Brad Klein said this;
"There's an extremely high "noise to signal ratio" on GCA which undercuts it, and far too many people go off on vendettas, take themselves too seriously, think that because they have an opinion they therefore have "gravitas" in the industry, post first impression responses that badly need editing, and are too obsessive about small details of architecture without fully appreciating the decision-making, politics and finances of the golf industry."
And followed with this;
"Having sad that, or in spite of all that, there's still value in GCA that outweighs its negatives. Why else are there so many industry insiders who lurk surreptitiously without posting? It's become a good resource for people who are already inclined to think about classical, links-isnpired golf and who love Bernard Darwin, the ethos of match play, greenkeeping (as opposed to golf course superintending) and such retro matters."
Those two paragraphs are sort of the meat of this entire subject to me!
While I believe that many of the things that Brad said in the first quoted paragraph are definitely true there always seems to me to be implications in remarks such as that in which some believe that golf architecture is generally reserved for those in the business only--those few on the inside--"in the know" so to speak! Sort of the great divide between the "professionals" on the one hand, and those amateurs who dabble in the subject as an avocation on the other hand.
I believe in certain areas of golf architecture such as construction, drainage, engineering matters and such that probably is the truth--to a very large extent.
But in another area--particularly the "concept" side of golf architecture--and certainly in the finished product side of it--particularly all the nuances of playability that mind-set is most definitely NOT TRUE! On that side of architecture there is no "professional cognescenti" that some in the "business" would like to think there is or would like others to think there is!
In other words, most on here, except those in the business, don't have particularly good knowledge of the construction, engineering and perhaps financial and club/member connection and necessary polilitics that go with that. But that does not mean at all that many of those on here that don't understand those things particularly well don't have ideas that are as valuable about architectural "concept" and the finished product as good or perhaps even better than many of those who are in the business--who are professionals!!
Why is that? I think it's simply because many on here that are very good and perhaps natural about the "concept" and finished product side of golf architecture simply don't have the restraints and drawbacks that many of those on the professional side do. In a word those who treat this as a passionate avocation are often far more adventurous and free-thinking about golf architecture and ultimately that's a very good thing--perhaps the best thing of all about Golfclubatlas.com and maybe even golf architectural thought generally!
The phenomenon of this website is it really is viewed by an apparenly impressive group of people--those in the business and perhaps in important positions in golf courses around the world. But they only look in here-they don't post. And the reasons for that are of course the real drawback to the potential of this site. The reasons they don't have been talked about many times before on here.
Which brings the subject to criticism and negativity which JakaB seems to be displaying and some seem to be on him for. JakaB's criticism and negativity doesn't concern me at all. I actually think it's a good thing.
Why? Because criticism and controversy of opinion just might be one of the greatest strengths, and certainly one of the greatest interests in all of golf architecture. MacKenzie certainly seemed to believe that. He was probably right.
In any case JakaB's type of post probably exhibits nothing much more than;
1/ A troubled man
2/ Someone who has a particular preference in golf architecture.
3/ Someone whose tongue is firmly clenched in his cheek!
Particularly in older, classic architecture but also in new construction architecture the real deal is in understanding the differences in type and style and all that goes with that--including both created architecture but also maintenance practices! That understanding is a must in my opinion to keep the entire spectrum of the art and business and maintenance thereof from being amalgamated in various ways which the history and evolution of golf courses and their architecture should have taught us by now is the worst and most corrupting thing of all. A "one size fits all" mentality just might be the worst thing of all for golf architecture no matter which end or part of the spectrum it happens to fall on!
The real deal is in the differences in architecture and in keeping those lines of difference defined properly! And that alone is pretty rare and frankly takes a lot more education and knowledge than most know or are willing to admit! I think those who advocate that all courses should be ridded of trees are as short-sighted as those who think all courses should be planted with trees everywhere! And that doctrinaire type of attitude is as prevalent in certain areas on here as the opposite attitude of those golfers who only want to go flying around courses in carts drinking beer and running into the pretty cart girl as much as possible.
A lot of people on here do take this subject and themselves too seriously. A lot of professional architects probably do too. But this site is neither some little right field purist entity that some say it is nor is it the far more potential resource entity that some would like to see it become.
But the good news is it is controversial. It's the site that some love and some love to hate.
Both are good things! But as a much better resource for restoration architecture as well as an advocate for the return of certain styles and particularly certain necessary maintenance practices----I still have hopes for Golfclubatlas.com. It's just that so far we can't seem to figure out how to put those high hopes into effect.