Would you guys like to see.....

[TEPaul]

.....a discussion section as a part of the new USGA Architecture Archive Internet component? If it were to be established at all how would you like to see it structured? Would you like to see it be something like this one or different or even very different?

[Mike_Young]

Tom,
I don't think so.  I think it is critical that the history of golf architecture be as accurate as possible and IMHO open discussion on theory and who, why etc w/o substantiating evidence will lead to inaccuracies ...it is what it is and discussing it seems to let the BS creep in....of course a site for the introduction of fact and not hearsay or opinion would be great.

[Mike Sweeney]

I agree with Mike Young. If people want to critique any of the research or findings, Geoff Shaq and GCA.com are well known places to establish critique.

[Joel_Stewart]

Not sure I agree with Mike.   Why limit the knowledge out there?   There might be a place similar to Geoff's web site where you can place a comment, but I wouldn't call it a discussion group like GCA.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I think this is an interesting idea with all due respect to the two Mikes. It is not the USGA way to have that sort of unfiltered input on anything. I think a bit of general discussion could be healthy.

[Adam Clayman]

There would need to be some control over who was able to post, what. Club Historians, Owners and/or anyone with factual documentation of said topic. Exceptions would/could be easily filtered through a mediator who then could post comments from the general public when germane.

Ran's folly serves the purpose nicely. Providing a USGA sanctioned alternative would detract from this forum, which allows for open discourse, even if it takes a sickle to harvest. 

[Jim_Kennedy]

Who in their right mind would wish the conjecture and bickering that happens on this site (see anything with "Merion" in the title) on the USGA's possible site?
A 'library' is supposed to be a quiet place, not a debating hall.

 

[TEPaul]

Nice points there even if there isn't agreement.

How would you like it if the USGA Architecture Archive simply produced some series of information from the past on various topics (historical "assets")----for instance pro AND con opinions or varying ideas perhaps in architectural drawings or aerials and "on-grounds" from the past on certain topics to do with architecture and then perhaps simply asked viewers to consider both sides or the many sides of an issue and just form their own opinions from it and it's relevance to today and the future?

And then, if questions or discussions seemed necessary perhaps the USGA Archive could hyperlink to this DG or others to hash out ideas and opinions.

[Jim_Kennedy]

TE,
If they catalog and offer access to the many sources of information pertaining to architecture then they'll have done their job.
The revisionists can take it from there.

[Joe Hancock]

I think the researchaholics are already able to find their way.

Might it be as useful as the Viagratron...or Humpmeter or whatever it's called?

Joe

[TEPaul]

I think I can say with some degree of certainty that the USGA would probably prefer not to get into blatant advocacy about architecture or maintenance or anything else to do with golf architecture, even if it has always been my hope (and they know this) that they would to some extent even if quite minimally.

But with this new USGA Architecture Archive how about if they take a subject like the waves of architectural redesigning over the decades and presented that and then next to it presented a counterpoint of the architects from the past or even today who argued against that and why.

This way viewers could look at the issue as well as two or a few perhaps somewhat diametrically opposed points of view.

That way I think viewers would come away with a more balanced understanding of some of these issues.

[Mike_Young]

TE,
If they catalog and offer access to the many sources of information pertaining to architecture then they'll have done their job.
The revisionists can take it from there.

This is exactly how an archives should work IMHO....

[Patrick_Mucci]

.....a discussion section as a part of the new USGA Architecture Archive Internet component? If it were to be established at all how would you like to see it structured? Would you like to see it be something like this one or different or even very different?

NO

It would detract from and undermine GCA.com.

Who would moderate it ?

How strict would censorship be ?

Let the USGA make good on their committment to archive golf course architecture before they venture into other realms

[Dave_Miller]

.....a discussion section as a part of the new USGA Architecture Archive Internet component? If it were to be established at all how would you like to see it structured? Would you like to see it be something like this one or different or even very different?

Tommy:
Sounds like the idea could have some merit but the structure, who could post and accuracy of the information would have to be controlled.  Don't know maybe the USGA should just archive the data for those who know how to use it appropriately.
Best
DAve

[TEPaul]

"Who would moderate it?"

A very active moderator.

"How strict would censorship be?"

Strict enough to censor you and anyone who tried to make some kind of "confidentiality agreement" with another contributor.


 

[Mark_Rowlinson]

The material in an archive should be presented objectively and free from opinion other than when it is necessary to point out doubt, such as the accuracy of a particular document or image. It should be a matter of unimpeachable scholarship.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

What if the USGA established a virtual conference site instead? In other words, set-up an arena that will hold a limited (to topic) and open discussion group that examines a subject and where they open it with a discussion that includes 3 or 4 accepted "experts" on that particular topic. The USGA could have an attached area that can include relative documents and photographs from within the on-line holdings.

[TEPaul]

Do you guys see that fellow Mark Rowlinson on here? As far as I'm concerned none of this would've even happened the way it did if it wasn't for him! I want each and every one of you to take a minute out of your day and bow down in the direction of England!

[Peter Pallotta]

TE - my gut reaction, for what that's worth:

The archive should not be 'open for discussion'. 

It should house historical documents (photos, early club histories) AS historical documents.

And it should house the best of modern scholarship AS the best of modern scholarship.

If more historical documents come into the USGA's possession, it's for the USGA to decide if/when and how that material gets added to the official collection.

And if new and additional modern scholarship comes into the USGA's possesion, it's for the USGA to decide in a thoughtful and measured and expert way if/when and how that material will supplement or supplant what's already in the archive.

The service the USGA archive should provide is not an open forum for discussion; it's the comprehensive and expert housing of the historical documents and modern scholarship that any interested scholars or researchers can use as their primary source material.

Peter       

PS - the USGA may not want to 'advocate' for any one position, but it seems to me they have to be willing at some point to make the hard choices about what gets into the archive and what doesn't -- either they themselves or an arms-length committee they form for that purpose and that reports to them...with the USGA having the final say.  (On historical documents AS historical documents, this isn't an issue; but with modern scholarship it is).

I don't think the USGA can absolve themselves of or lessen this responsibility by opening up the archive "for discussion"....I think that would get very messy very quickly. 

[TEPaul]

Phil:

That's a good idea and its been kicked around just a little in theory. Part of the problem with doing this thing in various ways really just gets into a man-power question.

But the USGA is going to devote some man-power to this and perhaps in a form of "Special Projects" that they've done before but not on the Internet.

On the other hand, this effort now also has Mark Petersen, the Exec. Director of GAP and the Pennyslvania Golf Association, consulting when he can. He's a very busy guy in golf administration with his own job but I consider him to be something of an expert on this whole idea of "Web-Conferencing" ( I think he has another name for it) that's essentially a web-conference dedicated to a specific subject. He's really savy on the latest technology on the web with golf administration. You should all check out GAP.org. GAP's not the biggest golf association in America but I think they may be pretty sophisiticated in this way or at least they're getting there fast.

[Rich Goodale]

Tom

I like the idea, as unfettered as possible.  Some people on this thread (and elsewhere) seem to treat "archival" material as sacred and above being scrutinized by the proleteriat.  I think that if we (collectively) have learned anything here on GCA.com it is that virtually no archives relating to golf course architecture are beyond question and not amenable to serious and constructive scrutiny.

Moderating such a facility would not be an easy job, particularly if we wing-nuts were given a password to ask question, offer alternative explanations, etc.  Bu, isn't it this sort of heavy lifting that USGA should be doing with our money?

In this chaotic GCA.com world that some of us sometimes inhabit, a number of interesting avenues for exploration have been opened up, mostly through the effort and passion of newbies. If the USGA can support this sort of effort, more power to them.

[Dan Herrmann]

Tom,
I'd limit the partcipants to people who have passed some sort of qualification threshhold.  In other words, it should be limited to actual historians, architects, etc., and not folks like me (a hobbiest)

[Tom_Doak]

If the lawyers at the USGA peruse the laws about slander on the internet, they will not want any part of a discussion group like this one.

If Ran had known what the laws would be, he might not be up for it now, either.

[Steve Lang]

NO NO NO

facts just the facts

pictures just the pictures

museum quality presentation

no BS

[Ian Andrew]

Tom,

Rather than a discussion group - I always thought if people could leave notes about what they found at each reference. It could make the archives easier to use by closing down all the dead end references on the publications - or pointing us in the right direction from the outset. The idea is a "wikopedia" like eneterance into the archives - where people from outside the USGA can slowly add notes about what they found. Having to register for this would prevent someone from vandelizing what was being created and would also give the USGA a direct link to historians. They could increase interaction by providing an update service simply through email.

It's a thought...

Ian

even if it takes a sickle to harvest.  

Adam,

That's a great line.