Despite my relatively low number of posts, I do have some thoughts on the issues raised in Ran's, as well as Jeff Fortson's, post. To begin with, this board is a tremendous resource. I was drawn here when Ron Whitten wrote a Golf Digest review of Black Creek in Chattanooga. He wrote about how Brian Silva had designed the course as a tribute to Seth Raynor's architectural style. I had no idea who Raynor was but was fascinated by his descriptions of the holes and the accompanying pictures. In the internet version of this article, there was a link to Ran's review of Black Creek. I found his descriptions and commentary fascinating and wanted to learn more about this subject. Seven years ago, he was kind enough to allow me into this group.
Since that time, this site has certainly given me more than I have contributed to it. I try not to participate in a thread unless I have something substantive to add. Usually, that involves mainly courses in Ohio and the Midwest since that is where I have played most of my golf. Hence, my low number of posts. However, as a result of this site, my horizons have been broadened and I have played a number of interesting and wonderful courses that I never would have known about except for discussions here (Yale, Lookout Mountain, The Creek, Mountain Lake, Hidden Creek, Holston Hills, Kirtland to name a few). The people that I have met through this board at events like the Dixie Cup, Pat Mucci's Hidden Creek outing, Mike Sweeney's charity outing to benefit his son Dusty's school at the Creek and other get togethers have been top notch. Interesting people who are fun to be around and excited about this topic.
I find most people who contribute here to be intelligent and insightful. I am put off by the suggestion, as someone said to me last year, that "all the smart guys have left." I find that attitude insulting and demeaning to those people who are still active here and to Ran, whom I have never met but am constantly amazed at his ability to recall and analyze a course after a single playing. If he is not one of the smart guys, I don't know who qualifies for that distinction. Sure, some valuable contributors have left this site. Some have jumped, some may have been pushed but to constantly bemoan their absence is a bit much. It is well known where some of them hang out in cyberspace. Look there. Call them. Email them. But spare most of us the insinuation that we are not worthy of gracing this group. It is Ran (and Ben's) playground, if I am no longer welcome here so be it. I will thank Ran for the experience and the knowledge that I have gained here, continue to lurk and will move on with my life.
What I do find disappointing about this group is that over the past year it has devolved, to some extent, to a 1500 member golf version of Facebook. At times, the emphasis is not on participation but on personality. I enjoy humor and the occasional good natured banter here. The quirky nature of some of the people here has its charms. But some feel it is more important to be a GCA personality rather than a GCA contributor. This is not to single this participant out because I like him and would tee it up with him at any time. But if I see the picture of Dr. Gray on the mower at St. Andrews one more time, I think I will puke. Get a Facebook page. Friend me (or unfriend me). Let me look at all the pictures of you in your caddie outfit and in bars with women licking your face there. Here, give me your thoughts on golf architecture. You have them and some of them are quite interesting. Let's see more of that and less of the "look at me" posts. Slow down, consult spell check or a dictionary and show us what you've got. I don't mean to pick on Dr. Gray and in many ways find him refreshing. If I offend, my apologies. It is not intended to be so. It is an example that comes immediately to mind. Maybe because he is such a constant presence here. There are others out there. The ratio of tripe to quality has increased somewhat. That doesn't invalidate the site. It just makes it more difficult to find the wheat among the chaff.
The other thing I find is that people mistake passion for wisdom. We are all passionate about golf and golf course architecture but that does not necessarily translate into having something meaningful to say on every topic. It appears that some feel a need to chime in just to let us know that they are still among us. A dog yapping in the night does the same thing... and contributes about as much to this site. That isn't to say that every post saying "Great photo tour" or "*" should disappear. But how about a comment or question that moves the discussion along? A sixteen year old in love is passionate, but does not necessarily have insight or wisdom. Mix in some analysis, do some homework, give some examples.
There is a lot of good stuff on this website. The photo tours of Sagebrush and Sand Hills were phenomenal. Ed Oden posted an interesting thread on how architects renovating Ross courses have their own distinct style. There are other topics of note. However, many have been pushed off the first page by at least five discussions of whether Dustin Johnson got screwed on the 72nd hole of the PGA. Those topics get traction because they are easy to discuss. It's like the great actor who on his deathbed said, "Dying is easy. Comedy is hard." Golf talk is easy, architecture discussion is hard. Let's try to ramp up the discussion of architecture. I know I will.