[mike_beene]

Mike,I agree re settlement,but the price of settlement changes when you know the other side cant or wont go to trial.A lot of them discover the case to death,get their fee and then push a settlement.The client buys the b s that marketing created and is unsuspecting or blames the system.All professions have similar issues,ie varying degrees of con men.The outcome of the rain dance  largely depends on timing.

[BCrosby]

Mike -

Yes, lying and misrepresentations are a different animal. They should be called out.

Tommy -

Mike doesn't put BS on his own grits, but he'll try to put some on your grits. You gotta watch him closely.

Bob

[TEPaul]

Cousin Vinnie to diner proprietor after he slapped about two pounds of grease on the stove;

"Have you guys down here heard about the on-going colesterol problem in the country?"

Diner proprietor to Cousin Vinnie:

"Ain't you ever seen grits?"

Vinnie:

"Yeah, I did see a grit once, I just never tasted one."

[Mike_Young]

Actually what I see doesn't matter enough to me to make a big deal out of it but I do think that sometimes this site is a vehicle for growth of such.....because the imposters become infatuated with the business and can't possibly be making a living directly from golf architecture .as hard as it is today in this business..most of us that have been in it can keep enough work so that envy is definitely  not the case.....one just has days where they get tired of the pure BS.....

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,
I don't think it really matters as it pertains to this site. It's only going to make a difference to someone who may hire one of the 'pretenders' and if they don't diligently verify references then it's their misfortune.

Of course, if you want to expose the BS'ers on here for what they are, I'm all ears.  

[Marty Bonnar]

Mike,
go ahead and call them out.

I, for one, would like to know who the fraudsters are.

FBD.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Lets just call BS on every single post here.  A blanket statement is easier, fairly accurate, and less work than calling out every single incident!

Your post calls into question some related issues - like how much influence does this site have, who reads it, and has anyone ever hired someone based solely on the free flowing, but not always well researched opinions offered here.

If we believe its not read by many decision makers (at least seriously) then we can let the BS pass as harmless net chatter and why bother?  Based on my experience, the BS here has never cost me a project that I was seriously being considered for.  Now, my own BS here might have cost me some, but I guess I can't blame anyone but moi for that!

If we really think this site has an influence, then perhaps it ought to be held to a higher standard, but frankly, it is what it is.  Its strength - free flow discussion - can generally turn to its biggest weakness - free flow discussion - faster than a NASCAR driver can accelerate from 0 to 60.

[Chris Cupit]

If they really are full of it, why not?  You certainly are not obligated to do it, but I'd love to read the thread!

[Matthew Hunt]

I agree with Mike: somebody needs to tell young Matthew Hunt to remove Royal Portrush as a "Hunt Signature Design" on his website.

Yea, I'd have to rank it behind my work at RCD, ANGC, CPC and my Mordern Masterpeice at St Andrews

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Young,

Long and short answer:

YES

Identify it.
Then debunk it with facts and a prudent argument.

[JMorgan]

Mike
I think the BS in the threads is self exposing. No need to worry about that. And, with few exceptions, I so no substantial correlation here between employment in the GCA industry and intellegent contribution to the discussion. I have no problem with that either.
However, if there are guys here who are claiming to be something that they are not, then that should be exposed.
I, by the way, am a old washed up rock singer / deft middle aged folk singer, depending on your POV, who is also attempting to start a parallel career in journalism, some golf related.

Oh, please, Lloyd.... Hell, Dylan lived through the '80s and came out relatively unscathed.  Two words:  Daniel Lanois.  

Mike, the proof is always, eventually, in the pudding.  

[Don_Mahaffey]

Mike,
I do think the BS sort of takes care of itself. For the most part, I believe clients are smart enough to see through it, and the ones that fall for the BS may not be the ones you want.

One of the things that I've read on this site that really hit home was a Dye quote written by Doak that went something like "design ideas are great but you’re not a GCA unless you know how to put ideas into the ground." The pretenders just have no clue how to do that and drawing up a plan and giving it to a construction guy just isn't going to get it done very often. If you can't communicate your ideas clearly to the guys who are building it and if you don't know what it takes to get it built then your just pretending to be a GCA...or you better have someone on staff who knows how to get your ideas built.
That's the way I see it and in today's world it seems like the greatest courses are being built with design and construction integrated at a very high level. Anyone who thinks you'll make a great living in the future by sitting in an office and cranking out plans of really cool golf holes without giving great attention and detail to what to takes to get it built is just out of touch with the real world.  All IMHO of course.  

[Kalen Braley]

Anyone who thinks you'll make a great living in the future by sitting in an office and cranking out plans of really cool golf holes without giving great attention and detail to what to takes to get it built is just out of touch with the real world.  All IMHO of course.  

Last time I checked Jack was making a fabulous living doing this...

[Bill_McBride]

Mike Young is too much of a gentleman to actually call anybody on this, so he's making his point without getting too specific.

Message sent perhaps!  

[John_Cullum]

Or perhaps not

[Kalen Braley]

As long as john k is on the site, the BS shall continue...

That being said, he's pretty harmless so its fun to keep him around.  

[Forrest Richardson]

Mike Y. — You are so inspecific that it makes me believe you are seeking attention in some way. I think the best threads here are those that ask a question without it being a treasure hunt.

Get to the point. We'd all like names, addresses and specifics. If you are not inclined to disclose, then cancel out. I have things to do.

[Joe Hancock]

Mike Y. — You are so inspecific that it makes me believe you are seeking attention in some way. I think the best threads here are those that ask a question without it being a treasure hunt.

Get to the point. We'd all like names, addresses and specifics. If you are not inclined to disclose, then cancel out. I have things to do.

I must have been reading this differently. I thought Mike Young posted a question for us to ponder and respond to. My take was that we should consider the pro's, if any, and con's, if any, to anyone on this website pointing out inappropriate credentials, etc. Perhaps the specific question posed wasn't worded well, or I misinterpreted.

Joe

[Forrest Richardson]

Maybe I mis-read it, too. If I did, apologies.

My approach is to simply ignore bad sources. I have often made a comparison to this site and a typical cocktail party. When at such events and I hear the odd source of questionable information...I simply seek a new corner of the room and carry on. Life is too short. Speach is free...mostly.

[Mike_Young]

Forrest,
No need to apologize. I'm not seeking any attn.   But Joe interpreted it in the way i intended.  
But let me say this.....personally I don't think we are obligated to expose the BS because I think the site should not be considered a resource.  It is more like a cocktail party.  However if there are those that consider the site a resource then it needs to be exposed.  On this site I can read a few years worth of why some dead guy did this or that and 90% of it can 't be substantiated yet if we consider this site a resource we are recording some bad info.  Also, there is a huge amount of BS that goes on on this site as it relates to "consulting".....some of these clubs don't even know some of these guys are consulting on their course.....seems maybe they just stopped by to see the supt one day and next thing you know it came up on a website.....
Take care,
Mike

[Mike_Young]

Let's pick a course...say Oakmont....if I call the supt and ask to come by and see some bunkering.....spend a couple of hours with him and tell him I will send him a report and sketch of my ideas....I send no billing...but note it on my website as a consulting project. It sure sounds bigger than it is....
Am I a consultant for that golf course or did I "consult" on that golf course?  It could easily be misinterpreted by an unknowing client.....and in some cases has been.....

[Jim_Kennedy]

Joe Hancock,
I'll take the man at his word when he says that you, out of all the rest of the respondents, have correctly interpreted the questions he asked. I just find it much easier to understand someone's intent when they don't mix declarations with questions. For example, as a preface to Mike's questions he rather emphatically states:  ..."it seems more and more it(GCA) is becoming a sounding board for a lot of smoke and mirrors", and: ..."it is being used as a tool to gain credibility as a golf architect when in reality some of those people have no clue nor have they ever put anything in the ground", and ..."some (of) these guys have websites that at first glance would make a client think these guys had been in this business for a long time yet with a little investigation there is nothing there.....the lines are nothing but BS". There are a couple of others.  
By the time I got around to his questions, "Am I the only one that sees this???  Should the site have an obligation to expose this just as JK exposed the "reciprocal site"..... I was left with the impression that there was a broader agenda than just asking a question or two, a feeling that was reinforced by reading his posts #46 & 47.

Probably my thick skull.      
       

[Tom_Doak]

I've been seeing the same things Mike has been seeing, and it's bugged me as well.  I just wrote out the two most egregious examples, and then promptly erased them to write this sentence instead, because I'd just be accused of being a bully for calling them on the carpet.

But, if you want to find out what someone is capable of, ask to see pictures of what they've actually done under their own name ... not what they've proposed to do, or what they claim to have done on behalf of the guy who writes their paycheck.  My own associates would never imply they'd done something themselves, they know it's a team effort and they are important players, but that others are also capable of doing their jobs.

[Joe Hancock]

Jim Kennedy,

Well thought out response. Mike can answer for his content, of course.

I read frustration into his post, but focused on the question, I suppose.

Joe

[TEPaul]

As far as putting consulting work of any kind or type on one's website or whatever, the best and safest rule of thumb in my opinion is that if anyone, any architect or anyone else is actually thinking of doing something like that the best and safest policy is to clear it through the club and furthermore REALLY clear it through the club---not simply ask someone there if they think it's OK.

I saw one very fine architect who certainly was working for a club get absolutely clobbered by a club when some writer attached his name to a club as being one of the course's architects without first checking with the club OR THE ARCHITECT.

It was a mess and pretty sad, and it said a lot about this very thing.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()