Golf's Rorschach Test

[Buck Wolter]

Geoff has a great 'article' about Augusta in the newest Links Magazine -- it's a gatefold that took me a few days to even find but its hilarious and skewers a few scared cows -- including this website. Basically takes 10 different types of golfers and gets their comments about ANGC. Doesn't look like its online yet -- but you should already get the magazine.


The article starts-
The best thing about golf course architecture is that everybody is qualified to be a critic. Or is that the worst thing.

I'll give one other quote to give you the flavor-
Golf Architecture Discussion Participant
Favorite Hole: No.5, "I love the homage to the Road hole as well as the use of natural contours to reward the use of telepathy and strategic angles depending on the day's hole location"

Just be glad you're not a USGA Executive Committee Member! Raters may want to not unfold it either.

As an aside, anyone who doesn't check his blog often is missing out  http://www.geoffshackelford.com/

[Phil McDade]

Buck:

I'm not sure those who regularly contribute to this site view themselves collectively as a sacred cow. I think they know they represent a certain mindset about architecture, set-up, conditions, and the "traditional vs. new" debate. Some tend to be quite evangelical about it, and some even suggest it's made a difference -- not the website, but the mindset -- in the development and recognition of well-regarded courses like the Bandon courses and Sand Hills.

As others have mentioned periodically on this website better than me, if you golf with anyone outside the orbit of GCA, discussions about archirtecture and set-up tend to be a moot point -- the everyday golfer just isn't obsessed about this stuff as the average GCAer. But I'm not sure that makes GCA anything of a sacred cow that's worth skewering.

[Buck Wolter]

Buck:

I'm not sure those who regularly contribute to this site view themselves collectively as a sacred cow. I think they know they represent a certain mindset about architecture, set-up, conditions, and the "traditional vs. new" debate. Some tend to be quite evangelical about it, and some even suggest it's made a difference -- not the website, but the mindset -- in the development and recognition of well-regarded courses like the Bandon courses and Sand Hills.

As others have mentioned periodically on this website better than me, if you golf with anyone outside the orbit of GCA, discussions about archirtecture and set-up tend to be a moot point -- the everyday golfer just isn't obsessed about this stuff as the average GCAer. But I'm not sure that makes GCA anything of a sacred cow that's worth skewering.

Phil - You obviously spent more time considering my choice of words than I did. But......

sacred cow 
–noun
an individual, organization, institution, etc., considered to be exempt from criticism or questioning.

Too many on here have lost their sense of humor in my view.

[Phil McDade]

"Too many on here have lost their sense of humor in my view."

Buck:

Some, but not all.

I also think the site itself, and its fairly well-known and well-established sense of no-holds-barred give-and-take, lends itself to the perception that it takes it and its adherents' perspective on these issues, fairly seriously. I'm fairly convinced the immediacy of the web itself (this is going a bit upstream from your initial take ) lends itselt to a sort of my-way-or-highway attitude.

I'm struck that many on here remark that -- upon meeting some of GCA's most prominent and sometimes prickly commentators in person -- they note how nice they are. Happened just a few weeks ago, when a fellow GCAer remarked to me -- in reference to one contributer in particular who I'd met before but he hadn't -- what a nice guy the contributer was in person. I responded: "Oh, that's just his web persona."

[Adam Clayman]

Phil, the average golfer isn't aware about these nuances. "Obsessed" doesn't describe those who are passionate about the FACT that the consumer has been forced fed crap, and told it was great, for too long now.  

[Tim Nugent]

Adam, that's because - until the web and sites like this - the media (print and TV) never had the balls to bite the hand that fed them.  However, here, there is no profit motive, so the commentary is truer and less PC.

[Mike_Young]

Thought Geoff article was right on....
as for this site...sort of like Drucker said...."don't confuse motion with progress"