Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Mike_Cirba on February 17, 2004, 08:40:01 PM
-
The return of the old posts to this site is like a breath of fresh air.
ChrisB might have said it best;
"I don't know if and when this site went out of whack, but after reading a bunch of early threads one can definitely sense that the tone is much different here now than it used to be. Back then it appears to be a bunch of GCA enthusiasts in friendly discussions about what they like/dislike. Not much name-calling, discrediting of opinions, challenges of bias, laments about how the game and its classic courses are threatened, etc. Pretty high frequency of quality posts (and posts by Ran Morrissett! probably no coincidence there)."
I noticed the same thing. People would post strong personal opinions without fear that they would be challenged in a personally derogatory manner.
Somewhere, much of the friendly camaraderie and fun political incorrectness got lost. The site too often today sounds like a room full of lawyers (my apologies to the legal eagles who pontificate here), splitting every hair, twisting every phrase, and seemingly running for political office on the strength of their debating skills.
There is a "soul of GCA", but at times it seems unnecessarily mean-spirited and trite. Instead, this should be a marketplace of ideas and a 19th hole of camaraderie from a group sharing a common passion around a game.
I was saddened in looking back at the number of really interesting posters who no longer seem to visit us here. Yes, we have grown, and I'm glad to see it, but it seems to have been at a cost.
I'm not looking for this thread to degenerate into a finger-pointing exercise, and I would caution my brethren not to engage in such a futile endeavor. Instead, I'd like us all to take this space to perhaps suggest ways that we can individually and collectively make this site everything it is capable of.
Thank you for listening.
Mike
-
Here its only the middle of February and the Post of the Year is in the bag!
Mike, my sediments exactly!
-
The title of this thread is "When did Golfclubatlas "jump the shark""?
I certainly don't intend to name-call in the slightest and I surely won't do that one iota but as far as I'm concerned this website "jumped the shark" when the Merion bunker project began to be discussed on here as it was. That was the most mega-significant issue Golfclubatlas.com has ever had!
Sure, there was a lot of passionate opinion and things were said then in the name of passion that didn't need to be said on the Internet. This had very little to do with what was going on architecturally at Merion--it got personal and petty and I thought this site took a wrong turn at that point and got a reputation out there from which it never has recovered.
There was a brief time I thought those involved in the Merion bunker project might actually come on here and discuss the issue and I even suggested it to them. But there was too much personal flak and I hate to say it but too much presumption as well of knowing things that those on here just didn't know.
That's when Golfclubatlas.com "jumped the shark" and because of it I don't know that it will ever be possible for this site to create that level of dialogue which was the hope of some on here initially.
There will be those on here who say that doesn't matter, that's it's more important to just say what you feel regardless of what memberships are going through or what they think. That it's more important to be constructively critical without worry about political things such as that.
Maybe it is in the end but I, for one, always hoped we could have those dialogues with the clubs. How interesting would that be, but I doubt it will ever happen after Golfclubatlas "jumped the shark" over the Merion bunker project. It even got this site some national publicity but where has that gotten us? Are we able to have a dialogue with those at a significant golf club whose architecture we're discussing?
-
Damn. I'm realy disappointed. I thought I was going to read about the time a bunch of guys gang mugged Greg Norman.
Ooops, I guess this is the sort of thing you're referring to isn't it Mike ;D
Well, I"ll just crawl back into my hole again.
-
Tommy, did you really mean to say "sediments"? If so that was a hell of a pun. ;D
I read a lot of old posts today... and it does seem to be a more innocent time back in 1999-2001... I read a lot of posts I did that would get crucified today, and they weren't then. And I ask myself why this is so... and I have no answers.
I think it's mainly because back then people were more positive rather than judgmental. Or maybe it just seems that way because it really was a small group of people, damn near all of whom knew each other off-line, and had for a long time... I don't know.
In any case, I sure could do with more positive feedback and less judgmental crap-giving. But too much of that gets pretty damn boring also, so who knows... maybe this site is at the right happy medium today.
One thing's clear in my mind - it's the best damn discussion group about this game that's ever been, and that's as true now as it was in 1999. And many of us were part of several predecessors, so we have a lot of comparison...
So what can we do now to make the site all that is capable of? Hell if I know. I'm really not prepared to say it's NOT doing that right now as it is....
-
For those of you that don't know what "jump the shark" means let me clarify it for you.....
It refers to a Happy Days episode where the whole family goes to California and the Fonz water skiied and hit a jump that propelled him over a shark. It was the defining moment for the show's decline. They had definitely started grasping for anything to keep interest.
I don't think GCA has "jumped the shark" just yet. With Geof Childs Yale threads and people now knowing how to post pictures we are seeing a rise of awareness in holes and architecture that would otherwise be unavailable for viewing for some.
Sure there are petty arguments and name-calling. Heck, I've been involved in some myself. I think more people have made better friends in here than they have enemies.
If I had to define a moment when GCA "jumped the shark", then I'd pick the day "emoticons" or "smilies" became available to use in posts. When a person has to put smiles and frowns next to their posts, they have come to a point where they fear others misunderstanding them. I know I use them for that purpose. ;D
Jeff F.
-
Tom Paul;
Aye, there's the rub, isn't it?
As one who was probably as personally guilty of becoming emotional over the whole Merion bunkering issue as anyone, I still think the issues covered at that time are the defining paradoxical questions that this group wrestles with, and I'm not sure what the answer is.
Basically, the one big issue I see is this;
How do we encourage passion and honest emotions on this site without losing decorum and reason?
How do we offer honest criticism of architectural work without either someone being seriously offended (in this case, the folks at Merion), or worse yet, engaging in the type of heated diatribes back and forth that take up too much bandwidth and reading time here.
For instance, using your example, if I think the work at Merion (or any course or club) was ill-conceived, poorly executed, and ultimately inconsistent with what I think of when I consider the greatness of the course and club, how does one say that honestly and openly without getting politically alienated? Is that possible? Or, should we be Pollyanish in phrasing things so lightly and politically correctly that all relevant meaning is lost and we begin to resemble a political party controlled by special interests.
Or, as happens in many cases here, someone will criticize an architects work, only to be engaged by defenders of same (think, "The Bridge" thread) in a rancorus debate that generates lots of heat but little light. Egos are bruised, people in the industry are offended (although many must be truly thin-skinned), and ultimately the site suffers.
So, I'm left to wonder how we maintain our critical integrity, encourage open and honest dialogue, talk about pertinent issues in a courageous and direct fashion, yet avoid alienating ourselves as a bunch of Luddites, or worse yet, imploding within from contentiousness.
The only thought I'm left with is to always act as though the audience of any particular thread might be the gentleman sitting next to you at dinner, and not a world away on a computer screen.
-
Mike,
You said:
The only thought I'm left with is to always act as though the audience of any particular thread might be the gentleman sitting next to you at dinner, and not a world away on a computer screen.
Well put.
Just one more if you don't mind: Knock-down drag-outs would mostly cease to exist if you treated others in a discussion like you would treat your wife, let them have the last word.
-
Phase "A" was the ascent. Phase "B," the gradual but perceptible decline, started in Aug. 2002 when "Sports Illustrated" ran an article on the GCA.com Web site and misspelled Tommy Naccarato's name. That was the SI-Golf Plus curse. Membership and traffc doubled in a month and the tone of discussion has deteriorated ever since. I covered a lot of this (see above) in my "Logorrhea thread."
-
(http://www.crumbmuseum.com/dev.jpg)
(I blame society)
-
Mike Cirba, that post of yours ought to be bronzed--and so should you!
Day in, day out, year in, year out, you've probably been the most valuable of all the contributors Golfclubatlas.com has ever had, in my opinion. You've always been a fair-minded guy who keeps consideration of others front and center---but you've always protected well your right to be objectively critical of architecture as you see it. You've steered clear of the clap-trap on here too. It's good to be that way anyway but it helps if one knows his "stuff" about architecture as well as you do. You've got the knack, my friend!
Golfclubatlasers, read that post above of Mike Cirba's and try to understand it! He sort of laid out a general dilemma on here and if it's never fixed this website will never be more than it is now and probably devolve over time into less. Of that I think I can guarantee!
I was thinking of starting another thread about this but this is a good enough place. A week or so ago while talking to a fellow from Philadelphian about a bunch of philosophical and historical rules matters (he's one of the best in the country on golf rules!) I asked him why I hadn't see him on Golfclubatlas in some years. And I assure you this fellow knows golf architecture better than 99% of us.
He said that after about 2 years of reading and sometimes writing on here it all just started to recycle. Basicially, there was only so much daily in-depth and interesting things you can say and hear about architecture. I asked him about a golf rules site he was on and he also said after about two years on that you've said and read almost all there is and it just starts to recycle. So he said, what do you want to do just hang in there and go over it all again?
That really hit home to me. I've been on this website for 5 years now and probably daily--it was a real shock to see the archives added today and my post count rocket to over 10,000, all of a sudden. I was actually keeping an eye on that 10,000 mark hoping to slow down and not exceed it as some indication of a sound mind.
But that didn't really bother me--so what's the big deal with 10,000 posts? But recently the discussions on the distance issue and they way I percieve some of the strongest and most competent contributors on here feel about it--well, it started to get to me. The opinion was we sure can't talk to the everyday golfer about it, we sure can't ask his opinion because his opinon may be dangerous.
What I've come to feel is the way this site looks at architecture and even golfers generally, certainly Joe Sixpack, is not good. This website has come to represent the new exclusionists, the neo-elitists, to me. And I love classic architecture, the Merions, PVGCs, the NGLAs, and Rivieras as much as any of you do!
I've been fighting the wars in golf organizations for over 20 years now and there's so many more defeats than victories. The same thing at my own club but there's a light at the end of that tunnel now, I think.
Criticize objectively and relatively mannerly like Mike Cirba always has--remember these courses belong to their memberships and not you and always consider their feelings too---that's the ony way anything constructive will ever be done by you. Try to persuade them logically instead of hammering them. And if they don't let you play remember the golf course doesn't know that.
Did you expect me to go out on a short post? Of course not. You fellas of Golfclubatlas, with all your knowledge and passion and faults have been wonderful, and Pat Mucci will still be wrong most of the time!
Bye!
-
Actually, we have had this discussion too. That being some hand wringing and reflections on how our pure little forum has degenerated into a free-for-all and such. We almost always have the discussion in the middle of winter, when there is nothing left to do and a large percentage of posters here are housebound. I don't think that there is all that much off track here that won't be cured by a new spring and more actual activity playing golf than yammering about it.
We are just displaying the behavior of the observations that spawned the age old maxim: "familiarity breeds contempt".
Sure, there are off-topic wanderings. I myself have already broken my pledge of not posting as much, particularly off-topic. But, sometimes the off topic and off hand stuff gives far more insight into a person's soul than some sterile treatise, and pontification about how pure one's pedigree is to discuss GCA. If saying things related to GCA and the game must be held to strictly the studious and widely travelled afficianados of the scene, you could save the band width and hold the discussion in a phone booth or the coat room at NGLA. After Brad Klein felt he had to make some lofty plea to return to the ivory tower of only intellectual discussion of pure golf course design and architecture, I gave it some consideration - and decided to not accept the partial censorship from someone that doesn't even post all that much.
All you have to do is skip any forwarning in a topic that is courteous enough to say "OT or Off Topic". And, if you didn't get the warning, and stumble into something you think is nonsense, hit the back button.
I am not advocating coarse language or rudeness by any means. But, of the people I've been lucky enough to meet through this forum, I haven't found any panzies that can't take a little challenged debate or getting called out on something. I for one will always respect someone that can politely tell me I'm full of BS and say why - than someone that just smiles in polite company and says it behind my back.
Is the group therapy session over yet?
-
In some ways, GCA has evolved, and in some ways it hasn't.
As Tom Paul rightly says, for those of us who have been on the site for a while, it can be far too much "deja vu all over again." The recent resurrection of some of the old posts only highlights the fact that virtually everything worth covering vis avis GCA has already been covered, many times, often ad infinitum. A lot of bandwidth could be saved and carpal tunnel syndrome avoided if there were properly indexed archives that would allow one who was interested in (say) the differences between "The" Redan and #4 at NGLA to go to a dedicated area of the site containing all the variations on this issue, rather than have to start yet another new thread that bores the tears out of those who have discussed this many times before, and is usually only an exercise in re-inventing the wheel, often not as well as how it was invented originally!
As for civility and open-mindedness, well it was obviously a lot easier in the old days when everybody "knew" everybody else, and there was a received conventional wisdom as to what made great GCA. Once this peace was shattered by those willing to ask if the Emperor (not "The" Emperor--our Emperor--but the generic "emperor" of the stuff of which fairy tales are made) really had clothes, it was hard to maintain civility. Why? Well, because GCA is not a measurable thing--any more than is art or music or even potential lovers. Whether or not GCA is good bad or indifferent is largely subject to the modified Potter Stewart doctrine--we know it when we see it but we can't define it, and we all see things a little bit differently. Arguing about Merion's before and after bunkers is like arguing as to whether Picasso or Poussin was the "better" painter, or whether the Grand Canyon is more "beautiful" than the Cliffs of Moher. Neither side can really make factual arguments pro or con, and so you end up with subjective invective which ultimately leads to the ultimate parent/adolescent argument of "Well, Just Because!!!!"
Some anal management guru once calculated that once any organisation contained more than 161 people it was impossible for everyone in the organisation to know everyone else, and thus structures needed to be put in place to act as a surrogate for intimacy. GCA passed this threshold long ago, but some us of still expect the forum to look and feel like and act as it did when it was Ran and a few of his closest friends. Impossible--and there ain't no going back. Structures (e.g. better archiving--as per above, or permanent member profiles) could create more intimacy and currency, and I hope they will some day be implemented.
Nevertheless, as some have said above, in many ways, the forum is VASTLY improved from the "Good old days." A much wider variety of viewpoints and experiences. Far less USA-centric. A much greater exposure to lesser-known architects and to older "hidden gems." Tremendous and varied photographic resources. A pool of participant "talent" that is far broader and deeper and diverse than what it used to be.
Sure, some good people have dropped out, but that was their decision, and we should respect it. Maybe they moved on in their lives. Maybe the forum moved on in directions that they were not comfortable with. I'm sure we've all had those feelings from time to time....... ;)
-
TomP-I seem to recall Mark Struder coming on here and discussing Oakmont. Pat Brockwell, Mike Nuzzo and Baxter Spann discussing Black Mesa. And others. All of these were in the last year. Lim Lipe even has chimed in. There have been many instances where your dream was realized. And it's your patience that should be recognized as the epitome of spirit that eludes so many who now play this sport.
What was it Bobby Jones said about open and frank discussions? Similar to Peer review, this openness is what is good for golf, it's good for man and is sadly inconsistent..
If anything this site changed when the openness was closed. When Political correctness out-weighed the decency of telling the harsh truth. The information sharing became a game of who knows who and not who knows what. The teachers stopped teaching and the BWT makes everything, ok.
-
Two things:
1. Man I never thought I'd ever say this, but Rich Goodale is absolutely 100% right on. Read his post - he covers all that needs to be said on this matter.
2. Tom Paul is actually leaving us? I refuse to believe it. If so, TODAY is when the shark has been jumped.
TH
-
I have used what i have learned on this site to help me influence REAL change at my course.I have started threads on "consulting architects" which brought wonderful specific ideas,one on winter golf and its problems for greens.
The work of Dunlop White on trees has been very useful.The pictures of Philly Country Club---before and after---helpful.
I guess many may have no input at a course so they need to jabber.I can understand that.But i am looking for useful information to promote change----I HAVE FOUND THAT HERE.
-
Mike,
To say that the tone of the posts on GCA has changed dramatically in the past few years would be an understatement. I myself have not posted in some time because of the personal attacks and mean-spirited posts of some.
There is a wealth of knowledge on this site about golf course architecture but there is also a reluctance of many golf insiders, who are also very knowledgeable, to give their views.
I hope your post will hit home with some and promote a new free and easy exchange of ideas and opinions that can get GCA back to where it once was.
-
I lurked about GCA as a read-only participant for about 6 months before I registered and felt I could post something on a non-controversial thread without getting mocked or attacked. Mr. Cirba is absolutely correct in his assessment. I don't know if a goal of this site is to encourage participation, but the tone of many of the posts literally scares people off. And I don't scare easily.
That said, what next? Set up a standards and decorum committee (kidding)? I would suggest not replying to anyone who gets, well, mean, perhaps even to the point of ending the thread... The participants must have some level of self-discipline or we wouldn't be golfers to begin with, at least not decent golfers. ;)
-
I don't get this bitching about mean spirited stuff....When people makes statements they think are going to make them popular with the masses...or get them the raters gig they covet...or an invite they desire....they need to be exposed. Everybody knows I'm an idiot so what I say really doesn't matter but if you people think Pat Mucci is mean spirted you are way off base.
I have never seen one post of Pat's that is not based in the truth.....this site would be worthless without his sense of balance and fairness.
-
John;
Patrick and I are friends.
This thread was to everyone.
Many of us have crossed the line before, myself included.
I just thought that we should all be reminded that we are equally responsible for what type of place GCA is.
-
I noticed the same thing. People would post strong personal opinions without fear that they would be challenged in a personally derogatory manner.
Mike,
I don't see that at all in the old threads...I just see a bunch of like minded guys giving pre-approved opinions. Find me a stong personal opinion with an ounce of controversy....I mean something honest and out of the classical box like your bashing of Yeamans...bashing modern work is just tired backslapping.
-
Barney
That last one was yet another "Post of the Year!"
-
Mike,
I don't see that at all in the old threads...I just see a bunch of like minded guys giving pre-approved opinions. Find me a stong personal opinion with an ounce of controversy....I mean something honest and out of the classical box like your bashing of Yeamans...bashing modern work is just tired backslapping.
John, you ignorant slut ;) ;D
Satire for all you old Saturday Night Live fans
I love strong personal opinions (such as my post stating that I believe Yeaman's is overrated and needs more features restored) and welcome them here. That's not what I'm talking about.
But, there's a way to disagree and debate that doesn't make people feel they have no right to express a contrary opinion, and then there's the kind of post that welcomes it.
I must admit that I was disappointed when I posted that when almost no one came forward to defend Yeaman's, or point out what I might have missed.
John..I want to encourage debate. Let's just keep it to debating golf courses and related industry topics, however. When I see people having to defend their own personal integrity and intent here, then we've crossed a dangerous line that risks stifling communication, and all of a sudden people no longer feel free to do exactly what you suggest....state a strong, honest opinion, politically correct or not.
Or, as I suspect many other's are doing when they see this shit, they change the channel.
-
Mike
Isn't this "Yeamans" thing exactly the point?
I've never been there and so cannot comment on the substance of what you wrote, but I can comment on the fact that you posted a thoughtful, informed opinion about the place and had vitually no response. Given the fact that Yeamans is one of the "chosen" courses by one of GCA's most favored architects, I find this depressing. Why couldn't the people who love Yeamans take the time and effort to have an honest dialogue with you (and others, possibly) about the pros and cons of the place? That they couldn't, or chose not to, makes me think that GCA has become a place where discussion outside of the conventional wisdom is taboo, and even makes me lean towards even the most outrageous of Barney's conspiracy theories. :o
-
Rich;
That's an interesting question.
The "conspiracy theory" line makes me think of the old joke that goes something like, "I hope it's not a conspiracy because if it is, no one told me so I'm not in on it!" ;D
I don't think there should be any sacred cows here. If I agree with you or anyone else here about 80% of courses, I think it's more fun for us to discuss the 20%.
I've tried to always speak honestly and directly here, even when it went against the grain (i.e. Hidden Creek, Applebrook), or conventional wisdom. I wouldn't use John's word, "bashing", to describe those discussions, but I certainly am not averse to offering a negative commentary.
Once again, I'm asking people to debate more...not less....about golf courses and golf related topics...even off-topics if they're interesting and timely.
Personal attacks, however, are the bastion and deflection technique of a person who doesn't have the courage of their convictions to discuss the real matter at hand.
-
Mike, I don't quite understand if you are saying that lack of strong defense of Yeamans is some signal that passion is waning. Am I understanding that right?
As for Tom leaving, well I can't believe that. Perhaps, like most of us, he has reached a point that he needed a break and realised it, and this is a good jumping off place. But, just like the others of us who arrive there, we take our hiatus and then wander back in. How many times is it now that the Emporer hisown damn self has gone quitsville on us. I just want to know the over and under word count on Tom's next pent-up post. :o ;D
-
Rich Goodale,
We agree.
It seems that certain topics, courses and architects are taboo when it comes to constructive criticism, yet, it seems with others it's open season to personal and destructive criticism.
-
RJ;
I don't think we have lost our passion necessarily. I just think it's been too often misdirected.
Or, perhaps as Tom Paul suggests, we've exhausted or recycled too many of the same topics and now we're just bored.
I don't know.
I do know that there's a whole world of golf courses out there to explore and discuss so I'd rather see us honestly and openly doing that.
-
Mike
I fully agree.
I see the "problem" being that too many people on this site take it far too personally when one questions the perfection of a course that they happen to belong to or just love. It's the old Henry Longhurst "Drink their gin and screw their women but don't ever say anything bad about their bloody golf course!" syndrome.
How are we going to learn anything if all we do is oblige them and kiss the arses of the courses that we are told we should love?
I haven't played a course yet that was anything close to perfect (OK, I haven't played Pine Vallley, or Roylal Melbourne (composite) or Trump National....). When I do, I'll stop demanding thoguht and constructive criticism from posters.
-
JohnK,
I've taken one the most "sacred cows" on this site (Doak) to task a couple of times recently, with reasoning, and I NEVER remember that ever being done before (usually it's ass-kissing stuff, as you might call it), but obviously it went unnoticed. I should hope that with him being one of the first to be honest about others' work, that he could take it himself, as well.
-
Didn't the ancient Egyptians predict that the gca shark jumping would ocurr on Dec. 23rd 2012?
-
Remember that shaper who ripped on Black Mesa? What was his name?
-
I really have hopes that once the golf season gets in full bloom, now that we can more easily post pictures with Mystic Lab, that our intrepid posters will reach beyond the same old trite rehashings of our darling favorite courses. Of course, some of you might have to get over the notion that you can't tell anything by photos, and should be banned from an opinion from just photos. ::)
But, considering Tom's worry that all has been said and recylced, that may have some element of reality in it. However, with new people coming and going from the dicussion all the time, many of them have not heard the stuff of which our esteemed doyens are becoming tired. It would help if we all had a touch of 'oldtimers' memory loss. That way every discussion would be fresh...
Honestly, if Tom loves the subject (as we all know he does) then it is up to him to keep re-iterating some of his strongly held notions so newbies have a sense of what has gone before. Using the search engine is tedious and not all that effective, particularly if you don't know enough to even query a subject. Tom is probably as tired of giving the same old stump speech as Dean had tired of his spiel. But, they'll be back... they always do come back you know... ;)
-
I for one will always respect someone that can politely tell me I'm full of BS and say why - than someone that just smiles in polite company and says it behind my back.
Dick,
That's just not done down here in The South! We have elevated politeness and backstabbing to an art form.
Mike
-
Mike, he was an interesting cat. He had a big diesel fume and alcohol induced set of comments and opinions, and he got taken to task. But, I still enjoyed his point of view, as foggy as it turned out to be. Enough other archies and construction people look into this site and care enough about the subject and accuracy of information, to get their dander up and challenge some of the things that Michael fellow said. We all benefited from that, even if he did get his feathers ruffled. I hope that fellow comes back on here, perhaps with a bit more humility and forwarning that not just anything can be said without being scrutinized. That is a good thing, I think...
-
Mike H., well hush my puppies and dampen mah case of the vapors, suhr...I am shocked. :o
-
Tuco is moved by Mike Cirba's impassioned statement. Reminds me of the Lincoln-Douglas debates. I'd like to say that some here have yet to understand my humour, my pleas to get the topics back to golf architecture and away from thinly veiled threads revolving around gaining access or lovefests or nonsense. With in that framework, I have flamed several participants on the site and have received some vitriolic commentary, for those offended, I offer apologies... Most of this was in humour (in fact all of it was) but sadly, satire was not what many found. My hope is Mr. Cirba's commentary will bring about a renaissance. With summer beckoning, lets hope we see plenty of honest debate about new courses and new restorations and share in the joy we all love for the game and its art here.
Longfellow said in a poem dedicated to his wife after she died
"Into each life some rain must fall,
Some days must be dark and dreary"
Lets hope the dark ages of GCA are over and a new sunbeam of hope and renaissance begins again..
-
Mike, nice post. I hope we just be ourselves and the cream will rise to the top. There are many fine people on here. There will be times when some of us get tired of the negative stuff, and go away for a week or so. I have not found any place like this and like Rich during his selfimposed exile, we all return in search of meaningful discussion about architecture and this game we love so.
-
Tuco,
Post under NAF, it enhances your credibility.
-
The title of this thread is "When did Golfclubatlas "jump the shark""?
I certainly don't intend to name-call in the slightest and I surely won't do that one iota but as far as I'm concerned this website "jumped the shark" when the Merion bunker project began to be discussed on here as it was. That was the most mega-significant issue Golfclubatlas.com has ever had!
Sure, there was a lot of passionate opinion and things were said then in the name of passion that didn't need to be said on the Internet. This had very little to do with what was going on architecturally at Merion--it got personal and petty and I thought this site took a wrong turn at that point and got a reputation out there from which it never has recovered.
There was a brief time I thought those involved in the Merion bunker project might actually come on here and discuss the issue and I even suggested it to them. But there was too much personal flak and I hate to say it but too much presumption as well of knowing things that those on here just didn't know.
That's when Golfclubatlas.com "jumped the shark" and because of it I don't know that it will ever be possible for this site to create that level of dialogue which was the hope of some on here initially.
There will be those on here who say that doesn't matter, that's it's more important to just say what you feel regardless of what memberships are going through or what they think. That it's more important to be constructively critical without worry about political things such as that.
Maybe it is in the end but I, for one, always hoped we could have those dialogues with the clubs. How interesting would that be, but I doubt it will ever happen after Golfclubatlas "jumped the shark" over the Merion bunker project. It even got this site some national publicity but where has that gotten us? Are we able to have a dialogue with those at a significant golf club whose architecture we're discussing?
I find it interesting that the post above was so easily swept under the rug....who were the people that were out of line on the Merion thread...um...Mike Cirba, Tommy Nacaratto, Bill V and their populust minions. Who is now doing the same at Riviera...um...Geoff Shack, Tommy N, Mike Cirba....they may not be wrong about Riviera...and I doubt they are...but they were dead wrong at least procedurally at Merion....are they contrite...ask them. Am I sorry that single tread caused me to check into this site everydamn day of the week just to see if I can get pissed off enough to get through another boring day....hell yes I'm sorry...I'm sorry for my participation and I'm sorry for my misguided motivations....I'm just hooked on the misery of it all. Which begs the question for those who really don't plan on this being a learning experience..because who ever goes into the 19th hole hoping to learn something....what motivates you to come here....is it all that obvious or does it go beyond...friends, popularity, power and access.
-
If Tuco is NAF, that would be VERY disappointing. One would think a person I've had so much email contact with, always in great humor and spirit, would never say the things to me that Tuco did on here.
In any case Tuco, your post here is interesting, but I will refrain from revisiting old battles, and only say as one of those offended your apology is accepted. ;D
As for all the rest, well... even this topic has been discussed several times before!
TH
-
How many times when there is a cry for change...the source of the probem are the ones crying. I have yet to see an old thread brought up that meets the ideal.
-
:'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
Jeff F.
-
John K;
I probably have studied Merion more in person than any other course I've played.
A close friend of mine from this board notified me that "Merion is about to make a mistake that will potentially make them a laughing stock", long before the work was to begin. He based that assessment on some "test bunkers" that had been built on the West course, so he had my attention.
I hoped for better, John, I really did. I love Merion and every member and staff person I've ever met there have been nothing but gracious and kind to me.
But, mistakes are sometimes made and no, I haven't changed my opinion one iota.
If I was overly vociferious and passionate in my condemnation of the work, I apologize to anyone offended.
But John...show me one time that I made a personal attack on anyone involved and then you'll truly see me being "contrite".
During the time of the discussion, you wouldn't believe the number private messages I received from people here who couldn't politically say what needed to be said, but wanted to encourage me anyway. Some of them came from the very same people who were debating counter points with me on the board. That told me all I needed to know about speaking out.
I have been tempted to anonymously copy some of that here, but out of consideration for their positions, I'll refrain. I hope you understand.
-
Mike and redanman,
I owe both of you an apology when I look how I view the threads on Merion and Riviera when compared to the Child threads on Yale. I havn't seen any of the three courses pre or post work but still give GC a pass....thats not consistent and its not right....sorry.
-
Yes, John;
At minimum I would have expected you to castigate Geoffrey, as well. Fair's fair, after all. ;D
Coming to Baltusrol next week? I'm hoping to meet you.
Speaking of Baltusrol, does anyone else find it sad that Dr. Katz seems to be another of the MIA? Perhaps he just gave up trying to treat our particularly severe mental maladies and moved on. :'(
-
A couple of random thoughts on this thread from a guy that's only been looking at this web site for about a year.
First, I second Redanman's comment that this is the best site.
Second, I've gone back and looked at the early threads that were just reposted. It took 32 months to create the first 48 pages. It took 24 months to create the next 300 pages. The topics and themes are constantly recycled for a variety of reasons: new people come to the site with either different views or a desire to participate in the discussion, new courses are created, changes are made that alter the original ideas presented, new information becomes available, travel questions, etc. Many threads are recycled because people don't use the search function.
One of the things that really struck me in reading through the threads is how dogmatic and locked into positions that people have become over time. They may have originally had flexibility and open minds in their viewpoints but they are now locked in. I don't know if it's that people generally don't like going back and changing the opinions that they previosly espoused or if it's in response to the rhetoric becoming more aggressive
Adam, the Mayan calendar ends December 23, 2012. It marks the end of the current time cycle and the beginning of a new time cycle. As you probably know there's many theories as to what this may mean.
Bill
-
Mike,
No, I can't make it to Baltusrol. Did you know that Dr Katz was once a member there until he moved to my region of the country. I go see him now and then and he lets me hold some of his great books on architecture....told me the greatest wife story as it relates to golf ever told...it is so good that I dare not repeat it..if you ever come to see me he will be part of our day. That neither of us will be sorry for.
-
John;
Yes, I did know that about the good Doctor. Really relieved to hear you've been visiting him for one on ones. ;)
I hope to get together with both of you...I do plan to visit Chicago in early October, so perhaps we can arrange it then.
-
Mike Cirba:
I'm having trouble with the idea that GCA "jumped the shark" or that it has changed much at all over the past several years.
You are right to point out that architectural criticism is a very sensitive thing. People in the industry don't want it all. As Tom Doak pointed out in the Confidential Guide, industry folks want everything to be considered "great". But, when checking out this art form costs as much time and money as it does, consumers deserve a source where they can find honest opinions, hopefully well articulated.
I don't know where one can find this better than Golfclubatlas.
As for the Merion issue, I have great respect for Tom Paul's concerns, but think those who brought this issue to our attention did both golf architecture and this web site a favor. My own Merion experience was instructive of the nature of the golf industry. My hosts were very gracious, but insisted that I not say anything about the Fazio work here on GCA. Assuming there is no time limitation on their request, I'll simply repeat my suggestion: the Fazio work deserved close scrutiny. Without GCA it probably wouldn't have happened. That would be unfortunate in my book.
Tim
-
Katz is MIA? Don't you believe it. Dr Katz is always watching his little putzies!
Dr katz
-
Some very funny stuff here: ;)
http://www.jumptheshark.com/
-
Mike,
For me it was when a very personal attack occured on a golf course architect that involved no criticism of his architecture.
It was uggested that it was supposed to be funny, but in fact it has in horrible taste.
This was the day the site's credibility plumited, you lost a whole group of golf architects who lurked and particpated on that day. The person who introduced me to the site never came back after that day, and it was a loss for the site.
-
8)
I've studied gca since summer 2000, but only been checking in here for 1.5 years,.. I don't think gca.com has really changed much in that period, so the j-t-s probably occurred before aug 2002.
If i suggested again that Long Island and many of the NE courses owe a great deal to the last Ice Age and the glaciers' movements, and I was tired of hearing them endlessly referenced,.. I expect certain folks would jump all over me again or ignore the point as worthless or baseless as they've never studied that area's geology, or I should just accept those courses as the best examples period..
This all sort of belies the main issue to me, that there's a wide spectrum of interests involved in gca, framed by design, art, and planning,.. these elements make architecture of any kind what it is, the building of things where sometimes form follows function and sometimes the reverse is at play. The opinions over the art seem the most heated, followed by those on design and planning.. and the bastard technology race fueled by greed destroys the gca landmarks, just because there may be no more "majors" held there! I say let them be museums to be appreaciated and properly maintained as they were intended.
While I have greatly enjoyed mining the archives more than enterring into discussion groups, its hard not to chime in, and harder not to come back and see if anyone wants to take up your opinion or take it to task. As long as there are characters, pundits, students, historians, professionals, and learned elders around, i think gca.com will survive. in the mean time, I'm copying and pasting great gca.com stuff into my electronic journals and folders..
I fear when gca.com may jump the spark.. to ground.
-
GCA Jumped the Shark when people started deleting threads that show John Daly autographing boobs. Where else is Mucci gonna get his porn.
-
It didn't.
But if it does, it will be because people treated it a scrapbook for photographs that nobody else cares about.
-
Michael:
Ouch, but point well taken. I'll take that down after a little bit. I do have some friends here who I think will be nterested - they've asked me about my kids from time to time - but I guess I could have just shared these pics by email with them... only thing there is email attachments sometimes take forever to download, this is simple and easy... but I do understand this is woefully self-indulgent. I just ask you bear with it for a little while. Thanks.
TH
-
It didn't.
But if it does, it will be because people treated it a scrapbook for photographs that nobody else cares about.
Michael,
I surely hope you are kidding because if not, the above post is the most self-indulgent, self-important load of crap I have read here in some time. There are close to 9,000 topics on GCA. If you do not care about the people on this site, than skip threads like Tom's. I happened to get a huge smile out of the photo's of Tom's children (I have never met his kids and it was amazing to me how much his son looks like a minature version of Tom). To say "Nobody else cares" is insane, insulting and outright wrong. Frankly, I would bet the the vast majority of us got huge smiles out of the two threads on family and the vast majority of those that didn't care, simply skipped those threads.
-
For me, GolfClubAtlas jumped the shark because Ran has consistently refused to take a more active hand in moderating the forums. I used to think GCA was the best site about ANYTHING on the web, but that is definitely no longer the case (in my opinion). The best sites, I've since realized, are those where the moderation is borderline fascistic - you misbehave once, you get a warning; you misbehave twice, you get suspended; you misbehave three times, you get banned. Period. It sounds harsh, but it keeps people on-topic, and it keeps them from degenerating into petty personal attacks. I've never met Ran and don't know much about him, so I can't guess as to why he chooses not forcefully moderate this forum - is it because he doesn't have the time/inclination to be a policeman, is it because he has a moral disinclination to censor "free speech" (now there's a phrase which has all the wrong connotations in 21st Century America), or is it for some other reason? Whichever it is, it's the site's loss. The irony is that many lurkers and other intelligent posters would be MORE free to speak their minds, not less, with tighter moderation of the group.
(Two examples of forums that work very well, in my opinion, because of their zero-tolerance approach: Sons of Sam Horn, about the Boston Red Sox; Television Without Pity, about various current television programs. The former is particularly relevant to this discussion, I think, because it manages to attract the sort of "industry participation" which many people wish GCA.com had more of. SOSH counts among its members John Henry, the owner of the Red Sox; Curt Schilling, starting pitcher; Bill Simmons, aka ESPN.com's "Sports Guy"; Art Matone, of the Providence Journal; Bob Lobel, of WBZ television. I don't believe a free, unfettered discussion forum about the Sox would attract those sorts of voices.)
On a more personal note, GCA definitively jumped the shark for me when a thread I started about Civil Behavior turned into a series of personal attacks against me, based on things people know about me from my book. Since then, I've felt an almost complete lack of joy every time I visit this site - I simply am not having fun any more, and as much as I love talking about golf course architecture, this forum causes me more grief than pleasure nowadays. The crowning moment came a couple of weeks ago, when a thread I started out for not-at-all-selfish reasons - suggesting that people linking to lots of large photos in one thread may have trouble reaching people like me with 56K dialup modems - again degenerated into vitriolic personal attacks from the likes of Tuco Ramirez, for reasons I'm completely at a loss to explain. This is my first visit back since then - just to see if I had any personal messages, really, but then I saw this thread and couldn't help myself...
A couple of other semi-random points to make:
--RJ, I completely disagree with your point about off-topic posts sometimes "exposing the soul" of the posters here better than the on-topic posts. That may be the case, but I always believed that this was a site in which to discuss golf course architecture. I made a number of friends here with people who liked talking about golf course architecture - when I met them in person, then (and only then) we talked about other things. When I come (came) here, it is (was) to talk about architecture. Now you have an architecture-themed board about golf and whatever-the-hell-else people want to talk about. If you or anyone else likes it better that way, more power to you. But I don't. (The whole point about sites like this, for me, is that active participation in discussing a shared interest is what draws people together. A watered-down site makes it harder to share that interest; now you might have people coming together because they're at least vaguely interested in architecture AND they discover that they're both fans of the Green Bay Packers. As the group has gotten bigger, being into architecture almost isn't enough.)
--I agree with everyone who has said that there really is only so much to talk about in this field. I personally have gotten to the point where once I've sifted through the off-topic stuff which doesn't interest me and the on-topic stuff which I've seen discussed before (and upon which no new light is being shed), there ain't a whole lot left to attract me.
Anyway, I'm not one to storm off saying tearful goodbyes, only to come back a few days/weeks later (a la Mr. Naccarato). ;) I'll probably keep lurking and visiting occasionally, and I'll fondly recall the time in my life when this was my favorite website, a place I recommended to everyone I knew who might be vaguely interested in golf course architecture. But life moves on...
Cheers,
Darren
-
David
"...the most self-indulgent, self-important load of crap..."
I thought I knew what self-indulgent and self important meant, but perhaps I don't...how are MM's comments self- indulgent and self-important?
I don't want to appear like an ogre who doesn't like kids (I have two of my own), but his comments seem completely consistant with this sites stated mission?
And I'll make a prediction...Ran will take down the Huckaby pictorial at some point in the very near future.
-
.
-
Hmmm.
I had no idea this was so offensive. OK, I gather I've offended two regular posters by the display of my kids, and for me two is two too many, so they will be gone as soon as I finish this message. My apologies. For those who replied - thanks and I hope you did get a kick out of it.
Of course if Ran is to remove my thread, then in fairness he'd also have to remove Ian's, and in fairness MANY other off-topic threads here...
And given Ran has very understandably (to me, because he does have a life) shown no interest in policing the site (as Darren suggests he should), well... I didn't see the big harm.
But Tom M. - you tell me: how has this site's "mission" EVER been followed with 100% precision? I go back and read the old threads and find a LOT that is "off-topic."
But in the end you are correct, my post certainly has nothing to do with "golf course architecture" and thus is to be utterly cryed downe. How horrible to report something meaningful to me, which seems to have been enjoyed by at least a few participants. This subject is so deadly serious after all, and it is my bad for forgetting that.
Gee, let's rip some raters again. That's so much more beneficial to the golf world.
TH
ps - it appears that one cannot delete the first post in a topic, so one can't delete a thread one starts. Makes sense. But please understand I have sent a message to the moderator asking for the thread about my kids to be removed. I sent it at 1:14pm PST, 2/19/2004.
-
Tom H,
100% agreement here.
Don't even think of taking those pictures of your kids down. There is nothing wrong with that thread, just wrong with the heads of others.
Jeff F.
P.S. You may want to work on not laying the club off so much though ;)
-
Jeff:
Well, I never did feel completely right about posting that, and those who I felt would get a kick out of it have already seen it, so what the hell, gone it goes if the moderators respond to my message.
I will remain curious as to how the absence of the thread IMPROVES the site though.
TH
ps - don't I know it about my horrid swing! But damn it's so ingrained, it's just a part of me... arrrggghhhhh! ;D
-
Looks like the shark's jumped gca, i saw two things on this thread I didn't think would ever occur. TEPaul bidding fond adieu, and Tom H. getting pissed.
-
I'll make a second prediction...this thread will soon follow the Huckaby thread.
Tom H.
One hundred percent precision...far from it...if it were 100% Ran wouldn't have to spend as much time deleting as he does. You've got to give JohnK his due...he is proactive, deleting his own posts and saving Ran the work.
-
Tom Mac. - I agree with you and MM.
-
Tom H,
Don't remove that thread or the pics. The rude comment from MM above says plenty about him. I'd tell him to pound sand.
PS, this site hasn't jumped any shark or done anything close to it. Every site eventually has these posts of "self-reflection" where someone claims that the site has gone downhill. These posts are often accompanied by "good-bye" posts where someone says that the site has deteriorated and they are leaving...then followed by pleas to stay. I like to quote a local newscaster who says "if you don't like the news go out and make some of your own." Anyone who doesn't like the direction of the site is welcome to post away on topics that they prefer.
-
SPDB:
You have yet to see me pissed. Good lord if you think that shows anger, well... thankfully you haven't seen how I am when this is truly the case.
Tom M.:
The point remains this site has NEVER been all about golf course architecture, and Ran himself is not immune from posting off-topic items. Don't believe me? Go back and read the old threads.
Perhaps this thread will vanish - if so, I sure won't miss it. And as for the thread I did re my kids, it if does go, just remember it was at my request. I do sincerely apologize for the offense, as minor and petty as it seems to me to be. But wrong is wrong and so you win, I have asked for it to go.
I look forward to your next thread, which I expect will be 100% about golf course architecture, will be absolutely fascinating, and will elicit hundreds of responses, bringing joy to us all. I mean that sincerely.
Kevin R: you are SO right about how these discussion groups go and don't you and I and many others here know it from history! This one does remain the strongest and the best... maybe it's this historical perspective that allows us to look for the good and ignore the bad?
TH
-
Tom H.
It didn't offend me...I printed them out and they're hanging on my refrigerator....but my prediction still stands.
-
The snow can't melt quick enough so that people go back to playing golf, seeing new courses, and writing about them. :)
I wonder how much of the negativity is just a by-product of a long winter which has seen many topics exhausted and then recycled.
-
David
"...the most self-indulgent, self-important load of crap..."
I thought I knew what self-indulgent and self important meant, but perhaps I don't...how are MM's comments self- indulgent and self-important?
I don't want to appear like an ogre who doesn't like kids (I have two of my own), but his comments seem completely consistant with this sites stated mission?
And I'll make a prediction...Ran will take down the Huckaby pictorial at some point in the very near future.
Tom - No worries, I'll help you with english (Heck you could forward this to Clarett and he could get college credit for it) :)
Self-Important (My definition) Feeling so important that your opinions must clearly be the opinions of everyone else. Example: "...it will be because people treated it a scrapbook for photographs that nobody else cares about."
Self-Indulgent (My definition) Indulging ones own self interest while not being concerned about others. Example: Criticizing ones decision to show off pictures of their kids on a forum where many of their friends reside and can seem them instead of skipping a thread that was clearly titled and probably not of interest to them.
For what it is worth Tom, I received 5 different instant messages from people thanking me for the post. I must admit that as a father, it amazes me that you would look down on someone for showing off their kids. I, for one, thought the pictures were cool. Nice to hear from you again and remind me why I do not participate as much.
-
Yikes! Come on everbody, we're talking about things mysterious, don't take it too serious. I want to thank any one who has had the courage to take a shot at our course. It is how we broaden our perspective and hopefully grow. Remember, when something stupid is posted it says more about the poster than the postee. My personal rules of posting are first do no harm, second be honest, third try not to be stupit. Ciao.
-
Tom M.:
Just realize that if your prediction comes true, it is ONLY because I requested that the thread be removed, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.
And if they didn't offend you, and do grace your refrigerator, then why the hell say what you did?
Enjoy the pictures, in any case. I sure enjoyed taking them.
TH
-
Where's Fonzie when we need him?
I echo Jeff Fortson, in his Post #63.
-
Darren,
I will be the first to admit I have taken sabbaticals from the site in an effort to rebuild the foundation of my everyday life that has been broken by particpating and contributing on this site and wasting way too many important hours of the day. It is as much as an addiction as food is to me, and that's as personal as I want to get with you, because personally from all I have read on this site about you, I neither want to get to know you or have anything to do with you.
Simply put, you not my kind of people.
But that doesn't mean I can't respect your opinon in relation to Golf Architecture, when its about Golf Architecture. For that, I'm always freely open to anyone's comment or opinion. I don't mean this in any mean-spirited way, nor want you offended by it.
Do I come back? Yes, undoubtedly, and usually rejeuvenated ready to contribute, but, I have to say that its the verve of your post that reveal you as a demaguogue of "Jumping the Shark."
If you don't believe me, then just click on the tab at the left that says "Contributions" to see if you have any foundation at all of being critical of Ran Morrissett and this wonderful golf architecture website, that unlike you, someone who feels he is without fault, actually does have quite few of them.
Cheers
-
(http://www.thesneeze.com/art/fonz/jump.jpg)
-
(http://www.thesneeze.com/art/fonz/jump.jpg)
For you waterskiing phanatics out there, what brand of skis is the Phonz on?
The winner will get a batch of my almost trademarked margarita mix (with tequila) at the KPIII ...
-
Can I just make one suggestion? I'm often told that if I don't like the subject of a particular thread, I don't have to click on it or view it. Similiarly, if you don't think there's anything wrong with the current state of GolfClubAtlas, why bother post in this thread? Or if you do post, a simple "I don't think there's anything wrong with GolfClubAtlas" would probably get the same point across.
Tommy, even if the feeling were mutual (re: "getting to know you or having anything to do with you") - and really, how would you know if I was or wasn't "your kind of people" until you actually met me in the flesh? - I sure as heck wouldn't post an all-encompassing statement like that on this website. See, I've just gone and tried to write a thoughtful, considerate post which from my own perspective answered the question posed by Mike at the start of this thread (I wouldn't have dared start such a thread like that myself); for that, several people have apparently used my post as the impetus to write "chill out!" messages directed both at me (individually) and at everyone else who has posted discouraging thoughts on this thread (collectively), and at least one person has chosen to take a nasty, personal potshot at me. This makes me sad, and I use that word in a very strong and personal sense.
So...if, every time I put any emotional effort into this board, I end up feeling sad, I guess it would make sense for me to no longer come here, wouldn't it? (I know that the internet tends to foster such feelings of paranoia and unwantedness, but I can remember a time when GCA.com made me feel happy - and, believe it or not, when I felt as though my own posts were making others feel the same way....)
Cheers,
Darren
-
Maharaja..I've butchered it but I had a skateboard by them as well.
-
Maherejah no?
-
I never said anything about Mr. Huckaby, except for the time that he appeared in one of my dreams.
-
Darren,
Let me make one thing perfectly clear, I agree with about 100% of your original complaint. In fact, I think its spot-on.
I just object to you villifying Ran Morrissett for his lack of effort to police the site and then you portraying yourself as a victim in all of it--especially when you are anything but that, and far from innocent in regards to your feelings of me, which I'm trying to tell you in the most polite of ways--it doesn't matter.
One of your fellow Harvard grads and a hero of mine, once said, "Ask not for what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" I ask you Darren Kilfara, what have you done for your country, that it in return can do for you?
You complain about Ran not policing the website, yet don't contribute anything to this maintanence policies that you suggest or demand then somehow you invoke my name into it. You then come back as the innocent victim, as if you were a true victim in that post some months back.
Darren, I'm sorry you feel sad, because I haven't been feeling too chipper myself lately, so pull yourself out of your rut, get with it, and help make it the way you want it to be. Maybe this will help.
-
I never said anything about Mr. Huckaby, except for the time that he appeared in one of my dreams.
Michael - no hassles man - and re me appearing
in one of your dreams, well... I am honored.
;D ;D
-
SPDB:
I didn't think I was bidding Golfclubatlas.com adieu. I just feel like I'm getting stale--things and subjects were recycling and the site sometimes seemed more like just a chat-room to me probably because I was doing way too much useless chatting myself anyway. There're some other things I want to do too and they were falling by the wayside I was on here so much. I expect to be looking in but if not it'd be nothing more than a natural progression I guess. Not much different than that time I was gassing up my kawasaki in some gas station out in the middle of Virginia and that black dude looked over at me from the other side of the station, gave me a thumbs up and yelled over;
"Hey, Brotha, let da gooood tiiiiimes rooool!" ;)
-
TEP:
You can't fool me - you're just covering your butt because I've snuck within 3700 posts of you. ;D
You know as well as anyone how this all goes...cycles of topics and interest in them around and around and around... we just seem to be in a little self-examination mode right now. Kevin Reilly explained it well above. Sure it does get chatty in here, and at times it seems there's nothing new... but then a topic comes along that is new, and it's all great again.
So oh yes, let the good times roll for sure... that never should ever stop, no matter if one is at 10,000 posts here!
Just don't be a stranger too much. This place does need its senior doyen, as we are often woefully short on wisdom. Besides, if you stay away too much, just think how uppity Mucci will get!
TH
-
... several people have apparently used my post as the impetus to write "chill out!" messages directed both at me (individually) and at everyone else who has posted discouraging thoughts on this thread (collectively) ...
Darren --
I really don't want to fight with you, but I do wonder:
What's wrong with using your post as the impetus to write "chill out!" messages?
Is "chill out!" an unacceptable opinion, for some reason?
I understand your unhappiness at having your personality attacked. It's happened to me twice here, and I was unhappy about it both times. But I do think you (and the Treehouse generally) need to separate attacks on one's personality (motives, agendas, etc.) from attacks on one's ideas.
The former are unacceptable; the latter are necessary.
IMO.
Dan
-
Tommy, I don't think I was villifying Ran - I apologise if that's how my post came across. However, I disagree with your assessment that I've never tried to do anything: I can remember a few threads in which Tim Weiman, myself and a few others were urging Ran (or someone else) to take a more forceful approach to moderating the board. Ultimately, though, Ran either didn't respond or responded in such a way as to preclude that possibility (I forget which - it was probably different on different threads). I've since concluded that it's pointless for me to try again; apart from that, what else would you have me do? It's not like I can police the site myself.
I'm sorry if you felt victimised when I brought your name into the discussion - I thought the winking smiley face was a hint that I was mostly joking. (When I say that GCA makes me sad, I'm fully aware that I myself contribute to that sadness...I seem to have a tough time keeping my foot out of my mouth on occasion, and my attempts at humor - such as they are - often seem to backfire like this.)
Dan - point taken.
Cheers,
Darren
-
It's high time all of you take your naps my little beligerent bunnies! Enough of this fooling around trying to jump sharks. All of you go to your rooms and get into your beds. If you don't obey me then personality pills will cease to be optional!
Dr Katz
-
redanman, you're a jerk, as always, and a humourless jerk, at that. Do not despair, I have both therapy and pills for that as well.
Dr Katz
-
Darren,
I'm sorry to see the exchange between you and Tommy. Golf architecture should be a source of joy and happiness, not something that makes people sad.
As for trying to encourage a certain kind of dialogue at GCA, I haven't given up and still occasionally throw my two cents in. I feel passionately that our discussion should avoid personal attacks, avoid "chat" like posts and work towards attracting more industry and international participation.
But, there is only so much one can do. Honestly, I haven't seen a clear indication that Ran, as the site's owner, shares the same feeling. So, I throw my two cents in less frequently and I spend far less time on the site altogether. However, I still feel everyone here should follow the guidance that has been provided on the home page - that golf architecture is supposed to be the focus here.
Every discussion group occasionally looks at itself. To be fair, GCA is probably far better than most. But, reading your posts reminds me of a story Professor Marion Levy once told about Woodrow Wilson who served as President of Princeton before servng as President of the United States.
When asked to compare the challenge of being president of the US with being President of a university, Wilson told the Washington press corp that being the latter was far tougher.
Levy cynically gave his sociology students an explanation for what makes this so: "the stakes are so low" in university politics.
This stuff can seem like the end of the world, but it really isn't, as I'm sure you know quite well.
Hang in there. Get what you can out of GCA. Make a few friends and try not to let the rest bother you. Sometimes life is two steps forward and one back. GCA has already come a long way.
Regards,
Tim
-
Ethically I can only say that would appear to be inappropriate as it appears the psycho is not in the tropics.
Dr Katz
-
Tommy,
Please tell me that you didn't mean this: 'One of your fellow Harvard grads and a hero of mine, once said, "Ask not for what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country"?' Talk about the quintessential example of form over substance! And I was hoping for a peaceful coexistance during the KPIII. ;)
I am probably as guilty of wandering from the reservation as anyone on this site. I happen to see many tangents in various topics (golf, politics, and life), and at times I suffer from a terrible, irresistable malady not all that uncommon to others on this site- a compunction to tell. Fortunately for most, the cure is simply being ignored, which generally results in it passing for a period of time. (I've been seeking help from Katz for a long time, but even he ignores me.)
From my couple of years on the site, I can't see a decline. People come and go; interest ebbs and flows. Most of us love golf, golf architecture, AND many other things (family, college football, politics, business, fine food and drink nice looking women, etc.), and it is natural for these diverse interests to flow into the discussion.
There are a few very serious guys on the site, and that's great. From time to time, a tasteless wacko, generally in-cognito, appears. Most of us are much closer to the center- not always as reverent as we might be considering the import of the subject, but not that offensive either.
Until Mr. Morrissett tells us that bandwidth is a real problem, if we are to err, I hope that we do so on the side of free-flowing ideas as opposed to carefully crafted threads and responses sanitized as to say little that might be controversial. My only advice is that we eliminate the name calling and minimize the attribution of motives.
One other thing. When photographing people swinging a club, let's get more front-side views. Nearly all of the rear shots are neither attractive or of value from an architectural standpoint.
-
One other thing. When photographing people swinging a club, let's get more front-side views. Nearly all of the rear shots are neither attractive or of value from an architectural standpoint.
ok, I'll bite. does anyone know of a relatively safe way to take frontal pictures of swings? I trust my normal group for the most part, but as they say....SHANKS HAPPEN ;D
and just be glad that nobody has figured out the syntax needed to post MP3 movies or other live formats to GCA.com
-
Huck,
Exactly!
-
The only diagnosis for all of the off topic posts and how often and frequently it happens is that this site suffers from the electronic version of Attention Deficit Disorder. :)
-
I can't believe it!!!
Lou and I agree on something!
:o :o :o
Nice post, Lou!
Jeff F.
-
Bill:
What was that? I was posting at Sons of Sam Horn while whipping up a mean batch of huevos rancheros and doing my taxes. Were we discussing something here?
;D ;D
-
... several people have apparently used my post as the impetus to write "chill out!" messages directed both at me (individually) and at everyone else who has posted discouraging thoughts on this thread (collectively) ...
Darren --
I really don't want to fight with you, but I do wonder:
What's wrong with using your post as the impetus to write "chill out!" messages?
Is "chill out!" an unacceptable opinion, for some reason?
Please note that I have trademarked and copyrighted the above phrase that is incorporated into my title ... someone owes me a few nickels ...
-
From my couple of years on the site, I can't see a decline. People come and go; interest ebbs and flows. Most of us love golf, golf architecture, AND many other things (family, college football, politics, business, fine food and drink nice looking women, etc.), and it is natural for these diverse interests to flow into the discussion.
There are a few very serious guys on the site, and that's great. From time to time, a tasteless wacko, generally in-cognito, appears. Most of us are much closer to the center- not always as reverent as we might be considering the import of the subject, but not that offensive either.
Until Mr. Morrissett tells us that bandwidth is a real problem, if we are to err, I hope that we do so on the side of free-flowing ideas as opposed to carefully crafted threads and responses sanitized as to say little that might be controversial. My only advice is that we eliminate the name calling and minimize the attribution of motives.
Great post. Great advice.
-
I have seen many well crafted threads on architecture die a quick death due to the greater interest in "Martha Burk" threads and other general interest topics.
The only thing that sucks is sometimes it has taken somebody a while to craft a thread together (my bunker alternatives took about 6 hours - but it did not generate the discussion I had hoped).
People will respond to what interests them. My favourite recent thread was the 16th at Garden City,but I doubt more than a few followed beyond the first page.
Its like the whole question of all types of architecture being welcome, all types of threads make an interesting discussion group.
Could we keep our focus a little better, yes, but frankly so what.
-
Tim Weiman:
How would you like to see another section of Golfclubatlas.com where one would have to pass muster to register in it--whoever you are would have to be known by the site administrator? And where one would have to continue to pass muster to say in it? There'd be no anonymous posting or anonymous viewing access allowed, no personal insults would be allowed, content would be tightened up to hone it to pertinent opinion, questions and response.
The idea would be to encourage frank opinion, frank questions from the likes of green chairmen, golf chairmen, presidents and concerned golfers and members, clients, architects, superintendents etc. and other contributors who heretofore, for numerous reasons (most of which are pretty obvious), do not come on this discussion section or have left it.
It definitely would not be exactly in the spirit of the open and unmonitored discussion of this section as we've always known it but this section could remain as is. The other section would be only to serve a purpose this section has tried to serve but obviously never will, again, for all those fairly obvious reasons. Basically to get into that other section you'd have to earn your way in and earn your stay in---perhaps not dissimilar to some kind of clubs.
Of course that other section will need a dedicated "administrator" who all would understand possessed the right to monitor, delete, and edit both content and contributors.
How would you like that addition? Clearly most of us would probably have to understand that we wouldn't be allowed into that other section if we act the way we do here and say some of the things we do here.
But at least it might encourage some of those valuable people at courses to come on here. But perhaps even that wouldn't encourage them or perhaps they just don't care!
-
TEPaul,
"Bifurcating" GCA would do no good (like the way I use that term for GCA.com?!). People would make their "serious" posts on the serious side and then come over to the current side and blast away at those they disagree with. It would have a "classroom and schoolyard effect" where people might pretend to behave in class while ridiculing or picking on others in the schoolyard. All of which would end up discrediting people in the classroom by using the schoolyard to diminish their character or position.
Did that make sense? Just an opinion, anyway.
Jeff F.
-
Tom Paul, I know you framed your question to Tim, but I'd have to say that I'm all in favor of your proposal. A multi-layered structure, be it flat (e.g. have different forums for on-topic and off-topic postings) or hierarchical (like the one you propose) would make an awful lot of sense to me. I'd like to add that my concept of "borderline fascistic" moderation, as mentioned previously, was meant in the same spirit you describe: such moderation would NOT stifle thought, indeed far from it. By simply keeping people focused and on-topic and by weeding out the off-topic and the mean-spirited, you generate a far healthier climate for true intellectualism. And as Ian said, in a post I wholeheartedly agree with, the real problem with the general off-topic stuff (be it golf or non-golf related) is that they can often crowd out the truly interesting, architecture-related threads which do crop up and which people like Ian and Paul Turner and others put a lot of effort into in the first place. I'm not against off-topic material per se - I'm against the effects such material inevitably has upon the on-topic stuff.
Whether or not such a restricted/moderated zone would encourage participation from industry insiders and professionals remains to be seen, of course. However, such a zone would inevitably yield its own rewards regardless - don't you think?
Cheers,
Darren
(EDIT: Jeff F., I see our posts crossed. Do you really think that people would behave as you describe if GolfClubAtlas possessed a two-tiered structure? I can't see that at all, myself...)
-
JakaB:
Sage counsel. I'll take that latter one down. I have the naive thought that this site is so far down the food chain that it would be immune from harm... but better safe than sorry.
TEP:
That idea for a separate site has been floated several times also. It is a good one, but the key is these words: "
"Of course that other section will need a dedicated "administrator" who all would understand possessed the right to monitor, delete, and edit both content and contributors."
Find such a person and this could work very well. But of course the risk also is that such a site would have all chiefs and no indians... that is, you'd have very little input from golf consumers if you were too strict about this being insiders only.
TH
-
TEPaul,
The elevation of the substance of the discussions via a limited access discussion group is a good idea. It would eliminate frivolous threads and posts.
This doesn't mean that there can't be serious differences of opinion between contributors, but it would eliminate all of the anonymous posts and sniping.
More importantly, it could serve as a resource to those seeking information, experience and expertise from superintendents, green chairman, architects, and other related professionals and amateurs.
I'd rather avoid discussions on John Daly's personal life and many of the non-architectural topics that are posted.
If you look at the "discussion group" category that Ran has created, it says that non-architectural topics will be deleted.
The problem is that Ran has a life to live, a family, a business and his own pursuits that take precedence over monitoring this site, but, a limited access feature, confined to those serious about architecture, who have proven themselves in the general discussion group, is a great idea.
The general "discussion group" category could continue exactly as it has, and could be the recruiting ground for those interested in GCA, and those who would like to participate in elevated discussions.
It's an idea thats time has come.
Jeff Fortson,
That problem can be solved.
Tom Huckaby,
No it won't.
If a poster exceeds acceptable behavior, after one warning, their access is removed. I think you'll find that self discipline will work well.
Darren,
The general "Discussion Group" will continue exactly as it has in the past and will be the "pool" from which future posters are selected to participate in the "elevated discussion group"
-
Tom,
I think you have a great idea...just make sure only those who are allowed in your little club are also the same ones only allowed to read your dribble....The damage that could be done to golf by the most diatribite of this site could be monumental if it they be lefted unchecked. Use email, letters, the phone or the halls of your private clubs if you want a secret society out to protect the game as you love it.
-
"Did that make sense? Just an opinion, anyway."
Jeff F:
Yes, indeed, that makes a lot of sense. I'm simply offering an alternative, only to see what others might say about it---the pros and cons of it. The entire point would be to encourage people on here who aren't going to come on to our discussion group---by this time that's pretty obvious.
And to your school, classroom and schoolyard analogy---ever heard about kids getting demerits, detention or just plain expelled from school? I have. I've even heard of schools closing their doors entirely. The world wide Internet is free but the individual sites on it aren't necessarily. Ran Morrissett both owns and controls GOLFCLUBATLAS.com and if he wants to change it or even shut it down temporarily or totally there's not a lot any of us can do about it.
-
Tom Paul,
I would very much support what you are suggesting and have felt that way for some time.
In fairness, lots of credit needs to be given to Ran for developing GCA and taking the site as far as it has gone thus far. Any criticism I may have is based, in part, on a feeling that GCA has come so far that it DESERVES to be taken further.
My understanding is that a great many people in the golf industry follow our discussion, far more than ever care (or are authorized) to post. One knowledgable industry insider once told me he had gone to an industry get together and all anyone was talking about was the Merion issue and how Golfclubatlas had served to bring it to everyone's attention.
But, my real interest is not to criticize. How does it help me to say to someone like your friend Bill Greenwood (Merion, Green Chairman) " Bill, you guys really screwed up"?
It doesn't.
I'd much rather GCA evolve into a resource where the Bill Greenwoods of the world can get candid feedback that may be very critical, but is also recognized to be in the spirit of only wanting to help his club make the best possible golf architecture decision.
I hope something like you suggest becomes part of GCA's future.
Tim
-
When Robert Louis Stevenson was asked what the most dangerous word in the English language is, he replied "exclusive."
Just put me down as someone who will remain content to feast at the "Children's Table" in the kitchen. Perhaps you guru's can throw us a chicken leg every now and then ;)
Mike
-
Darren,
The only way it wouldn't deter people from posting is if they never set foot outside the proposed "classroom". Even still, those that do venture to the "schoolyard" would be privy to any stripping down or diminishing remarks of the people that choose to not go there. All in all reputations and characters will continue to be put down or ripped apart by those with no lives.
I guess what I am getting at is creating a two-tiered or two-system website won't stop people from trying to tear people down or character assissinate. Idiots will be idiots and there is nothing you can do about it if you want an "open forum".
I also don't like the suggestion that you or anyone outside of Ran trying to set forth what they feel the agenda should be for this website, unless they have contributed significant resources to the website's survival. Even still, it is ultimately Ran's call. Just because you or some others don't like the tone, threads, or general direction of topics on here doesn't mean it should all change because it goes against what you envision this site to be.
It is what it is. Deal with it and continue to post on topics you care about and ignore those that bore or disgust you. The "Seven Cities of Gold" er.. "Golf CLub Atlas" don't exist. In all, I hope you continue to participate as your opinions are welcome and informative.
Thanks.
Jeff F.
-
That idea for a separate site has been floated several times also. It is a good one, but the key is these words: "
"Of course that other section will need a dedicated "administrator" who all would understand possessed the right to monitor, delete, and edit both content and contributors."
Find such a person and this could work very well. But of course the risk also is that such a site would have all chiefs and no indians... that is, you'd have very little input from golf consumers if you were too strict about this being insiders only.
I'd nominate Mr. Paul for the role of moderator, myself. Actually, you can have multiple moderators - all you need are people who a) share a general vision of what a moderated forum should look like, b) visit the forums and read most if not all of the material on a regular basis, and c) are willing to act when necessary to admonish anyone who violates the rules and regulations set up in advance.
I'd encourage everyone to visit a site I've mentioned before, namely http://pub208.ezboard.com/bsonsofsamhorn. First of all, you'll see that this introductory page sends everyone down one of several paths (the bifurcated structure which Tom Paul has proposed) to begin with: a number of on-topic forums, a number of off-topic forums, and a number of forums for archived material. Secondly, once you start to lurk inside the forums, you'll note that there are something like 8-10 moderators (called "Dopes"), each of whom has a moderating role - if there were only one moderator, his role could be quite onerous, but as there are many, there isn't much work-sharing involved. Anyway, there are other reasons that this site and its structure has much to recommend itself; if people are serious about exploring alternatives to the current GolfClubAtlas site structure, this would be one way to start.
Cheers,
Darren
-
Jak,
What makes you think that the pretty young lady is one of Huck's kids? Don't you know where he likes to hang-out and take pictures?
TEP,
The site could have a "private"/subscriber section by invitation only. With a paid membership of 10, it may have a rather narrow focus, however.
BTW, many of the numerous architects and superintendents that I've met seem to have very thin skin when it comes to their work (though fairly candid about their peers off the record). Is my perception wrong? Do you think that in a more "protected" setting they would be more conversant and candid? I sort of doubt it.
Fortsonator,
That is scary. I am going to have to rethink what I wrote.
So as not to start a trend, let me suggest that the problem with the high cost of golf and its decline in rounds played can be largely attributed to a geometric growth in government regulation (land, construction, legal, insurance), and perhaps too many people ill-equipped to deal with the playing public in the business (not you, of course).
The last comment is prompted by the treatment one of my recent guests perceived at an area course. While he liked the lay-out a lot, he felt unwelcomed by the shop personnel, and stated that he has no intention of returning. How many of us have run into this situation several times a year? A negative or introverted person has no place in the shop. Jim Ferree, the former senior tour player and once DoG at Long Cove ought to be the model to which all pro shop personnel aspire to.
-
JakaB & Mike Hendren,
I think you might agree that there has been a dilution in the quality of threads and posts over the years, that more and more non-architecture related threads are being posted.
Having a seperate level for people who are serious about golf course architecture seems to be the only solution to enhance the quality of the threads and posts.
The general "discussion group" would remain open to all.
Some people have asked me why the Alpine and Baltusrol get togethers couldn't have been in the spring, so that they could play the golf courses. My answer was, that the get togethers aren't about playing golf, they're about discussing architecture and related topics.
TEPaul makes a good point, the site is turning into a chatt room with a high percentage of non-architectural related topics.
There has to be a seperation of the wheat from the chaff if you want to continue with a quality golf course architecture site, and an elevated level of discussion seems like a prudent suggestion.
Lacking this, the site will spiral into mediocrity.
-
I also don't like the suggestion that you or anyone outside of Ran trying to set forth what they feel the agenda should be for this website, unless they have contributed significant resources to the website's survival. Even still, it is ultimately Ran's call. Just because you or some others don't like the tone, threads, or general direction of topics on here doesn't mean it should all change because it goes against what you envision this site to be.
It is what it is. Deal with it and continue to post on topics you care about and ignore those that bore or disgust you. The "Seven Cities of Gold" er.. "Golf CLub Atlas" don't exist.
Jeff, I find this attitude to be incredibly narrow-minded - as though the current GolfClubAtlas is as good a version of the site as one could ever hope to see. If Ran should come in here and tell me that it's his site and it it what it is, I might disagree with him, but ultimately I would have to defer to his wishes. However, in the interim is it not reasonable to at least explore alternatives for how to make the site better?
The thought has just occurred to me that people might be confusing the words "exclusive" and "elitist". My (and I think Tom Paul's) vision is for a discussion forum which would be open to anyone willing to abide by a well-defined set of rules. My core belief is that moderated discussion would create better discussion in general than we currently have. Do you have any experience with moderated discussion forums? If so, what has that experience been? (If not, I'd recommend you explore just what moderated discussion might look like - it isn't stifling in the least.)
Cheers,
Darren
-
Darren:
You keep mentioning Sons of Sam Horn, and that is a great site - I read it from time to time because I am a big fan of Bill Simmons - but that has as much in common with this as I do with Donald Trump. It's really apples and oranges, because "golf course architecture" is necessarily vague, and "Boston Red Sox" is necessarily narrow. That is, a LOT of things can be construed to fall under the former topic, but only the Sox mean the Sox. So off-topic is VERY easy to keep out in SOSH.
It also works because there are nutcases there willing to spend 16 hours a day doing monitoring.
So while I too feel that if such an "insiders only" off-shoot of this site was created, it could work, and Tom Paul would be a wonderful candidate for monitor... BUT... I assume Tom does also have a life. I've played golf with him walking along.. so I do know he spends SOME time away from the computer.
I do feel another danger would be that insiders-only misses the voice of the consumer, thus creating a worthless ivory tower with very narrow focus...Which is pretty much what Lou just said!
(And Lou, good call re that picture... the world will never know for sure... ;D )
And I also feel that Jeff Fortson is correct in every word he says. If people want to find it and ruin it, they will, no matter what amount of monitoring one does. MANY discussion groups have already had this occur... the history of many of us participating here now includes several of them...
So you either have a tiny group up in an ivory tower that works, but achieves little... or you just deal with things and make the best of it.
Oh well, in the end this is all just more mental masturbation. The best point made here is that this is Ran's site and whatever he chooses to do is his decision and his alone and there sure as hell isn't a damn thing any of us can do about it one way or the other.
I kinda like the site as is, but I've made that pretty clear. Nothing Ran has said, or hasn't said, would make me think he's dissatisfied with it.
TH
-
JakaB & Mike Hendren,
I think you might agree that there has been a dilution in the quality of threads and posts over the years, that more and more non-architecture related threads are being posted.
Patrick:
I disagree completely with that. Go read the old posts and tell me there's been a dilution in quality of threads and posts... Good lord if anything there are FAR MORE good threads and posts today, and it's not even close? Why? Because we have SO many more worthwhile contributors! Yes, there are more non-architecture posts today, but that comes with the territory of having more participants. So I see no dilution at all... the good outweighs the bad, big-time.
Which is why this whole discussion remains very curious to me... people seem to be pining away for an ideal that really never was...
In any case it's a very moot point. Who is going to monitor this new group? Believe me, such a task is NOT easy.. we have seen it time and time again... Even requiring passwords and the like can be defeated by those who wish... It's a losing battle, as proven by golfonline's grillroom, several others...
TH
-
JakaB said;
"Tom,
I think you have a great idea...just make sure only those who are allowed in your little club are also the same ones only allowed to read your dribble....The damage that could be done to golf by the most diatribite of this site could be monumental if it they be lefted unchecked. Use email, letters, the phone or the halls of your private clubs if you want a secret society out to protect the game as you love it."
Barney:
I've been amused and encouraging of your input on Golfclubatlas.com all these years but that post #113 takes the cake. If a section of this website such as the one mentioned by me for comment from others as an alternative ever did happen it would never remotely survive if you were allowed into it---and so you never should be.
Those kinds of personal remarks within your post #113 are the types of things that shouldn't even be on this section of Golfclubaltas. It's not all that infrequently when someone takes you to task for some of the off the wall things you come up with on here, you come back with the remark 'everyone knows I'm an idiot'. I suggest in the future you should affix that remark to every one of your posts.
Frankly, I doubt a section like that one on a site like this would have a deterimental influence on architecture at all. What it might do, though, is get rid of that contingent of hysterical Fazio defenders, like yourself, who have no real reason to be defending him on here or anywhere with the exception of the fact that if a section of this site somehow miraculously served to ease Fazio out of the classic course restoration/redesign business the world of classic architecture would at least be saved from a bad influence---one very ironically Tom Fazio admits.
The complete irony is, Tom Fazio, as nice a guy as he is, in his unbelievably unique and convoluted way does not even admit to being in the restoration/redesign of classic course business. I heard him say personally to 250 people that he and his uncle agree practically 30 years ago never to do that type of architectural work again (as everyone looked at each other in total amazement as he was speaking at a restoration conference).
Don't bother to say you're just an idiot this time or even apologize---I don't want it.
Furthermore, if this site ever did create this kind of section I doubt they'd want me in it anyway. I might have more to offer than you do but probably not very much more! ;)
-
Tom H., I strongly disagree with your basic premise that people are waiting in the blinds, looking to ruin GolfClubAtlas at every chance they get. Instead, I believe that people will hang themselves with as much rope as you give them - in other words, you only get off-topic/mean-spirited/anonymous posts at GCA because GCA allows them. There may be exceptions to that, but in general, I believe that the harder an internet discussion forum makes it for people to misbehave, the less misbehavior you'll see.
And if this is all pointless mental masturbation, and nothing is ever likely to change...well, I guess you might be right, but you can't blame a girl for trying.
Cheers,
Darren
-
Jak,
I didn't mean to trivialize this. Knowing you a bit, I now certainly understand why this is a serious matter to you, and, of course, you are quite right. Sorry about that.
-
Tom H., I strongly disagree with your basic premise that people are waiting in the blinds, looking to ruin GolfClubAtlas at every chance they get. Instead, I believe that people will hang themselves with as much rope as you give them - in other words, you only get off-topic/mean-spirited/anonymous posts at GCA because GCA allows them. There may be exceptions to that, but in general, I believe that the harder an internet discussion forum makes it for people to misbehave, the less misbehavior you'll see.
And if this is all pointless mental masturbation, and nothing is ever likely to change...well, I guess you might be right, but you can't blame a girl for trying.
Cheers,
Darren
Darren:
History speaks loudly. Many of us have seen several discussion groups come and go, and no amount of monitoring can prevent this. It's an noble thought to think this one is immune to detractors, but people call me a pollyanna?
I have no doubt that the thought behind this is a good one: high-level discussion of serious GCA issues, changing the golf world.
I just question the reality and practicality of it, especially given what exists here is really pretty damn good as it is.
TH
-
It is my understanding that Ran wants to increase participation not limit it. His goal as far as I can tell is to create a (literally) world wide forum where architecture can be discussed and debated by a diverse group that share a common love for architecture and grand designs. More participation from GB&I, the Continent, Canada, Japan, Africa, ANZ, etc., more participation from architects and industry types, more participation from club represenatatives...not only participation in discussions, but more importantly expressing themselves in My Opinion essays and My Home course profiles.
Unfortunately there seems to be factors that limit that participation. Clowns that are more interested in drawing attention to themselves than discussing architecture. Too many non-architectural topics, too many golf course collectors that lack architectural interest, too many personal attacks (often coming from a pseudo), too many pissing contests and courtroom tactics.
Differing opinions and disagreement are essential. Asking people to support and articulate their opinions is a positive (espcially if it is acompanied by a thoughtful opposing opinion and not just you are wrong, unqualified, biased...). The site became much more interesting, analytical and articulate after a few notable contrarians came aboard. Unfortunately there were some negative features that were introduced at the same time.
Is the answer is to limit participation so as to increase future participation and expansion?
-
Tom MacWood,
Retention of the existing "discussion group" would be the vehicle for expansion.
A "discussion group" with limited access would be the vehicle for focus and quality.
Tom Huckaby,
With limited, identifiable participation, there would be no need for a moderator, the group would be self disciplined, and transgressors deprived of access.
-
JakaB:
I saw your post. I don't believe in jinxes, nope. But as you see, I did delete the post with the pictures in question. Yes, better safe than sorry.
Patrick:
You can't possibly be that naive. There is literally no way to protect such a site from intrusion from those who would want to do so, absent a moderator. It has been tried again and again, and has failed again and again - even WITH moderators. Don't believe me? Ask any of the real old-timers in this game about golfonline's grillroom.
TH
-
Is the answer is to limit participation so as to increase future participation and expansion?
Yes, Tom M., it is. (Damn, we have a lot of people named Tom on this website...) :) But the limiting of participation should be self-selective, i.e. as soon as you create an appropriate set of guidelines to which posters must abide, some people will choose not to participate, and others will flout the rules and thereafter be banned. One might choose to call that taking a step back, but I'm quite certain that following that would come three or four steps forward...
-
Guys, I guess I do not get it. I thought the site had a moderator and it is called "Subject". We also have a second moderator and it is called "Started by". Is anyone so bored that they read every single thread (Even the ones they know are not their cup of tea). If you do not like nonarchitecture threads, DON'T READ THEM!!
How hard is that. Why do we need two sites. I know what I care about and who I want to read. As well, I know what topics hold no interest for me and what authors annoy me, so I skip them. I do not need a moderator to tell me what to do (That is part of what pisses me off about government).
-
You can't possibly be that naive. There is literally no way to protect such a site from intrusion from those who would want to do so, absent a moderator. It has been tried again and again, and has failed again and again - even WITH moderators. Don't believe me? Ask any of the real old-timers in this game about golfonline's grillroom.
OK then, Tom H., so here's a follow-up question: do you think that GolfClubAtlas is ultimately doomed, sooner or later, to follow golfonline into oblivion? That supernovas like this site inevitably flame out, regardless of what is done to protect them?
(I'm trying to figure out which one of us is the cynical one and which one of us is the Pollyanna - and I still have no idea which is which!)
-
I believe it was Voltaire who said something to the extent of
"The secret of being boring is to say everything"
and one other thing...
the IM function is there for a reason
-
Guys, I guess I do not get it. I thought the site had a moderator and it is called "Subject". We also have a second moderator and it is called "Started by". Is anyone so bored that they read every single thread (Even the ones they know are not their cup of tea). If you do not like nonarchitecture threads, DON'T READ THEM!!
How hard is that. Why do we need two sites. I know what I care about and who I want to read. As well, I know what topics hold no interest for me and what authors annoy me, so I skip them. I do not need a moderator to tell me what to do (That is part of what pisses me off about government).
David, let me ask you the same question I just asked one of the Toms: do you have any experience participating in strongly moderated forums? If so, what has or your opinion been about them? If not, am I to understand that your objections are primarily theoretical rather than practical?
I think what you fail to grasp is that GolfClubAtlas isn't merely a collection of threads: it's also a sum of its collective parts. A person who stumbles upon this website for the first time isn't going to know what topics he likes or dislikes - he's going to click on a number of different topics to see what's going on. Some of them may turn him off to the site altogether (this seems to be what happens to many of the industry insiders who visit this site, by all reports). Some of them may present him with a lowest-common-denominator approach with which he can identify - in which case, there's another potentially bad apple to infect other threads in the future. And some of them may potentially challenge him and inspire him to learn more about golf course architecture...but if those threads become harder and harder to find, isn't he less and less likely to pick up that gauntlet into the future? I'm pleased that Robin Hiseman has just started posting - he appears to have found the solid-gold core of this website, and found it to be to his liking. I'm worried that others like him, people who might become valuable contributors in the future, won't make it that far...
Cheers,
Darren
(Sorry if I'm posting a lot in this thread - I'm taking Tommy N.'s posting about "...ask what you can do for your country" a bit seriously.)
-
Lou Duran said:
"Jak,
I didn't mean to trivialize this. Knowing you a bit, I now certainly understand why this is a serious matter to you, and, of course, you are quite right. Sorry about that."
Lou:
You didn't mean to trivialize what? Something JakaB said? Is there any other way? For the future of this discussion group and even for the benefit of architecture generally everything JakaB says SHOULD BE trivialized. I don't know that this website would start another section, I don't even know if it should, I only know if it did the very first order of business should be to keep JakaB out of it. And if he happened to slip into it for some reason it's probably be more prudent to shut it down as he'd ruin it anyway!
-
Gentlemen, I said it earlier, but wish to restate it:
There is nothing wrong here that a good vigorous sweat playing and hoofing it on a great course wouldn't cure.
For the record, I wouldn't like to see bifurcation, because it too would soon turn into the same group therapy session that is going on here. A "serious" poster would take umbrage at something another "serious" poster would say because they would feel they "earned standing". It would start by the manner something was said by a 'doyen'. There would be a mind-numbing cross examination of motives, a high class subtle and barely detectable insult followed by one just a little more obvious, and before you know it, you'd be at this same point we are now, a food fight. Then you'd have two romper rooms.
TomP., welcome back from your walking Coorshaw. But, if you had to be fully registered and accepted to post in the panteon of GCA forums, and the subjects and discussion were of such a focused nature that only archies, supers, and wannabees were to show off their intellect and superior knowledge for the benefit of let's say, greenchairman; I think few newbies would register their name, and hardly anyone would screw up the courage to ask 'a stupid question' or post what they feel is not up to the treehouse's standard of discourse. We have already had many come on here saying they are a long time lurker for years and were hesitant to actually add or ask something because they were a little intimidated to ask or say something to such an august body of GCA brainiacs. That factor would be multiplied if the 'pure' GCA forum were populated with such "serious" posters. IMHO, but I could be wrong or an idiot... ::) ;D
-
OK then, Tom H., so here's a follow-up question: do you think that GolfClubAtlas is ultimately doomed, sooner or later, to follow golfonline into oblivion? That supernovas like this site inevitably flame out, regardless of what is done to protect them?
(I'm trying to figure out which one of us is the cynical one and which one of us is the Pollyanna - and I still have no idea which is which!)
Yep, sad to say Darren, but I do believe this site MIGHT ultimately be doomed, like all others before it. It's had a hell of a long, great run to date, and in my book remains strong. But the more crap like this comes up, the more temptation there is for wrongdoers to try and prove you right... the more one resists, the more attack there is... This site has remained as strong as it has simply because it hasn't attracted the attention or ill-will of those who would wish to bring it down. I really do believe this. Make a bifurcated site and you are just inviting them to do so... it's like you are challenging them...
I think the only way this site continues strong long-term is by staying the course. It has worked damn well for a damn long time - longer than any other golf-related forum, with the possible exception of an equipment forum that Kevin Reilly is familiar with, which has succeeded longer, mainly due to HEAVY attention from moderators and lack of too much interest from malcontents.
Can I now tell all of those who called me a pollyanna to bite me? ;)
-
There is nothing wrong here that a good vigorous sweat playing and hoofing it on a great course wouldn't cure.
RJ, for what it's worth I played Gullane No. 1 last Thursday and Muirfield last Friday, and I've been out to North Berwick's East Links three times this week already. So your statement isn't correct as far as I'm concerned - indeed, quite the opposite, in that my exposure to great golf courses has stimulated my mind to try and contribute to the future of this website.
Cheers,
Darren
-
Guys, I guess I do not get it. I thought the site had a moderator and it is called "Subject". We also have a second moderator and it is called "Started by". Is anyone so bored that they read every single thread (Even the ones they know are not their cup of tea). If you do not like nonarchitecture threads, DON'T READ THEM!!...
David, let me ask you the same question I just asked one of the Toms: do you have any experience participating in strongly moderated forums? If so, what has or your opinion been about them? If not, am I to understand that your objections are primarily theoretical rather than practical?
I think what you fail to grasp is that GolfClubAtlas isn't merely a collection of threads: it's also a sum of its collective parts. A person who stumbles upon this website for the first time isn't going to know what topics he likes or dislikes - he's going to click on a number of different topics to see what's going on. Some of them may turn him off to the site altogether (this seems to be what happens to many of the industry insiders who visit this site, by all reports)....
Cheers,
Darren
Darren - Let me start by answering your question. No, I have not participated in a strongly moderated forum, nor would I. I do not need anyone telling me what it is OK to say or not say.
Next, I think you are asking for it both ways. On one hand you are saying we need a strongly moderated forum section to keep us focused and on the other you are wondering what someone coming here for the first time (Who we want on this DG) would think.
Darren - No one would have access to the strongly moderated forum who was new. Every new poster I have read for four years has started with something like "I have been a lurker for x months and here is my first post, be kind..."
The strongly moderated forum that TEPaul is talking about would not allow them to just lurk and I cannot fathom that they would go through the hassle of registering. You would end up with Papazian's nighmare - Only the chosen few discussing topics that they already know by heart like NGLA and the wildcards like JakaB left out. Gib mentioned a treehouse with room for everyone. The private, right minded forum, is not that. In addition, people like Mike Hendren, Huckster, Shivas, Tiger, Lou Duran, Myself and many others who occasonally like to talk Kids, College Basketball, Family, Football, the disgrace of Gary Barnett (Clearly a symptom of his time at Northwestern - right Shivas), politics and Annika Sorenstam would either be thrown out or warned one to many times and get sick of the PC police and leave. I sincerely belive that a split forum would not be GCA jumping the shark, it would be GCA trying to jump the shark and falling into the pool.
-
RJ:
If this site was to create another section with all these august people in there I'm certain they wouldn't let me in there to go on about things---you know what JakaB calls 'dribble'. I doubt they'd let me watch either but I do know there's no way at all I couldn't find out what was going on in there because there's nothing on earth that Coorshaw can't find out for me about architectural matters---particularly when he has an extreme case of diarrhea!
-
I'm going to join Mike at the childrens table.
I'm immersed in golf every day of my life (happily), I do enjoy the off topic threads to relax. The reason I'm here is still for the more seriously architecture minded contributors.
I think the site is fine as it is, I think we're a little stale, which is common in the doldrums of each winter. New courses, new ideas, and a little fresh air do wonders to pick this site up in the spring.
-
I think the site should try another more serious section and maybe it would have an influence on some of us on here to clean up our act if we want to get into it and stay in it. If we don't then we should just feel comfortable staying on this discussion section and saying whatever we feel like which is pretty much what we've been doing for years now anyway. Which one of those stock brokerage firms is it that keeps saying;
"We have to earn it"?
-
Darren, where you and I may be different is that if I could say I'd been to all those places you were lucky enough to have been to this week, I would be sharing ideas and observations I had made at those fine golf courses. Or, I'd be too tired to post and get caught up in this blabberfest of micro managing a sight that didn't belong to me, was here before me, and if left alone- will be here after me. But, the other side of it is also true. It won't go on for ever, because in the end, we are all dead. ::)
-
And furthermore, the more I think about what JakaB said this morning that the worst thing that could happen to architecture would be a section like this---the more I like the idea!
;)
-
Which one of those stock brokerage firms is it that keeps saying;
"We have to earn it"?
The one that is going to have to pay about $1B in fines because instead of earning it they participated in illegal plans to defraud the marketplace and the average investor. ;)
-
I think the site should try another more serious section and maybe it would have an influence on some of us on here to clean up our act if we want to get into it and stay in it. If we don't then we should just feel comfortable staying on this discussion section and saying whatever we feel like which is pretty much what we've been doing for years now anyway. Which one of those stock brokerage firms is it that keeps saying;
"We have to earn it"?
Yes Tom, that would be great.
BUT... this new site would need a very dedicated moderator (a) to keep out those uninvited; and (b) to monitor posts and suspend and throw out offenders. Absent that it just plain won't work. Don't know if you saw it, but Darren has nominated YOU for this job. I assume you have the 16-20 free hours each day required for these tasks?
;D
And given this reality, and that the fact that the site is pretty damn strong as it is, not to mention all of David Wigler's very valid points... well....
It just seems an idea better in mind than in practice.
TH
-
8)
I don't think the single divide and conquer (upper/lower) approach is worth pursuing for the alleged woes of gca.com.. and if it were to come, since there is a lot less posturing and pontificating in absolutes at the kids table, I'll take a seat there too.
I do like the idea of Ran giving some others administrative powers for deleting OT threads or posts to help him with what is otherwise a monster job.. Why not have the gca.com Doyens graduate to something like "samurai" status?
Why not have topic oriented areas to address design, art, & planning issues with "other" designated moderators? Because everything is inter-related anyway under the umbrella of gca!
Having played a round with Ran (and Doug Wright) at Black Mesa I certainly have a better insight into Ran's thought processes, and amazement at this all.. it is clear that gca.com has grown into something much beyond the capabilities of a normal human being with a life to manage it on a part time basis, as much as Ran may want to do it.
-
I may be committing GCA.com suicide here, but I do it for good reason.
In the 3+ years I have been frequenting this site I have learned much about golf course architecture. I have come to understand things I would never have learned from any course in the PGA Profeesional Golf Management Program or other forums of discussion. For this, I owe a great deal to Ran Morrissett and those that help to financially support this website. I thank you all.
Now, with that said I'll move on to my point.....
GolfClubAtlas.com has had and has some members or frequent posters that have done more to de-rail topics and character assissinate then they have done to enlighten or share with people. This is true. This is a scar on this site that seems like there is no hiding. It really is a shame.
However, let me share what I think is a far greater threat to not only the integrity of this site but to golf course architecture as a whole. That threat happens to be an EXTREME ELITIST postion that some here not only have, but flaunt.
Do you know how many times I have tried to get into conversations on certain threads only to be ignored or scoffed at? Do you know how many times I look at threads where my posts are the last ones? Do you know how many times I see legitimate questions from newbies or non-industry types get ignored or passed on? Have you once heard me bitch and moan about how no one takes me seriously or cares about what I have to say? NO! Because bitching and moaning are for people with too much time on their hands, i.e self-absorbed egotists.
I think any movement to make a section or all of this website for some good-ol'-boys club of self proclaimed GCA afficionados is not only gregarious and pompous but dangerous to the foundation of what we all seek... a forum in which avid golfers and those passionate for the game can discuss architecture and other golf related topics with those inside the circle.
It disgusts me that there are people that I have grown to admire and respect advocating an exclusionary vision for this website that has delivered so much good information to those like me who are not as versed in the history and technicalities of GCA. But don't think for a second that this information flow is a one-way street. As much as someone like me learns, those in the inner-circle learn from guys like me. The less informed are the backbone and soul of GCA as they play this sport and love courses for reasons they CAN'T explain with big words like "maintenance meld" or "Redan or Cape like features".
I'll say this again..... SO WHAT IF PEOPLE SAY SOMETHING NASTY TO YOU! Are you really going to lose sleep over it? If you do then you need to check your priorities. I've got a number for a good shrink if you need one. I've said it a few times but some people need to get over themselves. If you have some info or opinions, please share them. Just don't try to make me feel privileged to read them.
If you want some sort of ELITIST chat room then I suggest you do what Ran did and start your own website. There you can pick and choose those you want to choose to talk with. I'm sure it'll be a giant circle jerk with everyone giving everyone reach arounds and you can all go to bed at night without an insatiable desire to masochistically beat your meat.
Until Ran decides that he wants to exclude people from participating in discussions I suggest you all just shut up and and stop wasting the precious bandwidth you all talk about saving.
Bunch of babies.
Jeff F.
-
And, it's a shot and a goal, just as the horn sounds....
Ran, please take this cue, and let Jeff have the last word, and put this thread out of its' misery. 8)
-
Jeff - Thank you for sincere passion. Although I do not agree with your conclusion (I feel it paints with too broad a brush) I completely agree with your premise (We need the site to be open to everyone). This thread (Which BTW is non architecture related and therefore would not be allowed in the proposed Adult GCA section) has more reads and more responses than all the other first page threads combined.
Interestingly, the topic which about 4 pages ago was accused of being the jumping point, was posted almost exclusively by those who (If I understand Darren's premise correctly) would be thrown out of the Adult section for their opinions on that thread.
Put me at the childrens table as well!
-
8)
JF, Play on.. No Tale of Two Cities here!
I think the Fortsonator has turned into a Terminator.
-
Darren, where you and I may be different is that if I could say I'd been to all those places you were lucky enough to have been to this week, I would be sharing ideas and observations I had made at those fine golf courses. Or, I'd be too tired to post and get caught up in this blabberfest of micro managing a sight that didn't belong to me, was here before me, and if left alone- will be here after me. But, the other side of it is also true. It won't go on for ever, because in the end, we are all dead. ::)
RJ, I'm guilty as charged, of course - especially on the "in the end, we're all dead" part. :) If I felt I had something new to share about Muirfield or Gullane No. 1, I may well have done so, but I didn't, and I don't believe in regurgitating old ideas for the sake of creating architecture-related content. More to the point, though, I'm at the state with this website at the moment where unlike some others, I don't find the status quo to be acceptable. I do enjoy talking about architecture, and even moreso listening to other people talking about it, but I have other interests as well, and with GCA.com functioning as it presently is, I'm more inclined to focus my attention upon those other interests. So I do. (My participation in this thread is an attempt to suggest reasons for change and methods through which we might pursue it; I could just remain quiet, but it isn't as though I've abandoned my interest in golf course architecture altogether - I'd much prefer to take part in a forum that I enjoyed than not take part in a forum I don't enjoy, if you follow me.) I'm not suggesting that you should miss me if I should remain in the shadows, but you may find it useful to note the reasons for my absence. Or maybe not...as always, your mileage may vary.
Cheers,
Darren
-
And above all else, PLEASE spare me the circular reasoning about being thrown out of the "Adult" section (a hyper-sensitive term which doesn't reflect the vision I share with others) because this thread is "off-topic". I'm playing by the rules of the current forum to try and change it - a bit like changing the Constitution of the United States through the Amendment procedure the Constitution itself proscribes.
-
I think the only way this site continues strong long-term is by staying the course. It has worked damn well for a damn long time - longer than any other golf-related forum, with the possible exception of an equipment forum that Kevin Reilly is familiar with, which has succeeded longer, mainly due to HEAVY attention from moderators and lack of too much interest from malcontents.
The difference between that forum (and a couple of other moderated golf boards) and this forum is that the other forum is a commercial enterprise, with sponsors and membership fees (the board is free to use, but paid membership provides certain benefits). So the moderators or sysops on that board are doing it with some financial reward in mind. The board owner in particular makes a decent wage out of it. Moderating a board is a tedious, largely thankless job that loses its luster within a short time. Just think how exciting it is behing a hall monitor in school. That's about what it is.
-
Kevin:
Thanks, that's how I thought it went, and that's a good example of what's required.
The same would go for a private site here... the same tradeoffs and choices....
TH
-
"BUT... this new site would need a very dedicated moderator (a) to keep out those uninvited; and (b) to monitor posts and suspend and throw out offenders. Absent that it just plain won't work. Don't know if you saw it, but Darren has nominated YOU for this job. I assume you have the 16-20 free hours each day required for these tasks?"
TomH:
I realize that--it'd have to have a very active moderator and everyone would have to be aware of that. Darren Kilfara thought I should be the moderator? I didn't know that and I'm stunned and would never think of such a thing! I wouldn't even expect them to let me into that alternate discussion group section. ;)
But if they did and I were to ACCEPT such a MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, I, of course, would have to be completely OBJECTIVE, as all good moderators must be, and I would ONLY ACCEPT it under ONE CONDITION!
That condition would be that Pat Mucci would be the co-moderator with me! Didn't expect that did you? But I'm serious. ;)
It'd be a good balance because he disagrees with 98% of what I say and I know what he says is wrong 98% of the time so it would be a perfect balance. One might even call it the "Big World" theory of the Golfclubatlas.com alternate discussion group section! ;)
The other benefit is JakaB is known to hate the "Big World" theory so the thought of him wondering what's going on in there to destroy the future of architecture is appealing beyond words!
-
TomP,
I think this site is bad for golf and its archtecture...you think it is good...name one good thing that this site has done either for golf or architecture and if I can't name two things that are bad for each one you name...I will admit I am wrong and try to promote the site in a more positive manner in the future. I give you the two to one edge because I understand how very much more difficult it is to be constructive than desructive...I will also relate my things to yours in proper context so we don't produce only so much dribble...or in my case double dribble.
-
JakaB,
I will supply the first answer for Tom. Infrequent GCA contributor Bruce Matthews created what I believe will be a masterpiece called Angels Crossing in Western Michigan. It will open this spring and I expect you to join me at the grand opening. Bruce told me point blank that the inspiration for him to produce a classical golf course with a Redan, Biarritz, Cape, Volcano, Eden, etc. was GCA. Western Michigan will now have one of the best valued public courses in the country and GCA is no small part of the reason.
-
David,
Two replies to what you propose..as I promised.
1. I think GCA.com has made architects talk like they hire publicists...They might need too...I don't know but spin is never a good thing..
2. I think GCA.com has led to too many historians getting into the architecture business...the hiring of authors and historians are bogus publicity stunts.
Thanks for the invite...Bruce sounds like a great guy..
-
Having had a chance to re-look at the old threads, I think we have jumped the shark backwards. Things are a LOT better than they were in the "good old days" when comments were few, far between, self-centered and mostly naive. If there is ever a poster child for the value of diversity, the current un-monitored version of GCA is surely it.
Also, if there is ever an argument against the strict "moderation" that Darren and others advocate, just look at those old "threads." They have been so moderated to death that they have no substance, and certainly no soul.
If that's the ideal, by all menas set up that "GCA for the In-Crowd" sub-site, and let us peons talk about the things that interest us, golf and otherwise, without having "soup Nazis" tell us what we should be reading or even saying.
-
i'm sorry but i don't get the comparison -
the fonz as entertainment was desperate for ratings [for financial purposes - advertising] and the show eventually ended
this forum of the various and sundry postings subjectively identified here as OT or which are objectionable can be ignored and passed over
what's the connection ?
if a certain highbrowed / chatty group wants to secede from the chatty / highbrowed group or vice versa - why not offer up two discussion groups to eliminate mixing those who prefer not to mingle ?
unless of course the purpose is financial - like promoting golf tour packages or products / ideas specifically aimed for the "industry" types ?
i for one have directly contacted Ron Whitten by telephone each time i attempted to reach him - so i do NOT need this site cleared like some seem to imply
maybe i'm missing the point - like i said openning - i don't get it
-
A couple of more positives evolved from GCA as it has been. (of course a contrarian can and would argue and deny anything I would state here), but here goes...
Several people from superintendents to green committee people have come on this site (sometimes saying what they were but not who they were by name) and asked or threw out some issue about remodelling/restoration/maintenance meld, to be hashed over. I assume they do so inorder to get informed IDEAS.
Architects, including Jeff Brauer have said they have incorporated some of the things we talk about here, either on new courses, or remodel/restore jobs, to some degree.
Construction people have weighed in on techniques. And, developers have weighed in here. Ken Bakst, Mike Keiser, Mr. Robertson in NZ, Mr Ramsey in OZ, the gentleman from Angels Crossing (I'm sorry his name escapes me just now) and just several others. I assume they get IDEAS and INSPIRATIONS here John Kavanaugh!!!
I'm sorry, but what seems to be happening here is that many are expressing good points from different perspectives. But, John Kavanaugh is becoming only a contrarian for the sake of tearing down everything - from what I can observe as his posts are regressing lately.
John, in your heart of hearts, would you be glad to say some vitriolic and critical, cynical, biting thing to long time contributors here that you don't agree with, and see them hurt to the point of ending a relationship with a discussion community that maybe - just maybe - is an important part of their day?
Can't you just make your point without throwing bombs and taking out everyone in the general proximity? You have been witty and entertaining, and many times insightful. But, don't you see you are regressing to the roll of a discourse vandal?
I don't want to hurt your feelings any more than anyone elses here. But, I honestly do think you need to re-examine your motives and methods here, because I sense it goes beyond that of contrarian trying to present the other side of debates. I really hope I am wrong and miss-understanding the situation.
-
In what will most likely be my last post on GCA I need to tell most of you that there is a world beyond an internet discussion group and you should all get lives. This is a discussion group about golf architecture and the community of people that participate, both of which are important if something is to be sustained for a long period of time. Do any of you really believe that there would still be a discussion group if most of us hadn't met so many others and formed friendships that stretch beyond a discussion thread?
If an elite discussion group floats your boat go start one and do me a favor, don't email me the URL.
And JakaB, it isn't in your best interests to insult Tommy or his love of golf architecture. I suppose, though, that it just makes you feel better and helps you cope with your clearly well below average intelligence.
-
I should not have named names...post is modified. I need some time to reply to RJ...give me a few. I don't know Golden..sorry to see you go.
-
Several people from superintendents to green committee people have come on this site (sometimes saying what they were but not who they were by name) and asked or threw out some issue about remodelling/restoration/maintenance meld, to be hashed over. I assume they do so inorder to get informed IDEAS.
Architects, including Jeff Brauer have said they have incorporated some of the things we talk about here, either on new courses, or remodel/restore jobs, to some degree.
Construction people have weighed in on techniques. And, developers have weighed in here. Ken Bakst, Mike Keiser, Mr. Robertson in NZ, Mr Ramsey in OZ, the gentleman from Angels Crossing (I'm sorry his name escapes me just now) and just several others. I assume they get IDEAS and INSPIRATIONS here John Kavanaugh!!!
I'm sorry, but what seems to be happening here is that many are expressing good points from different perspectives. But, John Kavanaugh is becoming only a contrarian for the sake of tearing down everything - from what I can observe as his posts are regressing lately.
In jumping of shark thinking....Thinking that Mike Keiser improved his resorts because of this web site is way out of line...Friars Head is a better course because of GCA...puke. You can't be serious...do you think we are a bunch of 12yr old Mesiahs teaching the teachers....get your head out of your temple my friend. We are a bunch of golfers having a laugh...the professionals are out building courses... not reading GCA looking for new IDEAS..
modified response to follow..
Can you honestly tell me that you think Bill Coore or Ben Crenshaw found one additional architectural feature because of a thought they read on here or a picture they saw posted...do you have any idea the things those men have seen in person and the experiences they have first hand...wasn't Sand Hills pre GCA...this is one way I see this site hurting golf....The only influence this site possibly has is in the ratings game...influencing other raters...is that good for golf. If you think so defend it..
-
If there's one thing this thread has taught me (which I knew already, but it bears repeating/reinforcing), it's that you can't have a strongly held opinion about anything on the internet without offending at least one other person, and usually just about everybody. :)
Cheers,
Darren
-
Did the fonz make it over the shark? ;D
-
Contributors on GCA are not so much teaching the teachers, whether they be developer's like the Bakst's or Keiser's of the world nor their architects like C&C or Doak. They are PARTICIPATING in an ongoing discussion of ideas, and any wise man will tell you - if they are paying attention - one learns from that process, no matter how small the point of learning may be. Guys like the above are successful and intelligent because they do discuss, pay attention to their market, clients, and those who are passionate about these issues. They know they are just part of a community of people that share interests. If all that didn't matter, then burn the books, delete the discussion, and go forth in a uninformed state of being, howling invectives at the moon.
I really do think that Keiser's complex received a boost, a hightened or more prompt recognition due to all the buzz on GCA. I would hope he, Doak, and others would recognise that GCA has been a launch pad for their endeavors. Not an entity that they would have depended on for success, but one they could count on for recognition in a specific targetted sector or the market that helped in some manner more so than if GCA did not exist at all.
How soon would Cape Kidnappers, Barnbougle, Friars Head, St Andrews Beach, Kingsley Club, Black Mesa and many others have come to your attention had there been no GCA. After you destroy GCA, you can go after the magazines and writers and call them irrelavant too.
Why do you think these people I named as Archies, Supers, construction personnel, developers, writers, historians and such bother to come on GCA, if not to learn 'SOMETHING"? Do you think they just come on here to laugh at a bunch of old white men typing away in their pajamas? Is that about it for you John? Do I amuuuuse you? (said like Joe Pesci) What color are your pajamas?
-
Tom Huckaby,
Patrick:
You can't possibly be that naive. There is literally no way to protect such a site from intrusion from those who would want to do so, absent a moderator.
You can't be that obtuse ;D
Of course it can be done without strong moderator involvement.
The key is in the selection process.
You won't be able to participate unless you've been pre-qualified. And, if your behavior is unacceptable, when Ran reviews the participation and participants after an initial phase, he'll make the call as to whether you stay or go.
I think that provides all of the self discipline you'll ever need.
-
Pat, I can just visualize Ran sitting there in his paisley smoking jacket, in the den, seated at the computer, puffing away on his pipe, with child and wife nearby, and moderating and prequalifying, and facilitating our little community of lofty architectural ideals discussion. I heard he is a man of leisure, but my he must have something better to do than that, I pray! ;D 8)
-
This thread stinks. What is this all about? We are a bunch of people who admire golf courses. We come here to talk about it. Sometimes we learn something we didn't know, sometimes we argue.
That goes for any walk in life.
GCA is good even if it is just for the great pictures of NGLA! I love this place! :D
-
For what it's worth, all that "strong moderator involvement" requires is a moderator willing to read (or even skim) all (or even most) of the posts written on a daily basis, and to respond with a short message to any offending ones. On most days, once the parameters of moderated discussion are established, I'd guess that the moderator will be writing zero messages. How much time and effort would that take?
Here's the real secret of my master plan to hire Tom Paul as chief moderator: he'd have so much less work to do than anyone else! :)
Cheers,
Darren
-
I just noticed Jeff F's "bunch of babies" post a page or so back. I like that--good show Jeff F. I think that quack Katz told us all to go to our rooms and take naps a couple of pages before that--perhaps we should have listened to him. ;)
-
Mr. Mucci,
With all due respect, I suggest you create your own website and pre-qualify all of the people you want to talk with yourself. To suggest that this website should fit your model of decorum, ideals, and "pre-qualified" membership is preposterous.
Mr. Mucci, I have enjoyed many of your posts and find you to be quite educated and informed on the topic of GCA. However, your exclusionary, good 'ol boys club mentality reeks of arrogance and greatly disappoints me. I would have thought better of you.
One question.....
Would you qualify for "certification" to join the discussion group? If so, what qualifications do you have in the field? Have you ever designed a course? Are you a superintendant? Are you a golf professional? Don't try to tell me greens chairmen count. Being elected greens chairman by your frat brothers is hardly a qualification.
I look forward to your opinions in the future as I am confident they will appear on this forum and not some facist led Reichstag.
Jeff F.
-
Patrick/Darren:
Neither of you cannot possibly be this inexperienced. ;D
Just how do you plan on keeping out the uninvited?
The ONLY way to do so is via a moderator with extreme vigilance, immediately removing those who find their way in.
You guys don't think people will be able to get past whatever security you set up? Please. It's remarkably easy, and this too has been proven time and time again. Set up this group in an attempt to keep people out and as I say, they just treat it as a challenge to get in.
THAT is the issue here, far more than improper posts.
TH
-
I don't know Tom Doak at all and have only played his worse effort...but the thought that one blade of grass or one grain of sand is improved at Pacific Dunes because of this site put me on one knee. Tom Doak has a finite amount of time to shape and sharpen his personal experience...the time he spends on this site could be put to better use...but I think he likes golf and this is a nice place to get a kick....plus who couldn't use a dose of love now and then...and baby we can spoon out all the love an architect who panders to us can stomach.
I think the majority of discussion or raterspeak on this site stifles creativity in golf....the it could have been, should have been, is or is not a redan crap stinks to high heaven....what if an architect designs a half redan and his raterspeak tells him..go full redan...go for the points...what if he does this and a half redan fits the land and fits the demographic of his client.....this site is so one sided that I am called a contrarian because I don't think like the group. I simply try to never make a post to make friends or gain access...and it has cost me both. This is where I am an idiot by popular standards and should be ignored...wheres PJ when I need him.
-
JakaB,
I'm not so sure that I would totally dismiss the impact of the site.
The site has educated many and heightened the awareness of many individuals interested in architecture and related topics.
I don't know what the ultimate affect of that has been, but, I believe it has had a positive influence.
If you asked me to cite exactly where that positive influence resides, I'd say in many green chairman and green committee members, and I believe that the influence of the site has manifested itself on many a golf course, whether it be a tree clearing program, opposition to a tree planting program, introduction and/or support of a restoration project and many other areas.
And, it may have had an influence on an architect or two.
I know that I've learned a great deal from the site, although not one iota of that knowledge was derived from TEPaul. ;D
The expanding number of inane, non-architecturally related topics is not healthy for the improvement, let alone, the survival of this site.
But, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
-
Huckster, you've at last convinced me: I'm the Pollyanna. :P
-
Pat,
I don't think the site is without merit...I just think the bad outweighs the good. Look at all the great courses built before 1999...and then compare the ones built since...how did the old guys do it without us...
I would gladly serve as moderator and delete every damn non-architectural post in no less than 24 hours gauranteed...I will even post a bond of some sort to prove it.
-
Huckster, you've at last convinced me: I'm the Pollyanna. :P
Well that was one goal!
And I swear I am not trying to be negative, or a prick, or anything of the sort (thought it sure does come off that way)... I have just seen this happen several times over the last 12 years or so that I've been participating in groups like this.
This site ain't broke, and don't need fixin'.
TH
-
No, it doesn't come off that way at all, Tom H. - but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about the site being "broke". I think it's at least slightly broke and otherwise showing significant wear and tear. But ultimately, this site is a non-interventionist dictatorship (and because of that, it acts sort of like a democracy), and if the "it ain't broke" camp is in the ascendancy, I guess I can either put up or shut up...
Cheers,
Darren
-
Tom Huckaby,
Patrick:
You can't possibly be that naive. There is literally no way to protect such a site from intrusion from those who would want to do so, absent a moderator.
You can't be that obtuse ;D
Of course it can be done without strong moderator involvement.
The key is in the selection process.
You won't be able to participate unless you've been pre-qualified. And, if your behavior is unacceptable, when Ran reviews the participation and participants after an initial phase, he'll make the call as to whether you stay or go.
I think that provides all of the self discipline you'll ever need.
Patrick, invitation-only discussion boards (the way "pre-qualification" works) don't work. They are paradise the first 60-90 days when the charter members have the place to themselves, but then cabin fever strikes and they realize that more members are needed to keep things fresh.
I am speaking from experience, having been a charter member at two "invitation only" boards...one that went belly up after 6 months with 150+ members (you could hear the crickets chirping after a while) and a second that is probably the most successful golf discussion board on the web (100,000 unique users per month and over 2 million hits per month). I am very familiar with that board having joined it when access was limited to invited guests who knew the password. Well after a month of the charter members talking among themselves, that board opened the gates to anyone with a valid email address (even a guy like RGKELLER who is a frequent participant) and the rest is history.
Pre-qualified, invitation only, or otherwise exclusive boards don't work. Is that too obtuse? :D
-
Tom Huckaby,
Patrick/Darren:
Neither of you cannot possibly be this inexperienced. ;D
Just how do you plan on keeping out the uninvited?
You guys don't think people will be able to get past whatever security you set up? Please. It's remarkably easy, and this too has been proven time and time again. Set up this group in an attempt to keep people out and as I say, they just treat it as a challenge to get in.
THAT is the issue here, far more than improper posts.
You've forgotten one of the basics of the game of golf,
you've taken your eye off the ball.
You can worry about that and deal with that if and when it happens.
-
That works for me, Darren - well said. In the end I do believe the site ain't broke, yes. But also I believe that even if it were, the suggested "fix" not only would cause more harm than good, but also just plain wouldn't work in any practical sense.
In any case, what remains amazing to me is the passion and devotion people have to this site, one way or the other. That to me is incredible, and a testament to the host, really.
TH
-
Patrick:
Au contraire, my eye is squarely on the ball.
Just who is going to "worry about that and deal with it if and when it happens"?
A strong, very active moderator, that's who.
And who is going to fill that role?
If you look back about 100 posts, I said this idea COULD WORK, but only with a strong, vigilant moderator. Glad to see you've come to realize this after all this time!
TH
-
Kevin Reilly,
I would agree, 150 or so participants would tank rather quickly.
I think the vision would be for 500 U.S. and 500 International.
Rome wasn't built in a day, and.... if you retain the general discussion group, what harm is there in the experiment.
-
Patrick:
Please listen to Kevin. This is what I've been trying to get through to you guys all day.... My experience is the same as his. And he didn't even get into the issues of non-invitees hacking in...
TH
-
Pat Mucci wrote:
"The general "Discussion Group" will continue exactly as it has in the past and will be the "pool" from which future posters are selected to participate in the "elevated discussion group"[/i]
Wow. This is sounding more and more like a fraternity. Do those selected have to go through a pledging period too? Do they get hazed by being forced to play Ted Robinson courses?
Who will decide who gets picked? Are you suggesting that you would get to choose? Who would be the initial people involved? This sounds like a facist's dream. Do I have to have blonde hair and blue eyes Mr. Mucci?
Jeff F.
-
Jeff Fortson,
Wow. This is sounding more and more like a fraternity. Do those selected have to go through a pledging period too? Do they get hazed by being forced to play Ted Robinson courses?
That's an absurd analogy
Who will decide who gets picked?
Ran
Are you suggesting that you would get to choose?
NO, I have neither the time nor the inclination
Who would be the initial people involved?
That would be up to Ran
This sounds like a facist's dream. Do I have to have blonde hair and blue eyes Mr. Mucci?
Why categorize my support of the concept as being the equivalent of support for the Hitler Youth Movement ?
That's a rather extreme, offensive and derogatory accusation, and perhaps reinforcement for the concept being proposed/discussed.
Are you that insecure ?
-
Mr. Mucci,
Since you choose to cherry pick the questions you want to answer, I'll ask once again.....
What qualifications do you have that would put you in this "elevated discussion group"? In what capacity have you worked or been involved in the golf business? What makes you an elite voice to be considered for this "group"?
I have an idea.....
Fine, let's make this "elevated discussion group", except make it for only those involved in the golf business. Architects, supers, professionals, and equipment manufacturers are welcome. You know, REAL big-hitters. You know, those with a REAL insiders knowledge of the business. All greens chairmen and USGA committee members can have access to read but not to comment. That way maybe they can learn something instead of continuing to ruin great golf courses.
Jeff F.
-
Jeff Fortson,
Since you choose to cherry pick the questions you want to answer, I'll ask once again.....
Are you afraid to answer my question ?
What qualifications do you have that would put you in this "elevated discussion group"?
I never said that I had any
In what capacity have you worked or been involved in the golf business?
I was involved with a combination of a redesign and restoration and construction of a golf course.
I continued that pursuit with respect to other golf courses on similar and non-similar projects.
I was also asked to re-design a golf course in Florida and design and build a golf course in Jamaica.
How have you been involved in golf course "architecture" ?
What makes you an elite voice to be considered for this "group"?
I never said that I was an elite voice, those are your words.
I have no problem being denied entry into this "group", something that is apparently troubling you.
Fine, let's make this "elevated discussion group", except make it for only those involved in the golf business. Architects, supers, professionals, and equipment manufacturers are welcome. You know, REAL big-hitters. You know, those with a REAL insiders knowledge of the business.
I have no problem with that
All greens chairmen and USGA committee members can have access to read but not to comment.
I would be against that for the following reason.
Some conversations are better served when they are made in private, not in public. Some superintendents and other architecture related individuals have told me that they are concerned about posting due to the public nature of the site. Hence, if it's to be a limited access site, it shouldn't be partially private. Imagine if you will, a superintendent letting his hair down and freely discussing the problems he's having at his club, with his green chairman, the President, members or the architect. Or, an architect implying some problems with the developer. If that were open to the public it could be very damaging, certainly not in any contributors best interest and an inhibiting factor.
Sort of like you telling members that a member or employee supports the Hitler Youth group, a total fabrication, made up by you, that could be damaging to one relationships and employment at the club
That way maybe they can learn something instead of continuing to ruin great golf courses.
The USGA has never ruined a great golf course.
Members of golf courses ruin great courses, and many have done it for decades without any contact with the USGA
Now, can you answer my question
-
Pat Mucci,
You asked:
Why categorize my support of the concept as being the equivalent of support for the Hitler Youth Movement ? [/i]
Where did I ever mention Hitler Youth? Please find it and show me.
This is what I wrote...
This sounds like a facist's dream. Do I have to have blonde hair and blue eyes Mr. Mucci?
While I would be a fool to deny that Nazi Germany wasn't facist or not favorable to fair complexioned people I never mentioned Hitler or Hitler Youth. You draw those conclusions yourself. Plus, if you could not see the sarcasm I was using to draw similarities between your ideas and facism then I am sorry. I certainly don't think you are a nazi. Others in here have been throwing around terms like "pseudo-fascism" and "soup-nazi". Why didn't you jump down their throats? Your sensitivity to this comment is a good way to divert the the questions put before you.
You also asked...
That's a rather extreme, offensive and derogatory accusation, and perhaps reinforcement for the concept being proposed/discussed.
Are you that insecure ?
No. I think you must be the insecure one in this argument. Your attempt to silence or stifle the voices of people in here by advocating exclusionary tactics on this website show that you are the one who must be insecure with what others have to say. Why else would you want an "elevated discussion group"? to be created? Excuses like off-topic threads and name-calling are a load of hogwash for two reasons. First, If you don't like certain topics, don't get involved in them or read them. It's simple. Secondly, you are just as guilty of slinging mud on this website as anyone else here.
The only thing I see being reinforced is a desire by a select few that want to create a club for their views. That is fine, go create one. Hell, go ahead and lobby Ran for it. Your pipe dream of a club will go bunk inside a year without the voices of people who may not have ever heard of NGLA. It is those voices that are necessary to push your agendas on.
Mr. Mucci, I am sure you are a fine man and I think I would enjoy talking GCA with you over a couple of beers. However, I take real offense to a few individuals advocating the exclusion of the very people that give GCA any reason to exist.
Jeff F.
-
Mr. Mucci,
I have been involved in the planning, design and construction of a course from scratch. I have been asked to consult on many restorative projects at the clubs I have worked at.
Jeff F.
-
Pat Mucci,
You asked:
Why categorize my support of the concept as being the equivalent of support for the Hitler Youth Movement ? [/i]
Where did I ever mention Hitler Youth? Please find it and show me.
This is what I wrote...
This sounds like a facist's dream. Do I have to have blonde hair and blue eyes Mr. Mucci?
You have to be kidding !
If you don't think the above statement implies the Hitler Youth Movement and/or the Super Race, you must have failed World History in school
While I would be a fool to deny that Nazi Germany wasn't facist or not favorable to fair complexioned people I never mentioned Hitler or Hitler Youth. You draw those conclusions yourself. Plus, if you could not see the sarcasm I was using to draw similarities between your ideas and facism then I am sorry. I certainly don't think you are a nazi. Others in here have been throwing around terms like "pseudo-fascism" and "soup-nazi". Why didn't you jump down their throats? Your sensitivity to this comment is a good way to divert the the questions put before you
They didn't direct those comments toward me, you did
You also asked...
That's a rather extreme, offensive and derogatory accusation, and perhaps reinforcement for the concept being proposed/discussed.
Are you that insecure ?
No. I think you must be the insecure one in this argument. Your attempt to silence or stifle the voices of people in here by advocating exclusionary tactics on this website show that you are the one who must be insecure with what others have to say.
That's absolutely untrue, and you know it.
If you had read my post with any degree of comprehension you would have seen that I advocated leaving the current
"discussion group" exactly as it is, with continuing access to all.
Why else would you want an "elevated discussion group"? to be created?
To seperate the wheat from the chaff
Excuses like off-topic threads and name-calling are a load of hogwash for two reasons. First, If you don't like certain topics, don't get involved in them or read them.
I don't
Secondly, you are just as guilty of slinging mud on this website as anyone else here.
Not true, I may challenge opinions, or allegations of fact, but you won't find me personally attacking anyone, unless I've been set upon first
The only thing I see being reinforced is a desire by a select few that want to create a club for their views.
So, you're against higher education ?
That is fine, go create one. Hell, go ahead and lobby Ran for it. Your pipe dream of a club will go bunk inside a year without the voices of people who may not have ever heard of NGLA. It is those voices that are necessary to push your agendas on.
I have no agenda other then to see the site confine itself to architecture related topics, and the elimination of anonymous posts.
Mr. Mucci, I am sure you are a fine man and I think I would enjoy talking GCA with you over a couple of beers. However, I take real offense to a few individuals advocating the exclusion of the very people that give GCA any reason to exist.
I'd be more than pleased to have a drink and break bread with you, but, we disagree on this issue. You view it as exclusion, I view it as inclusion.
Noone has advocated eliminating the current discussion group.
What has been advocated is adding a discussion level for architecture by those who are serious about architecture.
-
8)
Boys, Boys, Why not quit talking about it and go do it..
If you haven't persuaded your target to change their position after the 4th or 5th try, give it a rest please. Your 5 minute period is up.. Play On!
Those making a vocation out of gca don't need gca.com , but it can't hurt them in their market research to keep an eye on its discussion. Information and knowledge is key to business. After all they're in competition in a tough market and can see almost any course in the world in person,.. they don't need endless references to hole number x at XYZA as a "perfect" example, and frankly neither do I more than once.. I want to see it and experience it. Play On!
Those making an avocation out of gca can have great fun, educational, and interesting golfing experiences with others from their gca.com exposure.. in this virtual world or in person. This site is a great enabler in that regard. Play on!
If Ran could police it more, i'm sure he would.. Play on!
Gca.com has all the essential elements and nutrients to make it grow and make the world go round.
I like to ponder the proposition that:
One who listens will hear..
One who hears will understand..
One who understands will act forthrightly..
One who acts forthrightly will succeed..
One who succeeds will listen..
and then I'm going to try to pound it over the dogleg trap on #6 at the WCC's Player Course to find the turbo boost slope and set up a 6 or 7-iron approach..
Play on!
-
Why don't we break this down to old vs new? Two catigories. It is a beginming, and then it will grow.
We need a date to establish old vs new!
Willie
-
Pat Mucci,
You said...
"To seperate the wheat from the chaff "[/i]
Rather good of you to determine what is wheat and what is chaff for us.
You asked...
"So, you're against higher education ?"[/i]
No. I am against alienating people from being privy to a higher education. You are promoting a caste system on here.
You said...
"I have no agenda other then to see the site confine itself to architecture related topics, and the elimination of anonymous posts.[/i]
Since when was college football connected to GCA?
You said...
"you must have failed World History in school"[/i]
That is laughable. If you chose to get to know me you'd be embarrassed you wrote that. I won't toot my horn any further on the topic. Let's just say I am well educated in history.
You said...
"the above statement implies the Hitler Youth Movement and/or the Super Race"[/i]
If your mind is so shut to analogies and metaphorical comments then that is your issue. Do you have some ultra-right, hawkish political beliefs that make you feel uncomfortable when others mention facism to you? Your response to my comments seem to strike deep into your conscience.
You said...
"I'd be more than pleased to have a drink and break bread with you, but, we disagree on this issue. You view it as exclusion, I view it as inclusion.
Noone has advocated eliminating the current discussion group.
What has been advocated is adding a discussion level for architecture by those who are serious about architecture."[/i]
I'd be happy to do that as well. Hopefully, sometime in the near future that can happen. I live in the New York Metro area. Anytime you want to play or get a drink, let me know.
Jeff F.
-
Jeff Fortson,
Rather good of you to determine what is wheat and what is chaff for us.
It's not that difficult, architecture is wheat, everything else is chaff[/color]
No. I am against alienating people from being privy to a higher education. You are promoting a caste system on here.
No I'm not, I'm recommending a post graduate course.
The fact that most students in the lower 10 % of their class don't get into law school, doesn't mean that the law school is exclusionary[/color]
Since when was college football connected to GCA?
I appologizing in advance for that thread[/color]
"you must have failed World History in school"[/i]
That is laughable. If you chose to get to know me you'd be embarrassed you wrote that. I won't toot my horn any further on the topic. Let's just say I am well educated in history.
Then how can you plead ignorance in linking fascists, the Master Race, with blue eyed, blond haired individuals. If you were that steeped in World History you would have been familiar with the connection.[/color]
"the above statement implies the Hitler Youth Movement and/or the Super Race"[/i]
If your mind is so shut to analogies and metaphorical comments then that is your issue. Do you have some ultra-right, hawkish political beliefs that make you feel uncomfortable when others mention facism to you? Your response to my comments seem to strike deep into your conscience.
Jeff, you must be kidding, you used the term fascist and linked it to blue eyed, blond haired individuals, not me.
You can't claim to be a history expert on one hand, and deny the purpose of your reference on the other.
I personally prefer benevolent dictators, especially at golf clubs.[/color]
"I'd be more than pleased to have a drink and break bread with you, but, we disagree on this issue. You view it as exclusion, I view it as inclusion.
Noone has advocated eliminating the current discussion group.
What has been advocated is adding a discussion level for architecture by those who are serious about architecture."[/i]
I'd be happy to do that as well. Hopefully, sometime in the near future that can happen. I live in the New York Metro area. Anytime you want to play or get a drink, let me know.
I now see the problem, your memory.
You may recall that I invited you to play GCGC with some of us previously, but unfortunately, you couldn't make it.[/color]
-
Pat,
You know, I've never been apart of a discussion that has gotten more side-tracked in my time on this website nor have I been more embarrassed with my participation in one. I apologize for any misunderstanding that has come between us and any part I have had in widening that misunderstanding.
I never meant to literally call you a nazi. I don't think exclusionary beliefs in a website are the same as the superiority of a race. I thought you'd be able to detect my intent in the analogy. I was wrong and that IS MY FAULT. I apologize if you thought I was trying to call you one.
As for the idea of "bifurcating" GCA.com, we obviously disagree. It appears we are not going to change each other's minds. I have no problem with that. I'll leave it at, I take the idea as an affront to the very purpose of this website.
I am truly sorry for any misunderstanding and hope to enjoy a cordial and warm relationship with you from here on out. I hadn't forgotten your kind offer to have me join you at GCGC and regret not being able to make it that day. Hopefully, someday we'll tee it up, wherever it may be.
No hard feelings here.
Respectfully,
Jeff Fortson
-
Despite Mike's best intentions, this thread jumped the shark long ago and should be put out of its misery soon. GCA.com, on the other hand, has not jumped the shark in my opinion. But I guess it is inevitable that a bunch of guys who admire old golf courses will occasionally yearn for days gone past.
Like much else, the quality of this discussion bd. ebs and flows. Might have something to do with the weather. Anyone feel like going back over the old posts to check what time of year the regulars start griping about what's happened to the website? Could it correspond to the long winter?
Some other thoughts which apply to me as much as anyone else. . . .
-- Ran didnt start this site so he could babysit us. We are capable of taking care of ourselves, arent we? Sure complete jerks and flamers roll in, but they usually roll out if ignored. Most of us are adults, we need to start acting like it.
-- I strongly disagree that we have talked about everything there is to talk about. Sure certain topics recycle as new people come, but we have barely scratched the surface on many other topics. If there is a problem with repitition, it may be that too many of us seem to have axes to grind and we grind them with every stone.
-- Further, many of us could use to be less dogmatic. How many of us have ever allowed ourselves to be convinced of anything? Would it be so bad if we occasionally learned something from someone else, and admitted it?
-- Who cares if GCA.com has influenced golf architecture. I come here to learn, not to teach.
-- Splitting the site is a really bad idea. Unlike certain segments of the golf world, we can all get in the door here, and I think that is a good thing. How we perform once were is a reflection on us.
-- Plus, splitting the site wouldnt really solve much. Most of the issues which have arisen are between and among regulars. Unless someone is planning to kick out about 4/5 of the regular contributors, any closed site will likely experience some of the same problems.
-- Off topic threads happen. Ignore them if you arent interested or ignore them because, generally, you dont like them.
-- That being said, we all should show a little restraint regarding tangents and off topic threads. Like it or not, Ran started this site to discuss golf course architecture. If you want a general conversation thread or just a golf thread, start your own.
So what if there isnt a great way to stop off topic posts . . . this isnt license to completely ignore the focus of the website. Exercize a little self regulation.
-- This goes for posts within threads, as well. Topic changes, the back and forth of personal jokes or even excessive pleasantries tend to bog down threads and make them less enjoyable for all but those posting and sometimes the few they are talking to. And if we dont really have something to say, show a little restraint. And if one of us has half the posts on a thread, that person is posting too much.
-- I agree that this is no place for personal attacks. Dont name call, dont bring up inappropriate and off-topic gossip, dont hold everything against everyone forever, etc.
Moreover, it would be nice if we didnt always assume the worst motive, and if we didnt always push the same old agenda. If you dont agree with someone regarding gca, take on their specific views and demonstrate how they are mistaken. Dont just throw stones from a distance without ever actually taking on anything said.
-- On the other side of the coin, I think that we should all step back and think about what is a personal attack and what isnt. More and more, people are mischaracterizing honest criticism as personal attack. (See the reaction to Geoff S.'s comments in one of the Riviera threads.) Challenging someone's views (or course) is not a personal attack, even if you do it by name. Disagreeing in no uncertain terms with something someone posted is not a personal attack. Lighten up and try to have a little thicker skin.
And if you dont want your views challenged, dont post them. If you cant handle frank and open discussion, go somewhere else or start your own website. It is not personal, only gca.
-- We could all be nicer to new posters. It is pretty intimidating to come into this environment and new people sometimes make mistakes. They make mistakes, be we could all cut them a little slack because they may have something to contribute.
Just ramblings. Take them as you will.
-
Speaking as someone who hasn't been around here long enough to have seen the supposed golden age some believe this site had and has now lost, I can't comment on whether GCA has "jumped the shark". I certainly find it by far the most interesting and stimulating golf related discussion I've ever enjoyed, and I would mourn its loss if it disappeared or greatly changed from its current form.
Some may question its relevance these days, but there must be a reason real life architects like Tom Doak and the recently joined Robin Hiseman visit this site. People can debate their motives all day, but honestly who cares? It doesn't matter to me if they come to listen to the views of actual golfers who care about architecture, to gain admiration and approval, or to laugh at our cluelessness about their profession. What matters is that I enjoy reading what they have to say and learn from it. I know I must make sense at least once in a while because I sometimes get responses to my questions or opinions from the professional architects.
Could it be improved? Of course, almost anything can. But by who's definition, and with what risks? I'd certainly want to err on the side of caution before making major changes like the dual track forum some are advocating. If your car wouldn't start and you had to fix it yourself, would you begin by checking the battery or by replacing the engine?
I think some people must be too sensitive or have too high of expectations for civility on the Internet. This isn't the Muirfield clubhouse where everyone is on the best behavior. It would be nice, but it isn't realistic, especially considering the extremely low standard most Internet sites set. I'm constantly amazed at how civil it is here, and never notice any "attacks" on anyone unless they are pointed out. Honestly, if someone attacked me here using the standards some have for that definition, I wouldn't be offended because I wouldn't know I'd even been attacked!
As someone who has been on the Internet and participated in various forums since 1989, perhaps I've developed a thicker skin. When was first on the net, it purely was for non commercial purposes, and consisted mostly of academic researchers and graduate students, almost always posting under their real names. But the flaming was far worse than anything this site has ever seen. Every September when a new academic year started you'd get a new crop of goofballs who tried to stir up trouble here and there, until September 1993, which became known as the "September that never ended" because it was when AOL allowed its users to access the Internet, and everything has gone downhill since then. That GCA manages to maintain such a high level of civility is absolutely amazing to me. I ascribe to the theory "if it ain't broke don't fix it". I wouldn't mess with success.
-
The last two posts have been very good - cheers, guys.
Let me return to another, different hobbyhorse I've raised in the past. Most people seem to think that a vertically-tiered GCA.com doesn't make sense, that there's no place for an exclusionary forum-within-a-forum. OK...what about a horizontally-tiered GCA.com, then, with separate forums for on-topic and off-topic material? Simply taking that step would help focus the GCA-related material - if only because you wouldn't have so many good threads slipping off of page 1 and into oblivion - while still allowing everyone the joys of off-topic fraternizing. Can anyone tell me why that wouldn 't be a good idea without resorting to the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" line?
Cheers,
Darren
-
I wander in and out of here every three months or so--have done so for several years. The very first time I came here I was appalled by the tone. That had to be 3-4 years ago. I was told (kindly) by Mr. Paul not to worry, everyone has a thick skin and "it's the way of our people." The yearning for the lost golden age is almost invariably myopic. It certainly seems so in this case.
-
The last two posts have been very good - cheers, guys.
Let me return to another, different hobbyhorse I've raised in the past. Most people seem to think that a vertically-tiered GCA.com doesn't make sense, that there's no place for an exclusionary forum-within-a-forum. OK...what about a horizontally-tiered GCA.com, then, with separate forums for on-topic and off-topic material? Simply taking that step would help focus the GCA-related material - if only because you wouldn't have so many good threads slipping off of page 1 and into oblivion - while still allowing everyone the joys of off-topic fraternizing. Can anyone tell me why that wouldn 't be a good idea without resorting to the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" line?
Cheers,
Darren
Darren,
I'm glad your happy now.
-
The only reason I think there should be a separation is due to the search engine. There is alot of historical knowledge down on that server in Oz. If serious conversations about architecture could be found easier by separating the discussion groups, then I would support that.
There is alot of interesting content, but it is hard to find. However, I support the Honor Code, a few will break it, most will not. I don't personally like the concept of excluding anyone from any section.
-
Another thought is to have those that begin threads responsible and capable to moderate their own threads. If I start a thread on the bunkers at a golf course and it turns into a discussion of Healthcare policy or name calling, I have a responsibility/authority as moderator of that particular thread to get the thread back on track or end the thread. If the offending parties don't like it the can IM each other or go OT.
Bill
-
Interesting idea billg! Perhaps the contributors can take the suggestion through all the pros and cons and add another couple of pages to this thread! I'm just joking, of course, because your idea sounds like one worth discussing---I like it but I'm not sure if I could say why it might work well or not!
;)
-
I'm amazed at some of the hyperbole being used by people looking to keep the status quo. Nobody (not even Patrick) is suggesting that a) the current forum be rendered irrelevant, or b) that anyone currently part of the forum be kicked out. Some of these arguments sound similar in tone to the some of the arguments used by the NRA to keep the status quo vis-a-vis gun control laws: ridicule your opponents, play heavily upon the specter of lost "freedoms", remain opposed to even the idea of change. As a result, the last six pages or so of this thread have contained rather less honest argument than they should have.
Shivas, the phrase "Jump the Shark" (derived from that Happy Days episode) has just about entered common usage. It is not at all original to this thread - check out www.jumptheshark.com for any number of examples of the metaphor applied to other TV shows and such.
Cheers,
Darren
-
One of the many reasons some of even the architecture posts get sidetracked is when people make gratuitius non-architectural cheap shots that others must answer.
For instance Darren felt it necessary to inject the NRA into this arguement. It looks like he felt it necesarry to make some sort of political statement. I could just as easily substitute NARAL for NRA in his post and the arguement would rmain the same.
I would not want to turn in my skeet gun.
-
Jeff Fortson,
You have an open invite to play GCGC with me any time you would like. Hopefully we'll be able to round up a few more GCA.com deviates and have a great day.
My concern about the site was focused on the myriad of off topic threads, dilution of the quality of the threads, and abandonment of the site by some very knowledgeable participants, combined with the potential loss of my foil, TEPaul. ;D
I'll see you this spring, if not sooner (February 28th)
-
One of the many reasons some of even the architecture posts get sidetracked is when people make gratuitius non-architectural cheap shots that others must answer.
For instance Darren felt it necessary to inject the NRA into this arguement. It looks like he felt it necesarry to make some sort of political statement. I could just as easily substitute NARAL for NRA in his post and the arguement would rmain the same.
I would not want to turn in my skeet gun.
Hamilton, I was trying to choose a metaphor which was both accurate and well-known to most people in this forum. No political statement was intended.
-
Mike Cirba:
Where the hell are you? You're the one who started all this mess and then you conveniently vanished. Now get back on here and take billg's general "moderating" advice and see if you can delete this entire thread since you're the one who wrote the title! What would happen if these entire 9 pages went "Poof"? Somehow we all just might muddle along!
-
I'm not in favor of an advanced, invitation-only discussion group. (primarily because I wouldn't get in. :))
I am in favor of an alternative forum for half-baked political philosophers.
-
"I am in favor of an alternative forum for half-baked political philosophers."
Gary:
For God Sake don't despair man, that's exactly what the Golfclubatlas.com discussion group we have has gotten good at and is getting better at every day! Is it possible to get more half-baked than JakaB?
-
I never knew JakaB engaged in political philosophy. And I am certainly glad TP is feeling better. I thought we were going to lose him after that depressing diatribe back on page 1 of this thread. Carry on with gusto TP, 11000 aint that far away.
-
Will someone kindly delete Sarge's post?
-
OK, I've toned it down a little.
-
I find it highly ironic that guys who are all for width and angles and differing angles of approach in their golf courses want to morph this joint into a closed-loop discussion of similar views from similarly-situated people
Shivas, this is a pretty good example of how the fear of getting personal is less than positive on the website. If you have something to say about "guys who are all for width . . .," cant you at least tell us who they are? So we know what you are talking about? So they can respond if they want to? . . . . If you are talking about me, you may want to re-read my post.
-
Why thank you Sarge but no need for me to feel better because I was never feeling poorly in the first place. As for that 'depressing diatribe' as you call it--I don't know how to explain that---perhaps just one of what some of us call a "Cabernet Moment".
-
"If you have something to say about "guys who are all for width . . .," cant you at least tell us who they are?'
That would be me---I'm all for width!! One time I designed a hole (this for a specific landform) that started at about 135yds and fanned out to about 250 yds!! But I only believe in width where it's called for!! How about that for a clear-cut, definitive architectural statement?
-
T
I'm kind of planning one of those "cab moments" myself tonight( a 99 Heitz Cellar, filet mig., etc.). Luckily I wont have the PC around. We'll be wishing you were with us.
-
Sarge, Remember, Taste the hint of Pine!
-
In my travels around the country with some of the participants here, I have had many interesting discussions that weren't golf-related. I truly enjoy learning about different topics and I can't think of a better group of people to do that with.
-
Hamilton, I was trying to choose a metaphor which was both accurate and well-known to most people in this forum. No political statement was intended.
Of course it was a political statement and you are being completely disingenuous when you say it was not. I get your philosophy now - you can say whatever you want but you want everyone else to conform to a code of conduct that you devise.
-
I just went back and read the home page for a first time in a while and it really cleared things up for me:
GolfClubAtlas.com is presented to promote the frank commentary on the world's finest golf courses. Within this site, the subject of golf course architecture is discussed in several different sections, including:
. . .
a free access Discussion Group. Please register and share your opinions by posting under your own name but remember: this is an architecture centric web site with non-architecture posts deleted.
. . .
Bottom line for me, this is Ran's website and we are his guests. As such, we owe him the courtesy of respecting his wishes and trying to follow his guidelines.
-
I'm sick of hearing what we owe Ran...This is not a house..it is an internet site. Ran has the right to turn the thing off anytime he chooses when he feels his return is no longer worth his effort....Ran can sell the web site....an interesting proposition. Could Ran sell this web site to an interested party without gaurentees that people like Pat Mucci and Tom Paul would continue to post...You may duplicate their posts but you can not duplicate the men...This site does not begin and end at your keyboard...I think we owe each other a hell of alot more than we owe Ran...anybody can provide a dance hall but not everybody can do the tango..
-
JohnK
Interesting thoughts. How much do you know about the genisus of this site...what Ran and John Morrissett did and sacraficed to get it started?
Anyone can provide a dance hall? Clever...but I really don't know what it takes to start a dance hall....and I don't see whole lot of dance halls like this one.
Anyone can get on here and criticize Ran or anyone else for that matter...make a mockery of architectural interest...and draw attention to oneself by acting like a clown.
I give Ran credit for allowing you the freedom to push your agenda (I would have banished you a long time ago)....but then again every good website needs a village idiot.
-
Wow! That was fast...make a post..and then delete it seconds later.
JohnK
You are not contrarian...I don't know anyone who describes you as a contrarian...a contrarian is someone who asks for serious consideration.
You make numerous posts and then delete most of them in short order...because either they are not serious or you are ashamed and can't stand by what you wrote.
You won't even post under your own name...what does that say about yourself and your agenda?
-
Something many of us regular posters on here probably forget too quickly is that to the outsider and lurker on this website who's serious about finding out about classic architecture (the site's mission) this discussion section is probably way down the totem pole of interest.
To most around the world I've talked to who look in here but never post, the sections of most interest to them are;
1. The really good course reviews
2. The "In My Opinion" section
3. The Interview section
-
What the hell, although Barney deleted his post on his agenda I'll answer it anyway;
Sure Barney, I'll take an early morning shot at your mysterious agenda. It's grab as many legs as possible and pull on them as hard as possible. It certainly can't be an agenda of defending Fazio as even you know he's going the way of Pompeii! ;)
-
I am a new participant looking to gain access to a wide range of ideas to help me make better decision as a new Green Committee Chairman. Most of the interpersonal dynamics are lost on me. I hope it stays that way. But so far this sight is helping me accomplish my objective.
-
Tom MacWood,
You can't say that you abhor barroom fights and then call someone the village idiot, it's a personal attack, hypocritical and inflammatory.
If you want to attack his opinions, do so to your hearts content, but don't attack JakaB personally, it serves no interest.
-
Pat
I don't believe I said "I abhor bar room fights", this what I said:
"Unfortunately there seems to be factors that limit that participation.Clowns that are more interested in drawing attention to themselves than discussing architecture. Too many non-architectural topics, too many golf course collectors that lack architectural interest, too many personal attacks (often coming from a pseudo), too many pissing contests and courtroom tactics.
Differing opinions and disagreement are essential. Asking people to support and articulate their opinions is a positive (espcially if it is acompanied by a thoughtful opposing opinion and not just you are wrong, unqualified, biased...). The site became much more interesting, analytical and articulate after a few notable contrarians came aboard."
BarneyF, JakaB, John Kavanaugh is a self proclaimed idiot. Don't you recall the series of threads "I am an idiot #......"
Village idiot, class clown or whatever euphemism you like I don't appreciate JohnK discounting the efforts of Ran and John Morrissett in starting and supporting this site.
It is particularly gauling to come from someone who hides behind a pseudo, who erases most of his posts and who has been on a personal mission to make a mockery of this site.
Tom Paul is exactly right...the majority who view this site are most impressed with the other features (as opposed to the discusion group...because of the factors I stated above...pseudos, courtroom tactics, non-architectural threads, pissing contests). I believe that is where Ran's focus is also.
-
Gookin says "I am a new participant looking to gain access to a wide range of ideas to help make better decisions as a green committee chairman."
Gookin, as evidenced by this statement and your discussion on another thread with TPaul, your club is lucky to have you as the chairman.
I have learned an awful lot on this site about architecture. My selfish goal is to get a few people at MY CLUB interested and educated so we can become better decision makers. Many of the bad decisions made by clubs are truly from lack of knowledge.
The key is to get the information to the decision makers. I have tried books, do they ever get read? This site is a excellent and accessible resource for all. It would be even more valuable if the information could be presented in a alternate fashion without all the bickering and posturing. Sadly, one never knows on what post a nugget of good architecture information will come from, i am sure there was some good stuff on even the Bridge thread. Who would torture themselves by ever reading that again?
All the other areas of the website serve their function well. The discussion group certainly does not present all the knowledge and information in a form that serves to benefit golf and architecture. Maybe two different discussion groups would work better?
-
BarneyF, JakaB, John Kavanaugh is a self proclaimed idiot. Don't you recall the series of threads "I am an idiot #......"
Village idiot, class clown or whatever euphemism you like I don't appreciate JohnK discounting the efforts of Ran and John Morrissett in starting and supporting this site.
It is particularly gauling to come from someone who hides behind a pseudo, who erases most of his posts and who has been on a personal mission to make a mockery of this site.
Because I do delete alot of posts I will defend myself in saying that I did not discount the efforts of Ran and John....I just think we have a mutually benificial relationship and owe each other nothing. I just want golf to be better...I want the posters on this site to be better...and I will continue to point out faults in reasoning, logic, ethics, power playes, access grabs, friend fishing, history re-writing, job searching and even architect bashing in the only self taught manner of communication I know. Now and then I do make a post solely for my own entertainment...and if I don't delete such..who will.
-
John, Now you are full of shite.
You say what you just said, but yet, saying what you said to me on IM about a certain book and how it was crap when that book is out to do one thing--make the game better. I don't think you car about anyone or anything on this site. Its just your personal play thing to help destroy anything that is trying to be credible, beause you are simply envious of people trying to be.
-
Jesus Tommy,
I said what I thought about that book in a private message to a guy I knew loved the book...I have not taken my views public...I have not tried to convince one person to not buy the book and see for themselves...Why don't you start a thread about where the book is correct about anything and I will gladly debate you...in a full and open manner. You and everyone else who loves the book have only started one thread and it drowned quicker than unloved kids off a boat ramp. It would be ugly and is best left for private conversations among like minded friends.
-
John,
Whether I like the book or not is not the point, as well as if I have ever said anything to you about liking the book. Since you have made so many things personal about me in these discussions, why then can't I make them personal about you?
I don't like the bickering or the lawyering or you dictating to others about my one opportunity to be part of some change on a golf course that has more or less eroded into wall of turf--you attack Forrest Richardson, who I value as a great friend, and who has given me the once in a lifetime chance--as an enthusiast, to help out. Then you want to play yourself here as the victim when I come back at you.
I asked in the name of compassion for those who lost their homes and lives in the terrible fires of SoCal last year, that pictures be omitted from the site--you attacked that saying I wasn't campassionate about people in the mid-west who experience the same thing with flooding--as if that had actually was happening at that very moment, when it wasn't. Here I was being accused for something that didn't even happen!
Totally amazing!
Or better, where do you get the nerve?
John, if right this minute all were to wipe the slate clean, forget all of it--all of the insults--everything, stop the attacks, stop the policing of people who you don't agree with, and add some actual architectural merit to your obviously talented writing style--would you, could you do it?
If so, please let me know, let us all know. Let this be the time that Golf Club rejumped the Shark for the better, not the worse.
YOU are the one that started all of this--you should be the one that ends it! I think you should make amends to all who you have felt anomosity too by either apologizing or changing your tone from borderline nuisance to positive contributor to this site, or both. Until that tme, people are going to react harshly to you because you bring nothing to the table other then your own personal agenda, which has nothing to do with Golf Architecture one bit. If it is your aim to destory this site, you are doing it, but I have news for you, it will survive because people like takling about golf courses and golf design, and this is the best forum for which they can do that. they and the subject are much bigger then your crusade.
-
Lots of great posts in this thread (bravo, Doug Siebert; bravo, Rihc; bravo, Shivas -- among others that my short-term memory isn't remembering), but as it winds down (and I do mean down), I do believe I see a whole school of sharks, circling below.
Hate to sound trite, but sometimes it seems to be necessary:
Any problems this DG has would be solved, IMO, by the strict observation of three simple words: The Golden Rule.
-----------
As for David Moriarty's observation, above:
I'd love to hear what Ran himself has to say about all of this. The way I read his words, on that home page, he wants gca.com to be focused -- centered -- on golf-course architecture ... but not to the exclusion of everything else, golfish and otherwise.
And despite multiple diversions, I believe that it IS focused -- centered -- on golf-course architecture.
Had that exclusively-GCA content been his goal, surely he could have said not that non-architecture threads and posts would be "deleted," but that non-architecture threads and posts were unwelcome.
Big, big difference, in my opinion. I'm still waiting to hear Ran's.
-
Tommy,
I was out of line for challenging the media coverage of the California fires...I took a self imposed 60 ban from this site because of my poor taste on a non-architectural thread...Thank god I didn't go off on the supposedly 36,000 people who died from the flu this year...note: I didn't get a flu shot out of spite and got sick myself...stupid me....I practice hyperbole but I can't condone it.
I deleted this portion of my post because I think Tommy had time to read it and if he wants to reply it is his option. I did not invent the art of architiect bashing but I might be a pioneer of bashing the bashers...if that costs me friends and access I guess I will just have to do with my status quo.
-
Of course Mr. B is a fool.
Is it not obvious through his prose style and disregard of convention that he is our jester?
The fool has been around and welcome since ancient Egypt, and is especially needed in the face of bombast, pomposity and shrill hyperbole.
It would be detrimental to have three, but we sure need one, and he is a good one.
-
Now that I have thought about it, I am convinced that Augusta National jumped the Shark twice on Sunday of the Masters in 1996 and 1987.
Jeff F.
-
JohnK
I respect your position that you want golf to be better and that you want the posters on this site to be better (really all we can do is try to be better ourselves...hopefully lead by example). I apologize if I offended you.
I was not aware that you were engaged in a crusade to point out faults in reasoning, logic, ethics, power plays, access grabs, friend fishing, history re-writing, job searching and even architect bashing.
We are all guilty of (and have observed others) faulty reasoning and logic from time to time.....that is why I believe the introduction of opposing views has been healthy...I know I have benefited.
Have you uncovered an ethics problems? Examples?
What about power plays....I'm not sure what that means?
Who is guilty of access grabs and friend fishing?
Who is re-writing history? Examples?
Who is job searching on GCA....any examples that are particularly offensive?
One man's bashing is another man's honest criticism.
-
(http://www.treadmill-direct.com/Images/800x600/Phoenix_Denise_Austin_Manual_Treadmill_with_Video_alt_2.jpg)
-
Denise seems to have good core strength; I'll tee it up with her so long as she keeps a vow of silence.
-
corey miller
Member education is the key. We are working hard at that. This fall we had George Bahto address a group of members. This spring we plan to have Brad Klein. It is amazing how clear membership can be about the architecture of the club buildings, but ask them about what is right on a Raynor course they don't have a clue. Heck we spent 30 years planting trees where the fairways should be. I am lucky to have a club president with equal zeal. We have built a powerpoint presentation that tells the history of Raynor, explains why he is signifigant, shows our course five years after it was built and compares it to how it is today. We are taking it out to the members whenever we can. Town hall meetings, board presentations, golf committee presentation, heck in a couple of weeks I will be making our pitch to the women's golf committee (all 30 of them). The nice thing is it seems to be working. Last week I had a question from a staunch tree hugger about whether we had considered removing a certain tree. It is a lot of work, but it certainly beats having members not speaking to each other about trees.
-
JakaB,
You are right, "owe" is too strong a word. But it is a matter of etiquitte as to whether we choose to respect Ran's wishes.
Tommy,
For once I am with Barney. I dont think taking private things public is good for the site.
-
Slag,
I'm not impressed with her grip. ;D
Tom Macwood,
Should wild statements and opinions go unchallenged, or should the author be accountable and able to withstand scrutiny and challenge in the form of questions ?
You may recall that many who had never set foot on, or seen a particular golf course, were critical of the design work, features and the architect. Wouldn't honest disclosure require that the poster admit, at the begining of their post, that they had never seen the golf course, rather then mislead, posturing as if they had ??
There's nothing wrong with questioning statements or opinions, if a poster is willing to make them publicly that poster should be able to support them with facts and logic and withstand questioning and counter points.
You call it courtroom tactics and I call it a search for the truth.
-
Pat, LIRR, Hambone, Len Itnes
"There's nothing wrong with questioning statements or opinions, if a poster is willing to make them publicly that poster should be able to support them with facts and logic and withstand questioning and counter points."
We agree...although I'm not sure I would use the term 'withstand', maybe 'answer' would be a more friendly term....perhaps the never ending 'counter points' is where the courtroom tactics rears its ugly head...as if someone will eventually be declared a winner and loser...the menality that says the one who capitulates is wrong, so never capitulate. When you started on GCA and introduced this tactic I fell for it...I am as guilty as anyone for its spread....it takes two to tango.
-
Pat -
wild statements and "opinions" are often terms for points with which you disagree. You often read a whole subtect
If a person makes a comment about a course, like a juror, you (and anyone else), should feel free to make your own judgments about the person and the legitimacy of their opinions (ideally this process take place in your own mind, and not across these web pages).
Not a single person is damaged by an observation somebody makes about a course they saw on TV, but have never been to. Nor does the comment, in the usual case, amount to, "posturing" as if they had been there.
I agree with you a lot of the times on your views about the infectious conventional wisdom that this website fosters. But the conspiracy is not as broad or pervasive as you perceive it. Most of the time it is somebody making an observation or asking a question, not an affirmative statement.
-
Sheesh...I just got back from Arizona and see this thing at 11 pages.
What hath I wrought? ::)
Where's that delete button? :P
-
SPDB,
You may have been late to the dance.
Quite often, statements and opinions were rendered about a golf course, features and the architects involved, without the poster ever having seen the golf course.
My objection wasn't directed at their opinion, but, at the point that their opinion wasn't based on facts, rather, hearsay.
When an anonymous poster stated that Rees Jones's courses don't make you think, and noone objected to the absurdity of that statement, letting it stand unchallenged, it indicated to me, a general, silent acquiescence.
When individual after individual bashed Fazio for the bunkers at Merion, and they had never seen the bunkers pre and post project work, I felt that those opinions weren't grounded in facts, and were just part of the feeding frenzies that used to take place on this site.
When someone posted, don't go to Hollywood, Rees Jones ruined it, but that person had never seen Hollywood prior to the work, and he criticized Rees for all the mounds, I objected, especially since the mounds they mentioned, on holes # 4, # 7 and other holes had been there for 30 years before Rees got there.
I consider those types of posts, especially by anonymous posters, as wild, unfounded, objectionable and without merit.
And those posters should have their feet held to the fire.
I quoted CBMacDonald's position on evaluating a hole and a golf course and shortly thereafter Tom Doak posted that opinions and evaluations made by individuals who have never set foot on the golf course are inherently flawed at the very least.
I can't read anybody's mind, but I can read what they write, and that's all I have to go on when they make a post.
If their post infers a conclusion about the golf course or features when they have never seen those features or that golf course in person, I'm going to challenge their conclusion, and question the intent of the poster
wild statements and "opinions" are often terms for points with which you disagree. You often read a whole subtect
Statements and opinions absent the underlying facts should be exposed. It's up to you to draw your own conclusions.
If a person makes a comment about a course, like a juror, you (and anyone else), should feel free to make your own judgments about the person and the legitimacy of their opinions (ideally this process take place in your own mind, and not across these web pages).
When someone renders an opinion about a golf course, or features that they have never seen, they have an obligation to disclose that material oversight, up front, and not have the reader believe that the poster has personally evaluated the golf course and/or features and are rendering an opinion based on their personal experiences.
Not a single person is damaged by an observation somebody makes about a course they saw on TV, but have never been to.
Baloney, when the poster infers a derogatory conclusion, when they've never seen the features in person, it's damaging. It's damaging to the architect and it's damaging to the posters credibility.
Nor does the comment, in the usual case, amount to, "posturing" as if they had been there.
It sure does.
Infering a derogatory conclusion, without ever having seen the golf course in person is posturing.
In addition, the infered conclusion was based on very limited information. Incomplete information that the producers chose to televise, ie. 10 greens out of 36.
I agree with you a lot of the times on your views about the infectious conventional wisdom that this website fosters. But the conspiracy is not as broad or pervasive as you perceive it. Most of the time it is somebody making an observation or asking a question, not an affirmative statement.
So you feel that the statements, "Don't go to Hollywood, Rees Jones ruined it" and "I don't like Rees Jones courses, they don't make you think" aren't statements ?
Well, I think they are.
Opinions rendered absent material facts, but, if you want to agree with them, go ahead, that's your opinion.
Why don't you look at the "Courses by Country" section and read Ran's evaluation of Hollywood to see what he thinks ?
Lastly, we disagree on the innocence of an infered conclusion.
-
Tom MacWood,
You were as guilty as others, making critical evaluations regarding the architecture and playability of golf courses that you had never set foot on, based on aerials taken at 5,000 feet and/or random photos.
Since we're having a get together at Baltusrol this saturday, I'd appreciate it if you could define Rees Jones's distinctive marks, especially the ones he left all over the golf course.
The snow has melted and as part of the get together, we're having a treasure hunt to see who can find them. ;D
You can still bet the daily double, which has just become a trifecta,
The odds remain high on LIRR, Me, and Hamilton B Hearst, and just as high on Tommy Naccarato, Sven and El Guappo.
NAF and Tuco, now make it a trifecta.
You can pick any one, two out of three or all three,
the choice is yours.
I've always thought highly of your research, although I disagree with many of the conclusions that you draw, and your willingness to post under your own name.
Len Itnes served a valueable purpose, and I'm hopeful that he won't be needed any further. Time will tell.
P.S. You may want to check with Tommy Naccarato and George Bahto with respect to the manufacturing of NGLA and the vast amount of dirt moved to do so.
-
I went through tonight and read all 11 pages and on the positive side, it's good to see that people still retain their passion for the subject, and certainly for their individual, if differing opinions. That's all good stuff and one would hope that never changes.
However, I was left to wonder why I started this thread in the first place. So, I'll try to answer;
First of all, the "jump the shark" analogy which has been questioned here is generally a term that has evolved over time to mean something that was really good and unique and somewhat pure at one time and which has since morphed into something different and with some loss of quality. In the case of GCA, I used the analogy to refer to the Happy Days show, where it became obvious that the show's writers were rapidly running out of creative, new, original ideas. I think GCA is suffering from a similar malady, and I think much of the personal sniping is due to the fact that some of the actual architectural content has become stale. Blame the long winter, blame the fact that however interesting the topic, 5 gazillioin words later much of can be said already has, or blame the growth in the site, but the undeniable fact is that much of what we have been talking about in recent months is rehash....how many times can we decry technology and what it's doing to modern courses, for instance?
Still, I am left to wonder if we've exhausted this topic or if we just aren't open enough to new ideas, new courses, new concepts. I mean, have we really considered that there are wonderful new courses being designed by people who aren't household names, or are we all just so locked into our own preconceived notions of greatness that people are afraid that they'll look foolish if they start talking about that enjoyable new course by "Gary Panks" (insert 100 other names here) that their thoughts will be castigated, or worse, ignored?
But, the real reason I think I started this thread is that I know many of you, personally. And, I have to say that it PAINS me to see guys I know would really enjoy each other personally spending their energies in the type of acrimonious backbiting and personally vindictive crap that I see way too much of in recent months. How about we each start treating each other in the way we would if we were sharing a bench talking while waiting for a par three green to clear?
I also thought that this group needed some shaking up and self-reflection and had hoped that this thread might provide some impetus for us doing so, individually and collectively. I admit that is sort of assumptive and pretentious of me, but I've had private conversations with any number of individuals that I respect who have shared similar impressions. I thought that perhaps if I struck a chord, individuals might think about putting aside petty differences and personal grievances and really THINK about what they were writing to each other a little more before hitting that "Submit" button. I had hoped that we might start to consider that in many ways we are all brethren sharing not only a passionate interest, but also a bit of our best selves as we put a public face on our private thoughts.
Reading many of the posts on this thread have showed me that I was pretty naive in my effort.
If this site is ever going to have any kind of positive and influencial impact on the world of golf, and you guys are fooling yourselves if you think it can't (because I KNOW how widely read it is), then we should be generating a hell of a lot more light and a lot less heat than we're doing now.
I'm really glad and thankful that we have such genuine passion here. I just hope we can start using our heads as well as we use our hearts.
Sincerely,
Mike
-
I can sure tell you when golf course architecture "jumped the shark".....
Oh yeah baby!!!
(http://www.rollinghillscc.com/images/tedrobinson.jpg)
Look at some of these great holes!!!
(http://www.golfresortatindianwells.com/images/homepage_a.jpg)
(http://www.golfcalifornia.com/images/resortreviews/desertspringgolfing.jpg)
(http://www.golfcalifornia.com/images/resortreviews/par3palmscourse.jpg)
SWEET!
-Dick-
-
Richard "Cabeza";
All humor aside, you're simply shooting fish (shark?) in a barrel.
Not much sport in that, is there?
-
Mike:
Cabeza en espanol means "head." Make sense now?
And I appreciate your well-reasoned post above. But yes, if anything was proven by this exercise it is that this place is never going to generate more light than heat. It's just not in the nature of on-line discussion to do anything but that, as much as we would hope otherwise.
One thing also: another reason why we don't tend to discuss lesser-known architects and courses is because if one does bring such up, the universe of potential responders is usually very small... that is, only a few people would have seen or heard of them, so the discussion is short. The big names and historic greats have been seen by all, either in person, in pictures, or on TV, so it is easy to generate a lot of responses about them. Again, nature of this beast.
For example, I could extol the virtues of George Santana, and what could you say back other than "yeah, sounds like he does great work"? Same goes for Gary Panks, many of the others you mentioned elsewhere... Pictures can only go so far on this also....
Sorry to be so cynical... but in my mind, this place is what it is and I just don't expect any changes here except the natural evolution of things... And at least for now, what it is still remains pretty great.
TH
-
Now that I have thought about it, I am convinced that Augusta National jumped the Shark twice on Sunday of the Masters in 1996 and 1987.
Jeff F.
Just about the only thing worth reading in this thread. :P Don't forget 1986, too. Shark was tied going into 18 and it jumped him.
-
Mike, for whats it worth, I'm not Richard Cabeza.
This is the first I have been on-line since about 4:30pm yesterday, and I have to tell you the break was nice. Therefore in complete agreement with your assessment of this thread, I'm more then likely going to take another extended absence--your point makes so much sense!