I'm beginning to wonder if it might be worthwhile for Ran Morrissett to write and foster an enhanced Mission Statement not for the entire website but specifically for its discussion group.
Here's why I say that;
It seems that after five or six years of existence this website and particularly its discussion group has gotten a lot more exposure and certainly noteriety than its number (which is now fairly static) would indicate or warrant.
In some ways, this site is the one that perhaps too many love to hate. There seems to be too many who even say it intimidates them. Is that really necessary or beneficial? Even with that it seems that a larger number than one might expect who might love to hate the site or some of its participants or are intimidated somehow can't really avoid it or the fact it exists altoghether.
I guess, in a way, that's a good thing but maybe this discussion group can do better than that. It seems like too many out there (and some on here) feel that there're too many participants on here who act like golf architecture should be "my way" or "our way" or the highway!
I don't think that's very healthy or benefical in the long run and over time with what coud be and perhaps should be accomplished on here ultimately.
In my opinion, standardization, homogenization, a "one size fits all" attitude at any point in the spectrum of golf architecture is NOT a good thing---whether it's the fairly doctrinaire general classical/purist attitude about golf architecture (and maintenance practices) mostly found on here or the other side of the coin that this site generally gratuitously criticizes and pans as not worthy of existence.
I'm surely not suggesting that criticism or analytical honesty about the things we believe in should not take place as much as it has and does on here but don't you think perhaps we could all just do a better job of DEFINING and PROMOTING that real DISTINCTIONS in golf architecture (and their necessarily distinct maintenance practices) inherently do exist and should exist better and more clearly?
In my opinion, homogenization, standardization, and a "one size fits all" attitude is a bad thing for golf and architecture that should have a wide spectrum of types and styles and maintenance practices and processes.
Why don't we concentrate on making those distinctions clearer and better defined and promote them as just necessary DISTINTIONS within architecture instead of acting like our way is the only right way and if it's not that way then the rest just don't "get it" or don't matter?
This site has got really knowledgeable participants----we can do this if we want and if we concentrate. I think an enhanced mission statement and some fostering of it on Ran's part would do this site a real benefit and architecture too because of it.
We need to do more of defining and promoting the necessary distinctions in architecture (and mainteance practices)---how to make them distinct and maintain and keep them distinct, and less brow-beating of those who want something else! If we don't do that better, those who want something else will always be tending to homogenize and standardize what we like into what they want and like---and as we've seen over the last 5-6 decades that's not good.
Let's do more of defining and promoting distinctions and less of an attitude that it's our way or the highway.