Has GCA become just a website for devotees of minimialism?

[Mike_Cirba]

Is GCA really a bastion for devotees of minimalism?

Hmm...

I prefer the term "den of iniquity" myself.  It sounds so much more fun.  

[Kyle Harris]

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.

Matt,

With apologies, I was responding to an earlier post of yours and was writing at the time of your latest post.

Guess I'm just trying to say that a little humility every now and then can go a long way.  

[George Pazin]

Just out of curiosity, who has ceased posting due to the supposed pressures inflicted by the rest of us? Most of the people I recall leaving were due to personal reasons/conflicts.

[A_Clay_Man]

The only Mullah on this site is the one calling others that.
 "I've been to the mountain and I know better".

Cary, I found your post to Tom Doak on the Stone Eagle thread, to come off as childish. Perhaps it was in my reading but you really sounded like the kid going ":NA NA NA NANAANANA"
Also, The premise of this threrad is ridiculous. If you're feeling inadequate because your sensitiveties are bruised, show some backbone and defend your opinion with more than "it's my opinion and i'm sticking to it".

BTW,
Containment SUCKS. Will always SUCK. And you defending it's use, and suggesting that it be introduced in specific situations, isn't anti-minimalist, it's just contrary to core principals, which some apparently see as quality. To each their own, but please don't try to jam your version of quality down everybodies throat.

[Paul Richards]

>Southside: 62-31


Awesome putdown, Kyle!!!!!

 

go SOX!!!

[Jerry Kluger]

EXCESSIVISM: I think that is what most of the posters find difficult to tolerate as opposed to finding minimalism the only acceptable architecture.  From what I've read, most on this site do not hate what Fazio did at Shadow Creek but they do take issue with some of the over the top features which Wynn probably insisted on plus some of the holes are boring and uninteresting which is disappointing when one could create whatever he wanted.  I think Fazio has done some really outstanding courses including Galloway and World Woods.  There were others who would trash a course like Royal New Kent simply because of the waterfall on 18 and forget how much fun the rest of the course is.  

I wonder how many posters on GCA would refuse to play a course simply because it is a Fazio design.  

[paul cowley]

....Its great at times to sit back and watch this crowd work...all these great and near great minds in action.

 The notion that GCA could ever become just a website for devotees of [insert your own label here] is being proved not possible by this threads previous posts alone.......the only  truism there might be here is that 'GCA has become just a website for Minimalist devotees and their detractors and just about everyone else in between'.......

[Paul Richards]

Jerry

>I wonder how many posters on GCA would refuse to play a course simply because it is a Fazio design.  


I don't think that's what anyone here is saying.

My problem with most of Fazio's work lately, is that it has been of the 'overspend the unlimited budget' type for a single owner who wants a 'top 10' golf course.

It is all an EGO thing.

[George Pazin]

The phrase "Pot calling the kettle black" applies to pretty much all of us from time to time, save a precious few like maybe Slag or Mark Rowlinson. Might want to keep it in mind next to you see fit a label someone.

 

Unless, of course, you are labelling me a Doak butt boy, a badge I wear proudly. You could add C&C and Gil Hanse to that as well.

And, oh yeah, I'm a homer, too, I think Oakmont is the best.

 

[ChipRoyce]

First your question:
Has GCA become just a website for devotees of minimialism?

Short Answer, no.

Expanded response: No, not just for devotees of minimalism. However if you lump minimalists and classicalists into the same camp, you definately have a super-majority of similar opinions.

[TEPaul]

Wayne Morrison to Matt Ward;

"A Posteriori knowledge is not based soley upon sensory perception,"

Good God Almighty, Great BALLS of Fire---who do you think you are today, Wayne, Maximillian Howell BEHR??

[wsmorrison]

See, Tom.  That's the danger side of hanging around you too much  

[paul cowley]

 Tom, I'm probably the one to blame for Wayne today, as in a previous post I complimented him on his writing but, [and this is probably what set him off] I also made a veiled reference to Mr Behr....oh well  ...hey stick around ,I'll give you a call.

[A_Clay_Man]

Waynes post #22 should be an entry for post of the year. Or, at minimum, a basis for an "In My Opinoin" piece. Thanx for sharing Wayne.

[Mike Hendren]

I think it is more about a style of play  than about a style of design, but I could be wrong.  

Thank you for saying what I have been unable to articulate.  

In my opinion, a good golf course embraces, invites and challenges a variety of playing styles and strategies.  Give me that and you can move all the dirt you want.  You don't even need to make the bunkers "natural."

Mike

[Tim_Weiman]

Cary,

You mentioned playing three Fazio courses recently but have not bothered to write about them. That's your choice, of course. Nobody forces anyone to write about any course.

But, to put things in perspective, a while back I wrote several posts about another Fazio course (Sand Ridge) and not a single person here said anything negative about my efforts to write positively and objectively about the course.

Clearly, reporting on a Fazio course was accepted.

That said, I have on several occasions noticed that people who are Fazio fans tend to lack self confidence about expressing their opinion. Privately they will tell me they really like a particular Fazio course, but they are afraid to publicly say so.

I find that a bit odd. Nobody here took my head off for writing about Sand Ridge. So, if you want to write something, go ahead. That is what a discussion group is all about.

[Lou_Duran]

I've been around this site for couple years, much of this time on a fairly regular basis.  Like many green grass golf clubs, gca.com has developed a dominant personality.  While a narrow definition of minimalism may not describe it accurately, there is definitely an affinity for tradition, the natural, the time-tested.  At the same time, there is a corresponding suspicion of the new, the experimental, and the technological/scientific application of new thinking, methods, and techniques to gca.

For one who tries to put things into perspective, i.e. how individual things fit within the whole, I find it interesting that many of those who seem to have a narrow, somewhat anachronistic view of golf tend to look at politics and economics from a diametrically opposite direction.  In other words, when it comes to TOC, don't you dare touch it.  The Supreme Court or the Constitution?   Dynamite the SOBs and make them reflect the zeitgeist.  It makes one wonder where priorities are placed.  For the record, this is just an observation- not a condemnation.

I've never felt shouted down on this site; perhaps at times ignored .  The one thing that has bothered me is the back channel backbiting that has taken place on ocassion affecting me and a number of others.  This is certainly not uncommon in terms of human nature and the order of things, but it does cheapen the otherwise fantastic venue for information, ideas, and friendships that this site certainly is.

I consider myself extremely lucky because I can thoroughly enjoy the widely different work of numerous architects.  On my last trip I played courses by Fazio, Smyers, Weiskopf and Morrish, Dye, Macdonald and Raynor, Tillinghast, and Ross.  Not a single less than excellent course among them.  Also, not one which is objectively without fault.  Perfection not being one of my traits, I do not feel compelled to expect it whether on golf courses, political systems, or individuals.

Another thing that I have found interesting on this site, is the grouping of respondents not necessarily based on the subject matter, but on who is in on the discussion.  Sometimes it is regional, but often not.  There is one or two gentlemen on this site who could enter ###### on the subject line and ******* as the message and get at least 10 replies in the first 10 minutes.  Again, not a complaint, but an observation that as "enlightened" as we may believe ourselves to be, we too succumb to basic human nature and the propensity to herd and form cliques.  At this point of time at GCA.com, the clear preference is for the contemporary work of Doak, C & C, maybe Gil Hanse, and that of the "old masters" MacKenzie, Tillinghast, Macdonald & Raynor, Thomas, Ross, Flynn and Thompson.  Pretty good choices I might add, but why limit ourselves?    
 

[Tony_Chapman]

Lou - I don't know you, but Huckaby tells me you hit it lower than I do so I consider you a friend!!

Thanks for a wonderfully thought out post which reflects a lot of my feelings of GolfClubAtlas.

Tony

[Sean_A]

Well Lou, you are spot on-full stop  Though I disagree with you politically (I could possibly be wrong here, as I think it takes many hours of wine and talk to deduce the approximate on this subject), you have always been insightful and willing to back up your your assertions.  Good on ya!  Wish you would post more often.

Ciao

Sean

[Michael Dugger]

It seems that just about every year or so GCA.com is due for a long and boring thread about the state of the website.

The same shit is talked by all sides, we know how you feel for the umteenth time.

What I wonder is if Matt Ward knows how often he calls someone "partner."  Geez Louise

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Michael,
I just regurgitated my iced tea. Thanks for the great laugh!

(Partner!)

[Mike_Young]

Seems to me there is a pretty simple reason why GCA leans towards minimalist designs.

It's because the minimalists are winning the debate. On the merits, I believe. To a diverse, bright group of people, one side appears to have the more convincing case on the architectural issues of the day. That's just the way things go sometimes in debates. (Happens in politics all the time. There are winners and losers.)

That doesn't mean the debates should end. I'm sure they won't.

The real (and troubling) sign of desperation is when people call other people holding different views brain-dead toadies for a particular architect.

Bob

Bob,
I think your statement is correct regarding winning the debate within this website.  However, in today's environement I would venture to say that over 50% of the sites used for golf courses cannot accomodate minimalism.  Also the majority of the golf in the last 15 years has been driven by real estate development.  
There are many architects that appreciate minimalism but rarely have the chance to practice it because of the above restrictions.  I sometimes think this site can't handle that.  So yes the debate iis won in an idealistic world but not in a realistic.
But then my views may be slanted because as you mention above, I rarely am allowed to hang around groups of bright ,diverse people.
Brain Dead Toad Young

[paul cowley]

....I agree Mike....a minimalist course is really only as good as its site and they aren't passing them out like they used to.

...now, if you just start moving a little dirt to make up for what the land might be lacking it can help......but try not to  get in the habit of moving too much, cause before you know it you might end up with a full blown case of Shadow Creek!

....you know, when I look around, it seems all they bright, diverse people have gone....does that mean I'm a toadie too?

[BCrosby]

Mike -

Next time you are in Atlanta, I'll make a point of introducing you to some "bright, diverse" people. But you have to promise me you won't tell any of your spanker jokes.

Mike/Paul -

I appreciate that - for lots of reasons - minimalist designs may not be possible in some situations. Every project has its own personality. You do what you can.

But this forum is about ideas. That is a rare thing to find. Folks here may be impractical, idealistic dreamers, but places where ideas are intelligently debated are few and far between.

The central virtue of GCA is not that you can read a thread or two and become an architect and deal with all the stuff you guys deal with. The central virtue of GCA is the flow of ideas back and forth. Some are good, some are bad, but its that flow that is vital.

And in the course of that flow, I think minimalism has won the debate. And not because people here are a bunch of brain dead toadies.

Bob




 

[wsmorrison]

Mike,

You make an excellent point.  As long as earth must be moved, there can still be a minimalist approach.  It would hide the hand of man by making it look natural and tied into the surroundings.  Nature Faking at its best makes for a more appealing and more playable golf course than using bland property as is.  Minimalism is using the land as is but also if earth is moved to create a more interesting and challenging course while having the architecture look natural.