Not long ago I made a point to visit one of the best known courses in America that happened to employ Tom Fazio as consulting architect. Though no one from the Fazio organization was on site during my visit, I was fortunate to spend quite a bit of time with both the course Superintendent and the Green Chairman and to review work underway preparing for future USGA events.
One thing which stood out about my visit was how well informed my hosts were about Golfclubatlas.com. Specifically, the Green Chairman was well aware of criticism often aired at GCA regarding the Fazio organization’s recent work at classic courses such as Riviera and Merion. Moreover, he was aware, in some detail, of my own views about golf course architecture based on my postings at this site.
As we toured the course, my host was quite interested in how I viewed the work underway. He also inquired about my views on specifics suggestions Fazio assistant Tom Marzolf had proposed. In short, I came away thinking this gentleman very much wanted to do the right things for his course and while he employed Fazio, clearly demonstrated an interest in listening to other points of view, including those expressed at GCA. Happily, I think his club is on the right track.
To my mind, this says something positive about Golfclubatlas.com. Tom Fazio may or may not pay much attention to GCA, but clearly the site is emerging as a valuable resource, even for prominent clubs like the one I visited. One reason for this is that there is simply no other place where candid feedback about golf architecture matters is so readily available. No other Internet site. No magazine. No television program. No newspaper column.
Golfclubatlas.com, whatever its faults, stands out head and shoulders above.
But, I also know from friends in the golf industry that GCA’s credibility suffers at times. Part of this comes from the fact that golf course architecture, while being an “art form”, also exists in a world of numerous outside influences, financial considerations and environmental concerns being among the most significant. Thus, people in the golf industry often feel that lay people at GCA really don’t understand all that goes into building a golf course.
Then, too, GCA suffers at times when people violate what I call the Tom MacWood rule: they fail to articulate what they like or dislike about a golf course. A classic example is someone who describes a Fazio course as “mailed in”, but never takes the time to detail his views. It’s a bit like a recent poster who described Crystal Downs as “disappointing” but never followed up – despite being asked several times – to detail his impressions and why he came to the conclusion he did.
Folks like Tom Fazio are also likely to dismiss commentary from people not really familiar with the body of his work. When a Tommy Naccarato acknowledges never seeing any of Fazio’s work east of the Mississippi, constantly criticizing Fazio makes about as much sense a person criticizing Alister Mackenzie after visiting Sharp Park but never seeing Cypress Point.
Golfclubatlas.com has established a beachhead and I believe it will grow if we can:
Articulate our views, both positive and negative. It doesn’t matter whether you like or dislike a particular course, architect or architectural feature. The key is to explain why.
Avoid personal attacks. They add absolutely nothing to one’s education in golf architecture and do nothing but discourage greater participation at Golfclubatlas.com.
Focus comments on courses themselves, especially if one isn’t really familiar with very much of a particular architect’s work.