Just listened to Stephen Kay podcast. We hurt that guy.

[MCirba]

For what it's worth, the interest in and knowledge about golf course architecture I see out there is about 20x greater than it was when I started playing golf in the 1970s.

Chicken or egg, I believe GolfClubAtlas has been a significant part of that progression.   The world always was and always will be changed by small groups of passionate, influential people who are committed (or should be! ) and persistent.   The rest are just along for the ride.   
 

[Jeff_Brauer]

I don't think this site should flatter itself by thinking it actually hurts an architect.  That's almost up there with Titleist thinking they could hurt Srixon...

Good points.  The internet may not be as impactful as we think.

• 75% of people in the U.S. never tweet.
• Despite all the hand wringing about Fox New impact on America, only <1% actually watch it - 2.2 Million recently.  Only half of that watch the ultra lib MSNBC (1.15 million). 
• Related: Dems 29%, Repubs 27%, Independents 42% (Nixon's silent majority)
• Only 25Mil (about 7.5%) of American play golf.
• Only 10% of those have an official USGA handicap.
• Only 1700 (0.007%)of us have signed up for golf club atlas and spend hours per day here wasting time.  Even if 20X reads this from time to time, it is less than 1% of golfers.

The point is, even in national politics, given for comparative background, those we hear the most about aren't really in the mainstream.  In golf, it may even be smaller percentages.


Anyone can go look up NGF stats on "why golfers play."  Sadly, architecture rarely makes the top ten.

It would seem your reported viewership stats are misleading. My best guess is you are trying to quote average daily viewership, not total viewership. Those two numbers could be significantly different.

How many people tweet is much different than how many people read tweets.

And, how many people post here is much different than how many consume here. That accounts for the pizza men and friends.

Garland, I just retyped some stats I saw.....on line.....I understand it is not a perfect correlation in stats to the question of golf podcasts, but thought I would throw it out there just to remind some or most folks still live real lives.  I agree about average daily stats on Fox and MSNBC. I didn't write out the whole news post, but that is how they presented it.  I suspect that is how TV ratings by Neilsen etc. do it.   I am not sure why total viewership would be much different, but my point remains.  The media reposts a lot of inflamatory crap from those two channels, but in reality, only 1% of the country actually gets that info directly.  And, how many of the repost stories are "Reactions to Fox News?" 


Not sure it is relevant to this discussion, but it seems to echo our "preaching to the choir" ideas presented here.


At least, I hope not all the world spends as much time on the internet as it seems.  Maybe that is my point.

[SL_Solow]

Barney,  The tree is standing although it is showing signs that it may expire from natural causes in the not too distant future.  Not that many surviving American Elms although the hybrids show promise

[John Kavanaugh]

Barney,  The tree is standing although it is showing signs that it may expire from natural causes in the not too distant future.  Not that many surviving American Elms although the hybrids show promise

That tree symbolizes the folly and potential danger of learning what is considered great architecture.

[Ian Andrew]

It's very hard to transition through the cycles of a longer career in golf design. If you are lucky, you have some limited success and you make it on people's radar for interviews or calls. People tend to pay a little too much attention to you while on the rise. You assume that will continue, but it won’t. The attention cycles fluctuate through a career, but once you’ve been around for over twenty years and you’ve not someone whose now famous, the attention you receive will wane. That's most careers. Only a few achieve something beyond that.

[SL_Solow]

Barney, continuing on the tangent of Briarwood's infamous tree on 18. which my good friend Terry Lavin hates, those in the membership do not profess any architectural knowledge when they ask for its demise.  Rather, they don't like the way it impacts their game.  Tom Doak has commented that one way to control the aerial game and bring variety back to the game is to allow trees to grow near greens and effect approach shots provided that the tree does not adversely impact the ability to grow grass on the green.  See page 114 of Tom Doak's Little Red Book of Golf Course Architecture.  Accordingly, the architectural opinion is not unanimous.

[John Kavanaugh]

When I was asked by you about the tree I was torn between what I know and what I felt. I doubt I had the courage to go with what I felt. I love that tree. That is the paradox of knowledge not earned.

[Rick Sides]

I will say I got to play Stephen Kay’s McCulloughs Emerald Links today and had a great time . It is a fun , wide open course that is as close to links as south Jersey gets.