My Rant For The Day (Warning!!! Non-GCA Politcally Correct)

[Jeff_Brauer]

Hey, I agree with Objective No. 1 and still see that as true - most current gca's will tell you that we get remodel work only after some greens committee has tried it in house to save that money on fees.

The "natural element" truly is just a small component of why courses get remodeled - In addition to the points made earlier, there is also conversion of courses from private to public, ever lower budgets, etc.  Have you ever heard the expression, "In the end, it all comes down to "natural" as is often said about money?

Also, The US is funny in its bounce between the "new" and the "nostalgia" for the old days, whereas GBI seems to plod along without changing its golf courses (or cities, etc.) quite as much as we do.  Its part of our culture to experienc simple changes in tastes over the years - perhaps following the latest trend whether the RTJ Open doctrines, other 1950-60's "modernization" trends, or the current minimalist/classic/retro trend.

Tommy is obviously in the nostalgic mode - and with some justification when it comes to the true classics - but given the above, and IF change is constant, and I believe it is, there will be a time down the road when we all critique current designs/redesigns almost as harshly (but IMHO not as much) as the 1950's or any other era. I think we have learned some from past mistakes.  

History just about proves that change is inevitable in all fields and gca is not immune, thus the permanence is, again IMHO, illusionary, no matter how our sentimental view of Golden Age wants us to wish it were not so.

[Adam Clayman]

Jeff, There's another cliche' that mentions change. "The more things change the more they stay the same."

Somehow I feel as though the term permanent is worthless without understanding Behr's sentiments on the game mind.

Stereotyping modern GCA's may be wrong but if the foo shits?? I think it's zealots like Tommy who need to point it out. It can only assist the gca who is really trying to be innovative. Because afterall "Everything old is new again."

 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Adam,

Good points, although when I mentioned that there might only be 10% difference between various architecture, I caught a lot of, uh, foo.

And for that matter, while old things (styles) become new again, there is usually a new twist, rather than an exact copy. I suspect we will see tail fins on cars again at some point, but they will be sleeker and somehow fit the modern eye better.

Although I exaggerated (slightly! ) the passion of certain gca.com posters with the term zealot, I do think that the problem is just what you mention - stereotyping, whether "All modern bad", "All Golden Age Good", or even "All Golden Age Bad."  None of the three above is a true statement.  

Of course, neither is "You always need catch basins" and "You never need catch basins."

[Adam Clayman]

Also, one of the foibles seen too often on GCA.com is when someone stereotypes that a groupthink mentality exists.

I honestly believe that when someone's potential principle calls the website "that crazy website" is either taking someone elses word for it, or, is just plain afraid of the intellectual arguments behind what translates to quality work.

Life has taught me it is the little things that need to be done correctly inorder to make the big picture work. If a designer poo poo's the slightest element, I think that's a mistake, and usually becmes evident to an aware observer.

The reason I did ask that question of you back on the "lemming thread" is partly because I seem to recall you mentioning that you have incorporated aspects you learned from participating here. Also, some of your recent work, in Minnisota, in picture at least, seem to show influences not seen on some of your earlier works. I may be wrong but hopefully a road trip in the not too distant future will allow me to see for myself.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Also, one of the foibles seen too often on GCA.com is when someone stereotypes that a groupthink mentality exists.

I honestly believe that when someone's potential principle calls the website "that crazy website" is either taking someone elses word for it, or, is just plain afraid of the intellectual arguments behind what translates to quality work.

Life has taught me it is the little things that need to be done correctly inorder to make the big picture work. If a designer poo poo's the slightest element, I think that's a mistake, and usually becmes evident to an aware observer.

The reason I did ask that question of you back on the "lemming thread" is partly because I seem to recall you mentioning that you have incorporated aspects you learned from participating here. Also, some of your recent work, in Minnisota, in picture at least, seem to show influences not seen on some of your earlier works. I may be wrong but hopefully a road trip in the not too distant future will allow me to see for myself.

Adam,

Point 1 - I am guilty of occaisionally stereotyping this sites prevailing attitude into group think, rather than thinking of you as 1499 other unique individuals!  Generally, human nature being what it is, stereotyping is just so damn much easier!  As you suggest, my previous post was basically, saying that it felt like Tommy was trying to browbeat us into his mentality, using Lemmings and other provocative phrases. (And I know that was Forrest's phrase originally)

Point 2 - Most in the industry call this "that crazy website."  At the recent ASGCA and GCSAA shows, I was surprised at how many people started conversations with me using that EXACT same phrase.  

Generally, human nature being what it is, more posts are negative than praising here.

Generally, human nature being what it is, what we in the idnustry see (and this includes gca's, supers, and golf writers I know) is the un-ending critiques, often founded on some presumption of details that the hobbyist cant' possibly know and probably doesn't care about.  We are left reading the critiques only.

Pont No. 3 - I am one of the few who might admit that this site has been a positive influence on me, and I should have gone back to my own benefits of participation thread to post this.  

First, by writing things down, it clarifies in my mind as to exactly what I do think.  That helps my designs because, human nature being what it is, there is a tendency to repeat things (just as we always brush our teeth in the morning before flossing) that we repeat out of habit, because its easier.

Second, it has shown - by posts of pictures of other courses old and new - that there really is more than one way to do things and that we are all creatures of habit, human nature being what it is.  

That said, the look of the Quarry, for instance is site driven mostly, then influenced by playing in Ireland and at Tobacco Road just before design began.  Somehow, those two experiences combined with a client who did want a tougher and unique course, jelled in my mind at just the right time to create an interesting design frame of mind.  That people were looking for something different was an idea that I got from gca.com, or at least an idea that was reinforced by this site.

Third, for me the fun of the discussion far outweighs the occaisonal pissing match over ASGCA, catch basins, my silly percentage discussions, etc.  I enjoy the discussions and it keeps my mind fresh.

So, generally, discussion group nature being what it is, this web site is what it is.  If I can deal with it, I do, if not, I stay away!

Make it a great day.