Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Mike_Young on September 03, 2013, 09:52:15 PM
-
I was reading an article on Pathological Narcissism and much seemed to align with how we see golf courses:
THE ARTICLE STATES:
America suffers from a classic and well known phenomenon studied since 1974 known as the, “Spiral of Silence,” and this phenomenon has only been made worse by advancements in technology that amplify the social interactions between people, through for example, Facebook.
The spiral of silence is a political science and mass communication theory propounded by the German political scientist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann. Spiral of silence theory describes the process by which one opinion becomes dominant as those who perceive their opinion to be in the minority do not speak up because society threatens individuals with fear of isolation. The assessment of ones social environment may not always be correct with reality.
Last night, Facebook was all aflutter with comments lamenting the acquittal of George Zimmerman. Such was their emotional distress, that their profile pictures were soon changed to an obscure figure in a dark hoodie.
This wave of emotionally fueled and vacuous Facebook assaults on George Zimmerman was met with silence, the Spiral of Silence. Only those who were seeking out confirmation that George was a murderer, and those willing to provide it, and thus confirming themselves in the process, were publicly discussing the case. All those with an alternate opinion were not speaking up because, “society threatens individuals with fear of isolation,” and as social creatures, isolation is one of our greatest fears. This allows the sentimental narcissists to define the narrative and make the majority believe that the minority opinion represents everyone. This is why it is important for those of a diverging opinion to risk sharing it. You may be surprised to discover how many others agree with you, but were in silence.
These emotionally-based sentimentalists swim in an ocean of self-reinforcing group-think where how you feel about something is more important than 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. Humans, like the rest of the natural world from lightening to rivers, seek out the path of least resistance. Drawing conclusions on anything based on emotion is significantly easier than applying oneself to the task of mental calisthenics.
I THINK WE TREAT GCA THE SAME... :) :)
-
Because the site is made up of human beings, I'm sure it impacts our discussions. But I think we've got some diverse opinions going.
-
Mike,
Are you saying that those that don't fall into the "politically correct" category tend to remain silent ? ;D
-
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...
Pat,
Hmmmmm...I think so.... ;D
-
Did Elisabeth like Merion? Just wondering since any topic with those six letters in it seem to disprove her theory .
-
I'm going to take the bait:
I think there are only 9 interesting holes on TOC: 6,7,11,12,13,14,15,16,17. The rest is rather boring.
-
Many clubs are run by this theory
-
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...
Pat,
Hmmmmm...I think so.... ;D
I think a lot of the silence comes from the fact that group-think is so pervasive on this site that many times, it's not worth the effort and energy to write a alternate view, only to get bombarded by 12 self-congratulatory posts from the same cast of characters. Unless you have half a day set aside to defend and respond, more often than not, it's not worth the trouble.
-
Many clubs are run by this theory
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Mike - well, let me face the spiral of silence head on and say, unequivocally, that I believe you are not the laid-back lunkhead you often appear to be!!
But seriously: I think the sad part -- in areas/spheres of life more important than gca.com -- is not so much that society marginalizes us, but that we marginalize ourselves, often for fear of being laughed at or criticized; and that over time we can start to forget that we've done that to ourselves, and even forget that there was once a genuine and unique 'self' that was unafraid and full of promise. I think there is so much passion and original ideas and noble and courageous thoughts and potentially amazing discoveries/creations out there, all lying buried deep down in the hearts and minds of people who were laughed at or criticized once too often, and who then marginalized themselves away.
Peter
-
Mike - well, let me face the spiral of silence head on and say, unequivocally, that I believe you are not the laid-back lunkhead you often appear to be!!
But seriously: I think the sad part -- in areas/spheres of life more important than gca.com -- is not so much that society marginalizes us, but that we marginalize ourselves, often for fear of being laughed at or criticized; and that over time we can start to forget that we've done that to ourselves, and even forget that there was once a genuine and unique 'self' that was unafraid and full of promise. I think there is so much passion and original ideas and noble and courageous thoughts and potentially amazing discoveries/creations out there, all lying buried deep down in the hearts and minds of people who were laughed at or criticized once too often, and who then marginalized themselves away.
Peter
Peter,
Gee....I love that name "lunkhead"...
AND agree with your second paragraph 100%...well said...
-
I think the biggest challenge for lurkers and occasional posters here is the sheer volume of posts that come from a certain small percentage of posters. Over time the names have changed, but there seems to have always been a smallish group that dominates through volume. If you can't post regularly (during the US workday), the discussion moves along and leaves you behind. I also find that if you disagree with those who can post regularly, it often isn't worth the argument because you lose based on sheer post volume (making it seem like more are against you than is really the case).
Now, some of those who post regularly do so very thoughtfully. This is not a criticism of those with high post counts. I don't see much positive or negative correlation between quantity and quality of posts. I do think it is difficult to post thoughtfully, however, unless one has the time to follow-up on a regular basis.
And for my personal situation, after 4,000 posts I can't think of much new material that would be worth posting unless someone starts bashing Golf Digest panelists or doesn't really understand the process! ;)
-
I think a lot of the silence comes from the fact that group-think is so pervasive on this site that many times, it's not worth the effort and energy to write a alternate view, only to get bombarded by 12 self-congratulatory posts from the same cast of characters. Unless you have half a day set aside to defend and respond, more often than not, it's not worth the trouble.
Ahhhh, do you mean the quality of having the courage of your convictions ? ;D
-
I think the biggest challenge for lurkers and occasional posters here is the sheer volume of posts that come from a certain small percentage of posters. Over time the names have changed, but there seems to have always been a smallish group that dominates through volume. If you can't post regularly (during the US workday), the discussion moves along and leaves you behind. I also find that if you disagree with those who can post regularly, it often isn't worth the argument because you lose based on sheer post volume (making it seem like more are against you than is really the case).
Now, some of those who post regularly do so very thoughtfully. This is not a criticism of those with high post counts. I don't see much positive or negative correlation between quantity and quality of posts. I do think it is difficult to post thoughtfully, however, unless one has the time to follow-up on a regular basis.
This is up there in the most truthful posts I have read.
A huge +1
I think a lot of the silence comes from the fact that group-think is so pervasive on this site that many times, it's not worth the effort and energy to write a alternate view, only to get bombarded by 12 self-congratulatory posts from the same cast of characters. Unless you have half a day set aside to defend and respond, more often than not, it's not worth the trouble.
It is not worth the trouble to defend or respond because, as Andy said, the volume of posts will consume your argument or leave your argument in the dust.
-
Hmm... the "Silent Majority." Now where have I heard that before?
-
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...
Pat,
Hmmmmm...I think so.... ;D
I think a lot of the silence comes from the fact that group-think is so pervasive on this site that many times, it's not worth the effort and energy to write a alternate view, only to get bombarded by 12 self-congratulatory posts from the same cast of characters. Unless you have half a day set aside to defend and respond, more often than not, it's not worth the trouble.
hear, hear!
-
JR and Andy are spot on.
There are also strong elements of negative selection that compound the effect.
Very interesting and insightful post, Mike. Thanks.
-
I dunno.
With respect to this paragraph:
"These emotionally-based sentimentalists swim in an ocean of self-reinforcing group-think where how you feel about something is more important than 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. Humans, like the rest of the natural world from lightening to rivers, seek out the path of least resistance. Drawing conclusions on anything based on emotion is significantly easier than applying oneself to the task of mental calisthenics."
Evaluating golf architecture is largely subjective, and therefore does not lend itself all that well to "logical conclusion". I do have my own set of criteria to "logically" evaluate courses, and every now and then I shoot my mouth off and mention something about a course, usually something I've said before.
I've been a member of GCA for nine years, and after about five years, I had decided what I like and dislike. I don't participate as much because I've said everything I wanted to say. Every now and then I get a decent idea, but not often.
If you like Tom Fazio and Rees Jones courses, then say so and be prepared to say why. I have specific reasons why I like or dislike golf courses. Saying you will get drowned out by a cacophony of sycophants is a bit of a cop out. You can always fall back on the logic of "I like it because I like it."
If the majority of posters are quiet, I think it is because many veterans have said what they wanted to say, and golf architecture is a finite subject we have thoroughly discussed. As a result, there are fewer topics of interest.
If I had to cite another reason why GCA is slow, if it actually is, I would refer to it as "cyberbullying", which I don't think is the same as the "spiral of silence".
I don't like the example used in the original post. On my Facebook and other sociopolitical discussion boards I follow, there were vocal advocates for both general views (guilty or not guilty) about Mr. Zimmerman. Finally, in the five years I have been a member of Facebook, I have been distinctly less happy in life. There's a pretty obvious correlation.
-
John Kirk,
If you like Tom Fazio and Rees Jones courses, then say so and be prepared to say why.
I agree, and have underlined what I think leads to some people claiming they've been shouted down by the masses when they profess a love for Fazio or Rees.
Everyone should absolutely feel comfortable stating their opinions and preferences, but you have to be willing to explain why you feel a certain way if you're challenged. That isn't bullying and it's not "shouting down".
Thomas Dai loves the 2010 course at Celtic Manor.
Chip Gaskins thinks the 3rd at National Golf Links isn't much good.
Sean Arble reckons Silloth is too short and easy.
Brian Phillips thinks Royal Sydney should be World Top 100 and NSWGC is a glorified goat track muni.
Michael Taylor was disappointed by NGLA and doesn't get the hype around Royal Melbourne.
There are plenty of examples of GCAers being willing to offer a dissenting opinion and stand behind it, but the above revelations understandably caused a bit of a stir when they were aired, either on this site or on the golf course between members of this site, and those who expressed them were asked to explain why they felt the way they do.
-
There's a reason why Fox News garners such ludicrously high ratings compared to its competitors. Validation of opinion is far easier and more gratifying than facts and thought. There's comfort in the herd, especially when the herd continually moo's in unison on top of being closely spaced.
I had a recent experience where I innocuously--but honestly--opined on the new bunkering at Sewanee as overdone. Specifically the bunker edges looked, well, not good. Funny thing is that those same bunker edges have been done a lot over the past 10 years and I hadn't really reacted negatively until I saw the photos of Sewanee. I don't know why I diverged from the herd, or felt the need to even address it. But the invalidation of my own opinion followed swiftly, online and off. I don't know why the opinion of a bunker edge meant so much. Especially from someone 1) not in the business and 2) not likely to ever play Sewanee.
After the first year to two on GCA.com, I felt it was disingenuous to bat my eyes. But not doing so has cost me. There's value in lockstep opinion and silver-tongued accolade. Specifically on GCA.com, it brings access to many things that "normal" golfers don't have. Not the least of which is golf courses themselves. Access to a friends-group of higher than average socio-economic means comes to many here as a result of their opinions on golf architecture. And the revolving door of characters with closely matched opinions continues.
The older I get, the more I realize that most people don't want to hang out with people that make them think. It's just not human nature for the majority. 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. :)
-
Ben
The herds have very similar stripes as they all belong to the Golfer Species. The issue amongst the herds is a lack of personal knowledge. Rather, because you express opinion Y you are assessed to have Y number of stripes. You and those of your herd could express the same sentiment in person and probably not cause an issue (offense?). Such is life in rough and tumble streets of cyber-communication.
Ciao
-
Mike, a lot of self-selection goes on here. GCA has enough of a minimalist-type bent, it doesn't draw so many RTJ/Fazio enthusiasts.
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.
Ben, I'm sure you are partly right about Fox News. But there's another reason as well. Until Fox came along, the conservatives had nowhere to turn. CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN are strongly liberal. No surprise that a network taking the conservative view attracts more conservatives.
ETA: for those concerned about group think on this site, read John Percival's latest post in his Doonbeg thread. He just played Lahinch, HATED it, and gives a whole bunch of reasons why.
-
Ben Sims wrote:
"The older I get, the more I realize that most people don't want to hang out with people that make them think.
I would disagree with the above statement, and feel just the opposite.
I guess it depends upon the crowd you hang out with.
Me, I want to be stimulated and provoked by intelligent thought and the people responsible for same.
It's just not human nature for the majority.
What do you base your conclusion on ?
Did you take a poll ?
I gravitate towards folks like Kirk, Mahaffey, Young and Warne precisely because they're conspicuous dissenters. And in that, I find comfort.
Dissenters or free thinkers ?
Like Fox News ? ;D
-
Ben,
Me a dissenter???? Come on. I'm a realist in an idealistic business. there's a big difference.
As an example: just take a minute and list all the "architects", "designers" "pro golfers" that you can list. How many of those actually have an 18 hole course with their name on the scorecard? I wager much less than half. That's not a judgment of anyone but a measurable item.
Just consider all of the associates over the last 25 years that have worked in the business for the large firms, yet no name on the scorecard. And now, in today's environment there is no new work and we still see all of these "architects", "designers" "pro golfers". I'm not saying any of us "architects", "designers" "pro golfers" are not qualified to do the work. I'm saying there is no work for most. Eventually guys will tire of their wife working while they "wait" for some promise of some developer to give them their next project and they will ease into another field. Now is that an example of dissenting or keeping it "real"???
Fly safe dude...
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
"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.
-
Group Think and Group Shrink. One group is larger than the other.
-
"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.
-
online, it is easy to get caught up in your own opinions without every listening (or reading) what anyone else has to say
-
"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.
-
.
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. 8)
-
...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....
-
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.
-
"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.
-
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.
-
"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..."
-
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,
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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! ;D
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
.
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. 8)
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
Which of his courses do you think deserves to be in the World Top 100 and why?
I'm not qualified to say, as I've only played two: both courses at Pelican Hill, back in the early/mid 1990s. My pre-GCA days, but also my playing days. At the time I felt they were ok, but not special. Attractively laid out, but not so much substance.
That's a pretty common knock on Fazio here. It lines up with my only two experiences. Just like the RTJ courses I've seen or played (Bellerive, Old Warson) pretty well line up with what I read about his courses here.
My real point was/is that the courses that make up the world top 100 lists also tend to be the ones GCAers like. RTJ and Fazio have few if any of these courses. Guys like Doak, C&C, MacKenzie, CBM, Tillie, etc. have lots of them. No surprise that they get more discussion here.
RTJ's rep here is mostly as the guy who helped GCA take a wrong turn, that lasted for decades. Fazio's rep is a guy who too often features form over substance, even though he clearly has the talent to do otherwise. Both those match up well with my experiences with them.
-
The critics wanted to hate Dismal River before it was ever grassed.
I never picked up on that, though the course took criticism after it opened. The various owners took a lot of the criticism to heart. They made changes to Dismal, almost from the start, for years. Suggesting the critics were not so off base.
Why do you say they hated it before the course opened?
-
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.
Good point. Maybe Dismal River White has more in common with Exile on Main Street. I actually like that comparison a lot better. Both were built by highly influential artists who always seems to play second fiddle to a contemporary (speaking of Nicklaus the architect, and obviously not Nicklaus the golfer). Both are heavily influenced by genres that aren't typical of their creator - Exile with its gospel and soul undertones and Dismal with its naturalist prairie influence in the work of one of the great parkland architects of the modern era. And both have become better over time, Dismal with its tinkering and Exile with its remasterings that have really improved the listening experience.
As for Engh, the real problem seems to be a lack of self-awareness. Sharknado knows exactly what it is. Engh doesn't seem as sure. My CGI complaint in Sharknado is minor, and it's possible the film's charm would've been destroyed had they listened to me. Engh, on the other hand, probably would've had the sharks hand-animated in beautiful and lush impressionistic tones. They'd have been lovely works of art that just didn't fit.
-
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?
I'm going to open myself up to scorn by sharing my perception which is based way too much on personal anecdotal evidence influenced by the courses I've played, and my age at the time.
I feel like Fazio did a lot to prepare us for the Doak and C&C's of the world. For my taste, Pete Dye put out much more thoughtful and strategic designs, however by the late 1980's his work was becoming stereotyped by the stadium feel, and I think Fazio broke from that to provide courses that appeared more natural, even if they weren't. My first trip around Crooked Stick and Conway Farms were only months apart, but I can tell you Conway Farms stuck out to me more. It was more innovative and fun to me at that time. It also appeared more natural (even though it really isn't). I think a lot of Fazio's work around that time, Black Diamond, World Woods, etc. seemed new and natural by comparison to the trends of the day.
I didn't play much golf from 1996 - 1999, and I remember really being excited to play the fazio course on a trip to treetops, but coming away extremely disappointed. It felt soulless and uninspiring. Looking back, Conway is a bit contrived as well, but that's seen much more clearly after we've actually seen GCA's implement minimalism in a naturalistic way, something few had seen in the 40 years leading up to that 1985-1993 phase. I give Fazio credit for much of his work in that 1985 - 1993 timeframe, as I think it did subtly redirect things, or at very least prepare the unwashed masses (me) for the minimalism that has come into vogue.
Ironically, now I see some of Dye's newer courses as much more in line with nature, but not sure if that's my evolving views and perceptions, or a shift in his work from the 80's to later works.
I will now refresh and reread my groundbreaking statement 50 times in hopes you all like me!
-
I often see newbs come on here proclaiming their love for some non favored course, and quickly find they are out of step. I recall doing the same thing myself, and also seeing many other architects come on here only to find the popular discussion topics are pretty limited.
BTW, I agree the top dogs generally deserve their accolades. On the other hand, every critique of RTJ or Fazio probably stems from having done too many courses, perhaps being repetitive or inconsistent out of the box. (That's a problem 99% of architects would LOVE to have!)
I do find myself wondering when and if that natural process of the same guys who built up the top archies reputations start the process of tearing it down. It happens, to politicians, architects, whatever. That said, I feel (just a gut feel, no real backup) that some of the rest of the world will move on, and this site would be the last to catch on to the next hot architect.
I have heard snippets of "C and C are getting repetitive" and just a few about Doak greens (they treat you like a baby treats a diaper.....oh wait, I wrote that one.....) but I haven't seen the process really accelerate. That said, I wonder if/when it will. If RTJ greens got critiqued/remodeled as too severe, why won't that happen to TD?
There may be some reasons. Certainly, TD has had the best run of sites ever, and both firms are different than the big names of the past in that most of their projects seem to be golf only, rather than golf/housing that other big names get stuck with for marketing reasons. For that matter, those two firms are the first to build their fan base via the internet, vs. magazines, which is also a big differentiator.
So again, there are reasons why they have stayed on top. Obviously, some things never change (i.e., no archie stays on top forever) while other things in this new age have changed quite a bit.
Back on topic, I also find myself wondering about the level of discussion here. We really don't discuss architecture all that much. Just try an esoteric question and you get five responses, tops. Talk about a Doak or a classic and it goes for months or years. In other words, for all the potential for intelligent discussion (and there is lots of it) it in many cases, this website turns into an internet version of some travel blog, with name dropping, course counting, etc. I will grant its hard to discuss courses you haven't played, and even harder for most to discuss architectural concepts in depth.
In fact, architectural concepts is where I think the real silence begins on this board, even moreso than in discussing different architects.
-
Back on topic, I also find myself wondering about the level of discussion here. We really don't discuss architecture all that much. Just try an esoteric question and you get five responses, tops. Talk about a Doak or a classic and it goes for months or years. In other words, for all the potential for intelligent discussion (and there is lots of it) it in many cases, this website turns into an internet version of some travel blog, with name dropping, course counting, etc. I will grant its hard to discuss courses you haven't played, and even harder for most to discuss architectural concepts in depth.
In fact, architectural concepts is where I think the real silence begins on this board, even moreso than in discussing different architects.
Jeff
I had been thinking very similar thoughts to what you have posted here since I saw this thread. You have however, managed to put it into words far better than I could have articulated.
I have played very few of what would be considered great courses (even in my own country) so it is often difficult to find something to contribute to the many multi page threads based around the usual suspects. On the occasion where I have commented it has been done so based on photos which is heavily frowned upon.
Architectural concepts are something which I can ponder and have started several threads in recent times about such things. One of which (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,56128.msg1302399.html#msg1302399) you where kind enough to weigh in on. It dosent require a person to have notched up a certain number of high ranking courses to discuss concepts and examples can often be found in unexpected places.
I wonder if perhaps part of the issue is a reluctance/inability to visualise ideas as opposed to reacting to what is seen. It is far easier to look at something and decide whether you like or dislike it. It is much tougher to apply your own thoughts and build images without points of reference. Based on that, it is far more likely for discussion to take place on physical encounters versus theories. It is this tendency that would limit most people on this board from actually being able to design a course yet they can form strong opinions having played or seen something.
-
How many active posters on this board make a living out of the golf industry? I'm going to say a lot. Remain "silent" or neutral or your bound to offend someone.
And, Jeff, I think most agree that a handful of designers out there today have produced so many top quality golf courses (and comparatively few clunkers) that they have earned the luxury of having people on this board assume their work will be quality. I don't know what's so difficult to understand about this concept yet, increasingly, people moan about it when people get excited about their courses.
B-
I've never worried about offending anyone :)
But let me stir some stuff....
I give the guys you mention above their due...The TD's or the BC's especially because they did not grow up in the business and because they did not develop their "expertise" by playing the game at a national or world championship level for 80 hours a week and having time for design on the side. One chooses early to seek out the top sites and develop his craft on such. That's admirable. Yet developing one's "expertise" from housing projects that had multi-million dollar advertising budgets and unmaintainable maintenance budgets brings questions. Now having said that....as a regional architect I'm not intimidated by any of the above, especially the player/designers. I think the architecture trade is much like lawyers or doctors....F. Lee Bailey or Johnny Cochran may be national names but I would wager each of you knows a local lawyers that is better. Take plastic surgeons...doo you become the best by going to Beverly Hills or do you become known as the best because you can find the clients that make you famous there? I guarantee you there are four plastic surgeons in Athens that can perform as well as any in Beverly Hills but they don't have that famous patient list. And the list goes on on whether it be knee replacements or penile enlargements.
And so...many of us regional guys are fine with our deal. I don't expect a site like this to know my work or that of many others....
I sort of look at it like this. Let's say there are 600 signature level courses being played today. And let's say they average 30,000 rounds each. That's 18 million rounds per year out of a total of 480 million rounds played in the USA.
The other interesting fact I see on this site is the number of experts it has created due to the low entry requirements necessary to become a GCA expert. There is nothing I enjoy more as an architect than watching a 90 year old players roll the ball down one of my courses and actually enjoy playing it. I know he understands the game and enjoys the game for the sport. I would sit and listen to him. But I have played with some of the experts that sare on this site and expound on the bump and run and course strategies etc and yet they haven't even taken the time to learn to grip a club. I'm sorry but I don't buy into the hacker as a GCA expert and that's not the same as a weak player as a GCA expert. OK that's enough....
-
Mike,
A few years ago we saw a transition from "authors" to "photographers" and the site lost its depth.
-
Mike,
A few years ago we saw a transition from "authors" to "photographers" and the site lost its depth.
Wow, I got slammed from my closest friends for that very opinion, I just didn't say it so well.
-
??? ??? ???
Ok , I'll bite , although I may be a bit prejudiced by my personal history.
I love Eric Bergstols's Bayonne! It's fabulous , particularly given how the site isn't that big. I'm also not buying into the minimalist deal is harder to design than what he did . To make it look natural by moving the dirt is surely harder in many respects.
-
??? ??? ???
Ok , I'll bite , although I may be a bit prejudiced by my personal history.
I love Eric Bergstols's Bayonne! It's fabulous , particularly given how the site isn't that big. I'm also not buying into the minimalist deal is harder to design than what he did . To make it look natural by moving the dirt is surely harder in many respects.
Archie,
I've often said that Bayonne is a modern wonder of the golf world.
Incredibly creative, especially when you consider that everything on that site is imported.
-
I've not played a perfect 10 (IMHO) and I've played TOC, #2, Bethpage Black, Pac Dunes, Carnoustie. With all the talk on here evidently there are several around the world, I hope I'm lucky enough to play a few, because I don't want to lower my (uninformed) standards.
I've been under-whelmed by two of my three C&C courses: Dormie and Chechesee. I loved B Trails.
One of my favorite threads the last ten years here was John's in-depth, well written and highly participated Riviera v. Sand Hills thread.
-
Matt,
Thank you. I will be the first to admit that my well seems to have run dry. There is no complicated theory. It just happens.
-
In other words, for all the potential for intelligent discussion (and there is lots of it) it in many cases, this website turns into an internet version of some travel blog, with name dropping, course counting, etc. I will grant its hard to discuss courses you haven't played, and even harder for most to discuss architectural concepts in depth.
In fact, architectural concepts is where I think the real silence begins on this board, even moreso than in discussing different architects.
Click, boom. As much as I disagree with you on much Jeff, this is a very insightful couple of sentences. I think we confuse the desire to travel, experience, and talk about golf courses as discussion of architecture.
The spiral of silence also applies on that thought. There's not much true architecture discussion going on because it doesn't get traffic. The juice isn't worth the squeeze.
On a side note, it's interesting who is posting on this thread.
--break break--
Mike,
I call you a conspicuous dissenter because you're slow to deal in idealism and the accompanying BS. Take that title as you will; it's not meant to be negative. Sometimes seeing the forest for the trees pisses people off. I hate that about people. Telling the truth is looked at as being pessimistic.
The other point I'd like to make is that there is a business component to all of this. Negative statements about a golf course or a given architect have the potential to impact business. Also, it's well documented here how beneficial a position on one of the magazine's list can be from a business perspective. There's a lot of raters on here.
Unrelated, I like how you phrased your sentence about the 90-year-old. Mahaffey told me once that "it's complicated, but it ain't rocket science." Or something close to that. I think there's wisdom beyond the face value of that statement.
-
Ben,
"Mahaffey told me once that "it's complicated, but it ain't rocket science."
I have heard that more than a few times in this biz.
On the other hand, I recall playing in an ASGCA meeting with the late Bruce Borland. I actually taught Bruce at U of I, got him a job at Killian and Nugent, but after I left, he went to work for JN. Nicest guy on earth, and I recall having many deep discussions on architecture with him.
However, that day, soon after he went to work for JN, when I asked questions or critiqued things on the course we were playing, he kept repeating a mantra of "that doesn't lay out "like it oughta" and other vague responses. I kidded him that now that he was working for a big name, that he seemed to have gone to some training to make golf design seem a lot more difficult than it really is.
If you think about it, all the big names (including other fields, like FL Wright) sort of base their marketing on flowerly words and concepts that make it sound as if they are getting it straight from God or something! And their tidbits enlighten us who are mere mortal men.
The Brauer's and Youngs of the world are pretty much straightforward comment kind of guys, which doesn't sell beans, as our more meager resumes will attest.
Ask RTJ about green contouring and you might have gotten a long answer, which really didn't say all that much clearly. TD has a little of that in him, but frankly, he is an intelligent writer for this biz and can articulate some concepts pretty well for the interested reader.
Ask me or Mike, and we might say something like, "Well, first, it has to drain two directions, and if I am not limited in green size by budget, it can get a bit bigger and only then can I do a few cool things." Intriguingly, I thought Fazio's book was pretty straightforward, in that he sort of revealed many things in an almost dissapointingly simple way - i.e. the contour comment above, or "I don't put too many bunkers on the right side of the green because it would be too difficult."
Well, I guess that architecture writing critique is really a whole 'nother thread. That said, when we do post such things, its usually "what books should my snooty golf library contain?" (okay, my snippy take on the typical question, but not too far off)
-
From time to time, I do try hard to frame a question in pure architectural thought here, but it usually gets back to "Hole X at Tiddly Links kind of does that" and so forth, which is still a travel log more than a thought.
A few guys can post on those topics, but even then, I find that sometimes they are just parroting an old gca book, and chime in "If Ross wrote it, who are you to question it?" Which, in a way, is still celebrity worship instead of real architectural discussion, no? I mean, is quoting someone else really a thoughtful discussion on gca principles?
I often think to myself, you know, Ross was good and all, but even he had to get something wrong once in a while, no? Is it wrong to suggest that?
Or that things can change in 90 years, at least in detail if not guiding principles?
If we think gca should never change, maybe this should be the golf architecture nostalgia board......
-
I've not played a perfect 10 (IMHO) and I've played TOC, #2, Bethpage Black, Pac Dunes, Carnoustie.
Actually that puts you at three (assuming that TOC is in St. Andrews and not Kiawah). If St. Andrews is not a 10 maybe your opinion is not so humble!
-
I've not played a perfect 10 (IMHO) and I've played TOC, #2, Bethpage Black, Pac Dunes, Carnoustie.
Actually that puts you at three (assuming that TOC is in St. Andrews and not Kiawah). If St. Andrews is not a 10 maybe your opinion is not so humble!
I thought the theory of Doak 10 (not Bo 10) was debunked or at least shown to be a 9 with an added something which Doak admires and not a course where missing one hole means the world :D. If I could only find that thread...
Ciao
-
Jeff,
In debating, one of the greatest tests is supporting and opinion that you clearly don’t agree with. The reason it remains a great test is because you must consider the alternative. The gift it provides for the debater is all the facts have to be considered fairly. If you’re open-minded, it can make you question a stance or soften some of your strongest positions.
A discussion is a give and take proposition where ideas are shared, dissected and both learn something from each other. Not everyone comes here for a discussion.
-
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.
I don't really know what this means--especially the 1980s reference--but I already suspect I'm better off continuing to add to the spiral of silence.
-
Jeff,
In debating, one of the greatest tests is supporting and opinion that you clearly don’t agree with. The reason it remains a great test is because you must consider the alternative. The gift it provides for the debater is all the facts have to be considered fairly. If you’re open-minded, it can make you question a stance or soften some of your strongest positions.
A discussion is a give and take proposition where ideas are shared, dissected and both learn something from each other. Not everyone comes here for a discussion.
Ian,
So true... :)
Ben,
I never was offended by the title of dissenter. ;D ;D
What offends me most often on this site is the aura of the enlightened and how enlightenment only comes to the left. I see it every day in Athens. And I see it here when guys come on here and try to make a topic such as this political as with various comments trying to link this back to an event etc.
As you know I live in an idealistic valued town. It is the most liberal town in the SE USA. I mean we have it all when it comes to being cool. We have gay preachers and choir directors. We have little girls from affluent Atlanta suburbs ("townies") dressed in black with old black dogs enrolled in art school and yet can't draw a stick figure. We have rock stars that bath with rocks instead of water. We have coffee shops that only serve coffee beans that weren't picked by starving pygmies. We have restaurants that serves squares of tofu in place of eggs. I mean we go tit all when it comes to idealism and cool. BUT the one thing that stands out the most to me in this college town when it comes to all of the cool stuff is intelligence. So many of these gullible kids and adults with average or less than average intelligence feel that the best and most efficient way to be accepted and viewed as inteiligensia is to spout idealism and liberalism. They become a member of the local herd and can never discuss anything. It becomes cool to look at realist etc as stupid rednecks. I see it everyday. But I came here because it was sport. It's like hunting in a baited field or fishing in a stocked pond to live in a town like Athens and watch these idealist and confuse them. Many are good friends and we accept each other but even they admit that so many of their ranks go idealist to look smart and be accepted at the scooter store.
-
And I see it here when guys come on here and try to make a topic such as this political as with various comments trying to link this back to an event etc.
Mike,
Im not sure where you're going with this. You made this political by starting the thread with a political article. We also get that, to you, liberalism is pie in the sky, head in the clouds, ignorant idealism. What is hilarious is that the politics you claim to be yours are actually.......liberalism. So perhaps you should use a different term to describe all the people you view as "not intelligent".
Conservative victimhood went out of fashion a long time ago. We get that you don't like those who are different from you and view your "realist" perspective as superior to theirs. What I don't get is how such a realist capitalist as yourself doesn't fully embrace Golfnow.com and other pressures on the golf business that the free-market so clearly wants.
-
I read Mike's last post less as a political statement and more as a people statement. I can't infer from it the political party he aligns with. I certainly understand the sentiment of #SMH-ing at all those who join the "break from the herd!" herd. There are a lot of blind followers in every political party who can't express any logical reasoning behind one position or another aside from the reasoning they've heard one of their "leaders" give. In the information age, with unprecedented freedom and knowledge at our disposal, most of us just want to be told what to think.
Few of us have time to become as informed as we need to be in order to form sound opinions on our own. That's the core issue with politics, child vaccinations, and golf course architecture. This site is intended to be a forum for frank discussion of golf course architecture. Unfortunately, the huge majority of us know very little about architecture, and so we relegate ourselves to following the reasoning we've heard one of our "leaders" give. It might be for the best. Who knows what kind of stupid conclusions we would draw if we used our own brains.
-
And I see it here when guys come on here and try to make a topic such as this political as with various comments trying to link this back to an event etc.
Mike,
Im not sure where you're going with this. You made this political by starting the thread with a political article. We also get that, to you, liberalism is pie in the sky, head in the clouds, ignorant idealism. What is hilarious is that the politics you claim to be yours are actually.......liberalism. So perhaps you should use a different term to describe all the people you view as "not intelligent".
Conservative victimhood went out of fashion a long time ago. We get that you don't like those who are different from you and view your "realist" perspective as superior to theirs. What I don't get is how such a realist capitalist as yourself doesn't fully embrace Golfnow.com and other pressures on the golf business that the free-market so clearly wants.
JC,
1. Hmmmmm...my post ask a question. It never mentions politics. Now the definition of the "spiral of silence" ewas taken from an article that was political and I assume the blog it was on was also political. ( it was sent to me so I only read that one part) BUT I intentionally did not print the entire article because it was political.
2. Secondly, I have never claimed any politics on here. ( I don't think I have) and I never stated if I was conservative or liberal or independent or what. I honestly don't view people by their politics anymore than I do the football team they choose to support.
3. I never said that people that supported Idealism were " not intelligent" as you stated. I accept and appreciate that there are extremely intelligent people on both sides of any debate. I stated that in a college town many choose to "fake" intelligence by going to the more liberal side. That's not saying that liberal thinking people are not intelligent.
4. Conservative victimhood...never heard of that...but it's funny you mention such. I have often felt that the largest factor in determining one's political lean in this country has been whether one considers himself a victim or not.
5. you state: "We get that you don't like those who are different from you and view your "realist" perspective as superior to theirs. " ..."We" Have you been appointed to speak for some group now? Why not rephrase it into something like" it seems to me that you don't enjoy people who are different from you and you seem to think that a realist perspective is superior." Anyway...You or "We" are incorrect. Everyone is different and I thrive on hanging out with people that are different from me.
6. And lastly, as a realist capitalist I don't like Golfnow because they make golf a commodity. Eventually when Golfnow has what they need they will stop the barter system and I might consider them but for now they don't fit my needs.
Cheers...
-
But I have played with some of the experts that sare on this site and expound on the bump and run and course strategies etc and yet they haven't even taken the time to learn to grip a club. I'm sorry but I don't buy into the hacker as a GCA expert and that's not the same as a weak player as a GCA expert.
I am not often intimidated, but I did feel some trepidation going to the initial Kings Putter in 2002, knowing that I'd be playing with some of the professors of strategy, nuance, and all the finer points of golf architecture which somehow had escaped me in my then 30+ years of playing the game. Wow, six hour rounds, the newest balls and equipment, riding carts, shots sometimes barely getting off the ground to any number of points on the compass, what a realignment with reality! This august group so reflects the golfing population at large in most respects but one, we like to talk about the golf courses and those who design them. To our chagrin, most of our friends don't, so here we are.
In discussing the "bunkers are too perfect" thread, a lurker I know commented something to the effect: "why would I want to consider what a 20-handicapper has to say about anything doing with golf?". While I thought this was a bit harsh, Ian's reply to this thread on the better form of debating has me contemplating the merits of his case.
-
Lou,
There is as much to learn from the 20 or even a 30 , if not more, than there is to learn from the scratch. But it depends on how they became a 20. I enjoy playing and watching older golfers who were once very low handicap players. so much can be learned from them. I don't think Il earn much from a 20 handicap player who is descending his handicap and will eventually become a low handicap player. .
-
And I see it here when guys come on here and try to make a topic such as this political as with various comments trying to link this back to an event etc.
Mike,
Im not sure where you're going with this. You made this political by starting the thread with a political article. We also get that, to you, liberalism is pie in the sky, head in the clouds, ignorant idealism. What is hilarious is that the politics you claim to be yours are actually.......liberalism. So perhaps you should use a different term to describe all the people you view as "not intelligent".
Conservative victimhood went out of fashion a long time ago. We get that you don't like those who are different from you and view your "realist" perspective as superior to theirs. What I don't get is how such a realist capitalist as yourself doesn't fully embrace Golfnow.com and other pressures on the golf business that the free-market so clearly wants.
JC,
1. Hmmmmm...my post ask a question. It never mentions politics. Now the definition of the "spiral of silence" ewas taken from an article that was political and I assume the blog it was on was also political. ( it was sent to me so I only read that one part) BUT I intentionally did not print the entire article because it was political.
2. Secondly, I have never claimed any politics on here. ( I don't think I have) and I never stated if I was conservative or liberal or independent or what. I honestly don't view people by their politics anymore than I do the football team they choose to support.
3. I never said that people that supported Idealism were " not intelligent" as you stated. I accept and appreciate that there are extremely intelligent people on both sides of any debate. I stated that in a college town many choose to "fake" intelligence by going to the more liberal side. That's not saying that liberal thinking people are not intelligent.
4. Conservative victimhood...never heard of that...but it's funny you mention such. I have often felt that the largest factor in determining one's political lean in this country has been whether one considers himself a victim or not.
5. you state: "We get that you don't like those who are different from you and view your "realist" perspective as superior to theirs. " ..."We" Have you been appointed to speak for some group now? Why not rephrase it into something like" it seems to me that you don't enjoy people who are different from you and you seem to think that a realist perspective is superior." Anyway...You or "We" are incorrect. Everyone is different and I thrive on hanging out with people that are different from me.
6. And lastly, as a realist capitalist I don't like Golfnow because they make golf a commodity. Eventually when Golfnow has what they need they will stop the barter system and I might consider them but for now they don't fit my needs.
Cheers...
I like lists! Thanks for your response. I apologize for using "we" instead of "I". You are correct that it was improper for me to do so.
Perhaps I have inferred too much from your posts, not only on this thread but on several others. I wont go line-by-line because I've said my piece and you've said yours and I take you at face value with what you've said here.
As to Golfnow.com, my point was if one wants to be a purely free market person they've got to embrace it even when the free market works against their personal interests.
-
As to Golfnow.com, my point was if one wants to be a purely free market person they've got to embrace it even when the free market works against their personal interests.
[/quote]
explain....
-
I'll be brief because I don't want to take this any further than I already have but to me its about consistency and intellectual honesty. I'll give you an analogy on the other side: If I am truly against unemployment benefits, when I lose my job, I shouldn't go and collect them simply because they are there.
-
Ben,
I never was offended by the title of dissenter. ;D ;D
What offends me most often on this site is the aura of the enlightened and how enlightenment only comes to the left. I see it every day in Athens. And I see it here when guys come on here and try to make a topic such as this political as with various comments trying to link this back to an event etc.
As you know I live in an idealistic valued town. It is the most liberal town in the SE USA. I mean we have it all when it comes to being cool. We have gay preachers and choir directors. We have little girls from affluent Atlanta suburbs ("townies") dressed in black with old black dogs enrolled in art school and yet can't draw a stick figure. We have rock stars that bath with rocks instead of water. We have coffee shops that only serve coffee beans that weren't picked by starving pygmies. We have restaurants that serves squares of tofu in place of eggs. I mean we go tit all when it comes to idealism and cool. BUT the one thing that stands out the most to me in this college town when it comes to all of the cool stuff is intelligence. So many of these gullible kids and adults with average or less than average intelligence feel that the best and most efficient way to be accepted and viewed as inteiligensia is to spout idealism and liberalism. They become a member of the local herd and can never discuss anything. It becomes cool to look at realist etc as stupid rednecks. I see it everyday. But I came here because it was sport. It's like hunting in a baited field or fishing in a stocked pond to live in a town like Athens and watch these idealist and confuse them. Many are good friends and we accept each other but even they admit that so many of their ranks go idealist to look smart and be accepted at the scooter store.
OK, I'm pissed, in a friendly, competitive sort of way.
I'll match my ability to filter out noise, and determine truth and logic based on facts any time. I'd rather compete in logic than golf.
Don Mahaffey is a key example which refutes your hypothesis. He is respected as a thoughtful innovator in irrigation science and golf construction. Everybody respects his opinion, and he is not "to the left". So at least you've got one guy.
My golf world is so thoroughly dominated with "fiscal conservatives" that I have trouble seeing the problem here. However, studies have shown that, though only 5% of rounds at top 100 courses are played by self-described "liberals", they contribute a full 80% of enlightened commentary found on Golf Club Atlas.
I don't know much about golf course construction, but I can play these courses and make opinions on the playability of courses, based on watching people play golf. Knowing what you don't know is important.
I agree that a 20-handicapper is less likely to have a worthwhile opinion about golf, for lack of experience and/or ability.
Signed,
Karnak the Magnificent, aura intact.
-
"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.
When's the last time someone posted, "I love Ballyneal/Sand Hills/Pac Dunes/Friars Head/etc" without saying why?
And if someone ever challenged a poster who loved any particular course or hole, when did the challenged ever respond with "You're just biased against Doak/C&C"?
My money is on never. Ever. Not in a single post on here.
:)
Seriously, people wax philosophic so often on these courses, holes and architects that it borders on monotonous repetition. But maybe, just maybe, it's because these courses, holes and architects are just that damn good. And maybe, just maybe, the average non-gca loving golfer doesn't put a whole lot more thought into a course than "what condition was it in?"
-----
I've never had a problem with people disagreeing with me on here. Heck, there are a few that seem to relish it as a sport. Hats off to them, wish I had that much free time to burn.
This is the most non-groupthink group of people I've ever seen, who still share a common bond, the love of golf and its wonderful playing fields. If anything, there is something approaching a spiral of praise for most things golf, and that's a good thing. Occasionally, it will be intimidating, debating folks who are far more knowledgeable than oneself, but hey, it's just a golf course architecture discussion site, it's not life or death.
Critics just look for something to bitch about, makes 'em feel superior to the rest of us...
-
A few years ago somebody, possibly Tom Doak, started a thread that somewhat dealt with the most favored nation issue. We took a nationally known course, And listed stuff like best hole, worst hole, best par five, worst par five etc. etc. with reasons why. I think we only got as far as Chicago golf club, but it might be worth starting these type threads again. Might have some chance to get away from groupthink.
-
I don't know about intellectual discourse, I'm just waiting for another 3 handicap to tell me which courses I should like...
-
I've not played a perfect 10 (IMHO) and I've played TOC, #2, Bethpage Black, Pac Dunes, Carnoustie.
Actually that puts you at three (assuming that TOC is in St. Andrews and not Kiawah). If St. Andrews is not a 10 maybe your opinion is not so humble!
I thought the theory of Doak 10 (not Bo 10) was debunked or at least shown to be a 9 with an added something which Doak admires and not a course where missing one hole means the world :D. If I could only find that thread...
Ciao
Tom - thanks, I did somewhat regret saying that about The Old Course. It's a course I would love to play everyday over and over, and Sean is right it was a snarky comment meant to include the {old} 10 rating of not-missing-a-single-hole.
But idealistically I would like to find the course that has 18 !!! holes combined with a great routing, four compass points, winds, width, angles, etc. etc.
-
Matt,
Thank you. I will be the first to admit that my well seems to have run dry. There is no complicated theory. It just happens.
Don't sweat it the best work is born from inspiration whereas the volumes are build on perspiration.
-
When's the last time someone posted, "I love Ballyneal/Sand Hills/Pac Dunes/Friars Head/etc" without saying why?
And maybe, just maybe, the average non-gca loving golfer doesn't put a whole lot more thought into a course than "what condition was it in?"
This is the most non-groupthink group of people I've ever seen, who still share a common bond, the love of golf and its wonderful playing fields. If anything, there is something approaching a spiral of praise for most things golf, and that's a good thing.
Critics just look for something to bitch about, makes 'em feel superior to the rest of us...
Sorry for the redaction of some of your comments for the sake of simplicity.
You are right about the courses that draw universal praise here. Such is not the case about architects who are not held in such high regard here (reference the Hills thread and the comment about Fazio's dogs). Perhaps I am overly sensitive about this type of criticism having played well over 500 courses, a good majority which are probably not candidates in anyone of the more credible lists. I am trying to think of the worst Fazio I've played, maybe Bluewater Bay or Osprey Point, and if I was relegated to play most of my golf at either one of the two, I'd be barking with little remorse each time. The common complaint here is that Fazio courses have the same characteristics and resemble each other. It is curious that C & C and Doak courses aren't subjected to the same criticism though the architects do follow their own styles and preferences consistently. Of course, this tendency is not unique to golf as the current political situation so clearly demonstrates.
There is group-think here in spades. One of the favored architects once told me that giving certain VIPs on the site "the time of day" played no small part. Fazio, Nicklaus, the Jones brothers, and Weiskopf apparently don't feel the need to be as ingratiating. I am guilty of liking golf courses because I like to play golf, but insincere praise is not a good thing.
Your comment about conditioning is a bit elitist, don't you think? Here I thought that we were all Paulians today (maintenance meld, golf is a big world).
Lastly, the role of the critic is an interesting one. By nature he has to be somewhat of an idealist, and, therefore, a malcontent. Having seen how much of the world works and experienced a bit of tragedy in my own life, I scratch my head when I read some of the stuff we bitch about. I have a 3:14 tee time today on a course that would rate somewhat below Fazio's biggest dog. Can't wait.
Jeff Goldman,
Great idea. Why don't you start with Olympia Fields-North or Prairie Dunes. On the latter, get a handle on the gunch and I would jump on board. Best hole, #8, love the way the hole meanders up the dunesland, predominant wind pushing the drive the right, the green pinched tight up high, and the putting surface complicated as they come (gunch greenside left needs to be burned!).
Jud T,
Well, I am just under a 5, but if you don't like OF-North and Prairie Dunes, you're a .........
-
...
-
Sorry for the redaction of some of your comments for the sake of simplicity.
You are right about the courses that draw universal praise here. Such is not the case about architects who are not held in such high regard here (reference the Hills thread and the comment about Fazio's dogs). Perhaps I am overly sensitive about this type of criticism having played well over 500 courses, a good majority which are probably not candidates in anyone of the more credible lists. I am trying to think of the worst Fazio I've played, maybe Bluewater Bay or Osprey Point, and if I was relegated to play most of my golf at either one of the two, I'd be barking with little remorse each time. The common complaint here is that Fazio courses have the same characteristics and resemble each other. It is curious that C & C and Doak courses aren't subjected to the same criticism though the architects do follow their own styles and preferences consistently. Of course, this tendency is not unique to golf as the current political situation so clearly demonstrates.
There is group-think here in spades. One of the favored architects once told me that giving certain VIPs on the site "the time of day" played no small part. Fazio, Nicklaus, the Jones brothers, and Weiskopf apparently don't feel the need to be as ingratiating. I am guilty of liking golf courses because I like to play golf, but insincere praise is not a good thing.
Your comment about conditioning is a bit elitist, don't you think? Here I thought that we were all Paulians today (maintenance meld, golf is a big world).
Lastly, the role of the critic is an interesting one. By nature he has to be somewhat of an idealist, and, therefore, a malcontent. Having seen how much of the world works and experienced a bit of tragedy in my own life, I scratch my head when I read some of the stuff we bitch about. I have a 3:14 tee time today on a course that would rate somewhat below Fazio's biggest dog. Can't wait.
No problem with redaction, you can redact me anytime...
My point re: Fazio and Jones vs. Doak and C&C was not to compare courses, but rather the attitudes that posters seem to show on here. Jeff specifically said we take things differently with Doak et al, and I am calling BS on that, mostly because no one ever just says, I loved Pac Dunes or wherever - they always cites reasons and things they loved, almost to the point of going overboard. And if called out by someone, they usually respond with actual logic, not just cries of bias and lack of experience (the Matt Ward defense :)).
I've actually played Osprey Point, can't remember much of it. I remember Black Mesa hole by hole, and I am one of the few on the site that didn't even love it. I don't remember much of the other Fazios I've played (I think 3 others?), but I did think the one out in Cali near Vegas was the most playable desert course I've played, and that means a lot to me. I've also praised Mirasol, where they briefly held one of the Florida stops - I'd rather play there than many other options, just going by the televised images. Since I don't think I'm much different than most on here, I don't think it's bias that results in different feelings, more just actual experiences on actual golf courses.
There may be groupthink here, but it may also just be that Pac Dunes and Sand Hills are better than Shadow Creek and the Atlantic Club, at least as regarded by architecture buffs. My point re: this site is that, even if there is groupthink here, there is less here than any other internet discussion board I've come across. There's always people on both sides of damn near every issue, and they aren't shy about voicing those opinions. That's the opposite of "spiral of silence", imho.
My point re: conditioning was certainly not elitist, merely an observation born of experience. And I'm quite certain I'm not alone in that regard. Ask most people about a course, and that's the first thing mentioned, and often the last - the conditions, particularly of the greens. You rarely hear anyone praise bunker placement, strategic holes or even the naturalness of a course. That doesn't mean one side is right and the other wrong, merely that different people have different values. If that's what gets someone fired up, fine by me, doesn't bother me at all - that is the Big Wide World of Golf theory in practice, not just in type.
My point re: critics is just that I'm sick of every nickel and dime philosopher having an explanation for why "we" do things.
Life is rarely so simple that it can be condensed into something some nimrod can waste 10 years "researching" and then write for a worthless doctoral degree in some worthless social science...
Now THAT was elitist, at least in some anti-elitist sense of the term. :)
-----
"Conservative victimhood" - now that made me laugh. Thanks, JC.
-
When's the last time someone posted, "I love Ballyneal/Sand Hills/Pac Dunes/Friars Head/etc" without saying why?
And if someone ever challenged a poster who loved any particular course or hole, when did the challenged ever respond with "You're just biased against Doak/C&C"?
My money is on never. Ever. Not in a single post on here.
:)
George:
I may be missing your point here, but try wading through this thread (yes, all 14 pages of it) and see if Mike Young doesn't have a point: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,44990.0.html
It gets pretty interesting around page 7, where the Godfather of Sand Hills starts accusing people contributing to a thread about the course's architecture of "urinating" on a golfer's "euphoric" encounter with "one of life's peak experiences" (and a place that the discouraging poster says, it should be noted, "haunts him," "haunts me during the winter months," and haunts him "when I sleep.") I guess courses like that should be shielded from the "frank commentary on golf course architecture" advocated on GCA's home page.
I left that thread not long after that -- why try to learn something about a course through words and pictures when one is accused of ruining such life-changing experiences?
But that's easily dismissed. What struck me about Mike's comment -- and is a more difficult issue to come to grips with -- is the exchange in this thread: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,44990.0.html
Two of GCA's more respected posters -- in responding to my critiques and questions of a course held in such high esteem that it's referred to in Biblical terms -- told me, essentially, that I had to see it and play it to understand why it was so good. OK, maybe -- but isn't that a cop-out of sorts? Isn't an argument -- on, of all places, a website with more good pictures of golf courses than anywhere on the web -- that says, "Well, you don't get it because you haven't played it," the exact antithesis of what Ran was (still is...) trying to accomplish with GCA? When I replied that my views were in line with those of a notable and well-respected (and well-traveled) golf writer, both of our GCA posters responded: He must've had a bad day at the course, with a lousy score. Which is a silly argument to make about golf architecture.
I think Mr. Young is on to something.
-
I'm bumping this back to the top.
I was fooling around this afternoon, and my contributions may have discouraged serious conversation.
I like George Pazin's last post a lot.
The GCA discussion group is populated by such smart, well educated and successful people. Compared to other discussion boards, it's very civilized and productive. Hard as people try, emotions sometimes get in the way of unbiased analysis.
-
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.
I don't really know what this means--especially the 1980s reference--but I already suspect I'm better off continuing to add to the spiral of silence.
The 80's reference is due to my opinion that the following style of writing would better serve as fuel for a flux capacitor. http://www.departures.com/articles/extraordinary-nebraska-golf-courses
-
8) Lou,
... Paulians who like wide fairways and no trees in play, that is...
Regards from The Woodlands
-
As with most esoteric threads I get lost because I can't connect the references or tag the words to real life - well my real life anyway.
I think Doak gets a bit more respect (ie group think praise) around here because he actually talks about design, the process, thinking, history etc. Now, my theory is shot to hell once I come to one of the guys I respect most on this site - Jeff Brauer. I disagree with much of what he writes (or at least I think I do - often times I am not sure if its is emphasis that throws me off), but this guy takes a lot of flak and keeps coming back. He does what Doak does, but people (perhaps me as well - I will have to give it more thought) seem more easy about having a go at him more than they do at Doak. It may be a group think process or it may be Jeff's attitude or it may be other things or a combination of things - I am not sure. Whatever, I like Jeff's resiliency and patience and that he tries to keep things on track and impersonal. Lord knows too much round here is taken too personally and some much too seriously.
Ciao
-
As with most esoteric threads I get lost because I can't connect the references or tag the words to real life - well my real life anyway.
I think Doak gets a bit more respect (ie group think praise) around here because he actually talks about design, the process, thinking, history etc. Now, my theory is shot to hell once I come to one of the guys I respect most on this site - Jeff Brauer. I disagree with much of what he writes (or at least I think I do - often times I am not sure if its is emphasis that throws me off), but this guy takes a lot of flak and keeps coming back. He does what Doak does, but people (perhaps me as well - I will have to give it more thought) seem more easy about having a go at him more than they do at Doak. It may be a group think process or it may be Jeff's attitude or it may be other things or a combination of things - I am not sure. Whatever, I like Jeff's resiliency and patience and that he tries to keep things on track and impersonal. Lord knows too much round here is taken too personally and some much too seriously.
Ciao
I don't recall seeing much if any criticism of Jeff's courses on this site. There is a lot of love for his courses up in Minnesota. I've only played one that I'm sure of, the Wilderness in South Texas, and liked it a lot. Some wild greens and a very playable course. Is the "flak" you refer to in response to his commentary or courses?
-
As with most esoteric threads I get lost because I can't connect the references or tag the words to real life - well my real life anyway.
I think Doak gets a bit more respect (ie group think praise) around here because he actually talks about design, the process, thinking, history etc. Now, my theory is shot to hell once I come to one of the guys I respect most on this site - Jeff Brauer. I disagree with much of what he writes (or at least I think I do - often times I am not sure if its is emphasis that throws me off), but this guy takes a lot of flak and keeps coming back. He does what Doak does, but people (perhaps me as well - I will have to give it more thought) seem more easy about having a go at him more than they do at Doak. It may be a group think process or it may be Jeff's attitude or it may be other things or a combination of things - I am not sure. Whatever, I like Jeff's resiliency and patience and that he tries to keep things on track and impersonal. Lord knows too much round here is taken too personally and some much too seriously.
Ciao
Sean:
I am sure that I am treated more nicely sometimes than Jeff is. In the beginning of the site, whatever respect I got came from having gone and seen so many courses, and being known as a student of the game. Most architects are seen as primarily defending their own work and their own approach to design, but I was known as a both a critic and a fan of many great old courses, first.
After I built Pacific Dunes and Barnbougle, I've certainly been treated a bit differently, and not only on this forum. Most of all I've been lucky that a lot of talented people want to work with me.
-
Jeff"s work is treated with more respect by this site than Bob Cupp's. Quarry National is loved while Liberty National is panned. I would say mostly because Jeff is our friend. I do not recall anyone ever saying a bad word about his work with the exception of saying nothing at all.
-
When's the last time someone posted, "I love Ballyneal/Sand Hills/Pac Dunes/Friars Head/etc" without saying why?
And if someone ever challenged a poster who loved any particular course or hole, when did the challenged ever respond with "You're just biased against Doak/C&C"?
My money is on never. Ever. Not in a single post on here.
:)
George:
I may be missing your point here, but try wading through this thread (yes, all 14 pages of it) and see if Mike Young doesn't have a point: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,44990.0.html
It gets pretty interesting around page 7, where the Godfather of Sand Hills starts accusing people contributing to a thread about the course's architecture of "urinating" on a golfer's "euphoric" encounter with "one of life's peak experiences" (and a place that the discouraging poster says, it should be noted, "haunts him," "haunts me during the winter months," and haunts him "when I sleep.") I guess courses like that should be shielded from the "frank commentary on golf course architecture" advocated on GCA's home page.
I left that thread not long after that -- why try to learn something about a course through words and pictures when one is accused of ruining such life-changing experiences?
But that's easily dismissed. What struck me about Mike's comment -- and is a more difficult issue to come to grips with -- is the exchange in this thread: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,44990.0.html
Two of GCA's more respected posters -- in responding to my critiques and questions of a course held in such high esteem that it's referred to in Biblical terms -- told me, essentially, that I had to see it and play it to understand why it was so good. OK, maybe -- but isn't that a cop-out of sorts? Isn't an argument -- on, of all places, a website with more good pictures of golf courses than anywhere on the web -- that says, "Well, you don't get it because you haven't played it," the exact antithesis of what Ran was (still is...) trying to accomplish with GCA? When I replied that my views were in line with those of a notable and well-respected (and well-traveled) golf writer, both of our GCA posters responded: He must've had a bad day at the course, with a lousy score. Which is a silly argument to make about golf architecture.
I think Mr. Young is on to something.
Phil, I guess you missed the smiley, even though it's in your quote of me. I was kidding a bit to make a point, that the overwhelming majority of posters who comment on Tom D's and C&C's courses are very heavy with specifics. I recall the thread you linked to and I have no intention of re-reading it, but it has a lot of specific Q&A, even if it did get a bit overly personal and defensive at times. 14 pages is pretty much prima facie evidence that there is no spiral of silence!
Also, I have no problem with someone saying "you have to see it to understand". There is a lot that does not translate well to 2-D photos, layout diagrams and written dialogue, particularly if the writer is not that great. Sometimes it's a cop out, but sometimes it just means what it says.
I don't think it's realistic to expect everyone to respond in perfect parliamentary debate form every time on an internet discussion site. But this site sure comes a heckuva lot closer than any other I've seen. The very fact that we have these navel-gazing threads every six months or so is more evidence that there is no spiral of silence. The very fact that this site has existed so long is more evidence that there is no spiral of silence.
And if there was some sort of spiral of silence with respect to the Zimmerman trial, holy cow, I'd hate to see a full blown discussion! I've seen more posted on both sides of that issue than just about anything in recent memory.
-
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.
I don't really know what this means--especially the 1980s reference--but I already suspect I'm better off continuing to add to the spiral of silence.
The 80's reference is due to my opinion that the following style of writing would better serve as fuel for a flux capacitor. http://www.departures.com/articles/extraordinary-nebraska-golf-courses
John, I'm not going to worry too much about what you think of my "style", but I suspect you're more put out by the substance of the feature. I know you've always been a big backer of Dismal Nicklaus, but Spiral of Silence aside, fine, I don't think too highly of it. And if anything, I think Doak's new course only throws the shortcomings of its neighbor into sharper relief. For me, it comes down to site selection and routing before the conversation about golf holes themselves can even begin. I don't find the site of the Nicklaus design to be a particularly compelling place to explore--it felt like tracking aimlessly around a big bowl. I didn't find the routing intuitive, nor do I think it's successful as a walking course. (Whether that was a priority I don't know, but if it wasn't, it should've been.)
Doak's course, on the other hand, is a grand slam in terms of site selection and routing. I give Renaissance and Chris Johnston a lot of credit for electing to cross the road and create holes in the shadow of the buffalo run and at the Dismal River itself. The front nine is superb, but that back nine has a chance to be known as one of the finest sides in American golf. I happen to especially like courses where the routing tells a story of sorts by moving the player (easily) through diverse environments in natural and exciting ways. Is that too airy-fairy? Think Highlands Links, or Bandon Trails.
I believe Dismal has a bright future as a club, and I said as much in my Departures feature. CJ was a welcoming host during my visit and I very much enjoyed playing a round with him over the winter at Streamsong. He frames these differences in a positive light, and if I were in his shoes I'd do exactly the same thing. But as an outsider communicating my impressions to the readers of a (non-golf) magazine, I couldn't honestly say these two courses are in the same class in terms of...pretty much anything. Strategy, artistry, memorability of the journey? I'm sure someone will argue that I haven't played either of them enough (Nicklaus: 1 play; Doak: Walked the 18 during grow-in). I don't claim to know the nuances of the Nicklaus design even 1% as well as any Dismal member, and I always reserve the right to change my mind, but for now I feel comfortable enough with what I saw and wrote.
PS: The great thing about "Back to the Future" is that Biff gets his in the end, every time.
-
"The larger the group, the more toxic, the more of your beauty as an individual you have to surrender for the sake of group thought. And when you suspend your individual beauty you also give up a lot of your humanity." (George Carlin)
GCA isn't the twitterverse. It's a smallish, select group. However, there are obviously a number of people with strongly held convictions, the willingness to share those convictions, and the time to do so. I find it a little frustrating at times (being employed... as a psychologist) that I go off to work and lose the thread of a conversation that I was part of at 7 AM but now it's been progressing all day with 714 additional posts. On the other hand, maybe that's my defense. I can say my piece and have a contribution which people are free to accept or to reject. I feel little need to "defend" my position or my observation. I am very interested in how others react but I don't feel defensive... or at least I haven't yet.
I'm thankful for the opportunity to go back and read up on the spiral of silence. It'll give me a chance to break away from all that tedious neuropsych research on the yips.
MarkMx
-
And if there was some sort of spiral of silence with respect to the Zimmerman trial, holy cow, I'd hate to see a full blown discussion! I've seen more posted on both sides of that issue than just about anything in recent memory.
Agreed. I did notice one thing though, and it's something I've been noticing with a lot of issues lately:
On my Facebook, Twitter, and news feeds, I saw many different perspectives. My wife, however, saw fewer on hers. She's from a predominantly upper-middle-class neighborhood, has never lived outside a major metropolitan area, generally follows people she went to college with and her family, and listens to NPR. She's also a black woman, and we live in a pretty hipsterish urban community. Her impression was that the nation was outraged at the verdict. She also never believed Mitt Romney had a chance to win the last election, she thinks the huge majority of the country favors gay marriage, and she generally thinks the country is quickly growing more liberal outside of a few stubborn and ignorant pockets.
Meanwhile, I'm from the Upper South. I've lived in metro areas, but also small factory towns. I follow a lot of people from those towns, including some pretty redneck members of my family. I'm a white boy who grew up surrounded by religion and traditional values. When my college friends start posting on Facebook, I think the whole country is turning more liberal. When my high school friends start posting, I think the conservative movement is alive and well.
What's the point? I think it's easier than ever in 2013 to isolate ourselves inside a comfortable bubble. Social networks connect us, but we can restrict whose thoughts we actually see on them. We can choose news stations that validate what we believe, and there's more spin than ever. As we become more connected electronically, we become less connected in real life. We don't have the discourse that happens when you're face-to-face in the real world. We have a controlled system of information delivery that pumps us with what confirms our frame of reference unless we actively manipulate that system to show us multiple perspectives.
How does it relate to GCA.com? The guys who post here are mostly guys who are interested in the current movements in architecture along with its history. Those two things predispose many of us to favor certain concepts and styles and designers. If I go to other golf forums I frequent, I get a very different perspective. It's one that evaluates courses by conditioning, visual impact of the design and surrounding scenery, elevation changes, and scorecard yardage. The guys on those forums are still knowledgeable golfers who care about the courses they play. Their tastes aren't wrong. They just care about different things than what the average GCA'er cares about.
This site is the MSNBC of golf forums. The other forums are probably the Fox News. Or maybe it's the other way around. Either way, we're all biased to what we like. I hope there's no spiral of silence around here, though there are a few obvious culprits who try to foster one. Mostly though, I just think a lot of us have similar tastes and prejudices formed from being surrounded by other people who confirm the validity of those tastes and prejudices.
-
All, Mike, whomever.
What a queer, meaningless and particularly craven vehicle - reactions to Zimmerman in electronic media - to have been foisted upon us here as some example of how "group-think" operates and how majorities and minorities work in human dynamic. As if that means anything to whether or not "RTJ can get a break" or "no one can deride TOC" without fear of ostracization.
For one thing, as some have noted previously, nothing could be farther from an objective analysis on this site. Here, it is my observation that the most radical opinions receive quarter and airing...sometimes being shouted down and parrying back is exactly what forms them into amalgamated, dare I say, "mainstream" views over time.
Christ, whatever meaningful wasn't a radical idea when it was proposed and developed?
To me Mike, this thread was just a Trojan Horse, just a device to interject some parroted political philosophy in the guise of a Board-centric" topic.
I can't evaluate that you make this offering and your various defenses with specific intent (e.g., you may be so inured and subject to these beliefs, that you no longer delineate).
But even if we went to the brighter side and said, "No, this matters to the enterprise of evaluating and enjoying architecture" and give the benefit of the doubt to good intentions and ignore this "Zimmerman context," how does what you're saying matter?
Is something going to change about the board or about rating systems?
Is there going to be a bar graph next to each thread measuring how well the last post clings or cleaves from a building consensus?
Are people going to stop chirping back, "How many times have you played it?" when someone goes into complex analysis of a place...
...is any of that going to stop or alter or amend or increase because you have now introduced us to the slippery bank of group-think?
I don't know for sure, but I'll take a chance and say that you believe in a God, maybe even the sunday-school God or the God of the Talamud.
Well I don't, and I can't think of any more insidious examples of group-think than those offered by:
"In God we trust" on the money...
"...shed his grace on thee" in the song
"so help me God," in court.
So work on THOSE first; explain THOSE as a model for group think...and then hit us with piss-ant Zimmerman on piss-ant FB, like number 12,006 on the charts.
cheers
vk
-
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.
I don't really know what this means--especially the 1980s reference--but I already suspect I'm better off continuing to add to the spiral of silence.
The 80's reference is due to my opinion that the following style of writing would better serve as fuel for a flux capacitor. http://www.departures.com/articles/extraordinary-nebraska-golf-courses
John, I'm not going to worry too much about what you think of my "style", but I suspect you're more put out by the substance of the feature. I know you've always been a big backer of Dismal Nicklaus, but Spiral of Silence aside, fine, I don't think too highly of it. And if anything, I think Doak's new course only throws the shortcomings of its neighbor into sharper relief. For me, it comes down to site selection and routing before the conversation about golf holes themselves can even begin. I don't find the site of the Nicklaus design to be a particularly compelling place to explore--it felt like tracking aimlessly around a big bowl. I didn't find the routing intuitive, nor do I think it's successful as a walking course. (Whether that was a priority I don't know, but if it wasn't, it should've been.)
Doak's course, on the other hand, is a grand slam in terms of site selection and routing. I give Renaissance and Chris Johnston a lot of credit for electing to cross the road and create holes in the shadow of the buffalo run and at the Dismal River itself. The front nine is superb, but that back nine has a chance to be known as one of the finest sides in American golf. I happen to especially like courses where the routing tells a story of sorts by moving the player (easily) through diverse environments in natural and exciting ways. Is that too airy-fairy? Think Highlands Links, or Bandon Trails.
I believe Dismal has a bright future as a club, and I said as much in my Departures feature. CJ was a welcoming host during my visit and I very much enjoyed playing a round with him over the winter at Streamsong. He frames these differences in a positive light, and if I were in his shoes I'd do exactly the same thing. But as an outsider communicating my impressions to the readers of a (non-golf) magazine, I couldn't honestly say these two courses are in the same class in terms of...pretty much anything. Strategy, artistry, memorability of the journey? I'm sure someone will argue that I haven't played either of them enough (Nicklaus: 1 play; Doak: Walked the 18 during grow-in). I don't claim to know the nuances of the Nicklaus design even 1% as well as any Dismal member, and I always reserve the right to change my mind, but for now I feel comfortable enough with what I saw and wrote.
PS: The great thing about "Back to the Future" is that Biff gets his in the end, every time.
Tom,
Thank you for a fair and entertaining response. The Nicklaus course is indeed not one I would walk but what 50+ golfer really wants to walk the second 18 anyway? Perhaps it was a mistake on the original owners part but is now moot with the addition of another very walkable venue.
I would argue that disliking the Nicklaus course because of the routing is as silent as praising the view from Ben's porch. My objection to your style was more a reflection of the predictability of both your piece and my reaction to it.
When a respected professional writer such as yourself has an unpredictable opinion you are seen as being on the dole. When a guy like me comes from left field we are accused of being a troll. The troll culture has been infiltrated by such a large number of amateurs that it's embarrassing to be associated with even if you are being honest. Trying to win in this environment must be like trying to get paid. I don't see how anyone does it while keeping their self respect.
-
I'm not quite sure where to start as I sure don't follow all the different tacks this thread has taken, but it seems to be along the every other month thread type that says in so many words, we all like something because everyone else likes it, or something like that.
First response to that type of thinking is, why does anyone care if people agree with them or not? The whole idea that an idea is only validated if the majority agrees renders that opinion worthless if you ask me.
Second, we always seem to end up with this most favored architect type talk. I think there are probably about as many people making a living being a golf architect as there are QBs making a living in the NFL. If you consider all the stating QBs, back ups, clipboard holders and practice squad guys, there are probably about 100 guys who make a living as a QB. They all are exceptional when compared against the lay football expert and they all know a hell of a lot more about being a NFL QB then anyone here. But there is only a few guys like Brady, Manning(s), or Rogers. TJ Yates is a hell of an athlete and a bona fide NFL QB, but he isn't Aaron Rodgers.
It used to be cool to say you liked Tom Doak's, Bill Coore's, or Gil Hanse's work. But they are known now, not some unknown garage band selling 1000 copies on the net. They are consider the best by many...because they have been proven to be among the best in the business, IMO.
If you are making a living as a GCA, you are the exception and should be proud of what you've done, but that doesn't make you Bill Coore.
-
VK,
I don't do politics, religion or trojan horses on the web so can't say much about your post. But I do believe group think greatly influences this site. I think one way to prove such would be if we were able to discuss golf courses in genres instead of artist format and had no way to know the architect. sort of Pandora style....it's hard to do with living architects but two times I have seen architecture dudes explain the brilliant work of Donald Ross to me on a course Ross had never designed or seen. And both were very good golf courses that the guys probably would have never played if they had not thought they were Ross.
-
Don,
I didn't pick up on this being "favored architect thread " when I was thinking of the "spiral of silence". My theory is that so many subconsciously decide they don't like courses because of the name on them. Group think has made many guys favor archies instead of courses...and courses are what we play...
P>S> I think you are high with your 100 number.... :)
-
Don,
I may be Antonio Salieri, but I know I'm definitely not Mozart. ;)
I'm content to be a third tier third rate architect as someone on this site once called me. ;D
I can assure you that Bill is universally looked up to by "everyone" in the golf design business.
Interestingly, I know the schedules and demands on the three you cite.
I doubt I could manage the responsibilities or time commitments each must make year in and year out to be where they are in the business. It's far more than talent ... their success is a combination of relentless work and talent.
my2C
-
Don,
I'm content to be a third tier third rate architect as someone on this site once called me. ;D
Ian,
Come on you can do better than that....
try these:
There is no scorn more profound, or on the whole more justifiable, than that of the men who make for the men who explain. Exposition, criticism, appreciation, is work for second-rate minds.
G. H. Hardy
I used to think that all my Wings stuff was second-rate stuff, but I began to meet younger kids, not kids from my Beatle generation, who would say, We really love this song.
Paul McCartney
The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking.
A. A. Milne
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Mike,
You might not "do" politics, religion or Trojan horses...but you have tried your own group-think/Spiral of silence experiment in "opinion isolation" right here and with this person in particular...
...or are you forgetting that you reached out to a contact at WF to make them aware of my opinions in reaction to TEP's Part I interview last spring?
In your own words with my BOLD:
"Spiral of silence theory describes the process by which one opinion becomes dominant as those who perceive their opinion to be in the minority do not speak up because society threatens individuals with fear of isolation."
What did you hope to achieve with that, if not my own fear of...isolation? disdain at my job? loss of job?
ahhhh what a load of crap - as we said on the schoolyard in the 70s..."you smelled it, you dealt it"
cheers
vk
-
Her impression was that the nation was outraged at the verdict.
I think it split along party/ideological lines.
She also never believed Mitt Romney had a chance to win the last election
She was completely right...
she thinks the huge majority of the country favors gay marriage
no idea...
and she generally thinks the country is quickly growing more liberal outside of a few stubborn and ignorant pockets.
I think the country is getting more polarized.
This site is the MSNBC of golf forums.
I hope we're better than that!
-
.
-
Her impression was that the nation was outraged at the verdict.
I think it split along party/ideological lines.
The most ridiculous thing I've ever read on this site.
-
Mike,
You might not "do" politics, religion or Trojan horses...but you have tried your own group-think/Spiral of silence experiment in "opinion isolation" right here and with this person in particular...
...or are you forgetting that you reached out to a contact at WF to make them aware of my opinions in reaction to TEP's Part I interview last spring?
In your own words with my BOLD:
"Spiral of silence theory describes the process by which one opinion becomes dominant as those who perceive their opinion to be in the minority do not speak up because society threatens individuals with fear of isolation."
What did you hope to achieve with that, if not my own fear of...isolation? disdain at my job? loss of job?
ahhhh what a load of crap - as we said on the schoolyard in the 70s..."you smelled it, you dealt it"
cheers
vk
VK,
We just don't see it the same.
I feel anything we say on the internet is public and I believe strongly in capitalism and the free enterprise system. And I never worried about the "fear of isolation" idea. But I do feel the employer has the right to know how employees speak of them.
Cheers,
Mike
-
Here's where the rubber meets the road in this whole discussion. There are a good number of individuals on this site who have a dog in the hunt, so to speak, in regards to what they say here, how they say it, and how it may be used against them in future work decisions, at the very worst.
Why would anyone in the business get on here, ruffle feathers with an alternative viewpoint, only to have it broadcast to others in a negative light? Especially if it goes beyond the realm of this discussion board, where the person may have zero opportunity to defend their viewpoint?
There's probably a handful of participants here who have forged a reputation that makes them somewhat immune to any effects of speaking their mind, but for the rest of us, we need to be carefully metered in our written words. Thus, sometimes...silence. That's not a theory, it's discretion.
Joe
-
8) 8) 8)
One of my all time favorite silences was Sunday Silence !
-
The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking.
A. A. Milne
;D ;D ;D ;D
This is the product of a first rate mind. Thanks for sharing, many thanks.
-
Her impression was that the nation was outraged at the verdict.
I think it split along party/ideological lines.
The most ridiculous thing I've ever read on this site.
WaPost-ABC poll found that 62% of Democrats disapproved of the decision, while 20% of Republicans disapproved.
The same poll found 86% of blacks disapproved, while 31% of whites disapproved.
Overall the poll found 41% of Americans approve and 41% disapprove, with the rest no opinion.
-
WaPost-ABC poll found that 62% of Democrats disapproved of the decision, while 20% of Republicans disapproved.
The same poll found 86% of blacks disapproved, while 31% of whites disapproved.
Overall the poll found 41% of Americans approve and 41% disapprove, with the rest no opinion.
...which proves that 41% of the people make judgements based on maudlin sentimentality, rather than critically analyzing the facts.
-
WaPost-ABC poll found that 62% of Democrats disapproved of the decision, while 20% of Republicans disapproved.
The same poll found 86% of blacks disapproved, while 31% of whites disapproved.
Overall the poll found 41% of Americans approve and 41% disapprove, with the rest no opinion.
...which proves that 41% of the people make judgements based on maudlin sentimentality, rather than critically analyzing the facts.
It 'proves' that 82% of people are willing to make a judgement, right or wrong, and that 18% of people are oblivious. ;)
-
I don't find the site of the Nicklaus design to be a particularly compelling place to explore--it felt like tracking aimlessly around a big bowl.
Tom,
I must've said this a hundred times last weekend. ;D
-
Her impression was that the nation was outraged at the verdict.
I think it split along party/ideological lines.
The most ridiculous thing I've ever read on this site.
WaPost-ABC poll found that 62% of Democrats disapproved of the decision, while 20% of Republicans disapproved.
The same poll found 86% of blacks disapproved, while 31% of whites disapproved.
Overall the poll found 41% of Americans approve and 41% disapprove, with the rest no opinion.
I didn't say it was ridiculous because it wasn't true, I was saying it is ridiculous if true because of the statement it makes about the opinions of the American people.
-
I can think of only two gentlemen on this website who have snubbed or insulted me - perhaps they were having a bad day. Ironically, each is universally lauded on-line as a great guy with nary a negative comment to be found here. I suspect my experience and resulting opinion of them is secretly shared by others, but no big whup. Why not remain silent when the stakes are so low. Down here, rather than call them out, we simply say "bless their hearts."
The spiral of silence theory pales into comparison to sucking up for access as the primary basis for the lack of dissent on this site. For example, the routine lambasting of Augusta National is largely attributable to its inaccessibility.
Bogey
-
JC, I bet the same is true of most issues, from the economy to foreign policy to the Bill of Rights.
Syria may be an exception to that, at least for now.
-
I can think of only two gentlemen on this website who have snubbed or insulted me - perhaps they were having a bad day. Ironically, each is universally lauded on-line as a great guy with nary a negative comment to be found here. I suspect my experience and resulting opinion of them is secretly shared by others, but no big whup. Why not remain silent when the stakes are so low. Down here, rather than call them out, we simply say "bless their hearts."
The spiral of silence theory pales into comparison to sucking up for access as the primary basis for the lack of dissent on this site. For example, the routine lambasting of Augusta National is largely attributable to its inaccessibility.
Bogey
Hi Bogey,
Don't you think the opposite is more common?
That is, negative views of courses are withheld because someone does not want to lose the opportunity to access a course. I think there are a few places out there which might deny access based on critical commentary.
-
Wow!;
I had the impression that Ran had asked us to let up on the political debate. Please let me know it this has changed and I shall gleefully beat some conservatives here vigorously about the head and shoulders [figuratively speaking]. 8)
Doug Eclectic Ralston, your servant
PS: For politics here, the 'spiral' was actually a circle circumscribed by the owner, I thought. And for the GCA, of course there is a careful commentary with cognitive dissonance when as closely bound a group as this talks about the subject so important to them. Humans are both individual and group beings, the only animal that does this so easily. It makes many types of interaction quite 'schizophrenic [again in the figurative sense]. We need acceptance, but also need the liberty of single perspective. This is not bad, it's just 'us'.
End of psychoanalysis.
-
John,
If one feels negatively about a course, why would he care about further access, unless he cared more about bedpost notching and bragging rights than golf enjoyment? I can understand being sensitive to a member, but there's negative and then there's NEGATIVE...
-
It's reasonable to suggest that some people will shy away from criticizing certain golf courses, for fear they will lose any chance to access said course.
The spiral of silence compels you!
-
John,
If one feels negatively about a course, why would he care about further access, unless he cared more about bedpost notching and bragging rights than golf enjoyment? I can understand being sensitive to a member, but there's negative and then there's NEGATIVE...
Because a large percentage of guys on this site are the primordial douchebags from middle school who hated the first girl they knew with skewishy mamories. Some things never change.
-
I think the biggest challenge for lurkers and occasional posters here is the sheer volume of posts that come from a certain small percentage of posters. Over time the names have changed, but there seems to have always been a smallish group that dominates through volume. If you can't post regularly (during the US workday), the discussion moves along and leaves you behind. I also find that if you disagree with those who can post regularly, it often isn't worth the argument because you lose based on sheer post volume (making it seem like more are against you than is really the case).
Now, some of those who post regularly do so very thoughtfully. This is not a criticism of those with high post counts. I don't see much positive or negative correlation between quantity and quality of posts. I do think it is difficult to post thoughtfully, however, unless one has the time to follow-up on a regular basis.
This is up there in the most truthful posts I have read.
A huge +1
Completely agree. Fear is beast and it is indeed sad to think about how many people fail to speak up because they don't want to be criticized. It's crazy to think the said fear can exist on discussion forums like this. You would think because he area hiding behind are computers, we should be able to speak our mind without fear.
Then you get the other side of it and all these idiots on Twitter. Some of the stuff that gets tweeted out all because people are hiding behind a computer. The scary thing is that these people keep this stuff locked in. Then they have to release it out into the Twitterverse.
A discussion is a give and take proposition where ideas are shared, dissected and both learn something from each other. Not everyone comes here for a discussion.
Very well said Ian. Although arguments and discussions are different, Dale Carnegie said it best “You can't win an argument. You can't because if you lose it, you lose it; and if you win it, you lose it.”