Another perspective on Golfclubatlas.com

[TEPaul]

In the last several weeks I've run across some interesting people in golf--at some pretty significant clubs and also a few architects.

In talking about architecture eventually the subject of Golfclubatlas.com came up. Some of those were aware of the site, almost all had heard of it, and a number of them had looked in on it or tried to.

The overwhelming consensus was the discussion group was a smallish bunch of real architectural addicts some of whom are nigh onto needing pyschological counseling for excessive devotion to the subject of architecture and the mindbending  addiction to detail and minutae and voluminous discussion over God knows what! (it was pretty funny when one figured out who I was!).

But I thought the most interesting thing was all those who were even remotely aware of this site felt that Ran Morrissett's course reviews (the course review section) was really remarkable! Everyone of them agreed that this guy Ran Morrissett truly captures the essence of a golf course when he sees it and reviews it.

In that sense my feeling is Ran Morrissett himself is light years ahead of any golf magazine in intelligent architectural analysis and review product than any golf writer or golf magazine is and probably has been for many many a decade!

So it was interesting to see what those sort of peripherally interested and knowledgable about architecture thought of this site. Since the most recent mention of it was on Eastern LI the subject of Friar's Head came up too. All those who were aware of it seemed to agree it's a truly remarkable golf course!

[ForkaB]

Tom

I agree.  The course reviews are what sets this site apart, and probably why the site has also drawn so many knowledgable and enthusiastic contributors to the discussion group.  Nevertheless, as good as Ran's reviews are, they are just personal, and could be even better if a way were found to link the best thoughts that come up on the DG (e.g. your recent observations about pin positions on #1 NGLA, the discussions on Yale, the analyses of the Road Hole Bunker renovations, etc.) to the course reviews.  Augmented by the collective wisdom which has been generated by the DG, the reviews could be made into a tremendous resource for GCA afficionados and profesisonals.  I know that this would entail either much more sophisticated software, or a massively increased amount of moderation/editing on the part of the founders and owners of this site, but it might just be worth the effort.

[TEPaul]

Rich:

Interesting thoughts. Some on here, and even for a few years now, have scratched their heads as to possible ways to take this site to other levels, particularly as a valuable resource for others out there who are into all things architecture--particularly reseach and restoration or perservation.

It's both fascinating and frustrating at the same time. It appears to be undeniable that the extent of mild awareness or curiosity about this site is far greater than most on the discussion group realize.

But the ability to generate participation from that apparently huge group who are aware of this site has so many obstacles, I doubt much more could probably happen. Not the least of the obstacles being that this site is in that remarkable place of almost completely open access to the world of the Internet that still is staggering for someone like me to comprehend, and all the problems that unfortunately comes with that openness.

Ran Morrissett, I don't believe is all that thrilled with some of the riff-raff that goes on within this discussion group from time to time but I think he still is a long long way from restricting in a general sense the openness of access to it.

I have no real idea how this discussion group could become more of a two-way street, as it absolutely needs to be, in my opinion. A lot of opinion flows out of the discussion group from a very small group of people but it never really flows back from the subjects discussed on here.

Of course my hope has always been that an atmosphere could somehow be constructed where the discussion group could be a two way street and the posts and opinions of green and golf chairmen, for instance, could start to flow in here (as they almost never have!)---people like Greenwood of Merion, Studer of Oakmont, Poole of GCGC, TeddyW of Maidstone, Mullen or Conroy of NGLA, C Stevenson of Shinnecock, Van Gerbig of Seminole, Wilmerding of Fishers, Young of Mountain Lake, those at Yale, etc, etc.

If that could somehow happen this website would go many many levels higher and be many many factors more valuable and effective, particularly with the architects and supers who float around this site and might participate more if a two way street with the clubs and  courses could be constructed and used!

[JakaB]

Its going to be tough when you see Terry Lavin of Olympia Fields give us his heart and soul just to have us dump on him and his course like every other golf watching moron out in the real world.  Where were the architectural purists when one of our own could have used a little support.   We really blew that one and opportunities lost of that magnitude could hurt for quite a while.

[ForkaB]

Tom

Your ideal is an enchanting one, and not impossible, and yet.....

As you imply, the real world (at least of golf) does not move as quickly as the internet.  Also, that world operates in a mode which respects confidences, appreciates humility (even if patently false) and demands common courtesies (such as carefully replying to honest questions from ones with "legitimate" interests).  If any or all of the august group you list were to participate on this DG, they would probably be very quickly overwhelmed by the volume (and quality) of enquiries of their domaines.  Without some sort of "filter", they would not/could not respond to all of them, and the ideal would soon collapse into a sea of frustration and recrimination.

Maybe.........what could be done is to set up a sub-site for, say, the Greens Convenor of Royal Melbourne, and allow us peons to post quesitons, but allow him (or her--are the Aussies that liberated, yet?) to respond as he or she wishes, at his or her own pace, to whichever inquiries he or she thought were worthy and appropriate for public discussion.  Do the same sort of thing perhaps for the USGA and R&A, for archictects who don't now post on here, etc. etc.

Don't know if that would work, but there has to be some way of reconciling the rough and tumble of this site and the need for others to have more time for reflection on the issues that are important to all of us.

[Mike_Sweeney]

Tom & Rich,

I spoke to Ran in May and I know he would like to see the "My Home Course" section expand, especially beyond the usual architects. While he did not say this, my guess is that he would like to see the "In My Opinion" section continue to grow.

I know in writing my tounge in cheek review of my Maine trip, I had to really think about the content since my main reviewer was the well written Michael Moore. Same is true with any content that would be posted in these two sections. It must be thought out and edited before Ran would post it. Currently, the threads turn into point counterpoint, which may be fun for the treehouse, but has no real use in the real world.

Tom your "maintenance meld" concept should be posted here as a reference to Supers. It is important. Currently it gets lost in various thread that will get lost in the search engines of infrequent users.

Why not take the Yale threads and turn them into serious academic type of postings that the Yale Athletic Department might take seriously. In its current form, people will not take them seriously at Yale or Joe municipality. Just a few ideas to take GCA to the next level.

[TEPaul]

Barney:

I didn't know about Terry Lavin of Olympia Fields but I'm very sorry to hear what you just said about him. I don't know OF at all so don't think I made a single comment on the golf course, except to say that the tourney seemed more exciting to me for various reasons than others on here thought it was.

But again, sorry to hear how Terry Lavin was treated. When this site has had an opportunity to discuss something with a significant member of a significant club who is in a position to know what he's talking about just tell me a single instance when someone has NOT blown that opportunity and driven that person away. I can't think of single time an opportunity was not blown eventually on here!

[Steve Lang]

 

IT is what it is, a gca discussion group and the medium allows it to be what it is.  In older times, I have to imagine many at this site would have been called men of letters, and the same debates would have been carried on in private, whereas today they become sometimes rough and tumble multi-participant internet SHOUT OUTS..  It was only a public thing, thought building, when lectures were given and papers only came to light through journals and serials published.

For the last year I have been, as the current vernacular calls it, "data mining" within this site and I have some wonderful collections of various things of interest to me in gca.  A researcher today has such amazing electronic tools, but a rational mind is still necessary to enlighten or persuade others, pushing or pulling them to a "right way of thinking".

Leave the gca.com DG alone, its fun, horrible, inspiring, intellectual, debase, educational, rude and stellar at times, just like our society.  

I believe the highest level of contribution to this site is submitting My Home Course or In My Opinion pieces.  It is
this type of thing that Ran's efforts to date seem to seek.  

[Jeff_Lewis]

Ran the man! Unfortunately, as Ran's pieces have improved in quality the DG has deteriorated. Perhaps that was inevitable as we have covered an awful lot of topics. I think it would do the DG some good to slow down for a while.

[TEPaul]

MikeS:

Good ideas. I will post the "maintenance meld" philosophy on here and in the "In My Opinion" section. But first I might run it through a thread on here to get other ideas, other applications for it. It's sort of perceived as one area right now--eg firm and fast but it's so much more and so much more detailed than that in my mind.

I believe I really did get a new sense from these two new fellows at NGLA who are just super-excellent in my mind about the value and necessity of micro managing maintenance applications on various golf courses, particularly agronomically and even as to man-power usage that fits right into the "ideal maintenance meld" on any course. The ideal maintenance meld is sort of a new application on many courses in America due to the general way things have been done for the last fifty or so years and so new processes, fresh ideas of application and concept are needed now.

Maybe new/old concepts would be a better way to say it. Guys like Salinetti/Burrows seem so willing to get into that--as they strive to look back to the good things that once were, the old looks and playabilities and such and make them even more interesting and effective with what they understand the old guys never had but clearly would've wanted. These guys are young, they're knowledgeable, they're opinionated (which I happen to love) but they really do want to keep their ears and minds open and listen. They're very curious as well as cutting edge and imaginative! It's exciting for golf and architecture! A guy like Mark Shaeffer of Merion mentioned the other day that some of these young guys today in superintendency are really amazing!

Rich:

Your idea about a "filter" on here is a good one--probably the most necessary thing because Ran doesn't seem inclined to sacrifice openness on here but on the other hand certain people really do need to be protected from certain things or they simply WILL NOT consider participating. I think that much we sure have come to realize. But we need to be cognizant of the fact that this site does need to remain an open and critical forum too, somehow, or it will just become politically correct pap of no real constructive value to anyone.

[THuckaby2]

You know what would really help?  Ran's own thoughts on this.  Can those who know him well encourage him to post on this thread?

I remain committed to the principle that this is his site and what he says goes.

All the rest is just interesting banter.

TH

[Brad Swanson]

I believe there is a roundtable discussion planned to discuss this very topic at the Land of Enchantment gathering in September.  Perhaps one of us going to that event could keep a record of the suggestions from this thread and bring them up for discussion in New Mexico.

Cheers,
Brad Swanson

[THuckaby2]

Good call, Brad.  Ran will be there, no?  That would be the perfect forum.  We can post on here as much or as little as necessary of what is discussed.

TH

[Darren_Kilfara]

Ran the man! Unfortunately, as Ran's pieces have improved in quality the DG has deteriorated. Perhaps that was inevitable as we have covered an awful lot of topics. I think it would do the DG some good to slow down for a while.

And how do you propose we do that, Jeff? Short of shooting Mr. Paul with a tranquilizer dart, anyway? This is not a heavily-regulated discussion group; one which was could be channeled in certain directions, but Ran's policies have been consistently laissez-faire, so we're stuck (for better or worse) with what we've got.

JakaB, are you talking about the threads in which Terry Lavin talked about why he liked Olympia Fields and some of us (myself included) talked about why we thought it may well have been a good golf course but that it still made for a boring US Open golf course? Short of censoring critical opinions, what would you have us do? Look, any time honest criticism is made of anything, and if there's one thing GCA.com can and should provide it's honest criticism, you run the risk of hurting someone's feelings. On the internet, when you swim with sharks, you might get bitten. I happen to think the comments made herein about Olympia Fields were entirely fair and appropriate.

As a writer, I've come to accept that there are four types of book reviews:

--The "good" good review. Written by someone who likes your book and explains well why they liked it. This is the kind that warms the cockles of your heart for days on end...

--The "bad" good review. Fawning, poorly written or understood praise; nice to get it, but at the end of the day you're left thinking that the person writing it doesn't really know what he's talking about. (Note: 95% of all golf course reviews printed in daily newspapers or regional magazines of a certain type fall into this category.)

--The "good" bad review. It hurts to receive one of these, but they make you better as a writer, and help you to understand aspects of your work in ways you may not have perceived previously. Can be the best thing to ever happen to you, even if it initially hurts your sales figures of the book in question.

--The "bad" bad review. It hurts to receive one of these, too, but mainly because it seems unfair - unconstructive and intentionally hurtful criticism falls into this category. You don't learn anything from it, and you wonder why the reviewer even bothered.

On this website - via Ran's reviews or the discussion group or any other part of it - we should always strive for "good" good and "good" bad reviews. Critical integrity means calling a spade a spade; the trick is to always describe the spade well and insightfully.

Mike Sweeney, re: taking things to the "next level", let me reiterate my current belief (and the hobby horse I'm currently trying to drive into the ground) that a GCA-style magazine would be the best method of disseminating material of the sort you describe. Discussion groups are great, but they're not really the way to reach out beyond their borders; for that, you need a more tightly-controlled approach to editorial content, and you need a way to reach people in a way that doesn't require a computer or the wherewithal to search an internet site. And I think the time for such a magazine may well be now...

Cheers,
Darren

[TEPaul]

BradS:

The round table deal in September would be the thing then. Steve Lang is probably right that this discussion group is what it is. I can buy that right now but it will always be jusyt what its become now if nothing changes.

This wouldn't be a tenth so fascinating if it wasn't for the fact that there really is a huge untapped group out there that isn't just only large it's also really impressive in who they are.

We have to try to bring them in here somehow if we want this section to expand with participants and contributors, and some really interesting ones, and get more useful with this section as a resource for all. Perhaps even a nominal public apology or two might even be in order to accomplish that end.

Can you imagine how good it would be if we could get a ton more architects, a ton more supers, a ton more green and golf chairmen, more club presidents and course operators on here? Maybe even some tour pro golfers! Can you imagine if we could move this discussion group at least to one that could accept and discuss things such as golf today and architecture today with something a little more than just a super purist bent? I know that this site's basic "mission" is in the purist realm of golf architecture but the discussion group can at least discuss more than that without adverserialness and villification.

I say it a lot and maybe it's sort of considered a joke but I don't mean it to be because I really do believe that;

"Golf and its architecture is a great big game and there really is room in it for everyone." And that can mean on here too.

And the other important thing I've learned in these last 5-6 years of being addicted to this subject is to "know what you don't know." That may sound cute but it's so true and it's not all that easy to do sometimes.

I now think I know about 1 1/2 parts of the many parts of golf course architecture. I think I know architectural concept pretty well now--and I also know the extremely important area of club and membership dynamics--the committee world and how the process works---how it almost has to work if your interested in a constructive result at all. The areas of agronomy, construction, drainage, and numerous other parts of architecture I don't know very well but want to learn. Others, who don't know various parts should at least understand that they are extremely important in the entire jigsaw puzzle of all this and not minimize or discount the importance of them or make unintelligent assumptions about them. Everyone interested in architecture should always remember "to know what you don't know" and those that I admire most in this business still actively practice that adage.

But we really should try to get some of those important people on here and treat them decently because they really are watching and they're aware of this site. The sort of "train wreck" perception of this DG is sort of quaint but long term it's not the most useful perception to foster!

And I already know that Ran Morrissett would like to explore upping the level of participation because he's always told me that--many times and a long way back too.

[Tim_Weiman]

Darren:

Well said. We all could do better doing "good" good or bad reviews.

I'm with Tom Paul that we really do need to attract more industry participation and also feel that our group is still way too American. We need to find a way to broaden international participation. European participation is especially lacking, unfortunately.

But, if JakaB thinks eliminating "good" bad reviews is the way to go, I don't share that view.

[JakaB]

Darren,

Forgive me for I am the worst of all.  I am really dissapointed in myself for what I took away from this Open in regards to Olympia Fields and I blame only my own ignorance and sometimes weakness in following the party line.   I am also dissapointed that the people who understand architecture never took the time to evaluate the great features that I am sure exist at OF that tricked up 95% of the field.  But no this site took the same route as TV and the Chicago Tribune and only stated the obvious.  Even you DK..short of years but long on architectural experience never got past the obvious in your critique...we should be above the average and the mundane....we should shed light where the ignorant golfing masses tread.   Yes that Open was and should have been boring to the general public...Tiger didn't win or contest...but where was the architectural analysis that has found OF to be a great course for the last 75 years....or do we simply buy into the changes of culture and technology that makes great design moot...I know I did..and now two weeks removed I publicly state my shame.

[MargaretC]

Gentlemen:

As an infrequent visitor as well as a very, very, very infrequent poster, I can, to some degree, understand that a new visitor may shy away from participating in this "DG" because his initial impression is that the "DG" is populated by a "clique" who, regardless of what he posts, will chew him up and spit him out just for the  sport of it.  

That said, I doubt if there is anything you can do about it and I'm not sure that you should even try.    

IMHO, the "grown up rule is in effect."  Persons who seek-out discussion groups have to presume that opinions posted can and will be challenged at least as often as they are echoed or praised.  Sure, if it is my opinion, I'd prefer responses that use tact and diplomacy over "cheap shots, sarcasm -- whatever.  But this "DG" reflects the behavior of the real world and whomever posts can't allow themselves to loose sleep when an opinion or comment is slammed by another anonymous poster.  The potential for "rubbing someone the wrong way" is even greater in an international forum because of different cultures, etc.,

On several occasions I have noticed a type of "internal self-policing" when one poster thinks that another poster has crossed a line.  The beauty of any online DG is that at any time, a participant can logon or logout at will -- so much easier than walking out of a room or sleeping on the couch!  

my two cents...

[Tim_Weiman]

MargaretC:

Your two cents and common sense are always appreciated. I wish you could join us more frequently.

Your point about this being an international forum is one of my greatest concerns. Recently I received a lengthy private e mail from someone overseas that is extremely knowledgeable about golf architecture. He does feel, however, that the DG is a bit too clique-ish, American clique-ish that is, with all sorts of chatter about personal things that have little to do with golf architecture. He sees that as an impediment to attracting more international participaton.

Do you have any thoughts about the "culture" of the DG? Are we too American? Can we Americans do anything to make others feel more welcome here?

Lastly, do we need more "internal self policing"?

[A_Clay_Man]

Thanx MargretC- Your comments are most welcome and the only thing I would add is that there is no "we" here. I don't feel that statments about how "we" blasted someone or something is plausable since it is clearly in black and white, all individual's posts.

Rather than take valuable face2face time in Sept. I'd recommend a form of "Rule to post by" thread and use this time to create the atmosphere Ran and our first among Doyens envision. My contribution would be to say "Be decent, be generous and behave". But most of all to calm the uninitiated, i'd throw in some crap to ease thier fears. (did I say that outloud?)

$.02

[mike_malone]

 Back in the early part of the 90's tech stock bubble i participated in a chat board.After several months it became clear that i could not trust a single thing people said.
   This board's discussion group can be brutal sometimes,but it usually is informative.My expectations are that one of every twenty posts will be good.I just do not know where or when.So i need to open up almost every thread and read.
   Where else can one get their fix for the GCA addiction?

[THuckaby2]

Bottom line:

is the goal of this discussion group to encourage more industry and international participation, and therefore necessarily keep things at a high, but impersonal level?

Or is this a site where friends, old and new, meet to talk about golf, life and golf course architecture?

I don't find the answer to this to be as "given" as Mr. Weiman does.  Only Ran can say for sure.

In the meantime, I do believe there is room for one and all, and Margaret's wisdom is certain.  If one doesn't like what one reads, there are always other threads, and there is always the logout option.

TH

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Huckaby:

You're right. Ran will have to explain what he means by an "architecture centric" site. But, I can't imagine why anyone who loves golf architecture would not want to see this site attract more industry and international participation. My guess is that it would lead to MORE not less personal friendships being established and generally greater satisfaction.

I don't find the industry and international associations I've formed as a result of GCA as being "impersonal". To the contrary, these relationships have meant great fun - just fun, off line and in person.

Yes, we might need to clean up our act a bit to attract more participation. That's a tradeoff I think most participants would accept. Personal stuff can always be taken off line.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Paul:

I agree with those who think Ran's course reviews are far better than anything we are seeing in major golf publications. His work is light years ahead of what they are doing.

That get's me to thinking: wouldn't it be great for the major publications to include one of Ran's reviews occasionally, if not one per month.

Maybe that seems unusual, but living here in Cleveland and reading the Cleveland Plain Dealer almost everyday, I notice the paper does regularly include Op Ed pieces by journalists such as NY Times reporter Tom Friedman. Makes sense. The Plain Dealer doesn't have such skills on its own payroll, so they supplement their staff by including such outside work. Actually, I think this practice is fairly common.

The major golf publications would do well to include Ran's work, in my opinion.

[THuckaby2]

Tim:

As so often seems to happen, you have misconstrued my point and taken what you think I mean to extremes that I don't intend.  I guess I finally must attribute this to my own poor writing skills.

Beyond that, my feeling is the silly banter back and forth between you and me goes farther to discourage partcicipation than anything else here.  To that end, I'm going to resist yet another defensive response.  I'd request that any other problems you have with me, you send to me personally.  This has gone on far enough.

You have my email address.

TH