The Golf Club Atlas crowd

[TEPaul]

That is the appelation Tom Doak just used;

"I agree with David Elvins; I think some architects are starting to pander to the Golf Club Atlas crowd. I'm sure you'll disagree, but I'm not going to debate you on it."

In the opinions of some around golf and architecture, is there a "Golf Club Atlas crowd"? There sure is!

I've seen people all over the place who feel that way. I've seen it at Royal Port Rush, at PVGC, definitely at Merion, and so many other places I've gone. Ran certainly sees it wherever he goes. We've talked about this a lot over the years and it's not always rosy. While at Sand Hills in June a couple of guys walked up to our table at dinner and acted like they'd just walked up to the group from some famous but weird traveling circus act.

I'd like to think that most have some modicum of respect for the people and passion on this website's discussion group but I'm not so sure. I sure can tell you that to a man they all think most of us are weird as hell in many ways and they don't mind saying so. Everyone tells me that about myself, sometimes in jest, simply because I'm the one who posts and writes so much, or too much, and that I've been doing that so long--right from the very beginning of this website's existence.

There's not an architect I know that hasn't joked about this website---Bill Coore, Gil Hanse, Ron Prichard, Rees Jones, Tom Fazio, Stephen Kay, Ron Whitten, Ron Silva, Ron Forse, Jim Nagel, Jim Wagner etc. People in the USGA, the R&A, golf administrators all over the place, newspaper reporters, golf writers, golf course owners and golfers from clubs all over the world. Even some pizza-man in Boston once mentioned it on a delivery!

Is this a good thing? Maybe it is in the sense this website's discussion group has gotten plenty of attention (even if it's sometimes somewhat negative attention) in some ways and in some areas it wants to get attention. As Oscar Wilde once said, it's probably better to be talked about negatively than not to be talked about at all.

But it seems Tom Doak who just may be the most important regular contributor we have on here, may be saying something the usual contributors need to hear and heed.

Are some, perhaps many or most of the regular contributors on here too myopic, too doctrinaire, too critical of what the realities are in golf and golf architecture and perhaps always have been? Personally, I think so.

We obviously need to tone down the inconsequential arguing on here, and I'm probably one of the worst at that. But not as bad as Pat is and has become. He's definitely the king on here for debating anything and everything--a concept, a philosophy, even a word or phrase used by anyone and everyone. While intelligent discussion and debate is a good thing even I can't read some of this stuff anymore--even answers to some of the questions I probably create myself.

But Tom Doak said he thinks some architects are now starting to PANDER to the Golf Club Atlas crowd. That's interesting! I wonder exactly what he means by that. Does he think they're beginning to actually create things in architecture that they think this site admires and proposes? Or are they beginning to pay pandering lip-service to this site because they think it shows some new or renaissance direction of burgeoning popularity?

I hope Tom Doak says more about what he means. I think this website needs to hear it, and probably heed it. Because it probably scratches the surface of a bigger issue---eg where does this site, and maybe others to come like it, go from here? Are we going to get stale and unnecessarily opinionated and doctrinaire and just fade into the evolutionary trash heap of fads and cycles in golf architecture?

I believe in the "Big World" theory with golf architecture---eg there is and should be something for everyone in all this. Difference, even if unappealing to some, is a good thing, perhaps even the essence of golf and architecture.

The thing I really would like to see end on here is this relatively frequent phrase--'he or she or they just don't get it."

Get what? Golfers get out of golf and architecture what they want to get out of it. The best of the old architects and the best of those today surely understood that. Does that mean opinions of golfers who don't appear to buy into the theme or philosophy on here can't be changed to some degree? Of course not.

Perhaps the same should be said about us---"The Golf Club Atlas crowd".







 

[Tommy_Naccarato]

TE,
The construction of the bunkers at Merion looks like shit.

[James Edwards]

Enjoyed your post Tom.  

I personally like to view the threads which show pictures of courses under construction, I get the most out of these...  

I enjoy threads that Paul Turner starts regarding courses he has visited and some brief desriptions of each picture he posts.

I search for threads regarding courses I have not visited and enjoy viewing the hole by holes and the thoughtful descriptions from their point of view importantly.  

Conversely, courses I have visited also for differing viewpoints

I enjoy Scotts aerials of the day...

I dont necessaily enjoy the threads which have elongated opening statements, but in this case I value Toms thoughts - I just dont have the time to follow threads with 7 pages just to post something and then be slated for not reading someones point on page 2!

I enjoy some historic stuff, but its not what I go to first on this site...

All in All, my philosophy on this site is pick what you enjoy reading, post on these and dont post on threads if you dont understand the argument going on!  Post if you have a question which you genuinely dont know and dont purposely get any ones backs up!

Theres a lot of love on this site   !

[TEPaul]

"Theres a lot of love on this site   !"

James:

Yep, you could probably say that; Would this be a good example of it?

"TE,
The construction of the bunkers at Merion looks like shit."

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:  It was probably an unfortunate phrase, but I've heard worse; and most people in the business consider me to be part of this crowd if not one of its main rabble-rousers.

Of course, even before Golf Club Atlas, there were plenty of people who knew a bit about golf course architecture and thought they knew it all.  You know the type:  quick to beat up any "idiot" on TV who pronounced the word Redan wrong or, God forbid, never heard of it.  We were all there once.

I would have hoped that an educational forum like this would advance people beyond that limited view of golf architecture, but there are some threads when I start to think that that view is just being extended to more people, rather than being surpassed.

One of my associates used to refer to the average golfer's view of Architecture as "level 101" as in a college class -- the "tough but fair" crowd.  Most people who read this forum are beyond that, but there is still a difference between a second-year-college-student understanding and someone who has several years' experience in the field.  That's why I pretty consistently defend any professional architect in this forum whether I really like their work or not.

When I said I thought some architects were pandering to the Golf Club Atlas crowd, I probably also overstated the case.  There are a lot of architects out there who don't give a second thought to Golf Club Atlas, because they think it is populated by a bunch of people who make no difference to their world or their future success [though there are also some who are shopping for consulting jobs here].  However many golf writers are sitting pretty at the "201" level of architectural understanding [if that], as are many clients and the p.r. people they hire, so those same architects that don't give a crap about gca.com still build Redan holes to impress their other constituents.  That's the pandering to which I referred.

The unfortunate part is that I believe there are several golf architects on here who are well past the "201" level who post infrequently, because they are dismissed for not pandering to the "five R's" of restoration, Redans, Raynor, Ross and ratings.  Now that we all KNOW the merits of the Redan, isn't it time to move on to someone else's idea?

I get sick of hearing about your Big World Theory sometimes, too, but at least there is some recognition that there is more than one way to skin a cat [might as well get myself in trouble with PETA, too!] and that, in the end, it is all a matter of opinion anyway.

[TEPaul]

"Tom:  It was probably an unfortunate phrase, but I've heard worse; and most people in the business consider me to be part of this crowd if not one of its main rabble-rousers."

TomD:

I don't see that phrase of yours as unfortunate at all. Perhaps the opposite. One very important thing I think this website (The Golf Club Atlas crowd) needs to get away from, in my opinion, is this "purist me-tooism" and "holier than thou" attitude. That's the primary thing about this place that seems to piss others off. They view it as a form of architectural or intellectual snobbery. Last time I checked I couldn't find many who were fans of snobbery other than a small gathering for some same purpose of snobs.

[TEPaul]

I get sick of hearing about your Big World Theory sometimes, too, but at least there is some recognition that there is more than one way to skin a cat [might as well get myself in trouble with PETA, too!] and that, in the end, it is all a matter of opinion anyway."

TomD:

I know you do, but as you said, at least it's a catch phrase designed to get people on here thinking there really is a whole lot more to this subject they love than what-all they concern themselves with on here. A lot of people seem to be tired of hearing about my Maintenance Meld or Ideal Maintenance Meld too, but guess what, I'm hearing people all over the place you don't know me using it now as a phrase that defines a process that seems to be helping change the way some of the old courses are playing today compared to the way they used to play. And I sure can't see there's anything tiring about that.

But on another note---I don't know whether you may be implying this or not but I sure hope you're not saying that the level of understanding of golf course architecture, particularly the intracacies of the various ways it plays, is an area of understanding just for golf architects and those in the business who've advance to "201" or beyond. If any golf architect feels that way about the subject of golf course architecture, I think he's probably in the business for all the wrong reasons.

That's no different than a writer who secretly hopes those who read what he writes will never understand what he's writing, what he's trying to say or his reasons for doing it and who gets upset if someone says something about his writing he doesn't expect and doesn't like. That kind of thing is just another form of intellectual snobbery, in my opinion.

[Jim Nugent]

You know the type:  quick to beat up any "idiot" on TV who pronounced the word Redan wrong or, God forbid, never heard of it.  

How DO you pronounce Redan?

[Dan Herrmann]

I was watching an interview with John Fought on TV last week - he was discussing his course at the Reserve that hosted the Champions Tour (Jeld-Wen) last week.

I know that area of Aloha very well, having lived there for 11 years - and as Mr. Coore says, "it looked like golf".

I stopped by on my way back from Bandon and it did look great - certainly not pure minimalism, but you could tell that Mr. Fought didn't ruin the topography that was already there.

Anyway, I was very happy to hear him in his interview say how much he studies classic design and tries to incorporate it into his work.  He sounded like a typical member of the Treehouse.

Anyway, I lifted the following from his website:  "John prefers the classic works from the Golden Age of golf course architecture when such geniuses as Donald Ross, Alistair Mackenzie and AW Tillinghast were creating their master works. While John does not have a dominant motif present in every course he designs (changes occur from project to project to fit the land and circumstances), his style leans toward classic, created with modern construction techniques. "

To twist Bill Coore's phrase - "it looks like GCA"

[TEPaul]

Dan:

It's probably better to not twist what Bill Coore said---"It looks like golf". I don't know much about John Fought's courses, although I've sure heard some good things but the last thing you'd ever heard from Bill Coore is a statement like that one on John Fought's website.

The last thing you'll get from Bill Coore himself, as well, is a website. If somehow someone did one for him the last thing he'd ever figure out how to do is use it. Bill has said for years he doesn't know how to even turn on a computer and he definitely never plans to learn.

[TEPaul]

"It was a lot more fun back in the golfweb days in a lot of ways."

redanman:

That's probably because back then there were only about six of you who could all just talk to yourselves like you all really knew something. Maybe frequent conference calls would've been as effective  Maybe it was more fun that way but you couldn't sustain it could you? I sure hope the fate of Golfweb doesn't happen to this website but maybe it will. I hear Ran is becoming intensely interested in fly fishing so watch out.

[Craig Van Egmond]

Ah yes, the golfweb days.  

Tom,

        Actually we could have sustained it if the new owner hadn't been control freaks.  That original core group always found a new place to hang out.. bravenet, traditionalgolf.. etc...  and now GCA.   GCA is definately the best home due to Ran's generosity, but their will always be somewhere to hang out.

[RJ_Daley]

Golf Club Atlas is what it is.  It even self corrects after some spewing out of bile once in a while.  

This forum has lasted 6+ years because it is a community of people at all levels of understanding, with a common focus of golf, playing it, interest in the quality and design it is played upon, and enjoying the history.  Forget that level 101 crap Tom Doak.  Sure, you have built some of the finest modern golf courses on the planet.  But, in a way, your coming off a little condescending.  You have a market of people that are consumers of your product.  It is the luckiest thing in the world that a vociferous portion of that market has a place to hash out, banter around, and generally yammer about the merits of golf course design.  You build great stuff and so they are aware of you, and you BENEFIT!!!  Without a forum of opinionated folks, I say your career would be somewhat less.  Sure, you and your team would still build great courses.  But, would you have a cult like following?

This crowd, small as it may be, is the best thing that could happen to the profession of golf course architecture.  It exceeds the ratings game played by the magazines because here, things are debated.  Whether that debate rises to a learned discourse on golf design, technicalities, engineering, turf science or not, people are talking.

Is there another subject forum on the web as old, as self policed, and as passionate and focused on a subject?

If writing is cathartic, Tom Paul is one purged son of a gun.

[TEPaul]

RJ;

Whoa Nellie: I think I get your drift but let me see if I really do understand you completely. What you're saying is, without GOLFCLUBATLAS.com and its "Golf Club Atlas crowd" Tom Doak would be a nobody, right?  

"If writing is cathartic, Tom Paul is one purged son of a gun.     "

Cathartic? What's that? I don't like the sound of it at all. It sounds like some artifical way of taking a piss.

No Sir---I'm looking for the ultimate epiphany in all this. I thought I had one about a month ago. I can't remember where I was--in bed somewhere just about to fade off and BOOM the whole damn thing came to me in a huge white-hot flash. I leapt to the window and I thought I saw Max Behr out there in the light and them it was pitch black dark again and I skulked back to bed and badly stubbed my toe on the way.  

[Adam_F_Collins]

TE,
The construction of the bunkers at Merion looks like shit.

TommyN
Have I told you lately that I love you?

I've not seen Merion, but the contrast between Tom Paul's opening post and yours is hilarious.

Back to TE:

As someone who has never been to %99.9 of the courses discussed here, I do wonder sometimes how much I'm being educated by this site - and how much I'm being indoctrinated. It's a fine line.

If one could just play all of the best courses - AND THEN come to a discussion like this, (which some of you have done) you have a better chance of standing on your own and separating what you believe from what may or may not be the fashion of the group. But doing so is very difficult to say the least. So many of us have to do it differently.

What is taste vs. shared subcultural values? Can you be a wine expert and still stand up and say that you love the taste of Wild Irish Rose? Can you be a cigar aficionado and still admit and discuss the virtues of the Swisher Sweet? (or Backwoods, TommyN?) And then, can you still call yourself educated? Will your aficionado friends turn their back on you?

I had an English teacher once who said, "You must learn the rules before you can break them"

So the tough part for many of us is learning the difference between "the rules" and the shared values of "The Golf Club Atlas Crowd"

[RJ_Daley]

Wrong!  Talent is talent.  I'm saying, Tom Doak's and his company of talented operators reputation might not have attained the velocity that it has.

Golf Club Atlas is a vociferous crowd of passionate people.  It is not an angry mob.  This crowd is a force for positive things, when it is all said and done.

[Dan Herrmann]

Tom,
With Fought, all I meant was that the fact that HE was talking minimalism tells you how much influence GCA and others that appreciate the movement are having.  Believe me, I'm not comparing C&C's work to Fought!

As far as the website goes, Fought is using it to help drum up business.  Gil has a website.  Tom Doak has a website.  I don't think the lack of a website is necessarily a positive - it just shows they have all the work they can handle.

And I know that Mr. Coore said he's never used a computer.  No problem.  But a computer can be a valuable tool in golf course architecture, especially when working with governemental agencies because it helps the communication between the parties so well - doesn't it?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

To whom did the "Confidential Guide to Golf Courses" pander to ?

Is it the same crowd ?

Or, was it meant for a different audience ?

If so, who are they ?

[JESII]

Patrick,

When was it released?

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
To whom did the "Confidential Guide to Golf Courses" pander to ?
Is it the same crowd?
Or, was it meant for a different audience?
If so, who are they?"

Patrick the Debater;

Are you aware there's a guy on this website by the name of Tom Doak? Are you aware he wrote that book? If so what are you asking me to whom the "Confidential Guide..." panders to? Why don't you just ask him to whom it panders, if it's the same crowd, was it meant for a different audience and if so who are they?

[Adam_F_Collins]

An "audience" is different than a "crowd" as it's being used here. An audience is a group the speaker profiles in their mind as they form their message.

A "crowd" in this case is a group of people that have a clear voice and one that may or may not be influencing the work and messages of individuals. These individuals are often members of both the "audience" and the "crowd" at the same time.

The two influence written and architectural work in two different ways.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

When was it released?

JES II,

My edition says copyright 1996.

But, of special note, the inside cover says the following:

"The Confidential Guide is the ultimate INSIDERS (emphasis added) guide to golf courses."

So, who are these insiders ?

Are they the GCA crowd ?  [/color]

[Adam_F_Collins]

[quote author=Patrick_Mucci
But, of special note, the inside cover says the following:

"The Confidential Guide is the ultimate INSIDERS (emphasis added) guide to golf courses."

So, who are these insiders ?

Are they the GCA crowd ?  [/b][/color]

Patrick,

So is your point to say that the "crowd" already existed and was being "pandered to" before the GCA website was up?

[John_Cullum]

Patrick:

I don't see your point.

Tom Doak wrote a book. It appealed to enough of an audience that it was worth his while to publish it and make a few bucks off of it. In the process it helped him advance his career. I don't call that pandering.

[Tom_Doak]

TEP:  Patrick knows I don't answer silly questions, so maybe he hoped you would.

RJ:  I don't mean to be condescending, or at least I don't think so, although perhaps you would prefer it if I just pandered to you.  

I didn't say that anyone in particular here was level 101 or 201 or 401; we've got people at all levels, and it's not dependent on being a professional golf course architect to get to the highest level -- although it does help!  I did mean to say that some do not recognize what they don't understand.

I fully recognize and am thankful for the fact that we've got an audience for our work, both here and elsewhere.  I'd like to believe a lot of it has to do with our work rather than with my p.r. efforts, but both are part of the picture.  If I didn't have some faith in the former I certainly wouldn't post this thread and run the risk of pissing everyone off just to make this point; I would kiss ass and tell everyone what a genius they are.  But I'm not that way.  I like to tell you what I really think, and that's the main reason I come on here to begin with.  As for having a cult-like following, I'm not even sure if I like the sound of that.