News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Tony_Muldoon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The 'problem' with the Discussion Group
« Reply #75 on: August 15, 2010, 06:53:12 PM »
Pat I seem to have upset you?  As I said I don't participate so much on here because of the lack of civility and I don't need to justify my contribution on here to you or anyone else.  Please explain how those threads were on topic when you started them.  I always enjoy you arguing long after the cause is lost.

I also have you in high regard as a poster on here but Mayhugh has you right when he says you’re not infallible.

Again I don’t have to tell you the names of the people who have explicitly blamed poor behaviour on here for reasons of not wanting to join. However Ran knows of one of them because the guy turned Ran down for an interview on this site. 

Please reread what I’ve posted because I never said that is the only reason. It’s also typical of you to change someone’s argument to make your own position valid.

I’m outtta this, but feel free to continue with the colour splashes.
 ;D
« Last Edit: August 15, 2010, 06:55:04 PM by Tony_Muldoon »
Let's make GCA grate again!

Phil McDade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The 'problem' with the Discussion Group
« Reply #76 on: August 15, 2010, 06:56:12 PM »
"I'm sitting here watching many of the contenders falter on the clown nose of miniature golf that is Whistling Straits..."{

Ben:

You're not enjoying this? I can't remember a more exciting finish to a major, involving more golfers, and a great bunch of stories to boot.


Patrick_Mucci

Re: The 'problem' with the Discussion Group
« Reply #77 on: August 15, 2010, 07:17:33 PM »
Mr. Mucci,

Why are you yelling?


Who's yelling?


I'm sitting here watching many of the contenders falter on the clown nose of miniature golf that is Whistling Straits and it strikes me that your angst today would be better served in that direction.

What angst ?

I'm also watching.
And, I'm also having fun at the expense of some very uptight people.

Is asking the gallery to block the sunlight a rules violation ?

When he begins his backswing, I didn't notice a mark IN the sand that would indicate that he grounded the club prior to making his swing.
They showed a nice close up of the ball prior to his swing, but not when he began his swing.


I don't consider myself a moron and John Mayhugh certainly is no moron.  
I reread the posts that he hyperlinked and I found arguable golf architectural merit to the second two and zero architectural merit to the first one linked.  This isn't an attack, on the contrary.  It is merely a an attempt to ask you to explain the architectural merit of those threads without name calling or assessing that its obviousness absolves you from discussion.

Perhaps you're late to the site and unaware of the distance issue and how it relates to drivers.
Perhaps you're unaware of how the USGA blinked on driver size.
If you don't see the connection to the distance issue and the distance issue's effect on GCA, then Ben, I'm afraid that you're going to have to be classifed with the others.
 

To be sure, I have no ax to grind with you and I enjoy your posts on this website.  
I wanted that to be written before you got upset.  

Ben, I'm not upset, not in the least.
If you think the typings of some on this site are going to upset me, you don't know me.


As an aside, I would like to formally apologize for PM'ing you a few months back asking for information on NGLA.  I find your passion for the golf course to be infectious and between you and George Bahto, the information is endless.  It wasn't until now that I look at how I approached gathering information and even access to golf courses as uninformed and ignorant at times.  I have tried to change how I approach this website and the members of it.  It wasn't until a few good friends on this website clued me in to how I was presenting myself that I saw the err of my ways.  I--like dozens on this website--weren't brought up to understand the unwritten intricacies of private golf clubs.  It is through sheer want of an education in golf architecture and turf management that I want to see great golf courses.  I am sure that there are some that are trophy hunters.  But for every one of them on this website--in my experience--there are five that only wish to se the course and understand why it is great.

Ben, I never gave your PM a second thought in terms of my responding to Sean Arble about access.
Trust me, your name never came to mind, so don't worry about it.




Patrick_Mucci

Re: The 'problem' with the Discussion Group
« Reply #78 on: August 15, 2010, 07:30:49 PM »

Pat I seem to have upset you? 


Tony, I'm NOT upset.
You didn't upset me.
I just thought you were being a little pedantic.


As I said I don't participate so much on here because of the lack of civility and I don't need to justify my contribution on here to you or anyone else. 

I'm not so sure.
When you made a veiled threat I just thought I'd respond accordingly.


Please explain how those threads were on topic when you started them. 
I always enjoy you arguing long after the cause is lost.

Did you bother to read the threads about the drivers ?
Have you read any threads having to do with the distance problem and GCA ?
If you can't connect the two, then, what can I say.................. moron  ;D.


I also have you in high regard as a poster on here but Mayhugh has you right when he says you’re not infallible.

I NEVER said I was infallible.


Again I don’t have to tell you the names of the people who have explicitly blamed poor behaviour on here for reasons of not wanting to join.

And, you can't take an isolated incident and craft it into a generality.
You know that.  And, if you don't...................... moron  ;D


However Ran knows of one of them because the guy turned Ran down for an interview on this site. 

Maybe Ran didn't offer to pay him as much as he pays the others


Please reread what I’ve posted because I never said that is the only reason.
It’s also typical of you to change someone’s argument to make your own position valid.


Oh, so now you're claiming that someone broke into your computer and has been typing and posting under your name ?
I haven't changed anything you or the moron who broke into your computer has typed.


I’m outtta this, but feel free to continue with the colour splashes.
 ;D


Scott Warren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The 'problem' with the Discussion Group
« Reply #79 on: August 15, 2010, 09:06:13 PM »
Ran,

24hrs after posting the OP of this thread you register a fake user as Dustin Johnson for a laugh?

Maybe I've missed something, but I am confused.

Michael Whitaker

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The 'problem' with the Discussion Group
« Reply #80 on: August 15, 2010, 11:19:08 PM »
Pat - I'm definitely not a moron and I don't see that these treads are directly related to golf course architecture. Neither are your annual threads on whether CBS is enhancing the color green during their broadcast of the Masters golf tournament.
"Solving the paradox of proportionality is the heart of golf architecture."  - Tom Doak (11/20/05)

Billsteele

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The 'problem' with the Discussion Group
« Reply #81 on: August 15, 2010, 11:25:04 PM »
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.
 
 

 
« Last Edit: August 16, 2010, 12:02:29 AM by Billsteele »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The 'problem' with the Discussion Group
« Reply #82 on: August 16, 2010, 02:30:53 AM »
David, first off let me say I'm not trying to be a wise guy or put you on the spot.  I am curious, however, how many times you've played Merion and how many hours you've spent on site.  The same question goes for the other antagonists.

Kindest regards,

Mike

Mike,

I hope you don't mind me saying so, but while i am sure it was unintentional on your part your question strikes me as one loaded with the implication that only those inside the inner circle of these clubs ought to comment upon them.  Surely that wasn't what you meant, but I have been hearing this quite a lot lately.  Admittedly I may have rabbit ears to the issue, but nonetheless I think it important, so please forgive me if in answering I give a bit detail than you asked for.

I've played Merion East once.  I used to live within walking distance and spent some looking for TEPaul's lost dog, but except for the one round on the East and some twilight rounds on the the West, that's it.   But miraculously, my single play helped me understand that Hugh Wilson's well-known writings on the creation of the course had been completely misunderstood, that he didn't travel abroad to study the great courses until after Merion East was designed built, and that he went to NGLA during the planning phase to learn how the course should be laid out (not for travel advice.)   I learned that CBM was extensively involved in planning the course from the time he helped them choose the land until after he chose their final layout plan for them.  I also noticed lots of other little things - stuff about the neighborhood, the land deals, that Merion's method of measuring golf holes long caused the distances of some of the holes to be exaggerated (conseqently some of Bobby Jones' famous drives were a lot shorter than reported,) that contrary to popular belief  the 10th or "Alps" hole played uphill -- but I won't bore you with all that.  Additionally this one play lead me to strongly suspect that the 1912 version of Merion East had holes based upon the concepts of a redan, a road hole, a long, a short, the first take on CBM's chasm/biarritz (complete with a "valley of sin,") another green with a biarritz swale, a double plateau, probably a hog's back, and a fascinating take on the bottle.  I almost forgot the leven and the cape, probably because the former didn't last long and the latter wouldn't be built for over a decade.    There is more, but you get the message I am sure.

Not bad for one play, huh?  Most of those who have played the course hundreds of times didn't notice any of that stuff and probably never will.  Imagine what I'd find if I ever played there again! (Fat chance.)   I'll admit though that I had a couple of big advantages.  First, I played my hickories. Didn't Ran once start a thread on how that was the best way to understand these old courses?   Second, I am horrible with my hickories, so I got to hit a lot of shots, and from places not likely visited much in the past in 98 years.   Third, I had just played NGLA a few days before, so I was in the right frame of mind to notice CBM's extensive influence.  Fourth, I had an open mind and wasn't burdened with a monolithic version of the history/legend. I went into it with an open mind and still try to keep an open mind to the issue.   Fifth, I am sure I must have stayed at a Holiday Inn at some point on that trip.  Let's see, what am I forgetting?   Oh yeah, the little matter of all the extensive research but surely that hasn't much to do with it.

I don't want to put you on the spot, but now that I've answered, I hope you don't mind if I too ask a few questions . . .
-- None of us played Merion East in 1912.  What does it matter how many times I have played the course a century later?   Does that have any bearing on whether or not I am qualified to comment on Merion's history?
-- Would our understanding of  the history of golf course architecture be improved if only those within the inner circle of these clubs were allowed comment on them.

The reason I ask is that the qualification for participation around here really ought to be what you know, not who you know.  Yet many comments often seem nothing but not-so-subtle attempts to make it about the latter, not the former.   And while I am sure it wasn't your intention, challenging a poster's opinions based upon nothing more than how many times he has played a famous course obviously goes latter as well.  

Best,

David.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2010, 02:37:57 AM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

JC Jones

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The 'problem' with the Discussion Group
« Reply #83 on: August 16, 2010, 07:09:18 AM »
Bill Steele, I love you, I miss you, I need you.

I think you bring up a great point about Ed Oden's Donald Ross thread.  What I found most disappointing is that after Ran's great post, Ed started a great thread and all the people who could probably have some great insight (i.e. Ran, Brad Klein, Pat Mucci, etc.) posted in the Dustin Johnson debacle and not in Ed Oden's great thread.

Things that make you go hmmm....

I get it, you are mad at the world because you are an adult caddie and few people take you seriously.

Excellent spellers usually lack any vision or common sense.

I know plenty of courses that are in the red, and they are killing it.

Phil_the_Author

Re: The 'problem' with the Discussion Group
« Reply #84 on: August 16, 2010, 07:33:10 AM »
David,

I think you may have misunderstood why Michael asked what he did. In fact, I almost asked it myself and for what I believe is the same reason.

YOU stated, "No course is "beneath my gca tastes" to comment on, but why would I comment on courses I've never seen or played and know nothing about?" (bold & Underline mine).

Now I've followed all of the Merion threads and its always been my impression that you've NEVER played Merion based on things I believed you said. Obviously I was wriong, but I think that Michael simply thought the same thing. With that in mind, when someone states "why would I comment on courses I've never seen or played" and they have been participating in numerous heated discussions about a course he seems to not have played, the obvious thing is to question him about it and that is all that Michael did.

Your answer shows that both of us, and I'm sure some others as well, had not realized that you've been to Merion a number of times. 

Michael Whitaker

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The 'problem' with the Discussion Group
« Reply #85 on: August 16, 2010, 10:27:24 AM »
Jason,

You said above, "What I found most disappointing is that after Ran's great post, Ed started a great thread and all the people who could probably have some great insight (i.e. Ran, Brad Klein, Pat Mucci, etc.) posted in the Dustin Johnson debacle and not in Ed Oden's great thread.

Things that make you go hmmm....


Like you I wish the truly knowledgeable folks on this site would contribute to interesting threads like Ed's. Instead, they either stay away or focus only on their own threads.
"Solving the paradox of proportionality is the heart of golf architecture."  - Tom Doak (11/20/05)

Michael Whitaker

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The 'problem' with the Discussion Group
« Reply #86 on: August 16, 2010, 10:28:44 AM »
I'd like to see the participants on this site provided the ability to vote on topics so that really good threads can be highlighted by the group. This feature is built into the SMF software that runs this forum. Here are a few of the feature details from the SMF website:

Feature: POLLS
>>> Can be added or removed to existing topics.
>>> Ability to set expiration date.
>>> Ability to hide results till expiration of poll.
>>> Ability to hide results until after people have voted.
>>> Ability to determine how many votes a user may cast.
>>> Polls can have up to 256 options. 

If we had the ability to vote on the quality or interest level of threads it would reward the good ones and keep people from wasting their time on the bad ones.

Also, I wish Ran would do away with the feature that shows the post count and "ranks" the participants. This forum should not in any way reward quantity instead of quality.

If we dropped the post counts and rewarded quality threads by allowing everyone to cast a vote for them the cream would definitely rise to the top.
"Solving the paradox of proportionality is the heart of golf architecture."  - Tom Doak (11/20/05)

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The 'problem' with the Discussion Group
« Reply #87 on: August 16, 2010, 10:49:42 AM »

Pat - I'm definitely not a moron

We'll be the judge of that.
Often, misspelled words are a sure sign.


and I don't see that these treads are directly related to golf course architecture.

"Treads" ?  I thought this was about GCA not tires.

Here's Ran's quote for the discussion group.
Would you show me where the word, "directly" appears.
Or is the above just another disengenuous reply on your part ?


Golf Course Architecture (free access forum)
A free access board for the discussion of golf course architecture related matters.

I thought drivers and the distance issue, especially as it impacts the obsolescence of architectural features, was related.
How is it that you think they're not ?[/b]
[/color]

Neither are your annual threads on whether CBS is enhancing the color green during their broadcast of the Masters golf tournament.

I don't initiate annual threads on the use of filters, that's just another disengenuous statement on your part.

However, in one of the golf broadcasts this year they mentioned that they're not using filters and that's why the greens looked so splotchy (sp?)and discolored.

It must be difficult for you to accept that you're wrong on the filter issue.
Obviously, like a woman scorned, you can't get over it ;D

By the way, how many threads have you initiated ?


Ran was quite clear in this post.

ONLY a MORON wouldn't understand the gist of what he's saying.

If Ran felt that I was diverting the focus of the site with OT, he'd call me in a heart beat and tell me so.

In our many discussions and in our recent discussions that's never been the case.

Stop being a whiner and a weiner and get on with it.

« Last Edit: August 16, 2010, 10:54:33 AM by Patrick_Mucci »

JC Jones

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The 'problem' with the Discussion Group
« Reply #88 on: August 16, 2010, 11:27:14 AM »
Pat,

Perhaps Ran is too afraid to call you out because he knows you can get him access to places? ;) ;D
I get it, you are mad at the world because you are an adult caddie and few people take you seriously.

Excellent spellers usually lack any vision or common sense.

I know plenty of courses that are in the red, and they are killing it.

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The 'problem' with the Discussion Group
« Reply #89 on: August 16, 2010, 01:45:55 PM »
I almost emailed you today with the intention of resigning from the site because of the absolute lack of respect that is being shown on these threads. By the vulgarity, constant 8-year old (if that) name calling, non-stop testosterone arguing rather than any semblance of a discussion, the participants are damaging both themselves and the website and, as a result, all who post here in the eyes of many. I've actually had lurkers who are not members privately email me and suggest that my participation here hurts my own reputation.

Please don't consider leaving, ever. That's throwing the baby out with the bath water. You are a very valuable poster, do not let silliness detract from the vast amount of terrific stuff on here.

Hey all,

An excellent post by Ran.  I haven't posted anything on here in years (though I still lurk) in part because there is so much fat on this DG that the meat is hard to find.

Please do everyone a favor and start posting some meat! :) Seriously, for all the people that complain about OT threads, the architecture threads are far too often ignored. Share something, bump one if you like it.

Looks like the Discussion Group is about to go more elitist.

One where those of you in the inner circle who have had the chance to play the great courses can all rabbit on about where the inspiration for the design came from, meanwhile the rest of us who have not been so lucky or well connected can just read the posts without making comment for fear of offending the elites with our philistine commentary.

Too bad, I liked it here.

The best way to fight this (if you believe it, I don't) is to post some architectural stuff!
« Last Edit: August 16, 2010, 01:56:43 PM by George Pazin »
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

JMEvensky

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The 'problem' with the Discussion Group
« Reply #90 on: August 16, 2010, 01:52:46 PM »
I almost emailed you today with the intention of resigning from the site because of the absolute lack of respect that is being shown on these threads. By the vulgarity, constant 8-year old (if that) name calling, non-stop testosterone arguing rather than any semblance of a discussion, the participants are damaging both themselves and the website and, as a result, all who post here in the eyes of many. I've actually had lurkers who are not members privately email me and suggest that my participation here hurts my own reputation.

Please don't consider leaving, ever. That's throwing the baby out with the bath water. You are a very valuable poster, do not let silliness detract from the vast amount of terrific stuff on here.

What George Pazin said.

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The 'problem' with the Discussion Group
« Reply #91 on: August 16, 2010, 02:04:22 PM »
We don't need moderators, OT boards, or anything more than the occasional bit of restraint.

I don't post that to boost my count - heck, I'm embarrassed of my count, and would suggest that removing it might actually cause some folks to really go crazy - but rather to try to boost the morale around here while at the same time maybe improving things a tiny little bit (not that I think it needs to be improved...).

If you want to share an OT thought, try to find a thread on the topic, rather than starting a new one (can't help but think all of the 2010 PGA thoughts could have been compressed into the 2010 PGA at Whistling Straits discussion thread...).

If you like an architectural thread but don't have something to share, figure out some way to keep it on the first page! It's not that tough!!

Don't like the OTs? Don't post in them saying that, ignore them! Post in the architecture threads!

And get over the access issue already, everyone, please!
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Martin Toal

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The 'problem' with the Discussion Group
« Reply #92 on: August 16, 2010, 02:12:57 PM »


The best way to fight this (if you believe it, I don't) is to post some architectural stuff!

This is not directed at you, but I am rather surprised at the direction of this thread and a lot of the huffy indignation by some who yearn for the old days. That always sounds, to a newcomer, like 'before arrivistes like you'. Reminds me rather of the attitude of some of the older stuffier golf clubs in parts of England, actually.

If anybody is unhappy about the amount of OT stuff, or finds it beneath them, seems to me like they have 3 choices.

1. Don't participate in it or read OT stuff. Most of the OT stuff is prefixed OT, and has obvious thread titles. I find it quite easy to ignore threads which do not sound of interest me. I don't see whay others should not be able to do so too.

2. Post something else worthy and draw people to that discussion.

3. Get a life.

I don't know Philip, but if he contemplates resigning because of it, I think he needs to look at himself rather than the discussion group. This is  a website forum that talks about golf, not a matter of life and death.

Trust me, I know the difference.

Tim Leahy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The 'problem' with the Discussion Group
« Reply #93 on: August 16, 2010, 03:23:47 PM »
Random thought. Why not have a second board where anything goes. Maintain the DG as an architecture/design discussions only and the other board is everything else.

The fact is that you have brought together a group of people who enjoy chatting with each other. Why limit it to one topic? Just create another forum and call it "The 19th Hole" where folks chat about anything and everything if they wish.

The group you have bright together have other interests and quite frankly some of the peripheral discussions are far more enlghtening than 5 guys consuming half the world's bandwidth  arguing about Merion.

I like this idea and think it would keep most people happy. I have seen it work on other sites.
I love golf, the fightin irish, and beautiful women depending on the season and availability.

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The 'problem' with the Discussion Group
« Reply #94 on: August 16, 2010, 03:36:35 PM »
 Did I miss something again ? What exactly is the problem ? ;D
AKA Mayday

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The 'problem' with the Discussion Group
« Reply #95 on: August 16, 2010, 05:16:00 PM »
. . .
Anyway, I'd love to see an OT forum here.  Sure, we could go to other sites to talk about that kind of stuff.  I do that actually.  Thing is, I'd like to be able to have those kind of OT topics where I can converse with my GCA friends and acquaintences.  Sites like GolfWRX are great, but it's a vastly different crowd. 

This seems to really be the crux of the OT issue to me, and a very good reason try to cut back on the OT that goes on here.   Sites like GolfWRX do attract a "vastly different crowd" because that crowd likes to discuss the things that are discussed there.    Likewise, the OT discussions around here attract and keep posters whose primary interest here might not be the "frank discussion of golf course architecture."    When this happens the website suffers because it moves further away from its stated purpose.    This site doesn't need to be another GolfWRX or whatever.   If the OT stuff is necessary for anyone to enjoy the site, maybe there are websites better suited to their interests.

___________________________________________

Phillip, 

With the repetitious portrayal of me as an outsider who is unqualified to comment, I'm not surprised you thought I had never played or even seen Merion.   It goes to show that such portrayals do impact how others view these matters even when the portrayals are irrelevant and baseless.  Therein lies my dilemma of whether to respond or ignore this type of thing.   Responding puts me right in the muck, but ignoring it allows the entire conversation to be framed as one of "who I know" instead of "what I know."  Unfortunately as your comment and perhaps Mike's question demonstrate, even well meaning people get caught up in it and don't see this stuff for what it is.

Also, I still have no idea why you or anyone else thinks it matters one bit whether I have played Merion once, twice, or a hundred times.  We are talking about 100 year old history here.  Membership and/or access doesn't change what happened.   Admittedly, seeing the course is helpful and it definitely caused some lightbulbs to go off for me, but the merit of my work doesn't depend upon how much I've played it, but whether or not I accurate analyzed the information I had available to me.  Likewise for those with full access.   Just claiming superiority because of access shouldn't cut it.  If they have a superior understanding, then the presentation of their facts and analysis ought to reflect that.   No need to flout access over substance if what is learned through access has actually improved one's understanding.

Bottom line for me is that this website should be about what you know, and not who you know and whether they can get you on here or there.  If you've got something relevant and of substance to say and you can back it up, then you should be welcomed and encouraged to say it, no matter what access you've had.   Those who have something to offer ought never be shouted down or dissuaded from posting because they are not in some inner circle.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The 'problem' with the Discussion Group
« Reply #96 on: August 16, 2010, 07:29:33 PM »
 David,

    I tend to see things as a whole. This combines the good and the bad which are inextricably intertwined. It seems to me that these nasty encounters would subside if people don't take the bait.
AKA Mayday

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back