[Mike_Young]

Mike,

In all my research in support of your application, I recall only one innuendo that originated with an ASGCA members years ago.  Others came elsewhere and ASGCA was merely evaluating them, within our time constraints of getting your application ready for the meeting vote.   I think its clear that when innuendo gets into the process from other sources, then pure "finite objectivity" is by definition, impossible and both subjectivity and some doubt creep in.  I am dissapointed for you that you fell into the "shred of doubt" category and understand your vents, but I can also understand the result in terms of the long term history of ASGCA.  It is a tough situation and you continue to take the high road, which for me is evidence enough of your good character!

Jeff,
Thanks both for the above and your efforts on my behalf.  I will get you some tater salad on white bread one day.
As I told you ..I'm hard headed....I have always like the "beyond a shadow of a doubt" much moreso than the "shred of doubt"....
From my experiences with ASGCA and from the little I know of the process I think it is fair to say that ..at the end of the day..you need 9 votes from the Board of Governors....that's it....no majority vote from the members even if that is usually the basis...
Also you must have the membership committee allow you to be voted on by the members that are present at the meeting..which could be 10 or 150.....If the membership committee votes to not support the candidate then most likely he will not be approved by the 2/3 majority of the board of governors.  So I think it is fair to say that one can have all of their Phase 1 and Phase 2 complete with evaluations and owner interviews etc....which are measurable items....and never get to a vote....
With all due respect to you specifically and other individuals within the organization....if direct questions are asked where there are concerns the evaluation process may be expedited....the vagueness of never letting an applicant there is a concern or issue or rumor until the last moment is not then a problem....
AND in the innuendo process the ASGCA member needs heed to Item 7 of the Code of Ethics-"Members shall recognize and respect the work of other golf course architects and shall not knowingly make statements or offer opinions and comments that are false or attempt to injure or disparage their practice, projects or any of their work."  even when his "personal" knowledge of such is shown to be incorrect.
Let's call time out....goin to play golf...
Now maybe if MacWood will come over here we can get a 100 pages out of this

[Ben Sims]

I leave you guys alone for 10 minutes....

I want to post something key to my disagreement with the society--like Mike Y. said, individual members aren't targeted here.  Just the organization as a whole.  This is from the ASGCA website.

Vision
ASGCA is the leader in advancing the interests of golf course architects and the profession of golf course architecture for the benefit of ASGCA members and their clients, the golf industry and the game of golf.

Missions

Foster Professionalism – Foster the professionalism of ASGCA members through education, promotion and fellowship of the world's leading golf course architects.
Support Design Excellence – Support the design of golf courses that are technically, strategically and aesthetically excellent and meet the economic, environmental and other needs of golf course owners, developers and communities.
Help Grow the Game – Assist in the growth of golf.
Expand Opportunities – Expand the opportunities of ASGCA members to better serve their clients and the game of golf.

 
I see a lot of things there that have to do with the overarching group of the "golf industry" and "the game of golf."  They support sound design.  They assist in the growth of golf.  I am wholly behind that vision and mission as noble and right.  But from what we've been reading here, he execution of that vision and mission is missing, in my humble opinion. 

When you tell a young, unique and groundbreaking architect to "call us when you have 5 projects", are you assisting the growth of golf?  Are you advancing the the interests of golf architects and the golf industry as a whole? 

[Tom_Doak]

Ben:

There is a huge difference between what's good for golf, and what's good for the golf industry.  That may well be the subject of my next book.

Unfortunately, I am not sure which side the ASGCA is on in that discussion.

[JC Jones]

Ben:

There is a huge difference between what's good for golf, and what's good for the golf industry.  That may well be the subject of my next book.

Unfortunately, I am not sure which side the ASGCA is on in that discussion.

Is this book before or after the printing of the PacDunes book and the new edition of the Confidential Guide?

[Bill_McBride]

I leave you guys alone for 10 minutes....

I want to post something key to my disagreement with the society--like Mike Y. said, individual members aren't targeted here.  Just the organization as a whole.  This is from the ASGCA website.

Vision
ASGCA is the leader in advancing the interests of golf course architects and the profession of golf course architecture for the benefit of ASGCA members and their clients, the golf industry and the game of golf.

Missions

Foster Professionalism – Foster the professionalism of ASGCA members through education, promotion and fellowship of the world's leading golf course architects.
Support Design Excellence – Support the design of golf courses that are technically, strategically and aesthetically excellent and meet the economic, environmental and other needs of golf course owners, developers and communities.
Help Grow the Game – Assist in the growth of golf.
Expand Opportunities – Expand the opportunities of ASGCA members to better serve their clients and the game of golf.

 
I see a lot of things there that have to do with the overarching group of the "golf industry" and "the game of golf."  They support sound design.  They assist in the growth of golf.  I am wholly behind that vision and mission as noble and right.  But from what we've been reading here, he execution of that vision and mission is missing, in my humble opinion. 

When you tell a young, unique and groundbreaking architect to "call us when you have 5 projects", are you assisting the growth of golf?  Are you advancing the the interests of golf architects and the golf industry as a whole? 

I repeat again -- it might be a great opportunity for ASGCA to create a new "Associate" category of membership for those young industry  members who don't have those five courses under their belts yet, but could contribute to the association and meet mentors, etc.

This might make Ben happy too!

[Tom_Doak]

Bill M:  It might be a good way for ASGCA to increase its coffers, since there are so many young men and women interested in the profession and desperate to find a way in, and so few jobs to be had.  However, I think it would be somewhat unfair to raise their hopes in that way.  (In fact, the EIGCA in Europe has been doing just that ... running a program for students under the auspices of their society as a recruiting tool, very successful in the short term but not so much right now.)

An interested student should not be hanging around the ASGCA annual meeting.  He should be working on a construction site somewhere ... if he can find one.

[Bill_McBride]

Bill M:  It might be a good way for ASGCA to increase its coffers, since there are so many young men and women interested in the profession and desperate to find a way in, and so few jobs to be had.  However, I think it would be somewhat unfair to raise their hopes in that way.  (In fact, the EIGCA in Europe has been doing just that ... running a program for students under the auspices of their society as a recruiting tool, very successful in the short term but not so much right now.)

An interested student should not be hanging around the ASGCA annual meeting.  He should be working on a construction site somewhere ... if he can find one.

If ASGCA is representing a majority of GCAs, their meetings might be a good place for these youngsters to make the connections necessary to get a construction job.  So far you and maybe one or two others are the only GCAs I've seen offering these opportunities in public.  Congrats to you for doing that, it's apparently been mutually profitable as you keep coming up with these creative and hard working associates!

[John_Conley]

So is it better to have an organization that gathers some interested members of the industry or have none at all?

[Ben Sims]

Tom:

I agree with two points.

1) Yes, there is a complete disconnect between what is good for golf, and what is good for the golf industry.  ASGCA--in their vision statement--claim that they exist in order to advance golf architecture for the betterment of golf AND the golf industry.  As we have seen in the recent downturn--with conjecture about the saturation of golf courses--these two things are mutually exclusive at times.

2) I agree that a student of the game and more specifically golf architecture and construction--a guy like me--could be 100% better served by spending his time on a site learning the odds and ends.  But I wasn't talking about students of architecture.  I was explicitly illustrating a point that many have made before me.  That ASGCA isn't interested in young talent unless they have a requisite portfolio of their own or a portfolio sponsored by a larger firm that they are an employee.  The Mike Nuzzo's of the world--talented as they may be--aren't talented enough yet to seek knowledge or give knowledge in an official capacity to the society. 

Ross laid the foundation, who are we to question.....

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ben,

What you miss there is that a young gca can go to work for Doak or an ASGCA member. Its not like either or. ASGCA has no summer jobs to offer, but its members do. If not, how do all those associates in those firms get started, get in their minimum time and then join ASGCA?

But you will be glad to know that we are discussing some kind of an outreach program to potential future members, although its in a very formative stage (like since this afternoon when HQ got wind of this thread!) and may not come to pass.

BTW, I would love to hear both you and Tom tell us what the complete disconnect between good for the industry and good for golf is. Its a great sound bite, of course.  But I would love to know how its true IYHO.  Especially since you have twice referenced the current recession, which is a baddie, but which has been weathered before since golf took hole about 600 years ago. I guess I am pretty confident in golf long term.

Again, as to the Mike Nuzzo's of the world, I say membership is worth the wait. But, that is just me.  And like John C says, its almost inevitable that something like ASGCA would be formed, because almost every profession in the world seems to have its own professional society.

[Mike_Young]

So is it better to have an organization that gathers some interested members of the industry or have none at all?

If it is an organization such as GCSAA or PGA  where you can't  discriminate or let subjective issues slide in then of course it is better...if it is where people have met their requirements but don't measure to their "character" standards as Forrest mentions then it is best to have none....exclusion limits credibility in my book....JMO

[Ben Sims]

Jeff,

I may be wrong, but I think what Tom D was referring to had to do with a scenario along these lines.

Big name firm gets hired to build big name course for big money.  No expense is spared--even the tiles on the clubhouse roof are from Italy. (Sorry, but that's just funny, no reference to your Wildhorse of course).  Much earth is moved, much ink is printed, etc, etc.  The course is a windfall for the owner, for 2 months.  The luster fades as often happens with big courses--the excess of the 80's-90's.  No less than 15 different companies benefit financially from the original expense of the course.  Big plus for the golf industry right?

Now Joe Handicap lives locally and wants to play said course.  He plays it twice opening month.  Once a year afterwards.  "It's just too expensive" he says.  His friends that are even less avid than he is, play once or twice, saying that it is too tough, too expensive.  "Why would I want to pay 90 bucks to play here when I can go down to low scale daily fee X, or muni Y and pay 30 bucks, lose less balls, and have more fun learning the game?"  

It seems that this hypothetical is both good for the golf industry and bad for the game at the same time.  I know this story well.  The Frog back home in Georgia, or my hometown's The Lion Golf Club, deal with it yearly.  

[John_Conley]

Mike, the PGA of America discriminates by virtue of its Players Ability Test.  I'm sure there are players that can't pass due to a physical ailment or late start in the game of golf and cry foul that they can't become a Class A member.

Any time there are standards you need to draw a line.  Any time you draw a line there are people that will fall on the wrong side of it.  I'm not familiar with the details of your plight and if you are to share them with me I'd only be hearing one side of the story.

In looking at the ASGCA, I'm not looking at little details.  I'm looking at the big picture.  (Funny, Ben said he was too, yet he's very caught up in its finer points.)

I have no dog in the fight.  The industry has a group.  Given the frustration with their standards, I'm surprised it doesn't have two.  (In my line of work a group didn't like the focus of their organization so they began another.  Tons of clubs have been formed because golfers were denied access to another.)  You, Doak, and Sims ought to create the ASoRGGCA or something.

[Mike_Young]

I leave you guys alone for 10 minutes....

I want to post something key to my disagreement with the society--like Mike Y. said, individual members aren't targeted here.  Just the organization as a whole.  This is from the ASGCA website.

Vision
ASGCA is the leader in advancing the interests of golf course architects and the profession of golf course architecture for the benefit of ASGCA members and their clients, the golf industry and the game of golf.

Missions

Foster Professionalism – Foster the professionalism of ASGCA members through education, promotion and fellowship of the world's leading golf course architects.
Support Design Excellence – Support the design of golf courses that are technically, strategically and aesthetically excellent and meet the economic, environmental and other needs of golf course owners, developers and communities.
Help Grow the Game – Assist in the growth of golf.
Expand Opportunities – Expand the opportunities of ASGCA members to better serve their clients and the game of golf.

-------------------

Expand Opportunities – Expand the opportunities of ASGCA members to better serve their clients and the game of golf.   DING DING DING DING   you mean sort of like a trade organization???
Let me ask you guys if any of you remember when Tor signed Arnold Palmer to a contract after the Pennzoil commercial with the Toro tractor and wanted to use him in ads....How long did it take Nicklaus to go strictly Rainbird?

If you were a vendor and an architect was not in he group that was having their "opportunities expanded" for the good of the game...and he found you were sponsoring such....would you go neutral or would you take a side....

Again all of this stuff sounds good until you hear a green comm member secretly tell you that the GM  (CMAA )informed them " you know we are an allied assoc with the ASGCA and a couple of the guys have mentioned that they would not accept candidate A...those kinds of things are there to give an edge... not to help the game of golf....and any architect that allows a vendor to work on his projects and support a group that is using that vendors sponsor money to promote their members is crazy.....it's not against individuals..it's just business....vendors will be smart to remain neutral.....

[Mike_Young]

.

[Mike_Young]

Mike, the PGA of America discriminates by virtue of its Players Ability Test.  I'm sure there are players that can't pass due to a physical ailment or late start in the game of golf and cry foul that they can't become a Class A member.

Any time there are standards you need to draw a line.  Any time you draw a line there are people that will fall on the wrong side of it.  I'm not familiar with the details of your plight and if you are to share them with me I'd only be hearing one side of the story.

In looking at the ASGCA, I'm not looking at little details.  I'm looking at the big picture.  (Funny, Ben said he was too, yet he's very caught up in its finer points.)

I have no dog in the fight.  The industry has a group.  Given the frustration with their standards, I'm surprised it doesn't have two.  (In my line of work a group didn't like the focus of their organization so they began another.  Tons of clubs have been formed because golfers were denied access to another.)  You, Doak, and Sims ought to create the ASoRGGCA or something.

John,
I understand the PAT and discriminating against physical handicaps....no problem with that....you have an actual score to prove ability....same with any sport.....and you can have standards but don't move the line....and I am not asking you to hear just my side of the story..forget that....

I am also looking at the big picture.....and I am quite simple...have your five courses or whatever...and make it a finite just like the forms for PGA or GCSAA .......get it signed by your sponsors or evaluators just like GCSAA etc...then I got no problem......just don't give me that PEER review crap.....that's as subjective as one can get....

How you doing in Florida there?

[Tony Ristola]

Like a few others, I know you have a chip on your shoulder about organizations.

LOL... Nice try at positioning Jeff.  Is this your attempt to recruit new members?
But for argument sake let's assume I have a chip on my shoulder. Does it invalidate the questions asked? Of course not. They were good questions.
I have asked questions of the ASGCA code in the past.
I think questions and debate are a good thing. If this qualifies as a chip on the shoulder, so be it.

I have seen the result of ASGCA and EIGCA rules and looking at them with a critical eye, it was easy to see how they were/are detrimental.
In fact, one of the detrimental rules we debated has been changed in the last few years. Good for you guys.

I will simply repeat what I said before - if RTJ or Ross thinks five courses is a good benchmark of experience who am I to question them? Its been in our by laws from the beginning.

 
This is brilliant. Follow blindly.
The world changes, and if the goal of the ASGCA is to have qualified members... a little thinking about how to qualify members could be in order. Not simply following a six decade old rule by a group of guys that started the organization, as one journalist/historian noted, along the lines of a cartel.

In general, we don't like to make exceptions to our process because it would open us up to even more charges of subjectivity - if one person got a waiver for this, why wouldn't the next one, etc?  Now that really would be subjective on our part, no?

I could see difficulties, but if someone is clearly qualified... then why not. There are always exceptions to the rule, and strong obvious cases aren't likely to be disputed, though I could see how this could evolve into a nepotism type ordeal as years pass.

So yeah, we follow rules set up by our founders, tweak them to meet current conditions in their spirit, but as we see fit, and try to hold to them.  While I understand the concerns of those who don't qualify, I won't aplogize for the goals and processes that have been in place a long time, nor do I think ASGCA will change just to satisfy those complaints.  Most young guys should feel like its worth the wait.  If they don't, then I guess they wouldn't be enthusiastic members anyway.

Can you explain why a member should be enthusiastic? What about qualifying members and leaving it at that? Wouldn't a few folks in the organization who don't bleed Ross tartan be a great thing? Strengthen the organization? If not, then the group doesn't seem to be one that is focused on bringing in qualified architects, but a sect of qualified architects.

What are the great  benefits of ASGCA membership?
Why should someone want to join?
In the past, pre-internet I could see some value, but now?
Really Jeff, I'm am curious, what is the benefit?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Yeah, I am going to ASGCA Monday morning and tell them to dumb down the whole organization just for the benefit of a few here.  We have no right to make any subjective decisions on who gets in to our group.  So, moving forward, any potential client who picks up our membership list as a tool in making perhaps the most important decision of their entire golf course project, will be assured of the following:

Experience - Nope. Even though most of us learn from experience, it is deemed too "subjective" a criteria for membership, so the ASGCA member could have as little as one 3 hole renovation in different soils and weather than you have.  What could possibly go wrong there?  And we can't actually judge the quality of the courses applicants put in, again its too subjective, even though I recall astute business people who say there is a difference between five years experience and the same year of experience five times over.

Ethics - Nope, too subjective.  Even if people call in from all over the country to tell us an applicant uses fraudulent or unethical practices, we shouldn't consider that, because that would be a subjective and unfair peer review.  Maybe there should be licsencing instead. You know how little we can trust the ASGCA guys to know what a qualified and ethical architect looks like, under the "takes one to know one" theory, and you KNOW how well and cost efficiently the govt. generally does at policing things, including ethics in government and the (formerly) private banking industry.  Need a gca?  Call your governor. Better yet, call the President!  

Technical Competence - Sorry, some guys breaking into the business says that stifles them in competition with more experienced gca's so we can't use that as a membership criteria.  And while we are at it, ASGCA should demand that no client EVER asks about experience or competence in any RFQ or interview to maintain a complete standard of fairness.  No sir, competence shall not be the hallmark of an ASGCA architect.    

Continuing Education - Nope. Not necessary.  Just because laws and products and technology change, its not a good idea for the best and the brightest in the biz to conflab about that and try to determine how to design the golf course of the future.  Nope, we should be listening to a guy who has designed one course on the chance that he/she might tell us all something about his new bunker style, which might improve our ability to design by a max of 1% compared to following good practice in general.  

Ability to Draw Plans and Obtain a reasonable bid? - No sorry again.  We are told that we are bad for golf, even though one of our criteria is being able to draw the plans and docs necessary for efficient and cost effective construction.  And some guys (in ASGCA and out) don't draw plans, so even our mid level golf couse can be built by a guy who pushes dirt around for a decade until he decides he has it right.  That will keep costs down, I'm sure!

But we ARE the leading organization for gca's and you should stilll pick from our members, even though we will have no standards at all because some people think its unfair.  I will recommend that we change our name and misson to the NSSGCA (no standards Society of Golf Course Architects)  I am sure someone here will tell me how that will help the industry or the game of golf more.  
I really can't see anything wrong with the ASGCA's original puprose of trying to set and encourage high standards in golf course architecture.  Nor do I see any real problems with our general programs and the criteria set for membership that can't be fixed with minor tweaking and improvement.  Frankly, from my observations, very few in the industry do either. Its mostly guys who don't qualify or haven't gotten in who complain and I would urge you to consider what that tells you.  Guys who are complaining loudest either want in as soon as possible or tried to get in and couldn't.  In both cases, their complaints are based on what they percieve to be missing out on in terms of benefits, so in a way, even the complaints are a compliment to ASGCA.  

Yeah, we help our members, but in reality all the "big picture" complaints lodged really just a request for us to tweak things around (sometimes very specifically to an individual) to help non members?  Are people making excuses based on how ASGCA has "harmed them" doing just that - making excuses?  

And, there are a few gca'ers who naturally root for the underdog and have a natural interest in seeing new faces design golf courses.  No problems with that, but its happened for 400 years and I don't think ASGCA is holding a truly gifted person back.   I recall nearly everyone from Mom on out telling me not to be a gca.  I always figured my first qual to be a gca was to NOT QUIT because of competition, difficulties, etc.

I think most of our members are proud of what it generally means to be a member and, once again, for a gca who qualifies, we believe it is worth the wait.  Yeah, you could join the NSSGCA a lot quicker and easier, but who would be proud to be a member of an organization like that?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tony,

I don't know why all people would want to join, but I know when I saw that list at age 15, with RTJ and others, I knew I wanted to be associated with the best gca's when I got to that point. 

As to the net, its not all about the communication.  Learning and socializing in person (ie. the fraternal aspects) are a big part of it and I don't see that as a bad thing.  Most of our members will tell you they learn the most from informal discussions. In that sense, you would never know where you might get an offhand tip from even a relative newcomer, as some have suggested.

You will be interested to know that just today, our members only forum is going on line at our site to use new fangled technology to help us communicate on industry issues.  IMHO, it won't replace our annual meetings, if for no other reason that you can't play golf on the internet. 

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

Every one of your detailed points above could be summarized as saying you are upholding the standards of architecture -- that "we" the ASGCA are better than "they" who are not in.  Which is exactly what Mike Young has been arguing all along.

I will also point out the fallacy of your statement that "guys who complain the loudest either want in right away or tried to get in and couldn't".  This is just further slamming of non-members implying they all fall into those two categories ... and you made no exception for the many who don't have five courses yet, such as Mike Nuzzo.  And which of those applies to me?  Maybe that's just because I have been too polite to complain lately, and if so, thank you for the reminder.

Exit question:  do you think it would be possible for the ASGCA (or any group) to promote the furthering of golf course architecture WITHOUT picking sides and denigrating others?  It should be noted that it sure doesn't work as planned for Golf Club Atlas -- denigrating others seems to go with the territory here.

P.S. to Carnac:  I will send you a full five-minute routine of replies to some of your defenses above, but in the meantime, I suggest you just edit the threat to "dumb down the whole organization" before somebody runs with it.  I am definitely not interested in joining the org. to dumb it down.

[Mike_Young]

Jeff,
Late night post really can take on a different tone  Mine do...
---------------------
I really don't disagree with most of your argument above.  Myself, like you, wanted to get in at an early age.  Now, I am not arguing because I want to get in anymore.  The "dumb down" explained it for me....I would have definitely brought that number a little lower  Ya'll could have just told me that.....I feel for Larry the Cable Guy everyday....dummy

The only issue I really argue with is your ETHICS line above.....you say..."Ethics - Nope, too subjective.  Even if people call in from all over the country to tell us an applicant uses fraudulent or unethical practices, we shouldn't consider that, because that would be a subjective and unfair peer review.  NO you should not necessarily consider that... I think it fine if you have parameters and consider why...and how....and who....

The best example I know is to use NCAA football coaches-  Tuberville leaves Miss St and goes to Auburn-  the Miss St fans all of a sudden hate the guy....oh man his recruiting at AU is bad...all kinds of stuff.....reality...there ain't nothing wrong with the guy...
Saban goes to Alabama and LSU can do nothing but slam the guy .....list goes on....and these so called incidents from people "all over the country"  but the truth is most of the people saying this stuff don't even know the guys..and also if they were that "unethical" they would not be staying in the profession.  So it's all a matter of where you get information and how accurate that information is.

I know that for instance in my interview I saw an excerpt form a letter..." Mike had a chance to WOW the committee but he stonk up the interview"  I agree BUT I was not ever there to WOW a committee.  They had my information.  AND then later you hear " he's holding something back, I know it".....that's real good....if i was holding anything back that was any different form the other members I wouldn't be on an internet site talking about this stuff....  and then someone says they "have never seen an app gone over like this one"  hel I probably ought to be in Jail

But ethics.....who is the evaluator....if you walk into a room and one of the iterviewers is a guy who had come onto one of your projects and taken a contract while you were still involved....(now this was because he was friends with a new golf pro that claimed he did not realze we had a continuing Masterplan on the ground and working)...I think that is your Ethic # 9-   Members shall not attempt to obtain or offer to undertake any commission that they know is already under a legitimate contract or agreement with another golf course architect.  BUT he should have called when he found out..yet it was me that wrote him a letter and said I would be glad to step aside if the client wished....And another sitting their had recently sent an email telling a client that he was the only architect"certified" by ASGCA to do such a restoration..and the rest of the guys in town were a bunch of "Jack-legs".( I think that takes ethics# 4,5,6 and 8 all in one package.   I know it's just business banter but don't use it just when it fits....
And don't allow plays on words to have so much weight....such as " have you ever been involved in a lawsuit"....that's a loaded question...if you were the architect on a job for a city that required a recreation bond issued...then you were involved in a lawsuit..because each bond issuance has to go before the judge as a suit....or you might have had a divorce....or you may have bought a Dell computer and been in a class action.... so if you answer as " I don't think so" instead of yes or no....are you holding something back?  No ..Now, if the question  was have you ever been in a lawsuit over design techncalities and you had been sued for greens construction or drainage or something then you can answer yes or no.....But most of us would hedge ourselves on the first question if you sense the guys asking it have an agenda ( whether they do or not)....
And also when you bring into account "people from all over the country" for a candidate.....who are these people.... DO THEY HAVE TRUE DIRECT KNOWLEDGE?  let me ask a simple question....doesn't it seem that one would value the opinions, letters and interviews of appointed evalautors with an owner much more than gossip?  And if they are so confident in the so-called "people from all over the country"...why don't they confront the candidate with the concern directly and hear another side...GET YOUR ETHICS QUESTIONS ANSWERED FROM OWNERS
Some situations where "people from all over the country" may be biased....
A golf professional or management company person has used two prominent ASGCA "signature" architects in the past and he is doing a job with one of us "I am not worthy " types....let's just say something happens for the company to no longer be on the project( you know other wife porking and stuff) you have an issue with the guy  and that guy tells his two ASGCA buddies how bad you are.....weigh it( of there will be two sides) DO YOU COUNT HIM
I have seen a contractor tell a client that he will not work for one of us "I am not worthy" types because we are not ASGCA...now understand this was all a roll of the dice for this particular contractor because he was working to make sure his ASGCA contact got the job with him.....now you get the job and the contractor comes kissing..and you have your own guys.....DO YOU COUNT HIM?
Or what about the contractors where you have approved less payment than they requested or other issues....they don't walk away on your side...
All of the above is how crap gets started and myself....I usually take it with a grain of salt because I have heard it about everyone in the business whether ASGCA or not....
And so trust me...i am not sitting here begging to get into ASGCA....been there and done that....I am bitching because of " what they say when they don't say".....their basic language in type denigrates outsiders which in itself is a violation of their ethics#8....
And I am not intimidated by ASGCA members work vs. my own....

You see you have to expect such bitching when someone passes all the written requirements ,,,,because what you say by not saying is that that person ethics are worse than 180 other members....I call pure bullshit....now all of that is fine if you are a fraternity..but all this promotion is done as " for the good of golf"  yada yada yada...so the public doesn't see ASGCA as a frat....

got to go play golf now but give you two thoughts before I get back on here later....

...if Tom Doak had not done Pacific Dunes and other prominent courses after writing the Confidential Guide...do you think guys would be trying to get him in?  HELL NO

and, with all due respect for associates ad their talents...do you think you can really be the architect of a project as an EMPLOYEE and not the owner of the firm?  I don't.....

And finally...again...none of this is personal with ASGCA member mentioned above....the one's that give me a hassle don't even now me....I just think it is petty frat type stuff.....

Rodney King....oops I mean Mike   " why can't we all just get along"

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

I doubt anyone is interested in joining ASGCA (or AIA or ASLA) to run it down, dumb it down, etc.  And I think I pointed out in previous posts, BTW, that you are among a handful who has simply chosen not to join, like Wilson in his generation, etc.  We don't get everybody. 

I don't think its a bad thing for a professional society to set standards.  Traditionally, that is what they try to do.  Being a member suggests that you agree with those standards and are willing to further them and abide by them.  Not being a member can suggest a lot of things but you would be hard pressed to find any examples of ASGCA denigrating any non-member. I do know of examples of members who individually will tell clients that it is preferable to hire ASGCA members. 

I looked at the AIA and ASLA web sites for comparables.  From the ASLA web site regarding membership beneifits:

ASLA Professional Designation  Only ASLA members can use the professional designation. This exclusive credential shows clients and peers a commitment to the highest level of professionalism, giving you an important competitive edge.

Having initials behind your name, should you choose to join an organization is apparently seen by the other professions as a membership benefit, too.  It goes with the territory.

I decided I didn't need to be on the defensive to state my support for ASGCA as a professional organization any more.  And while my post somewhat exaggerated and combined the anti-ASGCA opinions stated here (humorously I hoped) it conveyed the flip side of what it would seem like to ASGCA and many others if it were run according to the wishes apparently expressed in this thread.  I doubt we could be of any assistence to golf at all if we didn't try to maintain high standards.

Nor do I want readers here to just presume that we "get it wrong" in how we set our standards or conduct our membership process just because a few gca.comers say its true.  While I have always admitted that we aren't perfect, we get our membership process right about 99% of the time and our standards have served us, golf and the golf industry as well as AIA and ASLA have served their members and the public. 

[Ian Andrew]

I think Jeff has tried very hard to answer questions and keep his frustration in check. This is a no-win situation for Jeff trying to answer questions – and yet he continues to try explain things. The thread is beginning to deteriorate and become personal. I knew it eventually would and that’s why I have not participated.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ian,

Yeah, and I have been quite cheesed at you lack of defense of ASGCA.....not that its personal, ya know!

[Kyle Harris]

The question remains:

Does having five courses to your name prove skill in golf architecture or skill in selling a plan?

How many ASGCA members have built golf courses that are virtually unmaintainable without a significant budget? How many require/rely on golf cart revenue or use for the sake of getting golfers around in a reasonable amount of time.

What's good for the game is less time consuming rounds at less cost. What's good for the business is revenue generation and repeat business. Some similarities there, but often what's good for the business gets caught up in getting the most out of the golfer per round instead of the most rounds per golfer.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()