Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Ben Sims on October 10, 2024, 06:14:53 PM
-
Did Ran win? Is the word finally out? Did the collective espousing of this site from olden days take root, grow, get broadcast on various platforms and become prevalent enough that the didactic purpose of this site is now, gulp, moot?
I think there’s an element of it. What say you?
-
I have been pondering this topic broadly in recent months. Obviously the digital landscape has changed substantially since the early days of GCA.com. The rise of Facebook, advent of Twitter, emergence of Instagram and other platforms has definitely reduced the traffic on traditional message boards and forums. Blogs have largely died too. So many other social media platforms on which to interact (albeit differently to those interations we cherish here). Social media hasn't killed GCA.com but it's effect has been substantial IMO.
-
Instagram doesn’t lead to many great conversations, but it has solidified itself as the best way to share course photos to a wide audience.
-
The proliferation of bloggers, vloggers, podcasters, etc. (Fried Egg, No Laying Up, Cookie Jar, Fire Pit*, et al) over the past 15-20 years has certainly been profound. That is in addition to the media content that so many golf clubs & courses produce themselves to promote their enterprises. The traditional golf media (Golf Digest, Golf and LINKS magazine) has also responded by using email and social media to generate clicks and views. I must get 4-6 emails daily from various golf media sources.
As the saying goes, "it is like trying to drink from a fire hose." No doubt all these sources compete for our attention. What sets gca.com apart for me is the chance to get to know and interact with the other members on this site. That is something all the other outlets do not provide.
* The competition among all the social media players has been so great that the Fire Pit Collective shut down earlier this year.
-
GolfClubAtlas is a form of social media. The first GCA forum that I remember was Golfweb back in the mid-late 90s.
-
I’m reading Ben’s opening post in a slightly different way to the title question.
Yes - I think that Ran, GCA.com, Tom have shaped both the enthusiasm in architecture and more critically the flavour / type / style of architecture to such an extent that the younger generation - the ones who now run the Social Media content - are spouting the message everywhere, resulting in the purpose of this website being far less needed.
The Millennials and older Gen-Z’s care about design and architecture - or at least one type of it - way more than Gen-X and Boomers. The previous generations may have loved golf courses but they weren’t exposed to so much social media on course design. They loved courses at a much more visceral level.
-
GCA has been and is still a wonderful place to communicate with others, learn and be able to read the thoughts of those ‘in the business’. The latter has always been important.
It’s also a valuable historical resource even though some photos etc have unfortunately disappeared. This historical resource base is something social media ‘post and run’ sites don’t offer.
We’d be worse off without GCA.
Atb
-
No. The big social media platforms don't lend themselves to any detailed discussion, which is what this site does best, when it does it. The danger is not losing posters to social media but posters behaving on here as if they were on X, and posting shorter, less well thought through, less reasoned material.
-
Ben, when you ask if Ran "won", are you saying that golf course architecture, as a topic, is like a favorite local bar band that is now playing in arenas and stadiums around the world? If that's a fair assessment of your post, I don't think that necessarily makes GCA.com "moot." If you'll indulge me as I take the music metaphor to the next level, the old quote about the Velvet Underground seems appropriate: "The Velvet Underground didn't sell many records, but everyone who bought one formed their own band."
Just like a VU record, one of the beautiful things about GCA.com is that its past, present, and future exist in one place. Like an ever expanding box set, you can "listen" or access GCA.com in its entirety right here. I didn't become a lurker on this community until 2015... I was drawn here by clicking on a course review, and have since spent countless hours diving into old threads, reading interviews, and returning to those course reviews time and time again. Social media seems more fleeting, though I'm not active on any platform so perhaps I'm wrong.
Ben, you know as well as anyone that a great question on this forum can still lead to a great conversation. Though there may not be any new ideas, there remain countless ways to interpret them or discuss them in the context of new courses, architects, media coverage, etc. Just because the light shines brighter on Instagram or Twitter or Youtube doesn't mean that GCA.com is no longer a major source of information from the primary players behind the scenes.
All media evolve as the consumption landscape around us constantly shifts. GCA.com is not the same as it was in its "heyday", but for someone like me who came to the party late, I still find it to be my favorite place online.
-
From my perspective, it is not social media that has killed GCA. It’s posters like Erik Barzeski who have killed any interest I once had in participating on this site.
I probably will not be purchasing a copy of “Lowest Score Wins” any time soon.
-
Yet we're all here responding. ;)
Truthfully, I think we've reached critical mass in terms of topics to discuss. Having been here over two decades there isn't a lot left to discuss that isn't a rehash of prior threads, but little gems still pop up and every now and then a religious war so I still pop in daily.
-
Ahh.....because you can't stand to hear a valid opinion that is different from yours? That seems harsh, given we can disagree on almost anything about gca.
BTW, I agree with Mr. Cirba. As a long time participant, my posting is way down from years ago. We are rehashing a lot of old topics here, but mostly, I realize that my taking this few minutes to type out a response really isn't going to change anyone's opinions, lol.
That might be an interesting exercise. Who can recall one post from any poster that really, truly, and permanently changed your mind about something gca related. I won't wait for anyone to chime in with my name, lol.
Back on topic, I dare say this site has changed architecture, which I think the Fried Egg and others are reporting on but didn't do themselves. So, the legend of this site will probably outlive the actual existence of this place.
-
No, and contrary to another popular misconception, Video didn’t kill the Radio star, either.
I kind of see GCA as the wise old grandpappy in his rocking chair on the porch, babysitting the young architecture whippersnappers at play in the garden (or, maybe better, the sandbox!)
The place does creak around the edges sometimes and the software is shambolic, but it’s home.
F.
-
I would say the primary benefit is as a repository of information.
I travel quite a bit in retirement. I’ve used this site to research various courses – – there’s nearly 25 years worth of information here so not only can you read about a course you can see what others thought of it. One of the strongest features is you can research a golf course in every country where one might travel - That’s the benefit of having members from around the world
i’ll give a brief recent example, I drive between my homes in Palm Beach County Florida and suburban Philadelphia – – two weeks ago I made the drive from FL back to the NE. I noted a thread in which the Donald Ross course in Palatka FL was mentioned. I observed that it wasn’t too far from I-95 so my interest was piqued. I researched the course and found several pages of threads which I eagerly read. I decided to play the course because the general consensus was it was pretty good. Better yet, I didn’t find any comment that said or suggested “stay away.” I don’t think any other site does that.
I like the threads with pictures although yes, you can get that from other sources. I like threads where people ask travel advice because you do get different opinions and approaches. It’s also a great way to learn about courses that fly under the radar – – and yes, there are a few courses that remain under the radar and/or are hidden gems
And I do read with interest what the architects and supers and others in the profession say about something.
-
Ben, when you ask if Ran "won", are you saying that golf course architecture, as a topic, is like a favorite local bar band that is now playing in arenas and stadiums around the world? If that's a fair assessment of your post, I don't think that necessarily makes GCA.com "moot." If you'll indulge me as I take the music metaphor to the next level, the old quote about the Velvet Underground seems appropriate: "The Velvet Underground didn't sell many records, but everyone who bought one formed their own band."
Just like a VU record, one of the beautiful things about GCA.com is that its past, present, and future exist in one place. Like an ever expanding box set, you can "listen" or access GCA.com in its entirety right here. I didn't become a lurker on this community until 2015... I was drawn here by clicking on a course review, and have since spent countless hours diving into old threads, reading interviews, and returning to those course reviews time and time again. Social media seems more fleeting, though I'm not active on any platform so perhaps I'm wrong.
Ben, you know as well as anyone that a great question on this forum can still lead to a great conversation. Though there may not be any new ideas, there remain countless ways to interpret them or discuss them in the context of new courses, architects, media coverage, etc. Just because the light shines brighter on Instagram or Twitter or Youtube doesn't mean that GCA.com is no longer a major source of information from the primary players behind the scenes.
All media evolve as the consumption landscape around us constantly shifts. GCA.com is not the same as it was in its "heyday", but for someone like me who came to the party late, I still find it to be my favorite place online.
You and Ally nailed what I was trying to say. A combination of “did the revolution happen and this is what the postscript looks like?” and “everyone formed their own band that needed to.”
Many people here spent time and effort learning, discussing, ultimately getting involved, and trying to carry the torch in a small way. People like yourself took an interest in golf architecture to the stratosphere and built something extraordinary from scratch.
GCA.com isn’t dead. I think its purpose started as being a sort of arbiter of things lost to time in golf architecture and trying like hell to bring it back. Perhaps the site now exists more to re-investigate the harder questions we asked long ago. To ask, chiefly, were we right?
I do understand that this website and its participants aren’t monolithic. There has always been debates and questions about what—if anything—the collective believes in when it comes to architecture on GCA. But I do think there is a core groupthink here about what constitutes quality golf architecture. Those collective beliefs absolutely influenced and gave rise to the many flavors of media we see covering golf courses.
-
Did Ran win?
(The following is just about Ran and not all those others who've done a lot to spread the message about great architecture, they all deserve acknowledgement and kudos)
I'm paraphrasing multiple others here, but I think the answer is "Yes" he won (with a caveat). First, he's now in charge of the most mainstream of golf media pertaining to architecture (the Golf Magazine lists). Second, there probably isn't a working architect now who doesn't espouse some version/portion of what Ran advocates for (whether they all follow through on it is another matter). Now the caveat. A fairly low percentage of courses that exist have been built according to the tenets he espouses (certainly less than 50%, maybe much lower) so a lot of work is still to be done.
Now for the title question "Did Social Media kill GCA.com?" I wouldn't say "kill", but it has certainly disrupted it. People younger than you Ben are much more likely to end up on Insta and listening to podcasts. My kids in their late teens think Insta and TikTok are a normal level of information and think that jumping to Reddit is getting in-depth, and lots of their peers feel the same way. The normal next-generation changing of the guard hasn't happened here on GCA because of that.
I go batty with the shallowness of what's in all of those other channels. I often ask questions in the comments and rarely get an answer, and when I do, it's exceedingly short. It's just not a level of depth I can accept about something I care about and enjoy.
What can we do about it? Probably not much, but I think it's worth it to stick around here and be a lifeboat for the younger folks (and late-bloomers) who also want more depth and camaraderie than instagram, reddit, youtube, and podcasts can give.
-
Charlie,
Your last post really resonates with you, 100% agreed!
As for the primary question is GCA.dead? Its an easy no for me, however....
Given this forum has basically unchanged in the last 20-25 years its certainly not helped and this is not a knock on Ran. This main discussion area is beyond obsolete and not very user friendly compared to new platforms which are stupid simple to use. Between formatting, posting pics, quoting, etc. the struggle is still real for many here. And the content could certainly be organized better to make it easier to find past convos/threads which contain a wealth of information.
But then again perhaps this is working as designed to keep the youngsters and/or casual users away.. :)
-
But then again perhaps this is working as designed to keep the youngsters and/or casual users away.. :)
I think it’s still in place that you only participate here if you’re given privileges to do so. If we can make it better for those of us fortunate to have been allowed, why shouldn’t we?
EDIT: that would be like being members of an ODG private club, and wanting it to stay in disrepair to keep the non-members out.
-
My first hunch was that this membership might be stalling out, but then I just checked and nearly 50 new people have been added in the past two years. If new voices contribute, we all stand to benefit from fresh questions and perspectives.
There've still been some good threads in the past year or so. Old Barnwell coming to mind. Yet I'll be the first to admit this most recent season has been the longest stretch of time I haven't felt compelled to comment or post anything.
Detailed discussions of new courses can still serve this board well, because--as others have mentioned--no other platform provides the structure to generate longer form ideas and exchange. Has there been one on Cabot Florida? Who has been to Brambles yet? High Pointe?
There might be some dormancy also because many designs opening nowadays tick the architectural boxes espoused on this site. But I foresee in the coming era a critical usefulness of this site and its community, as newer architects break from the Doak/Hanse/Coore&Crenshaw tree, and also certain business ironies that might need to be addressed (Cabot brand bringing back residential community golf? 8am owning GOLF mag and Bounty Club?).
-
I think what makes GCA great in today's world of golf's social media boom is that it's HARD to share pictures...
-
To some extent, gca.com undermined the vitality of gca.com. What I mean is that the other sections of the site—Courses by Country, Featured Interview, In My Opinion, and 147 Custodians—fed into and prompted good threads on the Discussion Board. Those other sections have less frequent new content. Ran properly is busy doing other things in golf architecture, and there are less of us (myself included) who make the effort to contribute to In My Opinion. It would be great to see newer courses covered in Courses by Country or interviews with up and coming architects, and I am sure that they would provoke good discussion. It is this void (perhaps too strong a term) that the Fried Egg in particular has done a good job filling.
Ira
-
Did Ran win? Is the word finally out? Did the collective espousing of this site from olden days take root, grow, get broadcast on various platforms and become prevalent enough that the didactic purpose of this site is now, gulp, moot?
Social media is to niche interests as the printing press was to education. It facilitates the transmission of information, and connects like minded individuals. I think there is significant variance on what social media is when we talk about it here. In very real sense, as Wayne points out, GCA.com very much fits into the category of social media. On the contrary, outlets like Fried Egg Golf are much closer to media outlets than social media, even if they do leverage social media in their products.
Do I think Ran has won? It's hard to say. Golf architecture is still an incredibly niche subject even in golf culture (there isn't really even much discussion of it on the golf subreddits). That said, I think the site has certainly influenced the types of architecture and courses that are preferred. Still, it's such a broad category, that I don't know whether the kids taking their instagram photos is an appreciation of architecture, or an appreciation of agronomy. They're certainly not discussing angles or kickers on any of my social media feeds.
-
"certain business ironies that might need to be addressed"
That's a fertile field yet to be plowed here. To paraphrase John Kerry, were "we" against developer/operators of global brands of luxury residential, golf and “boutique resort lifestyle” destinations, [ii] moving 6 million cubic yards of dirt, and/or [iii] seven-figure joining fees, and are "we" for them now?
-
But then again perhaps this is working as designed to keep the youngsters and/or casual users away.. :)
I think it’s still in place that you only participate here if you’re given privileges to do so. If we can make it better for those of us fortunate to have been allowed, why shouldn’t we?
EDIT: that would be like being members of an ODG private club, and wanting it to stay in disrepair to keep the non-members out.
I'm with you Joe.
I've certainly voiced my support for upgrades to the site, better structure, hosting photos, etc in addition to posted how-to instructions for editing posts and adding images going back several years now. While I still hold out hope that updates will come, just like the Dude in Big Lebowski, I abide.
-
Did Ran win? Is the word finally out? Did the collective espousing of this site from olden days take root, grow, get broadcast on various platforms and become prevalent enough that the didactic purpose of this site is now, gulp, moot?
I think there’s an element of it. What say you?
I think that happened 15+ years ago in the golf industry and a little more recently on social media, and while there were many other factors besides the existence of gca.com (Doak, C&C, Keiser, etc.), Golf Club Atlas was certainly prominent.
-
Did Ran win? Is the word finally out? Did the collective espousing of this site from olden days take root, grow, get broadcast on various platforms and become prevalent enough that the didactic purpose of this site is now, gulp, moot?
Social media is to niche interests as the printing press was to education. It facilitates the transmission of information, and connects like minded individuals. I think there is significant variance on what social media is when we talk about it here. In very real sense, as Wayne points out, GCA.com very much fits into the category of social media. On the contrary, outlets like Fried Egg Golf are much closer to media outlets than social media, even if they do leverage social media in their products.
Do I think Ran has won? It's hard to say. Golf architecture is still an incredibly niche subject even in golf culture (there isn't really even much discussion of it on the golf subreddits). That said, I think the site has certainly influenced the types of architecture and courses that are preferred. Still, it's such a broad category, that I don't know whether the kids taking their instagram photos is an appreciation of architecture, or an appreciation of agronomy. They're certainly not discussing angles or kickers on any of my social media feeds.
Coveted spot #25!
Good points Matt. I don’t discount that GCA.com’s Discussion Group is in fact social media. I guess I should’ve clarified a bit. But the discussion has been good nonetheless. I think people understood what I meant.
As for the “kids taking their instagram photos”, I have my reservations about their utility or what they’re even appreciating, outside of just getting to play great courses. I suppose I should be very deliberate in saying that TFE or Cooke Jar (to use just two examples) aren’t in the same category as the “look where I played today” Insta and X accounts. Personally, I’m taking a GCA.com Sean Arble review 10-0 over that sort of thing.
-
It's interesting that this thread so far seems to have skipped the generation of editorial voices whose work both postdates the founding of this site and predates the rise of social media. Ran, Brad Klein, Tom Dunne, Geoff Shackelford, Joe Passov, Mike Clayton and many others (including practicing architects) have written in various media outlets for decades about what makes one golf course or hole more interesting than another. Along with the contents of this site, their scholarship and expertise has influenced the current social media influencer class greatly.
What we're seeing is what Marshall McLuhan posited decades ago: that a new medium initially consists of the content of the previous one. For a long time, social media channels were mainly about signal-boosting the editorial output of the media that came before. Now, since its been around for the better part of a generation, it's finding its own native forms of expression, but by its structural nature it's a bit limited because tweets and Reels and such don't convey nuance the way good writing can.
In a lot of ways, social media feels like the ultimate PR machine primarily, tailor-made for self-promotion. I don't see it as a conveyor of depth or nuance, though. When it comes to our subject of mutual obsession, it's done a great job at giving a pretty big audience an inch-deep view of GCA. Let me be clear: this is a great thing. But it will always be the case that the content of GolfClubAtlas and the long-form work of deep thinkers will be necessary for those who want a deeper understanding.
-
An aspect of GCA that might be undervalued is how much of a reference source it is now. You want to find out more about a particular course or designer, chances are there are at least a few threads with some very insightful posts. And that continues. As Tim points out, GCA delves much deeper than other forms of social media. For those who are interested in learning more, it is alive and well.
-
Ben,
For me, no. Social media didn’t kill GCA. I did sign up for The Fried Egg this year and think those guys do a pretty good job with course reviews, but GCA’s discussion group is not something I’ve seen elsewhere.
-
If so, I wouldn't know.
Good or bad, this is the place for information and...discussion.
-
I do miss the course photo tours that people use to share on this site. Now it is much easier to share a photo on Instagram/Facebook/X from your phone. I would love to see this site be able to easily post photos that can be shared and discussed. I think Ran did a good job of filtering who could post on here and I think that has made this a great place for golf architecture discussion.
-
As a (albeit older) millennial, I haven't run across anything that replaces the discussion on this site. I enjoy Fried Egg/NLU, but this is the place I go first/frequent the most.
-
No, people losing their shit about Aimpoint for 5 pages did
-
No, people losing their shit about Aimpoint for 5 pages did
:D
-
Time to put an end to this thread. Buckle up.
1. GCA was around for 5-10 years before I came on board, and I've been on board for close to 20 years. By "GCA," we have to ask ourselves Do we mean the discussion group only? When was the last time that you looked at and counted the 147 Custodians, read a Feature Interview, perused the Courses by Country and checked a review, or even noticed that there is something called "Tags" in the main menu bar?
2. GCA has been advertisement-free in its entirety. That makes it sooooo different from social media, which really should be called socio-capitalist media. They are all about making money; it's just that a new generation figured out how to con an older generation into thinking that they care about golf course architecture. They care more about making money, so they fly drones and they craft pearly essays, and they find any connection to golf, to sell their subscriptions. It's sigma, no cap, but recognize it for what it is.
3. Who are the purists left among us? I'm fortunate to interact with Bausch and Cirba in the Walter Travis Society, and they are shining lights. In addition to the Cobbs Creek project, their photography and writing have kept the Discussion Group moving in a proper direction. Every time I sit down to write an In My Opinion piece, I ask myself if it will measure up to Cirba. It won't, so I cease the writing.
4. Why didn't the admins add a "Feature Photoview" to the masthead? One would have to ask them. It seems that words on a subject are not as offensive as photos. I remember the first Myopia thread that called Myopia by name. It was from that dirsuptor, Jon Cavalier, and the old guard did its level best to chew him a new one. They learned that Lawyer Jon has a tough arse and he flew the coop for bluer skies. There have always been a lot of Stay off my lawn grumps in the Discussion Group; the fewer of them that stick around, the better this place will be.
5. This Discussion Group is an incredible blend of professionals (architects, superintendents, builders, PGA professionals, instructors, and the occasional touring pro) and hobbyists (high-end club members to public course slashers.) No one is paid to present their view on the GCA_DG, although some attempt to parlay and leverage for access and other benefits.
6. There is a list-serv for Language teachers called FL Teach. It is run out of SUNY-Cortland and SUNY-Buffalo by two retired professors. I wonder if they had any sort of succession plan, or growth plan. I receive posts from time to time, but nowhere near the number that I received during the salad days of 2000-2015. I miss the interaction, but I'm not the same guy anymore. I'm 5-8 years away from retirement, but I don't know where the 20s 30s and 40s language teachers are hanging out. The List-Serv is in dire straits, way worse than the GCA_DG.
7. How big will the offer have to be, for the admins to sell GCA? What potential could such a buyer see in the consistent viewership that frequents this environment? If all the folks who would miss it, are gone, does the original matter, and does the scope of the next iteration of GCA need to remain faithful to the original?
8. I like Erik Barzeski.
9. The compelling voices that contribute at the highest level, are the ones that want to/should get paid for their words. They won't give things away for free around here. The most frequent voices are not always the most compelling, but they certainly are the most dedicated. Ever since the admins took away the number-of-posts tally, the video game element has gone away, and no one can point to owning the label of GCA God.
10. "Didactic" is an interesting word, from the opening post. Was it didactic, informative, or a blend of the two? In the 1990s, so many great old courses were miskept and mismanaged, but the bones were there. Then came the renaissance, thanks to the crash of 2008, when architects convinced clubs that their courses needed to be returned to origin form. They weren't wrong, and they cashed in. What happens when the new-build commissions and restoration commissions drain off? That's when the GCA_DG will truly face extinction.
-
You lost me with point 8. Turn off the lights.
-
I think y'all are overthinking this topic. There are just more choices for the same people to read now and so time gets divided between the various sites.
-
I think y'all are overthinking this topic. There are just more choices for the same people to read now and so time gets divided between the various sites.
Yes, plus… The ease of posting images to other platforms has done a lot, too. Even images posted here are often awkwardly side-scrolling, etc.
GCA (the practice, not the site) is inherently visual.
-
I am one of the few remaining who migrated here from Golfweb/Traditionalgolf.com. Most are gone. Days of Kings Putter on West Coast are gone.
This site is 2003 in terms of board software...maybe even 1993. That is an annual disappointment. While there are good discussions about GCA on other sites (Tommy's comes to mind), this one has more traffic and engagement. So I check in here still, and post occasionally.
Just wish board owners (Ran and Joe) would update the software to enable more "modern" topic presentations and discussions. But I have been saying that for 10+ years, with nothing done. Do a fund raiser to pay for some 20 year old to do the upgrade and migration of old threads. Not hard. But as I said, this has been something to do for the last decade.
Enjoy the board as it is, I guess.
-
I am one of the few remaining who migrated here from Golfweb/Traditionalgolf.com. Most are gone. Days of Kings Putter on West Coast are gone.
This site is 2003 in terms of board software...maybe even 1993. That is an annual disappointment. While there are good discussions about GCA on other sites (Tommy's comes to mind), this one has more traffic and engagement. So I check in here still, and post occasionally.
Just wish board owners (Ran and Joe) would update the software to enable more "modern" topic presentations and discussions. But I have been saying that for 10+ years, with nothing done. Do a fund raiser to pay for some 20 year old to do the upgrade and migration of old threads. Not hard. But as I said, this has been something to do for the last decade.
Enjoy the board as it is, I guess.
Kevin,
Nice to see Tradionalgolf.com. I can still remember Tommy calling to inform me about the migration to GCA.com.
Tim
-
No, people losing their shit about Aimpoint for 5 pages did
Adam
That thread wasn't really about Aimpoint, it was more about pace of play which is a regular topic on here. Even playing the best courses in the world can become a slog if it takes forever to get round.
Niall
-
GCA (the practice, not the site) is inherently visual.
Or you can feel it with your feet ;D
-
Let’s just ask ourselves a question when starting a topic. Could this lead to a frank discussion about some aspect of golf course architecture?
I miss the powerhouse posters of ten years ago and wish them well.
-
Thanks Mike, I'm doing OK ;)
Niall
-
Thanks Mike, I'm doing OK ;)
Niall
When you look up “ powerhouse poster” there is a photo of you.
-
The site clearly isn’t what it used to be, but it’s hard for me to see social media as the culprit. Other than the ease of posting pictures, there’s still nothing quite like this site.
This site is clearly not what it once was, but I don’t think the rise of other social media platforms has much, if anything, to do with that.
I’m not exactly sure when I joined GCA.com, except that I know it was right after I read about the site in Sports Illustrated probably nearly 25 years ago now. Since then a lot of guys who were tremendously knowledgeable and very serious about GCA and really made the site what it was have either left, or rarely post anymore; Tommy Naccarato, Tom Paul, Pat Mucci, Tom Huckaby, Dan Kelly, Geoff Shackelford, and Scott Burroughs leap to mind, and I’m sure I’m missing some important names. I learned a LOT from those guys; I’m grateful, and I miss both their wisdom and their stewardship of our game.
They left, I’m sure, for different reasons, but in some cases that I know of firsthand, it was the prevalence of non-architecture threads (of which I am clearly a guilty party), but also because posters were expressing opinions with no real knowledge of the particular golf course (or other topic) being discussed, along with a general tone that is often just unacceptable. Guys write things here all the time that I doubt they would ever say in person to friends over a beer, and they do it when they know little or nothing about the subject at hand. That all too often becomes nothing more than a tiresome griping session.
I still believe that there no better place to learn about GCA than this site. I continue to learn a lot from the architects that post here; as one example, I’ve enjoyed and benefited from reading what Jeff Brauer has to say for a long, long time now, and I hope that continues.
-
As someone who doesn't use other platforms, GCA is my go to place.
-
In the dental world of mine, there a site called Dentaltown where dentists and salespeople discuss their jobs (and many of them about how much they hate it). It bustled from 1998 til about 2014 when most of the new docs chose FB for discussions. Not long after, Dentaltown created an app, which led to an uptick and interactions. Dentaltown already had some monetized cash flow to support that by sellign online CE courses.
I dont know if Ran/GCA have the ability to monetize GCA enough to justify the expense of converting all the stored data into an app and cloud.
-
Podcasts have certainly made a difference, and I think Ran was considering having a podcast (and I still think he should!). The real in-depth information that we all crave from a GCA perspective is happening on podcasts. Listening to Trevor Dormer or Kyle Franz talk for an hour on a podcast is worth a lot of threads on this site. You not only learn about the latest projects, but often you get a 'behind the curtain' look at some of the challenges that those designing/building/maintaining/owning courses face on a daily basis. I would LOVE Ran to start a GCA podcast. The feature interviews do such a great job of asking the right questions, but it would be presented in a format that is easier to digest, less time consuming for the guest, and more appealing to multi-generations.
If this site is truly about education (as I believe that it is!), then it's the best way forward.
As for the DG, it needs an injection of more posts/thread creation from the best minds. Some are doing that, but many that we all love, follow, and adore, just don't have the time. How cool would it be if Brian Schneider created a thread from one of his scouting trips and did write-ups on all the interesting features he found on his travels? He posts small bits on Instagram, but it only whets the appetite for more!
Finally, the Courses by Country needs an update. Some of the write-ups are dated, and many courses have done work since then. Ran has posted various course write-ups on Instagram, but you can't zoom in on the photos, and it's tough reading going back and forth from the comments to the photos to line them up. I'd love to see new write-ups in this space on courses like Ladera, Wicker Point, Lost Rail, as well as those lesser known courses that I know Ran is always seeing.
At the end of the day, Ran is a true thought leader and can shape the discussion like few can. When he says a course is worth seeing, or it has more merit than most, I listen.
-
I am one of the few remaining who migrated here from Golfweb/Traditionalgolf.com. Most are gone. Days of Kings Putter on West Coast are gone.
This site is 2003 in terms of board software...maybe even 1993. That is an annual disappointment. While there are good discussions about GCA on other sites (Tommy's comes to mind), this one has more traffic and engagement. So I check in here still, and post occasionally.
Just wish board owners (Ran and Joe) would update the software to enable more "modern" topic presentations and discussions. But I have been saying that for 10+ years, with nothing done. Do a fund raiser to pay for some 20 year old to do the upgrade and migration of old threads. Not hard. But as I said, this has been something to do for the last decade.
Enjoy the board as it is, I guess.
Kevin,
Nice to see Tradionalgolf.com. I can still remember Tommy calling to inform me about the migration to GCA.com.
Tim
Same!!!
-
No, it did not.
Love the site, love the treehouse as well.
-
100% agreement with Tim. No it did not. And never underestimate the number of GCAers (like me) who don't actually use social media like Facebook or Instagram at all. Of course the site has changed over two decades, as the contributing personnel have changed, but (most of the time) it is still hugely informative and lots of fun. Which is the purpose of the exercise, I always thought..
-
Evan,
Nice to see you check in. Hope all is well for you.
Tim
-
OT. the thread title has the Buggles song Video Killed the Radio Star running through my head every time I read it.
-
Hey Ben,
Did you ever play The Rawls Course after that rained out meeting we had planned many many moons ago? All Ms Sheila and I could do was drive around and look at it and roll some balls on the greens... and take in the Buddy Holly Museum in Lubbock
I can't agree that social media killed golfclubatlas.com but I do think one day it will simply disappear into the ether... and folks will reach out to their golfing friends made via this website over the years and soldier on experiencing old and new gca .. those who saved their research into the archives will guard those precious digital files... as well as Dixie Cup and other player rosters..
I think I still have the Sports Illustrated issue (hidden away somewhere in my library) sent to me by my childhood golfing Bud, to check out these guys like Tommy N pictured playing into Hell Bunker on purpose.. I was lucky to get into the ranks back then, so now golfclubatlas.com is simply like that well worn coffee table book but only internet style, with a link on my pc. it's didactic purpose is no more moot than having to play & figure out The Road Hole at TOC and that darn fronting bunker.
-
Hey Ben,
Did you ever play The Rawls Course after that rained out meeting we had planned many many moons ago? All Ms Sheila and I could do was drive around and look at it and roll some balls on the greens... and take in the Buddy Holly Museum in Lubbock
I can't agree that social media killed golfclubatlas.com but I do think one day it will simply disappear into the ether... and folks will reach out to their golfing friends made via this website over the years and soldier on experiencing old and new gca .. those who saved their research into the archives will guard those precious digital files... as well as Dixie Cup and other player rosters..
I think I still have the Sports Illustrated issue (hidden away somewhere in my library) sent to me by my childhood golfing Bud, to check out these guys like Tommy N pictured playing into Hell Bunker on purpose.. I was lucky to get into the ranks back then, so now golfclubatlas.com is simply like that well worn coffee table book but only internet style, with a link on my pc. it's didactic purpose is no more moot than having to play & figure out The Road Hole at TOC and that darn fronting bunker.
I'm 35 years old, and would gladly volunteer to keep this site alive - I'm a huge fan of the many other resources mentioned (interestingly enough this post was referenced on a ClubTFE Fried Egg blog post this morning). I'm all for multiple places to go to discuss/experience great golf course architecture, but as a younger member of this forum I sincerely hope that we keep this place alive as long as possible. My hope is that it's still a resource where the next generation of Tom Doak's come to post their thoughts and interact with those of us that are die-hard hobbyists.
-
My hope is that it's still a resource where the next generation of Tom Doaks come to post their thoughts and interact with those of us that are die-hard hobbyists.
That's an interesting take but I am not sure if it will happen . . . if it was going to happen, it should have started by now. We generally have the same few architects participating here who have done so for 10-20 years [Jeff B, Mike Y, Ian A, and myself]. Andrew Green and Rob Collins and Kyle Franz are looking for their own lanes, somewhere else.
In the end, this discussion group is really more about discussion than promotion, and most young designers don't want to take the time for that, when so many other avenues for promotion now exist. My own participation is somewhat less, too . . . it is much easier for me to talk about whatever I want on a podcast that takes a couple of hours to record, than to keep up with this board, especially when there are fewer old friends to chat with here.
I wouldn't write off Golf Club Atlas just yet, though. I had a long talk with Ran the other day about when or if to pursue the last book of our Confidential Guide series, and he shared some big plans for the future of Golf Club Atlas. Stay tuned!
-
Tom,
Thanks for the heads up on Ran and GCA.
Hope all is well for you.
Tim
-
Absolutely not.
In fact, the constant proliferation of inferior topical mud thrown on the wall...
...only widens the GCA "moat" IMO. (see Buffett)
-
Hey Ben,
Did you ever play The Rawls Course after that rained out meeting we had planned many many moons ago? All Ms Sheila and I could do was drive around and look at it and roll some balls on the greens... and take in the Buddy Holly Museum in Lubbock
I can't agree that social media killed golfclubatlas.com but I do think one day it will simply disappear into the ether... and folks will reach out to their golfing friends made via this website over the years and soldier on experiencing old and new gca .. those who saved their research into the archives will guard those precious digital files... as well as Dixie Cup and other player rosters..
I think I still have the Sports Illustrated issue (hidden away somewhere in my library) sent to me by my childhood golfing Bud, to check out these guys like Tommy N pictured playing into Hell Bunker on purpose.. I was lucky to get into the ranks back then, so now golfclubatlas.com is simply like that well worn coffee table book but only internet style, with a link on my pc. it's didactic purpose is no more moot than having to play & figure out The Road Hole at TOC and that darn fronting bunker.
Steve,
I did get to play The Rawls Course way back when. It’s an interesting course to say the least. Perhaps more than all but a few of Renaissance’s courses it demonstrates care and talent. If it were in Phoenix it’d be talked about A LOT more.
—break break—
I went over to The Fried Egg today and noticed that Garrett had made a blog entry about this thread. He made some good points. I agree with a lot of what he said, particularly the bit about this still being a niche interest and the overall golf architecture IQ of the average golfer being quite low.
The place where I diverge with him is there being a place for seekers. I think web3 (as he coined it for the purpose of this discussion) has made it possible for short form entertainment to supplant long form information and study as the basis for golf architecture enthusiasm. Drone pics and a quick blurb about how great a course is (and they’re ALL great on IG) seems to be the deepest a lot of architecture enthusiasts go these days. And the post count and involvement here suffers as a result.
I want to be clear, I like TFE quite a bit. I am a happy paying member of Club TFE. But it isn’t lost of me that a site that monetizes a membership to a golf architecture “club” wrote about this post rather than actually post here.
-
I went over to The Fried Egg today and noticed that Garrett had made a blog entry about this thread. He made some good points. I agree with a lot of what he said, particularly the bit about this still being a niche interest and the overall golf architecture IQ of the average golfer being quite low.
Yes, it's still very niche. I try to talk to some of my college golfers about it, and they basically like the golf courses in the best condition. :P That's almost the extent of their architecture takes, and while I wish I could say it's due to their age… that's almost the same as what I hear from most other people. Or they'll say they like the courses on which they shoot the best scores. ;D
I want to be clear, I like TFE quite a bit. I am a happy paying member of Club TFE.[/size] But it isn’t lost of me that a site that monetizes a membership to a golf architecture “club” wrote about this post rather than actually post here.
That seems unfair. They have their own platform, so it seems fair they'd post it on their own platform (I don't see it, in a quick look, so I don't know if it's behind or in front of the paywall).
-
That seems unfair. They have their own platform, so it seems fair they'd post it on their own platform (I don't see it, in a quick look, so I don't know if it's behind or in front of the paywall).
Erik,
I wasn’t disparaging. It’s well within Garrett’s right to do as he pleases. The point I was trying to make is that a social media entity was posting their own ideas about a GCA.com thread. Instead of engaging *here*, the engagement is happening elsewhere, is what I’m saying.
To reiterate, not disparaging. I’m making observations. And this isn’t about any one specific entity within these mediums.
-
The point I was trying to make is that a social media entity was posting their own ideas about a GCA.com thread. Instead of engaging *here*, the engagement is happening elsewhere, is what I’m saying.
Never forget that this site is a walled garden.
I don't think he is a member. Not allowing public assess to a popular forum implicitly incentivizes debate elsewhere. I think the kids at TFE could actually do well for themselves creating a lightly moderated competitor forum to GCA that simply allowed open discussion to all their members. The amount of folks who are passionate about architecture, but that aren't invited here, is non-trivial. Those folks just don't get to contribute. Lord knows that I lurked around here occasionally for years before a random guy in the industry suggested I actually reach out for access.
-
The amount of folks who are passionate about architecture, but that aren't invited here, is non-trivial.
LOL...complete B.S.
Those folks just don't get to contribute.
Tough.
Lord knows that I lurked around here occasionally for years before a random guy in the industry suggested I actually reach out for access.
You and 3 others...
...good to see you finally grew some balls, obviously nothing was preventing you from having "access".
Good onya mate!
-
LOL...complete B.S.
This is the only thing that greets you:
A Discussion Group limited to 1,500 individuals. If interested in participating, please contact us.
You have to email Ran, himself, to get access to a site with 1,500 open spaces. Reddit has 1.3 million people on the golf subreddit. I don't know whether he lets everyone in, but it certainly seems implausible on it's face.
Tough.
You and 3 others...
...good to see you finally grew some balls, obviously nothing was preventing you from having "access".
Oh what it would be like if GCA had a lightly moderated competitor. :D
I see now that what appears to be a walled garden might just be the result of running 1999 software in 2024, but I just don't see how anyone can look at a website with no place to sign up, with a single line of text on the entire site, which is limited to 1,500 and then directing you to Ran's business email, and think that it's open to everyone. If you are right and I'm wrong, I have little doubt that many share my misconception.
-
I think the kids at TFE could actually do well for themselves creating a lightly moderated competitor forum to GCA that simply allowed open discussion to all their members.
I think they want no part in doing that. Except for ClubTFE members commenting on articles… that's about as far as they're wanting to go.
-
My hope is that it's still a resource where the next generation of Tom Doaks come to post their thoughts and interact with those of us that are die-hard hobbyists.
That's an interesting take but I am not sure if it will happen . . . if it was going to happen, it should have started by now. We generally have the same few architects participating here who have done so for 10-20 years [Jeff B, Mike Y, Ian A, and myself]. Andrew Green and Rob Collins and Kyle Franz are looking for their own lanes, somewhere else.
In the end, this discussion group is really more about discussion than promotion, and most young designers don't want to take the time for that, when so many other avenues for promotion now exist. My own participation is somewhat less, too . . . it is much easier for me to talk about whatever I want on a podcast that takes a couple of hours to record, than to keep up with this board, especially when there are fewer old friends to chat with here.
I wouldn't write off Golf Club Atlas just yet, though. I had a long talk with Ran the other day about when or if to pursue the last book of our Confidential Guide series, and he shared some big plans for the future of Golf Club Atlas. Stay tuned!
TD.. us younger understudies are (generally) abiding by the rule of thumb we have two ears and one mouth and should use them proportionally. Golf Club Atlas has been an incredible open source of information to quietly fact check "new" ideas or answer "what if" questions. Almost without fail in prompting such questions I've found they have already been discussed, debated, argued and agreeable upon at some point in a discussion group. Your consistent participation throughout the years alongside other accomplished architects, supers, the die-hard hobbyists is almost a novel in itself, you just have to know where to look.
In short, GCA is and will continue to be an invaluable resource to the younger generation. (if they want to be worth a damn, that is)
-
That seems unfair. They have their own platform, so it seems fair they'd post it on their own platform (I don't see it, in a quick look, so I don't know if it's behind or in front of the paywall).
Erik,
I wasn’t disparaging. It’s well within Garrett’s right to do as he pleases. The point I was trying to make is that a social media entity was posting their own ideas about a GCA.com thread. Instead of engaging *here*, the engagement is happening elsewhere, is what I’m saying.
To reiterate, not disparaging. I’m making observations. And this isn’t about any one specific entity within these mediums.
Ben, thanks for being a member of ClubTFE, to be honest I had a long post drafted about this that I chose to not post because I thought it was unnecessary to hear my thoughts on the subject. Without this message board and website, I wouldn't have fallen in love with golf course architecture the way I did. I don't think it's dead at all, it's just different. That's what happens over decades, things change and this is still a super valuable resource, especially the back archives of this board.
Also, please don't refer to what we do as a social media entity. That is probably the furthest thing from what we do, we produce 5,000+ written words per week, host 5 hours of long form audio and post well-produced videos roughly monthly. We predominately use social media to push people to our work that is not on social media.
As for our membership, we have big goals from both building community and providing an amazing membership product. Where we are right now is 1.0 of what we plan to do. Hopefully in the near future there will be some massive improvements in tech for members and more of the innovative and one of a kind content that we have brought to the golf world.
-
That seems unfair. They have their own platform, so it seems fair they'd post it on their own platform (I don't see it, in a quick look, so I don't know if it's behind or in front of the paywall).
Erik,
I wasn’t disparaging. It’s well within Garrett’s right to do as he pleases. The point I was trying to make is that a social media entity was posting their own ideas about a GCA.com thread. Instead of engaging *here*, the engagement is happening elsewhere, is what I’m saying.
To reiterate, not disparaging. I’m making observations. And this isn’t about any one specific entity within these mediums.
Ben, thanks for being a member of ClubTFE, to be honest I had a long post drafted about this that I chose to not post because I thought it was unnecessary to hear my thoughts on the subject. Without this message board and website, I wouldn't have fallen in love with golf course architecture the way I did. I don't think it's dead at all, it's just different. That's what happens over decades, things change and this is still a super valuable resource, especially the back archives of this board.
Also, please don't refer to what we do as a social media entity. That is probably the furthest thing from what we do, we produce 5,000+ written words per week, host 5 hours of long form audio and post well-produced videos roughly monthly. We predominately use social media to push people to our work that is not on social media.
As for our membership, we have big goals from both building community and providing an amazing membership product. Where we are right now is 1.0 of what we plan to do. Hopefully in the near future there will be some massive improvements in tech for members and more of the innovative and one of a kind content that we have brought to the golf world.
Thanks Andy.
As Garrett pointed out, any good thread title starts with a false premise. We’ve been doing it since I got here in 2009 and long before. Seems to have generated some traffic and for that, I’m happy.
But the title itself may have buried the lede. The meat of my OP was addressed by your first paragraph. I had a sneaking suspicion you were among that group that took your interest and elevated it into empire. I visit TFE almost everyday but for a distinct purpose. Tastemakers in the golf architecture space (outside of the magazines) have platforms that are collectively pretty terrific. Being an esoteric and niche interest, naturally your site and content (among others) steals a little light from this space. Mike Young touched on that earlier in the thread.
Apologies if my generic characterization marginalized TFE. It wasn’t meant that way. I just struggle to encapsulate all the “new” places you can get golf architecture info and content into a term that fits.
Bottom line, my own thought on this topic is similar to yours. The place is different and its back archives are invaluable. GCA.com still very much serves a purpose in this most nerdy of golf interests.
-
We generally have the same few architects participating here who have done so for 10-20 years [Jeff B, Mike Y, Ian A, and myself]. Andrew Green and Rob Collins and Kyle Franz are looking for their own lanes, somewhere else.
Robin Hiseman, Adrian Stiff and Clyde are too British to count? :)
-
Love this question
I don’t think social media killed it. The appreciation jumped from GCa to golf media with the death of “Resistance to Scoring” , and the wider recognition of the existence of golf course architecture has reduced the urgency of GCAtlas.
Additionally, the recognition that gca adds to clubs and courses has expanded.
Social media has absolutely expanded the aesthetic appreciation for excellent gca.
In the end, it hasn’t killed Golf club Atlas, we’re just moving back to talking quietly amongst ourselves.
-
We generally have the same few architects participating here who have done so for 10-20 years [Jeff B, Mike Y, Ian A, and myself]. Andrew Green and Rob Collins and Kyle Franz are looking for their own lanes, somewhere else.
Robin Hiseman, Adrian Stiff and Clyde are too British to count? :)
Mark:
Fair enough. Adrian still does post here often. Clyde not nearly often enough. And Robin not as much anymore. And we both forgot Ally Macintosh, although by using the word "British" you threw down the gauntlet.
-
Another note. GCA is non commercial free form driven by text and prose in a video and image driven environment.
It returns to its core based on discussion. That does not mean video and images won’t expand but gca was a foundation for the exploration of architecture.
It’s not dead, just quieter.
-
LOL...complete B.S.
This is the only thing that greets you:
A Discussion Group limited to 1,500 individuals. If interested in participating, please contact us.
You have to email Ran, himself, to get access to a site with 1,500 open spaces. Reddit has 1.3 million people on the golf subreddit. I don't know whether he lets everyone in, but it certainly seems implausible on it's face.
Tough.
You and 3 others...
...good to see you finally grew some balls, obviously nothing was preventing you from having "access".
Oh what it would be like if GCA had a lightly moderated competitor. :D
I see now that what appears to be a walled garden might just be the result of running 1999 software in 2024, but I just don't see how anyone can look at a website with no place to sign up, with a single line of text on the entire site, which is limited to 1,500 and then directing you to Ran's business email, and think that it's open to everyone. If you are right and I'm wrong, I have little doubt that many share my misconception.
You don't seem to like this site, at all...
...why not log out and head over to "reddit" full time?
-
Are we not in danger of taking the back-catalogue for granted ? If the site fails to remain current, then it is in danger of going and with that the back-catalogue.
Also, while it is true that there probably aren't many subjects left that haven't been discussed on here, I think it is worth encouraging the new-blood to reprise a topic or discuss it anew, rather than constantly referring them back to old threads. A different take on something can be refreshing.
Niall
-
We generally have the same few architects participating here who have done so for 10-20 years [Jeff B, Mike Y, Ian A, and myself]. Andrew Green and Rob Collins and Kyle Franz are looking for their own lanes, somewhere else.
Robin Hiseman, Adrian Stiff and Clyde are too British to count? :)
Ben Stephens is a Golf Architect too.
-
Are we not in danger of taking the back-catalogue for granted ? If the site fails to remain current, then it is in danger of going and with that the back-catalogue.
Also, while it is true that there probably aren't many subjects left that haven't been discussed on here, I think it is worth encouraging the new-blood to reprise a topic or discuss it anew, rather than constantly referring them back to old threads. A different take on something can be refreshing.
Niall
I certainly hope not, as someone who flips through the back catalogue almost daily in some form or fashion. I've taken to posting more recently, in the hopes that this place doesn't get too quiet. I appreciate your thoughts here very much Niall, but want to reinforce the other side of this as well, which is that some of us in the younger crowd are even more eager to listen/learn/ask questions of the more seasoned on this board as we are to share our own thoughts and opinions. I appreciate Vaughn's point that this board has gotten quieter, but for these reasons I hope it doesn't get too quiet.
-
Quote from: Andy Johnson on Yesterday at 11:03:01 AM (https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,72346.msg1758427.html#msg1758427)
I saw in a thread about if GCA is dead (it isn't, a wonderful place that has inspired a lot of innovation, creativity and thinking from others), a long time poster, Jeff Brauer suggest (multiple times) that Fried Egg has done nothing original.
Agree with Andy from The Fried Egg, GC Atlas is far from Dead.
As a relative newbie on here, there is more patience, depth, knowledge and openness than elsewhere.
I feel glad to be on here.
The Fried Egg - Yolk w. Doak on Sedge I just listened to was really great, but it is an amuse bouche (sp?) to what we can discuss here, if we want to in longer form.
For example, there was a great exchange relating to a conversation Tom had wth Padraig Harrington about the 1st drive at Renaissance.
It immediately struck me that it could have been the same discussion between J.H. Taylor and John L. Low about fairness and scientific penal design versus strategic principles.
Discussions/Debates I was aware of due to Robert (Bob) Crosby and his contributions on here (and elsewhere).
I'll possibly start another thread on that, which may die...but this is the place it might not, and that is what I love it for...
Cheers
-
LOL...complete B.S.
This is the only thing that greets you:
A Discussion Group limited to 1,500 individuals. If interested in participating, please contact us.
You have to email Ran, himself, to get access to a site with 1,500 open spaces. Reddit has 1.3 million people on the golf subreddit. I don't know whether he lets everyone in, but it certainly seems implausible on it's face.
Tough.
You and 3 others...
...good to see you finally grew some balls, obviously nothing was preventing you from having "access".
Oh what it would be like if GCA had a lightly moderated competitor. :D
I see now that what appears to be a walled garden might just be the result of running 1999 software in 2024, but I just don't see how anyone can look at a website with no place to sign up, with a single line of text on the entire site, which is limited to 1,500 and then directing you to Ran's business email, and think that it's open to everyone. If you are right and I'm wrong, I have little doubt that many share my misconception.
You don't seem to like this site, at all...
...why not log out and head over to "reddit" full time?
Chris, if your goal is to repeatedly bait and make me angry, congratulations, you've again made me feel unwelcome. Needless to say, I have since learned that, no, not everyone is admitted that reaches out to the site. This site is, in fact, a walled garden, there are intellegent folks out there who would like to participate, but can't, which is unfortunate. Off topic comments like yours here are routinely common on the site, such that the site has a reputation for a mean-spiritedness to go along with the architectural passion. I do think this not-so-infrequent lack of decorum could be one of the reasons GCA has quieted down, its much easier to ignore a bully, and eventually leave the room altogether. Perhaps I will at some point.
-
Matt,
I’m not sure complaining about GCA being a “walled garden” helps. A better approach, IMO, would be to message Ran if you know someone who you believe would be a good contributor to golf architecture discussion.
Tim
-
I’m not sure complaining about GCA being a “walled garden” helps. A better approach, IMO, would be to message Ran if you know someone who you believe would be a good contributor to golf architecture discussion.
Tim, firstly, I'm not complaining about it. I'm pointing it out.
It's perfectly understandable that this is a forum (mostly) for people in the industry. A consequence of that is that some intelligent folks not being able to post here is unfortunate, but understandable. My point initially was simply that we would do well to remember that fact in our interactions here. We should understand that discussion about this forum will naturally pop up other places, simply because any popular forum with limited access will prompt open discussion elsewhere where those folks are able to participate.
-
We generally have the same few architects participating here who have done so for 10-20 years [Jeff B, Mike Y, Ian A, and myself]. Andrew Green and Rob Collins and Kyle Franz are looking for their own lanes, somewhere else.
Robin Hiseman, Adrian Stiff and Clyde are too British to count? :)
Ben Stephens is a Golf Architect too.
So are Ally (as Tom already mentioned) and Forrest Richardson, Mike Nuzzo, and Mike Clayton. Jim Urbina still posts on occasion as does Richard Mandell.
But Tom Doak’s overall point remains important. It would be great if more especially younger architects frequented here. The same is true for Superintendents, shapers, and caddies.
-
Chris, if your goal is to repeatedly bait and make me angry, congratulations, you've again made me feel unwelcome. Needless to say, I have since learned that, no, not everyone is admitted that reaches out to the site. This site is, in fact, a walled garden, there are intellegent folks out there who would like to participate, but can't, which is unfortunate. Off topic comments like yours here are routinely common on the site, such that the site has a reputation for a mean-spiritedness to go along with the architectural passion. I do think this not-so-infrequent lack of decorum could be one of the reasons GCA has quieted down, its much easier to ignore a bully, and eventually leave the room altogether. Perhaps I will at some point.
YUP, to all of it.
I’m not sure complaining about GCA being a “walled garden” helps. A better approach, IMO, would be to message Ran if you know someone who you believe would be a good contributor to golf architecture discussion.
He's pointing out a reality, not complaining. It's neither obvious, nor is it guaranteed, that people can participate here.
-
Matt, thank you for all your contributions to this forum. I don't always agree, but you bring a different perspective than most, which is refreshing. And you clearly give a lot of thought to topics before posting.
-
Chris, if your goal is to repeatedly bait and make me angry, congratulations, you've again made me feel unwelcome. Needless to say, I have since learned that, no, not everyone is admitted that reaches out to the site. This site is, in fact, a walled garden, there are intellegent folks out there who would like to participate, but can't, which is unfortunate. Off topic comments like yours here are routinely common on the site, such that the site has a reputation for a mean-spiritedness to go along with the architectural passion. I do think this not-so-infrequent lack of decorum could be one of the reasons GCA has quieted down, its much easier to ignore a bully, and eventually leave the room altogether. Perhaps I will at some point.
YUP, to all of it.
I’m not sure complaining about GCA being a “walled garden” helps. A better approach, IMO, would be to message Ran if you know someone who you believe would be a good contributor to golf architecture discussion.
He's pointing out a reality, not complaining. It's neither obvious, nor is it guaranteed, that people can participate here.
Erik,
To me it does come across as complaining, especially since Matt made the same point in more than one post. Again, I think a better approach would be to privately recommend anyone Matt feels would be a contributor. The criteria might include the person is:
Well traveled
Well read
Has strong writing skills
Is familiar with courses we don’t often discuss
Tim
-
I would think a well reasoned note to Ran would suffice.
A quick perusal of the member list shows dozens who have been around for years yet only posted a handful of times where a slot could be renewed. (Im guessing Ran can probably see when they last logged in as well)
-
To me it does come across as complaining, especially since Matt made the same point in more than one post.
Well…
Tim, firstly, I'm not complaining about it. I'm pointing it out.
And, I suspect there are people whose feedback or commentary might be appreciated, but they currently don't know anyone to "privately recommend" them. Doesn't help with the "walled garden" look they would get when they look for a "create account" button or something.
-
My only credential is that we have traveled a bit, but far less than many on here. Not a professional in any sense or category (player, teacher, architect, superintendent, shaper, developer, caddie) and not even a good player. I am glad to give up my slot for someone more qualified and then return to lurking.
-
Of course it’s a walled garden. It’s a really easy garden to access with a bit of effort and desire… but that does not mean that 90% of casual observers would ever consider making that effort.
Matt is not complaining. Plus he offers a whole new take on the subject, the first for a while on here.
And Ira - don’t be talking silly. You’re one of only a handful of posters on here who truly contributes regularly and meaningfully. There are literally hundreds of spots from non-contributors that would be available as a first port of call.
-
I will admit to not having the time to read this thread in detail but I appreciate Geoff Shackelford tipping me off to Traditional.Golf and gca.com over 25 years ago.
Many years ago I was at my club early in the morning and one of my members walked in the door with the greeting, "interesting post you made on golfclubatlas last night." Talk about a wake up call to pay attention to what I post because many nonposters frequent the discussion group.
Back in December, I was driving back from Joe Bausch's presentation with Tom Paul and it was a fun 45 minute conversation about all things architecture. I miss the days where the likes of Ran, Tom, Pat, Tommy and others had a free wheeling conversation on this site about the subject we all love.
-
I will admit to not having the time to read this thread in detail but I appreciate Geoff Shackelford tipping me off to Traditional.Golf and gca.com over 25 years ago.
Many years ago I was at my club early in the morning and one of my members walked in the door with the greeting, "interesting post you made on golfclubatlas last night." Talk about a wake up call to pay attention to what I post because many nonposters frequent the discussion group.
Back in December, I was driving back from Joe Bausch's presentation with Tom Paul and it was a fun 45 minute conversation about all things architecture. I miss the days where the likes of Ran, Tom, Pat, Tommy and others had a free wheeling conversation on this site about the subject we all love.
Adam,
Geoff and Tommy became very good friends. If I am not mistaken, the friendship started with both hanging out at the Ralph Miller Library in Industry, CA not far from Los Angeles.
I came to know the Industry Hills golf courses 8-10 years before. The “Ike” was used for a scene in “Falling Down” with Michael Douglas. It was also a tough if not great golf course.
-
Of course it’s a walled garden. It’s a really easy garden to access with a bit of effort and desire… but that does not mean that 90% of casual observers would ever consider making that effort.
Matt is not complaining. Plus he offers a whole new take on the subject, the first for a while on here.
And Ira - don’t be talking silly. You’re one of only a handful of posters on here who truly contributes regularly and meaningfully. There are literally hundreds of spots from non-contributors that would be available as a first port of call.
Ally,
Your message is much appreciated. But I am not trying to be a martyr. If Matt knows people who would be strong contributors, it would be great to have them join even if it means I go back to lurking. I happen to think that a limit on the number of posters makes sense. You can learn whose recommendations to trust and who has interesting takes. Plus maybe pros like yourself and true afficionados/historians would be motivated to post in more detail if they knew that they were speaking more to each other.
Ira
-
And we both forgot Ally Macintosh, although by using the word "British" you threw down the gauntlet.
Ah, yes.....
-
Of course it’s a walled garden. It’s a really easy garden to access with a bit of effort and desire… but that does not mean that 90% of casual observers would ever consider making that effort.
Matt is not complaining. Plus he offers a whole new take on the subject, the first for a while on here.
And Ira - don’t be talking silly. You’re one of only a handful of posters on here who truly contributes regularly and meaningfully. There are literally hundreds of spots from non-contributors that would be available as a first port of call.
I actually think a low barrier walled garden is a good thing.
I read an interesting article comparing Sam's Club to Walmart a few years ago and it illustrated the impact of the membership fee ($50-$100 annually) required to shop at Sam's Club. Sam's Club and Walmart are part of the same company and similar types of people shop at both stores (lower and middle class). However, if you've been in a Walmart recently, you know it's not always the best experience.
What does this accomplish? It selects the lower and middle class people who can plan ahead slightly and get a membership card. This makes a massive difference on customer base and therefore Sam's is a much better shopping experience. Anyone can get a Sam's membership and anyone can likely get on GCA with a well thought out email to Ran. Creating a small step in between likely improves the membership here.
-
Of course it’s a walled garden. It’s a really easy garden to access with a bit of effort and desire… but that does not mean that 90% of casual observers would ever consider making that effort.
Matt is not complaining. Plus he offers a whole new take on the subject, the first for a while on here.
And Ira - don’t be talking silly. You’re one of only a handful of posters on here who truly contributes regularly and meaningfully. There are literally hundreds of spots from non-contributors that would be available as a first port of call.
anyone can likely get on GCA with a well thought out email to Ran. Creating a small step in between likely improves the membership here.
The email to Ran describing one’s experience with the subject matter is an important step in the process. I’m not clear why anyone would object to this scant level of vetting. Matt is acting as if it’s far more difficult to get a sign on then it is. ???
-
I’m not clear why anyone would object to this scant level of vetting. Matt is acting as if it’s far more difficult to get a sign on then it is.
Tim, the only reason why we are even discussing this is because of this exchange:
The point I was trying to make is that a social media entity was posting their own ideas about a GCA.com thread. Instead of engaging *here*, the engagement is happening elsewhere, is what I’m saying.
Never forget that this site is a walled garden.
I don't think he is a member. Not allowing public assess to a popular forum implicitly incentivizes debate elsewhere. I think the kids at TFE could actually do well for themselves creating a lightly moderated competitor forum to GCA that simply allowed open discussion to all their members. The amount of folks who are passionate about architecture, but that aren't invited here, is non-trivial. Those folks just don't get to contribute. Lord knows that I lurked around here occasionally for years before a random guy in the industry suggested I actually reach out for access.
I was simply pointing out that people should expect discussion elsewhere because membership here is limited. Full disclosure, when Ben posted this I went through the member list and spotted that Garrett was not a member. In noticing that, I thought it wise to point out -- even though Ben was not directly saying this -- that we shouldn't be critical of folks talking about these threads elsewhere, rather than here, because not everyone is/can be a member.
After this exchange, Chris decided to mock me while implying that anyone can be a member, which would negate my point. It then became a discussion of whether or not anyone can be a member. I then confirmed that people have been looked over before. Whether or not I know these people, or can vouch for them to get them in, is effectively immaterial to my comment (in passing) that it is unfortunate that there are intelligent golf architecture enthusiast that may be passed over.
I really am growing weary of this section of the discussion in this thread, because it is deeply off the topic of GCA and its relationship to golf media, golf social media, and golf 'new' media (where I would categorize the good folks at TFE), which I think is a topic very worthy of further discussion. So, I would like to clarify, again, that while I have a penchant for egalitarianism, I do think it is perfectly reasonable for groups to have limited membership. That this is a limited group of folks, mostly in the industry, is one of the reasons the discussion sections are so engaging. I mention reddit as having a huge amount of people, and it's quite obvious that the quality architecture submissions there are rare and usually ignored, simply because most folks just want to post memes, course photos, and pro golf highlights. So, yes, I do think a barrier to entry can be, and in this case is, beneficial to the content of a forum. I hope I've clarified my position and we can settle this tangent.
-
By having a thread from GCA discussed on another site reinforces to me that it’s alive and well and still the standard bearer of the genre. There is no other golf course architecture website that is in the same league as Golf Club Atlas.
-
I’m not clear why anyone would object to this scant level of vetting. Matt is acting as if it’s far more difficult to get a sign on then it is.
Tim, the only reason why we are even discussing this is because of this exchange:
The point I was trying to make is that a social media entity was posting their own ideas about a GCA.com thread. Instead of engaging *here*, the engagement is happening elsewhere, is what I’m saying.
Never forget that this site is a walled garden.
I don't think he is a member. Not allowing public assess to a popular forum implicitly incentivizes debate elsewhere. I think the kids at TFE could actually do well for themselves creating a lightly moderated competitor forum to GCA that simply allowed open discussion to all their members. The amount of folks who are passionate about architecture, but that aren't invited here, is non-trivial. Those folks just don't get to contribute. Lord knows that I lurked around here occasionally for years before a random guy in the industry suggested I actually reach out for access.
I was simply pointing out that people should expect discussion elsewhere because membership here is limited. Full disclosure, when Ben posted this I went through the member list and spotted that Garrett was not a member. In noticing that, I thought it wise to point out -- even though Ben was not directly saying this -- that we shouldn't be critical of folks talking about these threads elsewhere, rather than here, because not everyone is/can be a member.
After this exchange, Chris decided to mock me while implying that anyone can be a member, which would negate my point. It then became a discussion of whether or not anyone can be a member. I then confirmed that people have been looked over before. Whether or not I know these people, or can vouch for them to get them in, is effectively immaterial to my comment (in passing) that it is unfortunate that there are intelligent golf architecture enthusiast that may be passed over.
I really am growing weary of this section of the discussion in this thread, because it is deeply off the topic of GCA and its relationship to golf media, golf social media, and golf 'new' media (where I would categorize the good folks at TFE), which I think is a topic very worthy of further discussion. So, I would like to clarify, again, that while I have a penchant for egalitarianism, I do think it is perfectly reasonable for groups to have limited membership. That this is a limited group of folks, mostly in the industry, is one of the reasons the discussion sections are so engaging. I mention reddit as having a huge amount of people, and it's quite obvious that the quality of architecture submissions there are rare and usually ignored, simply because most folks just want to post memes, course photos, and pro golf highlights. So, yes, I do think a barrier to entry can be, and in this case is, beneficial to the content of a forum. I hope I've clarified my position and we can settle this tangent.
Matt-You lament that this part of the discussion is “deeply off topic” and yet you previously beat to death the specifics of the Pine Valley discrimination lawsuit that was also deeply off topic. If that had something to do with golf course architecture please inform me as to how?! You need to follow your own advice.
-
Matt-You lament that this part of the discussion is “deeply off topic” and yet you previously beat to death the specifics of the Pine Valley discrimination lawsuit that was also deeply off topic.
Tim, with respect, I can lament one thread for being deeply off topic, because I see it as an unhelpful thread that is repeatedly clarifying a confusion. I can enjoy a thread for being deeply off topic because it's taken an interesting tangent. Again, my main concern is that I clarify that I do not have a problem with the site having limited membership, only that we remember that it does have a limited membership, and there are probably folks with different perspectives who aren't here, exactly because folks with different perspectives don't fit the demographics of people who are invited here.
If you don't like my input in some of these threads, I can accept that. I welcome it. I can assure you I'm not trying to be antagonistic for the sake of being antagonistic. We all come from different places, and we are all should be respectfully, and passionately arguing for our different perspectives in order that we might each learn something from each other. I don't want my comments to be seen as mean-spirited even if I can be strident to the point of being irritating (I certainly know that my personality can be, at best, an acquired taste). I just have different views and values in what I think benefits golf and golf culture. I just really don't want you to think I'm coming after you or Chris maliciously.
-
Matt-You lament that this part of the discussion is “deeply off topic” and yet you previously beat to death the specifics of the Pine Valley discrimination lawsuit that was also deeply off topic.
Tim, with respect, I can lament one thread for being deeply off topic, because I see it as an unhelpful thread that is repeatedly clarifying a confusion. I can enjoy a thread for being deeply off topic because it's taken an interesting tangent. Again, my main concern is that I clarify that I do not have a problem with the site having limited membership, only that we remember that it does have a limited membership, and there are probably folks with different perspectives that are here, exactly because folks with different perspectives don't fit the demographics of people who are invited here.
If you don't like my input in some of these threads, I can accept that. I welcome it. I can assure you I'm not trying to be antagonistic for the sake of being antagonistic. We all come from different places, and we are all should be respectfully, and passionately arguing for our different perspectives in order that we might each learn something from each other. I don't want my comments to be seen as mean-spirited even if I can be strident to the point of being irritating (I certainly know that I can be, at best, an acquired taste). I just have different views and values in what I think benefits golf and golf culture. I just really don't want you to think I'm coming after you or Chris maliciously.
Matt-I appreciate your reply and haven’t taken anything you have said as malicious.
-
My only credential is that we have traveled a bit, but far less than many on here. Not a professional in any sense or category (player, teacher, architect, superintendent, shaper, developer, caddie) and not even a good player. I am glad to give up my slot for someone more qualified and then return to lurking.
Ally,
Your message is much appreciated. But I am not trying to be a martyr. If Matt knows people who would be strong contributors, it would be great to have them join even if it means I go back to lurking. I happen to think that a limit on the number of posters makes sense. You can learn whose recommendations to trust and who has interesting takes. Plus maybe pros like yourself and true afficionados/historians would be motivated to post in more detail if they knew that they were speaking more to each other.
Ira
Ira,
I appreciate and share your general sentiment, but certainly don’t think you (or other meaningful contributors) need to give up a spot for a new member.
There are currently 1,600 members with the ability to post in the discussion group, who have collectively logged over 1.1 million posts (that remain as of today). As you might expect, the 80/20 rule is in effect, with nearly 79% (890k) of posts authored by less than 17% (265) of members. These members have all posted over 1,000 times.
On the other end of the spectrum, almost 46% (730) have posted less than 100 times, accounting for only 2% of discussion board content. 218 members have posted under 10 times, 38 of which posted only once, and 63 of which have never posted at all.
So, while I think it is a great idea to free up space for new contributors that could potentially boost the quality of dialogue, those spaces should come from the 101 people with 0-1 posts.
Also, while I understand quantity does not always translate into quality, a scan down the list of most frequent posters (Doak, Arble, Brauer, Warne, Dai, et al) suggests much content is produced by our most informed members. If we could somehow add to their ranks, that would be terrific.
-
I am one of the few remaining who migrated here from Golfweb/Traditionalgolf.com. Most are gone. Days of Kings Putter on West Coast are gone.
The good ol' days. I would happily welcome a return of the King's Putter if enough of us would actually show.