ASGCA

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kyle,

How can the question remain when you just asked it?

Those five courses are reviewed by ASGCA members.  I doubt that "Dog Poo CC" would be allowed as a qualifying course by most evaluators.  Even so, most would think that the ability to sell a plan is an important part of being a professional gca.  As stated, we want people who are practicing in the biz and if they can't sell, it won't be too long before they aren't in the biz.  That is why I think the five course rule is pretty good. Its about the minimum where you would feel comfy that an applicant is in the business full time.

As to what is good for golf and design, with all due respect, I don't think any of us has a lock on that, nor do I think that high end courses like that really make up the majority of the market, even if we discuss those the most.  Nor do I think cart use has risen constantly over the last 40 years because of design. Its the other way around, design has changed because of cart use.

And lastly, I can name a lot of examples of both ASGCA and Non ASGCA, high end and low end (trying to get to the high end) gca's who have built hard to maintain courses.  However, I think the middle market is bigger than you think, and when I design a course, my clients always tell me to consider maintenance and the super is usually on site to match the design to the equipment being purchased, etc.

Lastly Part Deux,

Imagine how ASGCA would be percieved if we set out strict guidelines for our members to design to!  We don't do that. We believe that we band together whereever we can for the good of the profession and the game, but we each try to design distinct, individual golf courses.  If we set design for maintenance guidelines there would be no Pete Dye designs, for example.

Lastly Part Tres,

Many of those high end courses are doing pretty well.  I agree that the trend in the 1990's was for most courses to aim at the high end because that was where the market was at the time.  While that market is gone, those courses that were once high end have been sold at bargain basement prices and many reopen as some of the best mid market courses the world has ever seen, which while painful for the Owners and banks, is good for mid price golfers.  That is not a new trend.  Many, many city courses were once private clubs or privately owned publics.

[Kyle Harris]

Jeff,

Within your answer, I believe, lay the problem.

The GCSAA and PGA set education standards and guidelines and also set standards for continuing education for its members. They don't tell members how to maintain their golf courses or golf shops, nor do they give any oversight on such management. They simply ask their members to continue educating themselves.

As far as I know, there are no objectives set forth by the ASGCA. Yes, you have said time and again that the ASGCA does not purport to "certify" golf architects, however, there still exists a public perception that that is what ASGCA actually is.

In fact, I have a well-put article penned by you on the cork board above my desk about wet approach areas. You're in your Ross Tartan blazer... no doubt to give yourself some credibility in penning the article. Whether or not that is actually what you say, the symbols of your membership do imply some sort of certification or reliability - however, the standards for your organization do not represent that.

Even if I were vehemently opposed to a standard set by the ASGCA, I'd be much more comfortable knowing that SOME sort of meaning were applied to the membership.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kyle,

You are just dead wrong about their being no objectives set out by ASGCA. Read the website or some of the posts on the other thread.  Continuing Education is a big part of the service we provide our members.

In one of my recent posts on the other thread, I show that ASLA for one, do believe that someone who joins their organization has demonstrated some kind of reliability.   Howewer, its even stronger in ASGCA because we do something other than just take the check. Of course, we don't have licensing to fall back on (but then landscape architects don't have it in all states either) to prove reliability so we review candidates.

We NEVER have said we certify anyone and I don't know how I can stop the public perception on the part of some that we do.  I trust that MOST know the difference.  I think there is meaning to a membership - the group sets certain professional standards and I agree they are worthy and try to uphold them.  That is what professional socieities do and why architects join them.

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle,

You are just dead wrong about their being no objectives set out by ASGCA. Read the website or some of the posts on the other thread.  Continuing Education is a big part of the service we provide our members.

In one of my recent posts on the other thread, I show that ASLA for one, do believe that someone who joins their organization has demonstrated some kind of reliability.   Howewer, its even stronger in ASGCA because we do something other than just take the check. Of course, we don't have licensing to fall back on (but then landscape architects don't have it in all states either) to prove reliability so we review candidates.

We NEVER have said we certify anyone and I don't know how I can stop the public perception on the part of some that we do.  I trust that MOST know the difference.  I think there is meaning to a membership - the group sets certain professional standards and I agree they are worthy and try to uphold them.  That is what professional socieities do and why architects join them.

Jeff,

For starters, you can treat the symbols of your organization like the Masons or other fraternal organizations do, and not like the PGA or GSCAA do.

Why do golf architects have the ASGCA logo printed next to their names on the scorecards for their courses? This IMPLIES certification and meaning, regardless of what you say.

The PGA sets rigid standards for the use of their symbol and if the organization cares that deeply about the true perception of their purpose - the organization needs to take better care of its symbols.

The tenor of my post is to indicate that the usage of membership symbols and your explanations of the lack of external guidelines do not match up in the court of public perception.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I agree it implies meaning and is intended to imply meaning as described above. I don't agree that it implies certification.  Please give me an example of where there is credible self certification?  Its either done by a govt agency or an independent agency like the ASTM for construction materials.  For AIA, ASGCA, ASLA, AMA or whatever accreditations you see at the end of films, etc. its just a signifier that you are a member of the leading professional organization for tha profession. 

Yes, I would hope it implies that you were good enough to get in.  I think most people presume that if you are a top practitioner, you want to join an organization that helps you with your common needs.

We do have limitations on how members use their title and the symbol.  Without looking it up, I doubt they are much different than the PGA or the GCSAA.  Most pros and supers put their logos up behind the desk and many put their affilitation on the scorecard, too.  ASGCA encourages members to get design credit on the score card and to use the ASGCA designation.

WTF is the problem with that?  Here is an excerpt from the AMA website: 

What Can the AMA Do for You?

As an AMA member, you'll have access to invaluable resources for every stage of your career—from medical ethics and exploration of legal issues to CME and practice management.

You'll also be able to take part in our member groups, expanding your network and learning from others with similar needs.

Learn more about discounts, free medical journal subscriptions and other valuable benefits

and, for those who just think ASGCA is a trade group, this

The AMA protects your interests now and as a physician by representing you on monumental topics such as medical education debt relief, access to care for the uninsured and improving resident working conditions.

I guess you would argue that your doctor being a member of AMA somehow confers that he is a licenced physcisan?  Well he doesn't have to be if he has an intern membership.  The point is, professional socieites do imply standards are being set for the good of the profession and are advocates for the profession. I guess just because you don't understand that, that ASGCA is bound to alter its mission.

Kyle, sadly you have made several misstatements about ASGCA and what it does.   And it gets frustrating to be the one who chooses to answer non issues you raise wrongly.

[Kyle Harris]

Jeff,

It must be equally frustrating to have me explain that the ASGCA confers no license, nor implies a quality golf course to the people I've met on the golf course that think otherwise!

That's my case. The ASGCA is allowing itself to be misrepresented by the careless use of its symbols of membership. It does not matter what the organization actually says because that message is not broadcast, and it's an insult to golfer intelligence to actually expect the ASGCA letters to have meaning once the truth is explained.

Furthermore, a member may take design credit, have his name on the card with the ASGCA logo and may not have spent ANY time on the project...

If the organization is content to allow itself to be misrepresented by its membership as a whole, that's fine. But you can't possibly tell me that having Tom Fazio's name on a scorecard with the ASGCA logo next to it when a non-ASGCA associate of Tom's worked on the project is in any way a quality representation of the organization.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kyle,

I am still not quite sure what you are trying to say, but I will make sure that HQ sees your thoughts. 

I doubt they will agree that the members are misreprenting themselves but some changes might be made. I know that the points raised here have fostered some discussions because it is not really our intent to slam non members. I know we don't do it officially and directly but perhaps even the implications can be reduced a bit.  I noticed in a recent press release that we have changed our wording from "leading" to "experienced" architects.  I guess you could say leading is subjective, and experience is a bit more empirical because we know a member has designed or co-designed five courses.

So, its not that we are not aware of issues non members have with our representations, even though I think we have every right to make them.  We believe our stature has grown among the allied associations considerably with out programs over the years. We would be interested in being aware of what the general public thinks.  It is a tougher nut to crack, of course, both in determining what is a consensus opinion, or even if ASGCA really registers with the golfing public or not.

I suspect it doesn't, sadly.  I think we have always considered our target audience for the message as it were, golf course developers and existing clubs that may be undertaking a project, and giving them some resources and a place to look for qualified gca's.  Of course, NGF also had a list which lists non members, now Golf Inc. prints a mixed list of gca's, etc.  So, we are not the only source, just a source.  In any case, that still doesn't strike me as a bad goal, whether done by ASGCA or others.

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle,

I am still not quite sure what you are trying to say, but I will make sure that HQ sees your thoughts. 

I doubt they will agree that the members are misreprenting themselves but some changes might be made. I know that the points raised here have fostered some discussions because it is not really our intent to slam non members. I know we don't do it officially and directly but perhaps even the implications can be reduced a bit.  I noticed in a recent press release that we have changed our wording from "leading" to "experienced" architects.  I guess you could say leading is subjective, and experience is a bit more empirical because we know a member has designed or co-designed five courses.

So, its not that we are not aware of issues non members have with our representations, even though I think we have every right to make them.  We believe our stature has grown among the allied associations considerably with out programs over the years. We would be interested in being aware of what the general public thinks.  It is a tougher nut to crack, of course, both in determining what is a consensus opinion, or even if ASGCA really registers with the golfing public or not.

I suspect it doesn't, sadly.  I think we have always considered our target audience for the message as it were, golf course developers and existing clubs that may be undertaking a project, and giving them some resources and a place to look for qualified gca's.  Of course, NGF also had a list which lists non members, now Golf Inc. prints a mixed list of gca's, etc.  So, we are not the only source, just a source.  In any case, that still doesn't strike me as a bad goal, whether done by ASGCA or others.

Jeff,

I think it's simply a perception of the fact that someone felt it was worthwhile enough to throw that symbol and someone's name on a scorecard as though it had some significance.

Of course, there is significance so don't think I'm trying to argue there is none! However, simply naming a name is how one gives credit for work.

To take a symbol of an organization and place it next to the name to denote membership brings a whole new level of perception to the field. For someone to go to that trouble indicates that the symbols means something and should mean something to the golfer.

What does it mean to the golfer, is the question. I can't possibly say this is categorical, but I've had more than a handful of discussions about what the ASGCA is and how one becomes a member. Ultimately, most golfers seem to conclude it's simply a better way to market one's self as an architect as opposed to a trademark of quality.

The thing is, I do believe that YOUR (Jeff Brauer) and YOUR (ASGCA) intents are honest and pure... however, can this be said for all your members, especially when things are lean on the new development front?

That is the problem with these organizations, the members only row in the same direction when there is nothing at stake.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kyle,

Well, we do joke that we beat each others brains out 51 weeks a year and then get together to talk about it the other week!  Sitting together with your competitors can be an awkward situation but we handle it pretty well. I know that there are gca's I just hated in my mind because I lost so many jobs to them.  Then I sit down with them and find out they are nice guys and feel like they lost a lot of jobs to me....that turns out to be a common thing for both members and non members alike!

I know it took the contractors a lot longer to sit down and form a real professional organization.  The feeling I got was that they were afraid of sharing too much info at the bar since they are often in bid situations.  On the other hand, Pete Dye rarely (if ever) went against me for a job and was always free with the advice.  I would try to give advice to anyone on the lower rungs who would listen until I realized I was on about the lowest rung we had.

Like you, I can't say what golfers think of ASGCA. As I said, I doubt it registers if the grass is green, the beer is cold and the cart girls are hot.  I understand that ASGCA has the dual edged sword of sort of promoting uniform quality as a message while at the same time promoting diverse designs.  I can recall voting down a high profile guy because he made it seem like he was just in it for the money and I can recall members who got in with a modest, but earnest portfolio of low budget courses, or average courses built on difficult sites, etc.  Both are important to gca and golf, but I can see how someone might get confused if they expected to play a 5 star course just becuase it was an ASGCA member who designed it. 

So, that is some food for thought for HQ.

[Kyle Harris]

Jeff,

I think it would be a huge boon for the ASGCA if they simply just came out and said that this is a group of architects that will deliver a project in a reasonable amount of time and on-budget given normal circumstances. This leaves the artistic element up to the architect. Maybe you guys do already say that, but it's not the message getting out to the laymen, and by some of the implications on this thread is not the message getting to all the contractors or developers.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I will pass it on.  While I think that is our message, I get the feeling that its time to refresh it a bit. 

[Mike_Young]

I go to play golf for 5 hours and come back and KYLE you have had Jeff working all morning on this stuff....give him a break....and Ian has a point also....he doesn't have to say a word or put himself in front of this group in any way...appreciate that...

And a few of the points you were making to him really confuse me  as a no-member.  I have ZERO problem with an architects name being on a scorecard with the ASGCA logo even if an associate did all the work..because he is paying the guy and he is responsible...simple as that....the world works that way and always has and always will.....whether a homebuilder, Ledbetter style teaching center, whatever....and many of the associates may have 5 courses but they really don't have the experience of the guy taking the heat.....it just ain't the same....

Now I did pick up a few interesting notes in all of the banter between you and Jeff...

1- Jeff mentions..Even so, most would think that the ability to sell a plan is an important part of being a professional gca.  As stated, we want people who are practicing in the biz and if they can't sell, it won't be too long before they aren't in the biz.  That is why I think the five course rule is pretty good. Its about the minimum where you would feel comfy that an applicant is in the business full time. 
AMEN to Jeff...take a few hours and read the site and see how many members have not sold one of their five courses....and have never had to....been my point all along......

2-  Somewhere in one of the thread the "allied associations of golf " gets mentioned.  The allied associations of golf are associations and not societies.....The ASGCA in the allied associations of golf is sort f like the Sigma Nu Fraternity being in the SEC    
if the PGA used a process like the ASGCA..half the golf pros would not be members....
So anyway..if the American Bar Assoc had the same entry requirements, Clinton, Bush Sotomoyor, Clarence Thomas and others would have had years when they could not have gotten in ( all according to who was on the board or membership committee)
 
I think maybe golf Architecture does need an association and from that societies can exist....much like a university with fraternities....

I can agree with 90% of what Jeff says and most of ASGCA....I think when he tells you they listen and change..he is correct....the young man that is the Executive Director is solid and sincere.....BUT you just cannot have a few guys that want to be judge and jury over other guys and play little games...we all live in glass houses.....as Jeff says regarding selling.....same goes for ethics and character....we don't all like each other or agree but if a guy stays in business it says what needs to be said.

Also....yes....some ASGCA members constantly use the ASGCA card in interviews and with unknowing committees...BUT I don't blame them....some even wear the blazer(I think they put it on when they get there....they don't want to be changing a tire on the road or anything or walk in McDonalds and be seen...especially in South Ga )  But I don't care.....

All ASGCA needs to do if they are really sincere as to "Good for the game" etc....is act as an Association and not a society even though they have every right to do so and operate as they do.....

Well I am going to try to take the afternoon  to make me one of those little ASGCA signs but with a slash thru it sort of like the "no smoking" sign for my scorecards.....  

[Ben Sims]

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.

Jeff,

Wow.  I am flabbergasted.  It took me rousing the collective with additions by names in the business on this website to consider an outreach to new talent?  I guess that's a good thing.

If all that comes of this entire thread is a new awareness about the issues discussed and even just a second of consideration by the society about those issues of perception, then my motive will be served.  I really like what Mike Y. said above. "All ASGCA needs to do if they are really sincere as to "Good for the game" etc....is act as an Association and not a society even though they have every right to do so and operate as they do....."  

Jeff, you are to be highly commended for your insights and defense of the society.  You have written over a dozen and a half posts on this thread alone, educating me and others.  We don't always agree, but for the most part, the discussion has been respectful, if controversial.

[John_Conley]

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.

Tom, Jeff has been attacked here from multiple angles.  Is he picking sides and denigrating others to thump his chest and claim superiority?  No.  He's not, he's not like that, and you know that. 

Two choices - say nothing or respond to these questions.  Jeff chose the latter and no matter what, some won't be satisified with his answer.  Do you for one minute think Mike Young is going to say, "yup, makes sense."  Is Ben Sims going to say, "thanks, I get it now."  No.  They aren't.

Is the world better off without the ASGCA? 

[Mike_Young]

John,
I hope you don't think I have been jumping on Jeff.  He is a friend of mine....
Can you explain the question where I should say "yep it makes sense"?  I have no problem admitting a mistake if you can show me where ....I will be glad to say "yep it makes sense"....
But I do agree....Jeff usually takes the heat here on this site when it comes to ASGCA.....I don't know that I would do it.....
Take care,
Mike

[John_Conley]

Mike, gladly.  Sorry my fragmented thoughts aren't clear.

You wanted to join, met all of the criteria, and were denied admittance because of a fuzzy area they can always revert to if they want to keep someone out.  No matter how it is explained, I think you'll always have a valid point to come back and question the admissions process.

Above you've done a great job detailing many of the issues that can/could arise in a competitive business.  Like you've mentioned in your posts today, Jeff has done a good job of taking the heat.  Some guys on this board seem to want to keep taking it further.

Things are well for me.  Glad you've had time to get out for a few rounds of golf recently!

[Mike_Young]

ok...makes sense

Go see Rymer in the studio one day....let me know and will call and you can watch them shoot the afternoon news or one of the teaching sessions or something....
Hope things are well...

Mike

[Ryan Farrow]

Jeff, it looks like you took the ASGCA thread answering to a new level. I'm learning a little something more every time.

While there are legitimate arguments against some things the ASGCA does and maybe the very premise of it, I feel you get a bad slant from this board since their favorite GCA (s) is not a member.

1. I think a new membership level for associates would garner a lot of interest.

2. I have no problem with the 5 course limit: I also think its a good # (Since I was born and raised here, I cannot question the words of any ODG's) but I see no need to require 3 in the last 5 years.

Especially in this economy, and this golf industry (which is going down & probably not coming back up), It just does not seem reasonable. If you are an associate at a big/busy firm, that is one thing, but these 1 man firms will have a hard time finding that much work to keep them qualified. I think the 5 courses is enough to keep out everyone that should be kept out. IMO,you extend or remove the time limit, or start excepting less then complete re-model jobs & small practice facilities (not to take anything away from Mike Nuzzo) or new membership may cease entirely.

3. Have you had problems getting members to Asia to evaluate courses? What if someone designs their 5 courses overseas and the society can't find the volunteers to rate these golf courses and interrogate the clients?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ryan,

In fact the three in five years was changed recently and expanded by a year, I think. Also, two of the five could be major renovations, which is traditional, but when things got busy, we made all five be new courses with routings.  So, we do actually tweak the definition of five courses, even though we keep five courses as the benchmark. I think its so all members can say they got in on roughly the same standard.  Without that, we would really be open to charges of subjectivity.

As you probably know, there is already an associate level.  That is where new members go until they design two more courses to attain full membership.  If we were going to do another level, it would have to be called something else.  AMA has intern status and AIA has apprentice status.  We have discussed it, but so far, don't see the value or practicality in it.

Another point to consider on the big firm thing - for ASGCA membership only one person can claim to have been the major assistant/project architect.  If three guys get in from one firm in a year, then it means they must have done 15 courses over the last five years, at least. And we do check to make sure they just aren't given the title to get in.  So, big firms naturally will have more members than small firms, which seems to make sense.

Mike Young,

Good to see a sense of humor here. You should go on the Merion thread and lighten that one up.  I have heard the trade association argument as well, but I posted the AMA and AIA snippets to show that any professional society DOES concern itself with the business side of the, ah, well, business.  I laughed when one of the benefits of AMA was collecting bills quicker from Medicaid or some such.  Why should ASGCA be any different, since the business aspect is one of the areas of mutual concern - much more so than design where we all try to be different.

[Mike_Young]

Jeff,
It don't get no better than arguing this stuff on an internet site and watching saturday nite live....watching Ryan Fellows....yep.....

ah.....with all due respect I think AMA and AIA are associations and not societies.....

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

I knew you should be on the Merion thread. You can parse words with the best of them!  Now if only they put wi fi and big screens in Waffle House, your Sat. night would be perfect.


But since you made the distinction, I looked up this transcript in Wikipedia about professional associations and they say the term is interchangeable with others, I copied the whole thing, not just the snippets:


A professional association (also called a professional body, 'professional organization, professional association or professional society) is a non-profit organization seeking to further a particular profession, the interests of individuals engaged in that profession, and the public interest.

The roles of these professional associations have been variously defined: "A group of people in a learned occupation who are entrusted with maintaining control or oversight of the legitimate practice of the occupation;"[citation needed] also a body acting "to safeguard the public interest;"[citation needed] organizations which "represent the interest of the professional practitioners," and so "act to maintain their own privileged and powerful position as a controlling body."[1]

Such bodies generally strive to achieve a balance between these two often conflicting mandates. Though professional bodies often act to protect the public by maintaining and enforcing standards of training and ethics in their profession, they often also act like a cartel or a labor union (trade union) for the members of the profession, though this description is commonly rejected by the body concerned.

Therefore, in certain dispute situations the balance between these two aims may get tipped more in favor of protecting and defending the professionals than in protecting the public. An example can be used to illustrate this. In a dispute between a lawyer and his/her client or between a patient and his/her doctor, the Law Society of England and Wales or the General Medical Council will inevitably find itself plunged into a conflict of interest in (a) its wish to defend the interests of the client, while also (b) wishing to defend the interests, status and privileges of the professional. It is clearly a tough call for it do both.

Many professional bodies are involved in the development and monitoring of professional educational programs, and the updating of skills, and thus perform professional certification to indicate that a person possesses qualifications in the subject area. Sometimes membership of a professional body is synonymous with certification, though not always. Membership of a professional body, as a legal requirement, can in some professions form the primary formal basis for gaining entry to and setting up practice within the profession; see licensure.

I am sure you, Tony R and a few others will take note of certain portions of that definition, and I cannot say that there aren't potential conflicts of interest in unusual situations.  Please note that certification is not necessarily synonmous with membership.  There are no laws stopping anyone from being a gca, and as far as I know, ASGCA has never attempted to formally stop anyone from practicing, albeit we have denied membership to some and as noted, a few individuals use ASGCA in shop talk as a percieved advantage for their marketing.

Just FYI.  There could be a lot of things taken out of this Wikipedia definition. It might take 100 pages or so to parse out the meanings of the words contained in that small definition, don't you think?

[Ben Sims]

John,

I have asked questions of merit.  I haven't challenged the knowledge of Jeff Brauer.  When I get back from a round of golf and see 10 new posts from various architects with sound explanation from the two guys defending ASGCA--Jeff and Forrest--I ask more questions.  Is this so wrong?  The pros and cons are both illustrating their points and continuing the dialogue.  I haven't once intentionally attacked anybody.

I guess you want me, or Mike Y., or Tony R. to just say "oh that makes sense, I love how the society conducts business now".

When a healthy, provocative and respectful debate is going well on this site, why would you want to denigrate those that are on one side of the argument?  It's not like "other" threads where people call each other names and insinuate lawsuits and murders and such.   

I have repeatedly thanked Jeff for his inclusion in this thread.  Of course I don't believe that the world is better off without ASGCA.  But could the world be even better with a different ASGCA?  In my humble opinion, yes.  Like I mentioned above, my motives of starting this thread are served if it effects any change in behavior or stimulates thought.  Gathering from the most recent 20 or so posts, it has done just that.

I also appreciate your involvment and I hope this clears up why I continue to ask questions.

[Mike_Young]

Jeff,
I might need a wi-fi Waffle house..you saw where Phil Mickelson s trying to buy the 105 WH in Nashville area didn't you?

But can you guys ride those electric bulls on Saturday nites and do text on wifi at the same time?  Didn't think so...

Yep...will probably take 100 pages but not from me....your smarter than me if you know how to make that text print red....

I can't speak for others that have been disallowed in the ASGCA  ....I'll just cut thru the crap....I'll put $10,000 dollars with a neutral party and give it to the first guy that shows me where my body of work, abilities , character and ethics is worse than  any member I choose in the ASGCA....now that would be fun wouldn't....we could video tape that question and answer session and get at least two seasons of a pretty good soap opera.....but I'm willing...  and you can stop answering all these post....
I got to go to bed..just got some new pajamas with individual toe slots in the foot sections..they are nice....but hard to put on....good nite....

[John_Conley]

When a healthy, provocative and respectful debate is going well on this site, why would you want to denigrate those that are on one side of the argument? 

Ben, ay.  Rub.

I'm not sure which is less becoming, someone that asks questions under the false pretenses of gathering knowledge when they already have their mind made up, or someone that's numb to the fact they're doing it.

You would do well to follow Young's lead.  All his cards are on the table.

[paul cowley]

I have just returned late yesterday from 6 days on a job site with no cell and limited Internet....so I'm playing a little catch up here.
I am proud to say that [as usual] my learned colleagues...Jeff and Forrest...have done an excellent job providing information, and repelling mis information about the ASGCA.....these GUYs are good, and they can write without having to stare at the keyboard and hunt and peck with two fingers...as is my case.

One thing that I find interesting about the Society [good name choice], is that it is comprised of a wide variety of individuals, of varied backgrounds, that come together to learn, celebrate, and enjoy each others company....bound by the common element of golf design and its history.

Personally, my route to the Society was through many back doors, using self taught skills and hard work. Not necessarily a path I would suggest future members take, but it worked for me. Being goal driven, my decision to join the ASGCA was one of continual improvement...I knew my work qualified, and I wanted the validation of my peers, as there is really no other form of recognition in this profession aside from the ratings and rankings that the press doles out in a haphazard way....but to thier credit, its a tough job.

Another of the reasons I applied was the opportunity to fraternize and put a face on all the other names I have heard of in this business.....and this has become the biggest joy of membership for me. I have made and continue to make friends in the Society, and our annual meeting is one that I schedule early.
I have pushed Tom Doak as far as I sensibly can to join....not because he needs the recognition of being a member....but because I feel he would enjoy this fraternization similarly....and we would enjoy his company as well.

I think Mike Young chose a path very similar to mine in his design career.
I feel Mike is a qualified as I am to be in the Society....and I'll qualify that further by saying I feel I am as qualified as any of my peers in the group to design golf courses.
If he still has the desire to continue to apply for membership [and I wouldn't blame him if he didn't after all the effort he has made in vain], I think he will prevail.

My bigger fear is that upon achieving his goal, his prize becomes one of "I saw a ball of gold in the sky and climbed to it....and it was clay".

I think he's a fighter though....and as such knows that the fight is half the fun of the journey...and sweetens the prize!


To all the rest of you non members.....The ASGCA isn't about exclusion, prejudice, secret handshakes and trying to gain unfair advantage over others.
It's really only about a group of guys and gals getting together in a non competitive setting to enjoy each others company and to celebrate the game we love....and to learn, educate, advance and protect the standards of the Game.

Simple really.