[Adam Clayman]

Mike, I've found the opposite to be true, on this board.  When someone agrees with someone, there's no need to post that you agree, unless you are trying to garner access or more post counts. Perhaps the difference is the spiral of access?

[Sean_A]

Mike, I've found the opposite to be true, on this board.  When someone agrees with someone, there's no need to post that you agree, unless you are trying to garner access or more post counts. Perhaps the difference is the spiral of access?

Hmmm.  If one is willing to post to disagree, why not post to agree?  Afterall, there is no need to post at all. 

Ciao

[JC Jones]

I don't think I'd be willing to believe much of what anti-Semites like Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann wrote. What I do believe is that the person or persons behind the "Angrywoodchuckblog", the place where Mike's article came from,  are maladjusted, anti social fringe dwellers who love using inflammatory subjects to try and drive wedges through the more stable portions of society for their own personal gain.

It's drivel, and "spending the time and effort to apply rational cognitive energies using facts and common sense to draw a logical conclusion based on the available data" reveals it as such.

This is a very sloppy attempt by the author to take some theory and apply it to their particular stance on an issue in hopes to make it more credible.  What the author is actually doing is attempting to deintellectualize those who disagree with them by labeling them as "emotional" and thus not "rational."  This is done because they want to portray their own opinion as the "rational" one when it is really just as emotional as the opinion on the other side.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

"If you like Tom Fazio and Rees Jones courses, then say so and be prepared to say why."

And yet, you don't even have to think about doing that when you speak of a Doak or CC course, its presumed that you SHOULD love it, no?

While I am not sure of the reasons, or the logic of that article, we have all felt it here.  I'm not that deep, but I liken it to just plain old avoiding as much unpleasantness as I can.  

[Terry Lavin]

Group Think and Group Shrink. One group is larger than the other.

[Tim Martin]

"If you like Tom Fazio and Rees Jones courses, then say so and be prepared to say why."

And yet, you don't even have to think about doing that when you speak of a Doak or CC course, its presumed that you SHOULD love it, no?

While I am not sure of the reasons, or the logic of that article, we have all felt it here.  I'm not that deep, but I liken it to just plain old avoiding as much unpleasantness as I can.  

The usual suspects often entrench themselves in their positions and then throw out a provocative or snide comment to bait the hook in the hope of picking a fight. From there you have pages upon pages of petty arguments where the same replies are paraphrased ad infinitum. It is one thing to argue your side with some semblance of an open mind and a touch of humility versus "Of course I'm right and your an idiot". That unpleasantness and boorish behavior is a catalyst for the "spiral of silence" and gets tiresome when you consider that this is discourse about golf courses.

[Josh Tarble]

online, it is easy to get caught up in your own opinions without every listening (or reading) what anyone else has to say

[Jason Thurman]

"If you like Tom Fazio and Rees Jones courses, then say so and be prepared to say why."

And yet, you don't even have to think about doing that when you speak of a Doak or CC course, its presumed that you SHOULD love it, no?

Completely true. Hell, just the fact that the original sentence was even written here proves that there's at least a huge amount of group think. This must be the only place in the world where a golfer who likes a Tom Fazio course has to "stand and deliver" to explain why. He's one of the most successful course designers ever, after all.

I don't necessarily believe in spiral of silence, certainly as it pertains to the Internet where everyone is safely behind a keyboard. It's a soft-science theory with plenty of criticism. But I do believe in group think and in people insulating themselves from opinions divergent from theirs, and I think we obviously have a ton of both things around here. Some of it is self-selecting. I've met literally hundreds of people who lurk on this site. Most of them read the discussion group and shake their heads a bit at the sanctimony and contrived opinions floating around here. It's not everyone, but there's certainly plenty of it. Those lurkers have no interest in joining the DG. The people who do join probably already agree with the majority view to some extent, and it's reinforced the more time they spend hearing thoughts in a similar vein.

[Jud_T]

.
I also point out, though, that the tastes on this site pretty well reflect those of the major golf mags, as shown in their ratings.  i.e. while not many Fazios or RTJs appear in the world top 100 lists, a whole lot of Doak, C&C, MacKenzie, Old Tom etc. courses do.  Without attempting a chicken/egg analysis, this site is tuned in to the 'experts,', such as they are.    

Last I checked Fazio had more courses in the Golfweek Top 100 Modern than Doak and C&C combined.  Looks like the group-think has more work to do.  

[Peter Pallotta]

...Afterall, there is no need to post at all.  

OMG! That had never even occurred to me. You're right, Sean. Why hadn't I thought of that before?

Hmmm.  This is troubling....

[Andrew Buck]

Every message board I've participated in has felt this on some level.

A general growth of group think by most, many who will stay silent in certain circumstances as opposed to exposing they *gasp* enjoyed an Arthur Hills course, and a small but vocal group of contrarians that stir the pot and enjoy the arguments.  

[John Kirk]

"If you like Tom Fazio and Rees Jones courses, then say so and be prepared to say why."

And yet, you don't even have to think about doing that when you speak of a Doak or CC course, its presumed that you SHOULD love it, no?

While I am not sure of the reasons, or the logic of that article, we have all felt it here.  I'm not that deep, but I liken it to just plain old avoiding as much unpleasantness as I can.  

On those infrequent occasions I contribute, I am prepared to argue why I like or dislike a course.  You must know that.

[Jason Topp]

Yes.  Although I think the following factors are bigger impediments to healthy debate:

1.  There are very few courses where a critical mass has actually played the course to provide much meaningful input.  Most of those courses are pretty good.

2.  There are not many new courses being built which drastically limits the opportunities for new debates.

3.  I find that most modern courses are not necessarily bad, they just do not feature much that makes them different from other modern courses.

4.  On the rare ocassion I really dislike a course I am not real inclined to torch it.  Particularly because I either had a host or a friend that hosted me most of the time.  I do not think it is good manners to turn around and publicly rip the course.

5.  My views are not going to be radically different than the majority view on this website in most instances.  

Nonetheless - I will take a shot at a topic or two to spark debate and see what happens.  

[John Kirk]

"If you like Tom Fazio and Rees Jones courses, then say so and be prepared to say why."

And yet, you don't even have to think about doing that when you speak of a Doak or CC course, its presumed that you SHOULD love it, no?

Completely true. Hell, just the fact that the original sentence was even written here proves that there's at least a huge amount of group think. This must be the only place in the world where a golfer who likes a Tom Fazio course has to "stand and deliver" to explain why. He's one of the most successful course designers ever, after all.

I don't necessarily believe in spiral of silence, certainly as it pertains to the Internet where everyone is safely behind a keyboard. It's a soft-science theory with plenty of criticism. But I do believe in group think and in people insulating themselves from opinions divergent from theirs, and I think we obviously have a ton of both things around here. Some of it is self-selecting. I've met literally hundreds of people who lurk on this site. Most of them read the discussion group and shake their heads a bit at the sanctimony and contrived opinions floating around here. It's not everyone, but there's certainly plenty of it. Those lurkers have no interest in joining the DG. The people who do join probably already agree with the majority view to some extent, and it's reinforced the more time they spend hearing thoughts in a similar vein.

Jason,

Mike Young mentioned Tom Fazio and Rees Jones in the second or third reply in this thread.  Go pick on Mike Young's original response.

"Mac,
I don't know...I don't see many coming out and saying they love TF or RJ etc...and in the golf world there are plenty that do...I am quite certain there are many on this site that shy away from commenting on specific topics for fear of thinking some other dork knows more..."

[Tommy Williamsen]

I really don’t think a study was needed to uncover a “spiral of silence.”  All one needs is a little life experience to come to that conclusion.  It happens in every group.  It certainly does in churches.  I hear pretty regularly, “I wish xxx would express his or her opinion.”  As for me I, do not want to waste my time getting in an argument and go back and forth with someone.  In my youth I was more combative but at my age I am more interested in an intellectually stimulating discussion without any invective.  I try not to pick a fight.  Periodically, someone will take issue with a tangential point of one of my posts.  If his reply doesn’t speak to the main discourse I don’t respond.  I have neither the time nor the inclination to go back and forth about a topic I don’t think adds to the discussion.  I need to add, however, that very seldom has anyone picked a fight with me. Neither have I refrained from posting because I was frightened to express my opinion.  I only respond when I think I have something substantial to add to the discussion.  For the most part people on this site have been kind and considerate of my opinion.

Oh, for the record I think Tom Fazio has designed some remarkable courses.  He just has designed a bunch of dogs as well.  I find Rees Jones a fine designer.  I think Art Hills is one of the nicest guys in the business but his best efforts are in redesign not original work.

[Jason Thurman]

Jason,

Mike Young mentioned Tom Fazio and Rees Jones in the second or third reply in this thread.  Go pick on Mike Young's original response.

I'm not sure what you inferred when you read my post, but I think it's pretty clear that I'm referring to Mike's post, as Jeff was when he put it in quotes, and agreeing with Jeff.

When you like a Fazio or Jones course around here, you should be prepared to explain why. When you don't like a Doak or a Coore and Crenshaw, you should be prepared to explain why not. It's fashionable to play a Fazio and say "I'll never play that place again." If you play a Doak course once and said the same, someone would tell you it needs to be played 15 or 20 times to appreciate the subtlety. There's a pretty obvious double-standard, and Mike's post was an example of it in practice.

[John Kirk]

Jason,

Sorry about being a little snappy.  Jeff Brauer actually quotes my comment later in the thread.

Once again, I'll take exception with the George Zimmerman analogy.  JC Jones identifies the weak link between the spiral of silence theory and the desired outcome of identifying a certain political position as "emotional" and "sentimental".

Everything about playing golf can be described in terms of physics.  There is no emotion or sentimentality in that part of golf.  There is the intangible beauty factor, but my experience is that course aesthetics and course quality are well correlated.  

[Lester George]

Good thread Mike.  I think JR Potts conveyed a majority of my thoughts as well as Jeff Brauer.  

I have little skill in typing and less time to stay engaged in many things if I am not vested in the solution or debate.  I do find it more efficient for me to talk to someone one on one (as you and I have done many times) so I can try to learn or understand the point of view of others.  

What I find frustrating about this site is that, if you do want to discuss something with someone and you send them an email or PM asking them to call and engage in rational discuss/debate, they run for the hills.  I guess that makes your point.  They don't want their point of view to be examined, they want their group-think position to be protected by their fellow thinkers.

Lester

[Keith OHalloran]

 I gravitate towards folks like Kirk, Mahaffey, Young and Warne precisely because they're conspicuous dissenters.  And in that, I find comfort.  

See, everyone likes their own herd.  

I love this, and thinks that the conspicuous dissenters deserve a moniker. Since The Rat Pack has been taken, what about the following:

1. The Goat heard -(an homage to Warne's affections for goat hill)
2. All the Captain's Men
3. The Captain and Kirk (too obvious?)
4. Mahaffey's Minions
5. Denizens of dissension

I am just spit balling here, so open to suggestions!  

[Kevin_Reilly]

A general growth of group think by most, many who will stay silent in certain circumstances as opposed to exposing they *gasp* enjoyed an Arthur Hills course...  

Funny you mention Arthur Hills in that context.  Back in the early days of this website, or maybe even one of its predecessors like Traditionalgolf or Bravenet, there was much positive "buzz" about the new Arthur Hills course at Half Moon Bay.  But that praise was in large part due to the fact that a member of the board was involved in the grow in on the course when it opened in 1997.  Folks were reluctant to say anything negative about the course.

[John Kavanaugh]

I don't think I'd be willing to believe much of what anti-Semites like Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann wrote. What I do believe is that the person or persons behind the "Angrywoodchuckblog", the place where Mike's article came from,  are maladjusted, anti social fringe dwellers who love using inflammatory subjects to try and drive wedges through the more stable portions of society for their own personal gain.

It's drivel, and "spending the time and effort to apply rational cognitive energies using facts and common sense to draw a logical conclusion based on the available data" reveals it as such.

You have to be careful to never post anything interesting on the 24th post.  We have two types of people on this site, those who desire to be loved and those who love to read what they write.  This leads to 90% of what is being read being read by the poster himself.

One of my favorite sites is Rotten Tomatoes and I believe it would be as boring as this if new movies quit being made.  That being said, the evolution of the White Course at Dismal River is an interesting study in someone speaking out against the norm and opinions being changed.  The Nicklaus course is the great white sharknado of architecture.  Sharknado is 91% fresh.

[Jason Thurman]

I always would've though Jim Engh would've done the Sharknado of golf courses.

As for courses that undergo significant evolution in the five years after opening, I think of them more as the Chinese Democracy of golf courses, only if Chinese Democracy were released in 1998 and then remixed, rerecorded, and remastered continuously and publicly until the finished product was stamped ten years later. Perhaps Sharknado will undergo a similar evolution. I really enjoyed the film and its campiness, but there's a fine line between campy and just plain awful CGI. I'd love to see them remaster it with better computer animation and more stock footage, but the same fantastic continuity gaps and surrealist sensibility.

[Jim Nugent]

.
I also point out, though, that the tastes on this site pretty well reflect those of the major golf mags, as shown in their ratings.  i.e. while not many Fazios or RTJs appear in the world top 100 lists, a whole lot of Doak, C&C, MacKenzie, Old Tom etc. courses do.  Without attempting a chicken/egg analysis, this site is tuned in to the 'experts,', such as they are.    

Last I checked Fazio had more courses in the Golfweek Top 100 Modern than Doak and C&C combined.  Looks like the group-think has more work to do.  

Jud, in Golf Mag's world top 100 list (not just modern U.S.), Fazio has zero courses.  Doak currently has five.  

Golf Week splits up courses in so many categories, it makes the overall comparisons more jumbled.  e.g. none of Tom's overseas courses appear on the modern list you cited, even though two of them are consensus world top 100.  Even so, Tom has four of the top seven Golf Week moderns.  i.e. four courses before Fazio makes the list.  Add in Pete Dye and C&C and they make up 8 of the top 10 at Golf Week... and 14 of the top 20.  

Just curious.  Do you think Fazio's top courses are as good as Doak's best, or C&C's?  e.g. Golf Week ranks Shadow Creek as Fazio's top course.  Do you think it's as good as Pac Dunes, or Barnbougle, or Ballyneal, or Sand Hills or Friar's?  

More generally do you think Fazio is as good an architect, or better than, Tom, Bill Coore or Pete Dye?  

[Jud_T]

Jim,

I honestly haven't played most of Fazio's higher ranked courses.  I really enjoyed TPC Myrtle Beach, it's one of the better courses on the Strand IMO, and think he did a solid job at the Glen Club with a literally dead flat airfield.  After a number of plays I find Conway Farms to be a bit contrived.  I enjoyed Wynn Las Vegas in 105 degree heat which was a decent effort given the amount of real estate he had (even if I have a bit of a soft spot for the old Desert Inn course).  Which of his courses do you think deserves to be in the World Top 100 and why?  

[John Kavanaugh]

I always would've though Jim Engh would've done the Sharknado of golf courses.

As for courses that undergo significant evolution in the five years after opening, I think of them more as the Chinese Democracy of golf courses, only if Chinese Democracy were released in 1998 and then remixed, rerecorded, and remastered continuously and publicly until the finished product was stamped ten years later. Perhaps Sharknado will undergo a similar evolution. I really enjoyed the film and its campiness, but there's a fine line between campy and just plain awful CGI. I'd love to see them remaster it with better computer animation and more stock footage, but the same fantastic continuity gaps and surrealist sensibility.

Two problems: Engh hasn't built anything 91% fresh and Chinese Democracy was developed under the guise of great expectations from the critics. The critics wanted to hate Dismal River before it was ever grassed.  Collect call for Thomas Dunne...the 80's wants your reviews back.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()