arrogant of you to set yourself above others with such demeaning terms.  

Let me take a crack at why you set yourself above others.  It is based upon your belief that the number of courses you see entitles you to opinions and the judgements you make.  Well, most of us only express opinions.  Judgements are not appropriate.  

A Posteriori knowledge is not based soley upon sensory perception, or in this case the number of courses you seen but in conjunction with how they are seen and with what skills the person may have; in combination with an understanding based upon reason and logic.  

You constantly throw numbers of courses at people and dismiss the ideas of others with less experience.  That is a flawed premise.  You expect us to accept a direct relationship between the number of courses you experience and your understanding.  That is pretty ignorant on your part.  

When you make comments about people and comparisons to terrorists you encourage many of us to dismiss your ability to reason and the skills you possess to do so.  Therefore we are left with numbers and that doesn't impress me or most anyone else.

[Paul Richards]

As an aside, during that time span, I played host to one of the best amateurs from California, a college senior who plays for a major college team, and a Tour pro who missed a cut, at Beverly.

It seems obvious that based on this small sample, that technology definately takes away strategy from the game.  It makes it too easy to just beat the ball as far as you can, and then chase it into the cup.

I can see now why they want to build 8000 yard courses to keep up with the amazing distances these guys hit it.  

However, the downsides to the GAME OF GOLF far outweigh any benefits that a select few gain from today's tecnology.

 

[Paul Richards]

>if you build a Fazio tribute course, no, even better -- an entire Fazio Trail

Even Bill Gates doesn't have enough money to do this!
 

[TEPaul]

Matt:

I'm just wondering what an "infatel" is. It sounds like the latest hot toy from Mattel down at Toys R Us. Would it be sort of like an all purpose primer cell phone for kids or something that can kill any patience a child may have before he's two years old?

I do like your use of mullahs and Iran and Iraq as an analogy to those on here who are ultra-doctrinaire though.

What do you think of my "Big World" theory BTW?

[Mike_Cirba]

Shivas,

I was the one who called you a "blasphemer" for suggesting that the 18th hole at TOC be modified.

My opposition to such an idea remains, but I certainly hope that you recognize that my use of that term was strictly good-natured, tongue-in-cheek kidding!  

I took you as one who would see the humor in my poking you.

Jim Nugent,

Can you give us an example of someone who wants to "roll back" a course?  Are you talking about "restoration" activities that have been going on at any number of courses, often quite successfully?  

Both,

Some universally recognized great architecture should be preserved.  Build new back tees if you must to host the pros if it's a tournament course, but the constant tinkering, re-architecting, and "toughening" over the years is the primary reason for the necessity and popularity of "restoration" activities sweeping the industry in the first place!    

[Paul Richards]

Sean

>While I acknowledge that most on this site know a hell of a lot more than me (that is why I tune in), I also believe that nobody on this site knows what I like better than I do.  I expect this is the same for many on the site.


Great statement!

Me too!!

You should make this your permanent quote at the bottom of all your posts!!!
 

[Kirk Gill]

I enjoy this discussion group precisely because of the biases and opinions that get thrown around. I don't insert myself TOO often, as I don't have much in the way of "cred." Still, it is amazing and wonderful to me that something I write about golf, the game I love, might be read or responded to by people with the stature of some of the posters here (and by other wanna-be's or never-be's like myself). To be honest, I LEARNED about the minimalist philosophy here. I personally find almost all golf courses to be inherently "unnatural" in appearance, but I also realize that having a philosophy about any kind of design represents your goal in what you're doing, and isn't necessarily a rule book that has to be followed. I find myself occasionally getting hacked off by the amount of bashing on this site, but that seems to be the nature of a forum where different opinions are being discussed. No one is coming to my house and taking me into custody because I happen to think that Black Rock looks like it might be a lot of fun to play. If this site is just for devotees of minimalism, then I hope they won't mind the rest of us interjecting an opinion now and then.

"After all, we're not communists"
                                -Don Barzini

[RJ_Daley]

Thank you Wayne.  

Matt, There are highly acclaimed and competent GCAs, supers, and constructors out there that haven't seen nor played a fraction of the courses you have.  Yet, I'd put more cred in their evaluations of the design, construction quality, and maintenance meld issues than you with all your courses played.  Sorry, but Wayne does make a point, and it just happens to favor or support what I'd like to say.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Cary,

Just figuring that out, are we?

I think its true, and I think folks of all types (myself included) bring big bias to the site, which is only human nature. Our human nature and differeneces of opinion are both the strength and weakness of a site like this.

I don't mind strident defense of minimalism, or restorationism, etc.  I cringe a bit when we speak of architects too generally, like Fazio bad, Doak can't miss.  Especially when those judgements are made by so many who have played so few of the courses they critique!

[Matt_Ward]

Wayne:

Puhleeeze stop with all this pontificating on what is in good taste or not.

By the way partner how about you come out off the couch faster when people are firing away with the verbal blowtorch towards folks like Cary and myself. Geeze Wayne -- you are always so conveniently absent when that happens. How bout the bad taste shown by these folks? Nothing like calling a spade a spade, huh?

Wayne -- it's funny how you get on the keyboard pronto when someone like me presents a different view but you have no problem when the reverse is done.

What's flawed with the idea that people who see and play more courses have a greater sampling base in which to form opinions. How does the fact -- allow me to state that again --THE FACT -- that someone who plays only 10-20% of the courses discussed then has the wherewithal to have a better understanding than someone who can base their opinions on a far greater number of courses? I mean what does personal research have to do with anything when people can fire away opinions simply from aerials and the like. That's really credible.

You must have missed the companion point I ALWAYS make. The total number of courses played is only half of the equation -- one must be able to present cogent and detailed analysis as well. However, if you don't have the courses that have been actually played to cite no analysis of serious consequence can be presented.

Let me give you an example -- I have only played the top tier courses in England and Scotland. I do not have the depth of courses that others have on this particular subject. I learn a good deal from these people. I take no offense if they have clear views because of the range of courses they have played.

It's soooooooo E-Z and intellecutally lazy for you and others to condemn people like me and Cary who play a far more representative sampling than a number of the folks here who simply play the same kind of courses over and over over again. Nothing like walking in the restaurant and trying something different on the menu.

Come off the high and mightly altar Wayne -- there's more golf outside the window than what the mullahs see here on GCA.

[wsmorrison]

RJ,

I try to have the thick skin sometimes required on this site.  But Matt is making a habit of comparing people on this site to those nutjobs in the Middle East.  I don't like pointing these things out as everyone has a right to an opinion.  But that is over the line to me and I don't mind calling him on it.  

I'm glad you brought up the real experts we have on this site; the architects, superintendents and constructors.  And even some armchair analysts.  But let's keep things civilized and recognize we are passionate but should not lose commons sense and courtesy.

[Kyle Harris]

Matt,

I've spent a life time playing the "other" golf courses and used this site as my way of peering through the knothole in the fence of the courses I'd give organs to members to play on. I worked up the nerve to ask to be invited into this group over the course of several months in order to participate and learn more about architecture. And yes, maybe start a career.

I've never played a true Redan in my life. Yet I am pretty sure I know how to build one, and can certainly critique and identify one from a picture.

Playing the golf course is only a quarter of the battle.

[Mike_Cirba]

Shivas,

You forgot "self avowed liberal".  

[Kyle Harris]

But why am I even responding to  you ...you're just a dimwitted backward Southsider, just like all  the others....

Southside: 62-31

 

[Matt_Ward]

Kyle:

You need to wear some glasses partner because you read only part of what I wrote.

I'll say this AGAIN -- playing courses is the definitive way for someone to understand a particular course. It is a firsthand experience. If you believe that you can assess a course / hole better from an aerial than from someone actually playing the course then you and I are on different pages in a big time way.

However, sheer course numbers are not the only factor one can use as evidence of understanding course design.

One has to have cogent and detailed analysis to support what you say. The issue is that some hard-on types here on GCA don't like to be told by others who have a far greater sampling size that maybe, just maybe, their sense of what is being done "in the field" may be limited and with that their opinions of lesser value.

Cary's point is a good one because as the mullahs tighten their grip on GCA a vast number of people who previously posted have now disappeared and only come through as lurkers.