Did Social Media kill GCA.com?

[Tim_Cronin]

No, it did not.


Love the site, love the treehouse as well.

[Richard Fisher]

100% agreement with Tim. No it did not. And never underestimate the number of GCAers (like me) who don't actually use social media like Facebook or Instagram at all. Of course the site has changed over two decades, as the contributing personnel have changed, but (most of the time) it is still hugely informative and lots of fun. Which is the purpose of the exercise, I always thought..

[Tim_Weiman]

Evan,


Nice to see you check in. Hope all is well for you.


Tim

[Bill Gayne]

OT. the thread title has the Buggles song Video Killed the Radio Star running through my head every time I read it.

[Steve Lang]

Hey Ben, 


Did you ever play The Rawls Course after that rained out meeting we had planned many many moons ago?  All Ms Sheila and I could do was drive around and look at it and roll some balls on the greens...  and take in the Buddy Holly Museum in Lubbock


I can't agree that social media killed golfclubatlas.com but I do think one day it will simply disappear into the ether... and folks will reach out to their golfing friends made via this website over the years and soldier on experiencing old and new gca .. those who saved their research into the archives will guard those precious digital files... as well as Dixie Cup and other player rosters..


I think I still have the Sports Illustrated issue (hidden away somewhere in my library) sent to me by my childhood golfing Bud, to check out these guys like Tommy N pictured playing into Hell Bunker on purpose.. I was lucky to get into the ranks back then, so now golfclubatlas.com is simply like that well worn coffee table book but only internet style, with a link on my pc.  it's didactic purpose is no more moot than having to play & figure out The Road Hole at TOC and that darn fronting bunker.

[Will Thrasher]

Hey Ben, 


Did you ever play The Rawls Course after that rained out meeting we had planned many many moons ago?  All Ms Sheila and I could do was drive around and look at it and roll some balls on the greens...  and take in the Buddy Holly Museum in Lubbock


I can't agree that social media killed golfclubatlas.com but I do think one day it will simply disappear into the ether... and folks will reach out to their golfing friends made via this website over the years and soldier on experiencing old and new gca .. those who saved their research into the archives will guard those precious digital files... as well as Dixie Cup and other player rosters..


I think I still have the Sports Illustrated issue (hidden away somewhere in my library) sent to me by my childhood golfing Bud, to check out these guys like Tommy N pictured playing into Hell Bunker on purpose.. I was lucky to get into the ranks back then, so now golfclubatlas.com is simply like that well worn coffee table book but only internet style, with a link on my pc.  it's didactic purpose is no more moot than having to play & figure out The Road Hole at TOC and that darn fronting bunker.

I'm 35 years old, and would gladly volunteer to keep this site alive - I'm a huge fan of the many other resources mentioned (interestingly enough this post was referenced on a ClubTFE Fried Egg blog post this morning). I'm all for multiple places to go to discuss/experience great golf course architecture, but as a younger member of this forum I sincerely hope that we keep this place alive as long as possible. My hope is that it's still a resource where the next generation of Tom Doak's come to post their thoughts and interact with those of us that are die-hard hobbyists.

[Tom_Doak]

My hope is that it's still a resource where the next generation of Tom Doaks come to post their thoughts and interact with those of us that are die-hard hobbyists.

That's an interesting take but I am not sure if it will happen . . . if it was going to happen, it should have started by now.  We generally have the same few architects participating here who have done so for 10-20 years [Jeff B, Mike Y, Ian A, and myself].  Andrew Green and Rob Collins and Kyle Franz are looking for their own lanes, somewhere else.


In the end, this discussion group is really more about discussion than promotion, and most young designers don't want to take the time for that, when so many other avenues for promotion now exist.  My own participation is somewhat less, too . . . it is much easier for me to talk about whatever I want on a podcast that takes a couple of hours to record, than to keep up with this board, especially when there are fewer old friends to chat with here.


I wouldn't write off Golf Club Atlas just yet, though.  I had a long talk with Ran the other day about when or if to pursue the last book of our Confidential Guide series, and he shared some big plans for the future of Golf Club Atlas.  Stay tuned!

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom,


Thanks for the heads up on Ran and GCA.


Hope all is well for you.


Tim

[Chris Hughes]

Absolutely not.

In fact, the constant proliferation of inferior topical mud thrown on the wall...

...only widens the GCA "moat" IMO.  (see Buffett)

[Ben Sims]

Hey Ben, 


Did you ever play The Rawls Course after that rained out meeting we had planned many many moons ago?  All Ms Sheila and I could do was drive around and look at it and roll some balls on the greens...  and take in the Buddy Holly Museum in Lubbock


I can't agree that social media killed golfclubatlas.com but I do think one day it will simply disappear into the ether... and folks will reach out to their golfing friends made via this website over the years and soldier on experiencing old and new gca .. those who saved their research into the archives will guard those precious digital files... as well as Dixie Cup and other player rosters..


I think I still have the Sports Illustrated issue (hidden away somewhere in my library) sent to me by my childhood golfing Bud, to check out these guys like Tommy N pictured playing into Hell Bunker on purpose.. I was lucky to get into the ranks back then, so now golfclubatlas.com is simply like that well worn coffee table book but only internet style, with a link on my pc.  it's didactic purpose is no more moot than having to play & figure out The Road Hole at TOC and that darn fronting bunker.

Steve,


I did get to play The Rawls Course way back when. It’s an interesting course to say the least. Perhaps more than all but a few of Renaissance’s courses it demonstrates care and talent. If it were in Phoenix it’d be talked about A LOT more.


—break break—


I went over to The Fried Egg today and noticed that Garrett had made a blog entry about this thread. He made some good points. I agree with a lot of what he said, particularly the bit about this still being a niche interest and the overall golf architecture IQ of the average golfer being quite low.


The place where I diverge with him is there being a place for seekers. I think web3 (as he coined it for the purpose of this discussion) has made it possible for short form entertainment to supplant long form information and study as the basis for golf architecture enthusiasm. Drone pics and a quick blurb about how great a course is (and they’re ALL great on IG) seems to be the deepest a lot of architecture enthusiasts go these days. And the post count and involvement here suffers as a result.


I want to be clear, I like TFE quite a bit. I am a happy paying member of Club TFE. But it isn’t lost of me that a site that monetizes a membership to a golf architecture “club” wrote about this post rather than actually post here.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I went over to The Fried Egg today and noticed that Garrett had made a blog entry about this thread. He made some good points. I agree with a lot of what he said, particularly the bit about this still being a niche interest and the overall golf architecture IQ of the average golfer being quite low.

Yes, it's still very niche. I try to talk to some of my college golfers about it, and they basically like the golf courses in the best condition.    That's almost the extent of their architecture takes, and while I wish I could say it's due to their age… that's almost the same as what I hear from most other people. Or they'll say they like the courses on which they shoot the best scores. 

I want to be clear, I like TFE quite a bit. I am a happy paying member of Club TFE.[/size] But it isn’t lost of me that a site that monetizes a membership to a golf architecture “club” wrote about this post rather than actually post here.

That seems unfair. They have their own platform, so it seems fair they'd post it on their own platform (I don't see it, in a quick look, so I don't know if it's behind or in front of the paywall).

[Ben Sims]

That seems unfair. They have their own platform, so it seems fair they'd post it on their own platform (I don't see it, in a quick look, so I don't know if it's behind or in front of the paywall).

Erik,

I wasn’t disparaging. It’s well within Garrett’s right to do as he pleases. The point I was trying to make is that a social media entity was posting their own ideas about a GCA.com thread. Instead of engaging *here*, the engagement is happening elsewhere, is what I’m saying.


To reiterate, not disparaging. I’m making observations. And this isn’t about any one specific entity within these mediums.

[Matt Schoolfield]

The point I was trying to make is that a social media entity was posting their own ideas about a GCA.com thread. Instead of engaging *here*, the engagement is happening elsewhere, is what I’m saying.

Never forget that this site is a walled garden.

I don't think he is a member. Not allowing public assess to a popular forum implicitly incentivizes debate elsewhere. I think the kids at TFE could actually do well for themselves creating a lightly moderated competitor forum to GCA that simply allowed open discussion to all their members. The amount of folks who are passionate about architecture, but that aren't invited here, is non-trivial. Those folks just don't get to contribute. Lord knows that I lurked around here occasionally for years before a random guy in the industry suggested I actually reach out for access. 

[Chris Hughes]

The amount of folks who are passionate about architecture, but that aren't invited here, is non-trivial.


LOL...complete B.S.


Those folks just don't get to contribute.


Tough.

Lord knows that I lurked around here occasionally for years before a random guy in the industry suggested I actually reach out for access.


You and 3 others...

...good to see you finally grew some balls, obviously nothing was preventing you from having "access".

Good onya mate!

[Matt Schoolfield]

LOL...complete B.S.

This is the only thing that greets you:

A Discussion Group limited to 1,500 individuals. If interested in participating, please contact us.

You have to email Ran, himself, to get access to a site with 1,500 open spaces. Reddit has 1.3 million people on the golf subreddit. I don't know whether he lets everyone in, but it certainly seems implausible on it's face.

Tough.

You and 3 others...

...good to see you finally grew some balls, obviously nothing was preventing you from having "access".

Oh what it would be like if GCA had a lightly moderated competitor. 

I see now that what appears to be a walled garden might just be the result of running 1999 software in 2024, but I just don't see how anyone can look at a website with no place to sign up, with a single line of text on the entire site, which is limited to 1,500 and then directing you to Ran's business email, and think that it's open to everyone. If you are right and I'm wrong, I have little doubt that many share my misconception.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I think the kids at TFE could actually do well for themselves creating a lightly moderated competitor forum to GCA that simply allowed open discussion to all their members.

I think they want no part in doing that. Except for ClubTFE members commenting on articles… that's about as far as they're wanting to go.

[Brad Gehl]

My hope is that it's still a resource where the next generation of Tom Doaks come to post their thoughts and interact with those of us that are die-hard hobbyists.

That's an interesting take but I am not sure if it will happen . . . if it was going to happen, it should have started by now.  We generally have the same few architects participating here who have done so for 10-20 years [Jeff B, Mike Y, Ian A, and myself].  Andrew Green and Rob Collins and Kyle Franz are looking for their own lanes, somewhere else.


In the end, this discussion group is really more about discussion than promotion, and most young designers don't want to take the time for that, when so many other avenues for promotion now exist.  My own participation is somewhat less, too . . . it is much easier for me to talk about whatever I want on a podcast that takes a couple of hours to record, than to keep up with this board, especially when there are fewer old friends to chat with here.


I wouldn't write off Golf Club Atlas just yet, though.  I had a long talk with Ran the other day about when or if to pursue the last book of our Confidential Guide series, and he shared some big plans for the future of Golf Club Atlas.  Stay tuned!

TD.. us younger understudies are (generally) abiding by the rule of thumb we have two ears and one mouth and should use them proportionally. Golf Club Atlas has been an incredible open source of information to quietly fact check "new" ideas or answer "what if" questions.  Almost without fail in prompting such questions I've found they have already been discussed, debated, argued and agreeable upon at some point in a discussion group. Your consistent participation throughout the years alongside other accomplished architects, supers, the die-hard hobbyists is almost a novel in itself, you just have to know where to look.


In short, GCA is and will continue to be an invaluable resource to the younger generation. (if they want to be worth a damn, that is)

[Andy Johnson]

That seems unfair. They have their own platform, so it seems fair they'd post it on their own platform (I don't see it, in a quick look, so I don't know if it's behind or in front of the paywall).

Erik,

I wasn’t disparaging. It’s well within Garrett’s right to do as he pleases. The point I was trying to make is that a social media entity was posting their own ideas about a GCA.com thread. Instead of engaging *here*, the engagement is happening elsewhere, is what I’m saying.


To reiterate, not disparaging. I’m making observations. And this isn’t about any one specific entity within these mediums.

Ben, thanks for being a member of ClubTFE, to be honest I had a long post drafted about this that I chose to not post because I thought it was unnecessary to hear my thoughts on the subject. Without this message board and website, I wouldn't have fallen in love with golf course architecture the way I did. I don't think it's dead at all, it's just different. That's what happens over decades, things change and this is still a super valuable resource, especially the back archives of this board.


Also, please don't refer to what we do as a social media entity. That is probably the furthest thing from what we do, we produce 5,000+ written words per week, host 5 hours of long form audio and post well-produced videos roughly monthly. We predominately use social media to push people to our work that is not on social media.


As for our membership, we have big goals from both building community and providing an amazing membership product. Where we are right now is 1.0 of what we plan to do. Hopefully in the near future there will be some massive improvements in tech for members and more of the innovative and one of a kind content that we have brought to the golf world.

[Ben Sims]

That seems unfair. They have their own platform, so it seems fair they'd post it on their own platform (I don't see it, in a quick look, so I don't know if it's behind or in front of the paywall).

Erik,

I wasn’t disparaging. It’s well within Garrett’s right to do as he pleases. The point I was trying to make is that a social media entity was posting their own ideas about a GCA.com thread. Instead of engaging *here*, the engagement is happening elsewhere, is what I’m saying.


To reiterate, not disparaging. I’m making observations. And this isn’t about any one specific entity within these mediums.

Ben, thanks for being a member of ClubTFE, to be honest I had a long post drafted about this that I chose to not post because I thought it was unnecessary to hear my thoughts on the subject. Without this message board and website, I wouldn't have fallen in love with golf course architecture the way I did. I don't think it's dead at all, it's just different. That's what happens over decades, things change and this is still a super valuable resource, especially the back archives of this board.


Also, please don't refer to what we do as a social media entity. That is probably the furthest thing from what we do, we produce 5,000+ written words per week, host 5 hours of long form audio and post well-produced videos roughly monthly. We predominately use social media to push people to our work that is not on social media.


As for our membership, we have big goals from both building community and providing an amazing membership product. Where we are right now is 1.0 of what we plan to do. Hopefully in the near future there will be some massive improvements in tech for members and more of the innovative and one of a kind content that we have brought to the golf world.

Thanks Andy.


As Garrett pointed out, any good thread title starts with a false premise. We’ve been doing it since I got here in 2009 and long before. Seems to have generated some traffic and for that, I’m happy.


But the title itself may have buried the lede. The meat of my OP was addressed by your first paragraph. I had a sneaking suspicion you were among that group that took your interest and elevated it into empire. I visit TFE almost everyday but for a distinct purpose. Tastemakers in the golf architecture space (outside of the magazines) have platforms that are collectively pretty terrific. Being an esoteric and niche interest, naturally your site and content (among others) steals a little light from this space. Mike Young touched on that earlier in the thread.


Apologies if my generic characterization marginalized TFE. It wasn’t meant that way. I just struggle to encapsulate all the “new” places you can get golf architecture info and content into a term that fits.


Bottom line, my own thought on this topic is similar to yours. The place is different and its back archives are invaluable. GCA.com still very much serves a purpose in this most nerdy of golf interests.

[Mark Pearce]

We generally have the same few architects participating here who have done so for 10-20 years [Jeff B, Mike Y, Ian A, and myself].  Andrew Green and Rob Collins and Kyle Franz are looking for their own lanes, somewhere else.

Robin Hiseman, Adrian Stiff and Clyde are too British to count?

[V_Halyard]

Love this question
I don’t think social media killed it. The appreciation jumped from GCa to golf media with the death of “Resistance to Scoring” , and the wider recognition of the existence of golf course architecture has reduced the urgency of GCAtlas.
Additionally, the recognition that gca adds to clubs and courses has expanded.
Social media has absolutely expanded the aesthetic appreciation for excellent gca. 

In the end, it hasn’t killed Golf club Atlas, we’re just moving back to talking quietly amongst ourselves.

[Tom_Doak]

We generally have the same few architects participating here who have done so for 10-20 years [Jeff B, Mike Y, Ian A, and myself].  Andrew Green and Rob Collins and Kyle Franz are looking for their own lanes, somewhere else.

Robin Hiseman, Adrian Stiff and Clyde are too British to count?

Mark:


Fair enough. Adrian still does post here often.  Clyde not nearly often enough. And Robin not as much anymore.  And we both forgot Ally Macintosh, although by using the word "British" you threw down the gauntlet.

[V_Halyard]

Another note. GCA is non commercial free form driven by text and prose in a video and image driven environment.
It returns to its core based on discussion. That does not mean video and images won’t expand but gca was a foundation for the exploration of architecture.
It’s not dead, just quieter.

[Chris Hughes]

LOL...complete B.S.

This is the only thing that greets you:

A Discussion Group limited to 1,500 individuals. If interested in participating, please contact us.

You have to email Ran, himself, to get access to a site with 1,500 open spaces. Reddit has 1.3 million people on the golf subreddit. I don't know whether he lets everyone in, but it certainly seems implausible on it's face.

Tough.

You and 3 others...

...good to see you finally grew some balls, obviously nothing was preventing you from having "access".

Oh what it would be like if GCA had a lightly moderated competitor. 

I see now that what appears to be a walled garden might just be the result of running 1999 software in 2024, but I just don't see how anyone can look at a website with no place to sign up, with a single line of text on the entire site, which is limited to 1,500 and then directing you to Ran's business email, and think that it's open to everyone. If you are right and I'm wrong, I have little doubt that many share my misconception.

You don't seem to like this site, at all...




...why not log out and head over to "reddit" full time?

[Niall C]

Are we not in danger of taking the back-catalogue for granted ? If the site fails to remain current, then it is in danger of going and with that the back-catalogue.


Also, while it is true that there probably aren't many subjects left that haven't been discussed on here, I think it is worth encouraging the new-blood to reprise a topic or discuss it anew, rather than constantly referring them back to old threads. A different take on something can be refreshing.


Niall