Not Pimping Our Site, But We May Have A Convert!

[jeffwarne]

I'd like to direct everyone's attention to the title of the thread. For guys like Chris D., Mark S., George P. and others who were not emotionally scarred as youth, I imagine you already did. I'm going to break it down from the "But" on.

We ==> Those interested in golf course architecture;

May==> a modal or auxiliary verb indicating possibility, not probability nor certainty;

Have==> a verb, indicating possession, unless one is foolish or blind enough to abandon/release the thing possessed;

A==> indefinite article, suggesting the impending approach of a noun;

Convert==> the anticipated noun, one who once had a set of beliefs but no longer does.


I'm glad that the jumpers on this forum, the ones who were converted to ODG GCA by a lightning strike on the road to Damascus, betrayed their true feelings. Although they stopped short of vulgar language and direct insult, civility was certainly lacking.

The Mouth That Roars (not me, I assure you, I use a different pseudonym) is a man and can handle the criticism. Have at his points, leave him some functional criticism that he can use to learn more about the variety of gca that exists out there.

I don't believe that he'll be struck by a bolt, as so many on this site were, converted on the spot, made instantly aware of the way, truth and light of the sacred architectural text. I imagine that his conversion will take place over time, as has mine...slow learners, huh?

Ron,

I may be wrong again, but many of US (the same as WE) MAY (you get the idea) have assumed from the title that by "convert" you meant converted to GCA groupthink , rather than merely being converted to simply having an "interest" in golf architecture.
"
Unlike many, I do believe golfers do have architectural ideas all the time, even if they are as simple as "it's all out in front of you", or "dogleg left, or "hit it right because there's OB left", or it's "old and mature looking", or "this holes is long", and then form ideas based on their likes and dislikes.
So I guess that's where I didn't understand the conversion. (If that's indeed what you meant)

but then I could just be posting drivel....

[Michael George]

Ronald:

You posted something that you had not even read according to your original post.  Maybe before you post an article and cast your support of its content, you should read it.  I am not trying to be difficult, but you really shouldn't put something out there until you have read it. I hope your writer continues his interest in golf course architecture but doubt a little criticism will stop his pursuit.

[Ally Mcintosh]

For the life of me, I fail to see what is wrong or contradictory about that article.

I like that he is thinking about how he prefers his golf courses to start. I agree with him that a golf course should be a story with each hole an individual chapter.

The only thing that seems in the slightest bit bizarre is his not having the 4th as par 4 or 5th as par 5 statement. Some would agree with him on not having the 3rd as a par 3 but probably for different reasons than he meant. Perhaps it was tongue in cheek anyway.

Once you start to think and read about GCA, you should be allowed to develop and form your own opinions. Those opinions won't necessarily correlate with some of the more idealistic ones found on this forum.

But that's just my opinion.

[jeffwarne]

For the life of me, I fail to see what is wrong or contradictory about that article.

I like that he is thinking about how he prefers his golf courses to start. I agree with him that a golf course should be a story with each hole an individual chapter.

The only thing that seems in the slightest bit bizarre is his not having the 4th as par 4 or 5th as par 5 statement. Some would agree with him on not having the 3rd as a par 3 but probably for different reasons than he meant. Perhaps it was tongue in cheek anyway.

Once you start to think and read about GCA, you should be allowed to develop and form your own opinions. Those opinions won't necessarily correlate with some of the more idealistic ones found on this forum.

But that's just my opinion.

Ally agreed 100%

but if this site is about "frank commentary", shouldn't someone's linked comments about architecture be fair game?
the same as my commentary is?

Sorry to be such a pill about this. I'm out.
There's a great thread about the architect of WV that deserves way more attention than my petty comments about commentary.

[Chris DeNigris]

Ally- Totally agree.

Outside of the odd hole to par correlation a lot of what he wrote would likely be endorsed by quite of few of this DG.

He also prefaced that these opening hole personality traits were his own personal beliefs and design philosophies (should he have studied to become an actual GCA)...and not how he thought all golf courses should be created.

No one is asking everyone to agree with his thoughts...he's just throwing it out there to stimulate people to think about such things. And he probably achieved his goal within his target market. Not really a bad result.

[Kevin Lynch]

Guys,

I think Ron regrets posting the link to the article before even reading it.  I also write for the site, but I think why Ron posted the link was because Chris (just one of our writers) was actually starting to think about design and he jumped the gun with excitement before reading it.  Chris (the Mouth) usually writes about events happening on tours, fantasy, and belly putter vs not, etc., but has typically not thought too much about the design aspects.

When I read the article (before seeing anything on GCA.com), my first thought was "Good thing he didn't take his first foray into the subject on GCA.com - he would have been taken to task pretty hard."  

Before I saw this thread, I actually sent an e-mail to Ron that said:

"I'm glad to see he's taking an interest in the subject, but this could be a "teachable moment" for him to hear about Doak / C&C and letting the land dictate the routing.  I'm not sure how to balance expanding his knowledge of people like Doak / C&C vs. not wanting to discourage his initial efforts with too harsh a criticism."

Some of the reactions I saw here didn't seem to contemplate that balance.  

I think we all could use a reminder that we didn't all "get it" immediately and probably had some wrong-headed ideas about design at first.  But we had an interest, which was the most important thing.

If you want to read an Article by the same writer that I think would indicate a "convert" to the subject, I have copied it below:
***************

2012 – Seeing The Subtle Things
Posted on January 1, 2012 by mouth
You can learn a lot about yourself from a tree you didn’t event notice.

It happened to me this past summer when I was golfing with Mo Golf and Scrambler during our Bethpage Binge in July. We stood atop a Par 3 tee deck somewhere in the beautiful golf abyss that is Bethpage Black. I was debating which iron to hit and where to aim when Scrambler exclaimed…

“That’s a perfectly placed tree.”

He was referring to a tree that subtly guarded the left side of the green. The tree forced people to have to hit more agressive lines into the green. The tree had a purpose, and as I learned during that trip – many trees on golf courses don’t have a purpose.

I wasn’t blown away with the fact that the tree had been planted in a perfect spot. I was more caught up with the fact I’d barely noticed it. I stepped to the tee, was about to grab a club, swing and march on. Scrambler was studying the hole’s angles. Mo Golf was photographing it. They were experiencing the course – I was merely playing it.

In many ways, that golf hole and its tree are a metaphor for my life. I wake up with a To Do list every day. I’m always focused on getting to the next workout, the next day of work, the next project… rarely do I stop to study the trees.

This year, that’s my resolution. I want to notice more subtleties on the golf course. I want to get angry at an ill-advised tree on a golf course. I want to notice how a creek impacts the club a player can hit. I want to see the tiny shifts in the slope of a green. I want to understand even more about the game I love to play.


Reading that sounded like someone who is on their way to converting.

[Ronald Montesano]

No, Ron doesn't regret posting the link. Ron has no problem with what The Mouth wrote. After reading it, Ron is fine with it. Kevin is a good guy.

Ron's thread title in no way implies that the author is a Klein-esque, Whitten-esque, Morrisett-esque expert on gca. Anyone who read it that way needs a remedial course in reading comprehension.

That said, I'm not angry, just intrigued by the comments from the denizens of the nest. By all means, vent, rage, keep them coming!

[George Pazin]

For the life of me, I fail to see what is wrong or contradictory about that article.

I like that he is thinking about how he prefers his golf courses to start.

Do you think that all golf courses should have the same flow? Do you think they should follow a formula of sorts, even if it is as vague as the author's?

As I posted before, my own ideas have changed quite a bit from what originally attracted me to the study of golf courses. But never have I followed anything remotely as dogmatic as the author seems to desire. I find the very notion quite bizarre.

To quote another site favorite, it's a big wide world out there for golf course architecture.

But just because there are other ideas doesn't mean I have to like them or endorse them.

George Thomas is a prominent, exceptionally well-regarded architect who espoused ideas as to how courses should start, seemingly to get people out there golfing. He was a genius when it came to designing courses, but his ideas on that particular topic, well, let's just say he has never golfed with today's slow golfers.

Kevin -

Very nice post.

Sometimes baptism by fire yields excellent results, sometimes it scares people away. I hope the author reads everyone's thoughts and thinks further about the topic. Maybe he won't change his mind one iota - and that's great, to have that sort of conviction - or maybe he'll see what some of us see as folly.

One of my very first posts, I got ripped by a few people. And didn't even realize it...

[jeffwarne]

I think that what us denizens missed was that Ron was pleased that he was thinking (and writing) about architecture.

[Kalen Braley]

I was confused by the whole thing from the start, cause I knew Ron was the founder of the site...aka TheBuffaloGolfer

...so I was trying to figure out what was so special about "architecture" talk on a site that was already supposed to be exactly about that.

Now that we have the back story thanks to Kevin on page 2...its making a lot more sense.

[Adam Clayman]

George, remove the word similar, and we have a winner sentence.

I agree it's great that a golfer thinks about these things, especially if it's his first time really thinking about what HE likes.

I would only caution the author that his edicts and "rules" do seem formulaic and would not yield a great big world.

[Ronald Montesano]

Even though last call in Buffalo is 4 a.m., I'm turning in early on this one.

PROLIFIC
    (of a plant, animal, or person) Producing much fruit or foliage or many offspring.
    (of an artist, author, or composer) Producing many works.


Didn't really think that such a simple word would be misunderstood by many or any. The Mouth writes on a number of topics. For those who want perfect prose and acute analysis, don't expect it from the site I refuse to pimp. We're about developing as writers, in the public eye. If Jeff Wallach's consortium is The A Position, consider us Zed (that's for Mark and the Ont. Boys!)

Thanks to Jeff Warne for engaging in a great back-and-forth via PM (where I continue to insist that most polemics should take place.) I think that we understand each other better and continue to have great respect for each other.

Thanks to Kevin Lynch for his back story. Obviously it helped some to understand the motive.

Ally, well put.

Back at it tomorrow...same time, different thread.

[Terry Lavin]

Prolific polemics!

[jeffwarne]

Prolific polemics!

a busy dancer ?

I did indeed misunderstand Ron's reason for linking the blog, and for that I apologise to the author(whose Jan. 1 post is quite thought provoking), and Ron.
and Kevin's post certainly helped!

[Bill Brightly]

While the guy's article was ridiculous in many respects, simplistic in others, I did like that he picked up that a good first hole should
"have features that let you know what you'll be in for the next 17 holes." Now, I would re-phrase that sentence up and say that the first hole should be an accurate representation of the bunkering, green complexes, approach challenges, etc. that will follow. But I think that is an imporrtant element of a good first hole. I think Shinnecock's is superb in this regard, as is Mountain Ridge and many others. Pebble Beach would fail this test, but so would many ocean sites that start away from the water.

And hey, he did say the first hole should have FEATURES... So he must be learning something! Seriously, I'd like to see what he writes about architecture in two years. I bet it is far more sophisticated.

[Mac Plumart]

We all gotta start somewhere. 

I hope he takes his interest in architecture and runs with it.  Reads...Cornish/Whitten's "The Golf Course"...moves on to "The Spirit of St. Andrews"...then maybe "Scotland's Gift"...it could be something special in the making.