[Michael Dugger]

Guys (and gals)

Some of you I've had the pleasure of actually meeting and playing golf with.  Great times.  

Many of you I feel like I know through this website.  Most of the old boys who've been around from the get go.  Tom Paul, Mucci, Adam, Huckaby, Tommy, Dan Kelly, Cirba, Kav, RJ, Redanman, Shivas, Hancock, etc.....(apologies to those I've left out.)

I think it's great we have so many newbies to the site, it can only enhance the experience and provide fresh perspectives.

However, switching gears.....the GCA "treehouse," as it has been affectionately puned, has been taking a beating lately, IMHO.  

I read so much horsebleep about how we think this, how we think that, it's beginning to make my eyes hurt and stomach ache.  

So many broad generalizations being thrown about, opinions and versions of the truth which may or may not hold water......it's fast becoming The Geraldo Springer show.  For the first time ever I'm starting to agree things are really going downhill around here lately.

Thus....I thought perhaps it might be fun (amongst other things) to start a thread where everyone is allowed to go back in time and recant something they may have said, felt or believed regarding golf course architecture.

Perhaps just clear the air regarding their position.

Or use this as an opportunity to state an opinion, version of the truth or long held belief.  

I think we may come to learn what some seem to think "is the opinion of the treehouse" just really isn't.

So I'll go first.

I've never met Tom Doak in my life, but I still admire his approach to the art of golf course architecture.  I think the Confidential Guide was trendsetting, in particular, I think it took a lot of stones to "call 'em like he sees 'em" in a time when "signature" designers seemed to be controlling the market.  

If I was going to be anybody's "butt boy," it would be an honor to be his.  When you are on top there is always someone trying to knock ya down.  If the rest of you want the same "attention" or "love" then do something that really stimulates us!  (Did that come across a little too Brokeback Mt. for ya?  Opps!)  

I have only played two Tom Fazio designs (Pronghorn and Aldarra) and enjoyed them both a great deal.  I have ZERO problems with Tom Fazio as a designer.  I think he builds a lot more interesting courses than many designers working today.  This is one member of the Treehouse who is not a Fazio basher, never was.

Lastly, I'm trying my best to figure out why I should have more respect for the work of Rees Jones.  Most of his courses look nice and functional, but artistically vapid.  Will someone please explain to me why I should think any differently?  Still waiting.......

It's 2008 and time to usher in a new era.  Something I'm going to quit doing is being so PC.  It's stupid.  I'm no access seeker, if I play it I play it, but I am not going to kiss any ass to get on your tract, that's for sure.  I'm no rater who gets free access and therefore says nice stuff, either.

I'm no writer, journalist or aspiring anything golf related.  

I'm just a golfer, with a soul, who appreciates art.  The more we all cave into the PC scrutiny the more and more commercial and succeptible to corruption this website becomes.  

Enough of the willy-nilly, one foot in, one foot out, stuff guys, let's get back to "frank discussion."  Ran has always encourged it.

Anyone dare???

[Tom Huckaby]

I'll tell you what I'd argue... the following notions:

1. That this place has any one universally-held position on anything;

2. That this place has gone downhill, and is somehow worse now than it ever has been;

3.  That this place is currently lacking in frank discussion.

I don't buy any of that.

But I guess you want some purging of the soul, Michael?

OK, I'm game.

I really don't give a rat's ass who designed any given course.  Sorry guys.  I'm into courses, not the people who designed them.

TH

[Kalen Braley]

I read so much horsebleep about how we think this, how we think that, it's beginning to make my eyes hurt and stomach ache.  

So many broad generalizations being thrown about, opinions and versions of the truth which may or may not hold water......it's fast becoming The Geraldo Springer show.  

Michael,

I see that you wrote this in the beginning of your thread, and thats all fine and good.  But the last half of your thread, you seem to be doing exactly what you despise about the site.  Giving your opinion about this and that, and making generalizations about Doak, Rees, and Fazio.

I'm not trying to be critical, just trying to figure out how this plays out in your mind?  Its seems very incongruant.

[Chip Gaskins]

It's 2008 and time to usher in a new era.  Something I'm going to quit doing is being so PC.  It's stupid.  I'm no access seeker, if I play it I play it, but I am not going to kiss any ass to get on your tract, that's for sure.  I'm no rater who gets free access and therefore says nice stuff, either.

I'm no writer, journalist or aspiring anything golf related.  

I'm just a golfer, with a soul, who appreciates art.  The more we all cave into the PC scrutiny the more and more commercial and succeptible to corruption this website becomes.  

Enough of the willy-nilly, one foot in, one foot out, stuff guys, let's get back to "frank discussion."  Ran has always encourged it.

Anyone dare???

I will kick this off....I couldn't tell if Newbie's were invited to comment from your thread or not, but I can tell you that the last half of your thread is the reason I wanted to start posting on this site...however after hanging out here for a while I am honestly worried that if I dare say something marginally bad about a highly regarded course I will some how lose any future chance of playing any other highly regarded course any of you guys may have ties to.  

I suppose I shouldn't really care about that being I wasn't probably going to get on any of those courses through this board anyway, but the thought does cross one's mind.

I have about ten posts that I want to do discussing highly regarded courses that I just don't think are that good (or at least I don't get why they are so good and joined this board to understand maybe why they are so good), however whenever anyone steps out of line and says one of these courses aren't that good they get flamed as uninformed or uneducated or just plain ignorant.

I am honestly still sitting on the side lines evaluating how honest one can really be on this board.

So this is how the editor of Golf Magazine feels when he plays some crappy Florida course and thinks it stinks but the developer has a two page color spread ad in his magazine...oh the conflicts...

[Joe Hancock]

Here's what I think:

Whenever you get a bunch of folks together, you get some intimidation when it comes time to give opinions or answers. Just attend a conference where the speaker likes audience participation; even I shut up in that situation....usually.

In here, most of the time a differing opinion, or even a wrong answer is handled with respect and courtesy, but there are times where sarcasm and a mean spirit can creep out. That stifles discussion and chases away people. Of course, some of those people who get chased away probably have it coming, but still.....

I say give your opinions freely, even if you don't like Lawsonia. We'll try to help you figure out why you're wrong...... ...

Joe

[Jeff_Brauer]

Hey, I think the small trend towards discussing holes and other courses is a bright spot.....

And, I always felt that down periods of gca.com were mostly related to my posting. I'll try to cut down....

Speaking of PC (or lack thereof) isn't the question, "Can I be Frank with you" most appropriate for a Lesbian bar?

(sorry, couldn't resist........)

[Michael Dugger]

I read so much horsebleep about how we think this, how we think that, it's beginning to make my eyes hurt and stomach ache.  

So many broad generalizations being thrown about, opinions and versions of the truth which may or may not hold water......it's fast becoming The Geraldo Springer show.  

Michael,

I see that you wrote this in the beginning of your thread, and thats all fine and good.  But the last half of your thread, you seem to be doing exactly what you despise about the site.  Giving your opinion about this and that, and making generalizations about Doak, Rees, and Fazio.

No, Kalen, that is not what I am saying at all.

If I voice an opinion it is just that, MY OPINION.

But when someone makes a broad sweeping generalization like "GCA dislikes Fazio" when it's not true, that's another thing.

There are all these "notions" thrown around and I think it's more a case of those throwing them around wishing it was that way then it actually being that way.

[Michael Dugger]

This is what I think.

Those around here should cease to ever say, "GCA thinks blah blah blah about blah."

or "The GCA Treehouse thinks blah blah blah."

It's crap.  It's annoying the hell outta me.

[Kalen Braley]

Fair enough Michael...thanks for the clarification.

[John Moore II]

So I'm pretty new to this site, but I will give my opinions of things..
-I LIKE TOM FAZIO'S WORK! I think mostly they are fine golf courses that present great challenges and are quire pleasing to my tastes.
-If you wonder about Rees Jones, take a look at Bryan Park (CHampions) in Greensboro, NC. One of the Top 5 best Public Access courses I have ever played.
-Jack Nicklaus does high quality work as well in my view.
-Unlike some people on this site seem to speak about, I do not think that all courses should be designed in the mold of Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes and Chambers Bay. They work where they are and might look incredibly stupid in other locales.
-Augusta National, with all the changes is still an incredible golf course, one that I think just about everyone on this site would go to great lengths to play.
-I may have other opinions and just can't specify them at this time, if I come up with anymore, be assured they will be voiced.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Johnny M,

Gotta love the innocence!  

Mike has a point, and I am sometimes guilty. I will try to better and stop trying to figure out what you bastards think..........

BTW this reminds me of Steve Martin's old "What I believe" bit.  Turns out we share the notion that believing in 8 of the 10 commandments is quite enough, thank you.

[Phil_the_Author]

I find it highly arrogant and impudent when someone will pose a question or a new topic and a 'senior' member will follow it up with the statement that "We've discussed that before..."

Why can't something be discussed again, especially when the person bringing up the topic wasn't a member of GCA 2 or more years ago?

Why should the accident of when they became a member dictate what they can talk, discuss or learn about? If someone feels a subject has been talked about and decided upon in the past and they don't want to discuss it, why not simply not comment and ignore the thread completely?

Let those who want to talk about something do so... We should be encouraging discussion, even on topics that some feel have been overly discussed...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Phil


Good point. No law says you have to read every thread.

In fact, in about ten years, when I develop Alzheimers, I may even enjoy a daily rehashing of what we talked about yesterday or even earlier today!  It will SEEM like a new conversation to both me and new posters......

[John Mayhugh]

Posting opinions can be intimidating if you aren't prepared to explain them or defend them.  I actually like the pressure of really thinking about something before I put it out there. I'm a relatively new participant, but I think people here are remarkably civil given how strong their views can be.

[paul cowley]

Guys....I need a point of clarification.

When you have referenced PC....you are not slighting me, but are referring to the other PC kind of stuff?....right?

I have feelings too....even when I try to appear strong.

[Joe Hancock]

Paul,

We try to keep our discussions about you limited to when you aren't in the room.

 

[paul cowley]

 

[Kalen Braley]

DAMNIT!!

I hate it when a thread is just getting going, the fur is starting to fly, the juices are flowing.  Then Joe and Paul feel the need to come in to relieve the tension with some comedic relief!!  

Let em got at it for petes sake!!  

[Mike_Young]

I THINK.. Tom Huckaby summed it up best when he says he is nto courses and not the people that designed them.  I AGREE 100%...BUT I THINK this site is into the people that design the courses moreso than the courses...when that trend reverses we will be on the right track.......

[John Moore II]

Mike- I agree with you, this site tends to look more at the person who designs the course moreso than the course itself. Does it really matter who designed Cypress Point? Not really, its still one of the best places in the world. Could Pine Valley have been done any better? Doubtful. The designer person does not matter, the course matters and should be the main subject in a golf architecture discussion. "How have golf courses evolved in 500 years, not how have golf designers evolved in 500 years."

[Tim Bert]

I agree that the course is more important than the architect for the purposes of discussion here.  At the same time, I don't see a problem with people developing "favorite" architects for selection purposes as long as you separate the connection once you go into evaluation mode.  

To me it is a lot like picking a book.  First and foremost, I'm looking for a good read.  If I've read something from an author in the past and I really like the author's style, then I'm more inclined to seek out another book by that author.  It doesn't mean that I'm going to like everything I read by that author.  If I hear about a great book and I've never read the author, then I'll probably give it a try.  If I've read multiple duds by someone, then I'm less likely to read more by that person.  

Of course, every now and then someone comes along and writes both Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged and leaves you confused how one work can be so good and the other so bad.

[John Kavanaugh]

It's 2008 and time to usher in a new era.  Something I'm going to quit doing is being so PC.  It's stupid.  I'm no access seeker, if I play it I play it, but I am not going to kiss any ass to get on your tract, that's for sure.  I'm no rater who gets free access and therefore says nice stuff, either.

I'm no writer, journalist or aspiring anything golf related.  

I'm just a golfer, with a soul, who appreciates art.  The more we all cave into the PC scrutiny the more and more commercial and succeptible to corruption this website becomes.  

Enough of the willy-nilly, one foot in, one foot out, stuff guys, let's get back to "frank discussion."  Ran has always encourged it.

Anyone dare???

I will kick this off....I couldn't tell if Newbie's were invited to comment from your thread or not, but I can tell you that the last half of your thread is the reason I wanted to start posting on this site...however after hanging out here for a while I am honestly worried that if I dare say something marginally bad about a highly regarded course I will some how lose any future chance of playing any other highly regarded course any of you guys may have ties to.  

I suppose I shouldn't really care about that being I wasn't probably going to get on any of those courses through this board anyway, but the thought does cross one's mind.

I have about ten posts that I want to do discussing highly regarded courses that I just don't think are that good (or at least I don't get why they are so good and joined this board to understand maybe why they are so good), however whenever anyone steps out of line and says one of these courses aren't that good they get flamed as uninformed or uneducated or just plain ignorant.

I am honestly still sitting on the side lines evaluating how honest one can really be on this board.

So this is how the editor of Golf Magazine feels when he plays some crappy Florida course and thinks it stinks but the developer has a two page color spread ad in his magazine...oh the conflicts...

Chip,

Given all the places you have already played if you are worried how what you say will affect your future access you should find somewhere else to spend time.  I have actually noticed the exact opposite.  Say something stupid about a course and suddenly members are begging you to come see the place to show you why you are wrong.  As a matter of fact, in my case, all of Great Britain wants me over there.

[Mike Sweeney]

Mike- I agree with you, this site tends to look more at the person who designs the course moreso than the course itself. Does it really matter who designed Cypress Point? Not really, its still one of the best places in the world. Could Pine Valley have been done any better? Doubtful. The designer person does not matter, the course matters and should be the main subject in a golf architecture discussion. "How have golf courses evolved in 500 years, not how have golf designers evolved in 500 years."

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/opinionmacwood7.html

If you have time, read this and let us know if you still think the person does not matter in the design process. It does to me.

[Patrick Kiser]

In that case...

To name a few, I think Merion, Crystal Downs, Prairie Dunes, Yeamans Hall, National, and Cypress are just horrible.

Chip,

Given all the places you have already played if you are worried how what you say will affect your future access you should find somewhere else to spend time.  I have actually noticed the exact opposite.  Say something stupid about a course and suddenly members are begging you to come see the place to show you why you are wrong.  As a matter of fact, in my case, all of Great Britain wants me over there.

[John Moore II]

Mike--You only prove my point. Crump was unknown, he was not even a professional architect. He simply had land where he wanted to build a golf course. He made it the way he wanted. While other architects visited, he was the primary designer. Does it matter that he was not a world renowned designer? No, what matters is the course he designed (with help on holes, yes I know) is awesome.  My point was, the name of the designer does not mean anything. The quality of the work means more. Great designers can sometimes build poor courses, and sometimes small names designers and even amateurs can strike gold, just like Crump at Pine Valley.

Patrick--I agree with you, Pine Valley and Oakmont are real dumps...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()