[T_MacWood]

Have we taken a step backward in exploring the finer points of the art? We live in an age of sensationalism and being drawn to human carnage - shouldn't GCA elevate itself (and I'm as guilty as anyone) above these empty efforts?

[CHrisB]

Tom,
I think the problem arises because only a relatively small percentage of posts on this DG offers both criticism and praise of a particular golf course.  Many seem to be "everything I like about this course" posts or "everything I don't like" posts.  The tone can easily become "I hate (or like) everything about this course", then someone takes the opposite stance, and the mess begins.

In the SandPines thread (didn't read the Cascata one, but I can imagine), there were some on one side who couldn't bring themselves to admit that there is anything good about the course, and there were others who couldn't admit that there was anything bad.

I don't think there is any course anywhere where I can say "There is not a single thing about that course that I don't like or can think of any way of improving", nor one where I can say "There is not one single redeeming value in that golf course; there is nothing good about it whatsoever".  But you might not know it judging from some of the threads to date.  If a course has even one unique or interesting feature, or even one flaw, it is worth acknowledging in my opinion.

It would be an interesting exercise to have to include at least one criticism and at least one compliment in every post assessing the merits of a particular course or architect.  I think much more information would come out that way.

I would love to hear more about what Tommy N likes about Fazio's style, what Pat Mucci dislikes about Rees' style, what flaws Sand Hills or Pacific Dunes has, which recent changes to ANGC have actually improved the course, etc.  Concessions boost credibility, in my opinion.

See Ran Morissett or Tom Doak for textbook examples of how to advance the discussion without inflaming it.

[Michael Dugger]

The internet makes it very difficult to 100% express your intent, or POINT.  More often than not this leads to a situation where people are automatically on the defensive, having their words taken out of context and turned around on them by expert cross-examiners.  

It's how the system works, aside from sitting down with someone face to face, this problem is always going to exist.

To me, what is tragic about all of this is the following:

There are so many more people than I ever thought existed that are crazy passionate about golf course architecture.  I love you guys!  Yet, most of them will never visit and play as many golf courses as Tom and Ran.  This forum has made it abundantly clear that one is not warranted in their opinion of a particular place unless they have actually visited and played it.  Thus, this leaves little room for many of us to "discuss" things, because the things we want to discuss are things we know nothing about, firsthand.

I suspect that members of the original 'treehouse gang' miss what they once had, it was probably a truly special thing-people who have actually played a particular golf course discussing the merits and demerits of those particular golf courses.

Many of us simply haven't the experiences.

ANOTHER THING

Nobody seems eager to go back in time and start with the basics. Everything here is on steroids.  The treehouse gang already knows about redans and minimalism and the Philadelphia school.  The newbie best not say something naive, for more often than not they will feel the sting of the ruler.  This leads to conflict.  We'd all like to think we are patient and understanding with the newbie, but we aren't.

LASTLY

More so than any "group" of people I've ever encountered, GCA afficianadoes are some of the brightest and most ECLECTIC people I've ever encountered.  Doctors, lawyers, scholars, philosophers....everyone take a bow for a moment.  

Most who comes here are very quick-witted and to some degree have an ego....me included.

In everyday life I am able to overcome this sometimes HARSH attitude with charm.  This charm doesn't go over so well on the internet, most of the time.  As much as I like the smiley faces they just don't get the message across all of the time.  

Such is the rub, IMHO.
           

[David Wigler]

Tom,

Your post is disingenuous.  You name two courses you do not like and blame others likening them on the downfall of GCA.

You obviously can ignore my suggestions but I have two.

1. Golf is a great big world.  As much can be learned from a discussion on Cascata as Oakmont.  Modern does have merit.

2.  Play the courses.  I have no idea if you would like Cascata but I do know that you have not played it and dismissing it without seeing it is simply not fair.  As best I can tell, six people on this site have played the course.  Five of us are close to original members of the treehouse.  The score is 4-2 in favor of the golf course.

[RJ_Daley]

Very good thoughts Mike...

Many people came to this discussion group and its predecesors for discussion of golf courses and their design and history of such inorder to learn from eachother, because obviously we can't hope to get to see them all first hand.  It used to be accepted that collectively we could all help eachother out in our mutual desire to learn about these subjects by adding what you know first hand, and accepting somethings based on others who you come to appreciate for their ideas and opinions because you realise that they study this stuff and have good insights.  Not many of us can buy every book on the subject, yet many darn near do...  Not many of us can afford to see and play all the top 100 whatever list, yet some have the resources and access to almost do so.  Where things really get turned sideways on Golf Club Atlas is a sort of tyranny by those that want to always play the their trump card of saying... "well I've played the course and you haven't, so you have to be wrong or can't express an opinion because you didn't go there and I did".  To that I say, many of the greatest players like Hogan and Jones and the like played a place like St Andrews TOC and still came away saying it was a paddock for grazing animals and no real golf course.  Yet, after several rounds there and further consideration about the actual design, or in TOCs case the evolvment and merits of the ground and strategy it presents, they changed their opinions.  Going to play a course once, in and of itself is still no definitive criteria to render a final decree as to its merits.  Sometimes, pictures convey enough combined with your previous experience or study to allow one to atleast express and opinion.  Why did great writers like Hunter and Darwin and their likes bother to go into great written detail and include the best B&W photos of their times of various representative features of the great old courses, if the only valid merits of expressing ideas about the subject boiled down to having to play the course first hand.  If that were so, what were they trying to communicate and inspire with the written word and pictures?  It seems that confining discussion and opinion to first hand 'being there' knowledge would render their written efforts futile.  If upon seeing pictures and expressing an opinion, based on our own study and experience, we can be shouted down because we didn't actually play the course, then a sort of tyranny exists that has a chilling effect on participation in discussion.  How does the group of participants-readers of GCA benefit or enjoy the forum based on that elitist ideal?

[Mike_Cirba]

RJ Daley;

Very well said.  

I wholeheartedly concur.  

[Lou_Duran]

Dick,

As Mike Cirba's pictures and subsequent discussion clearly demonstrate, one should not reach broad conclusions based solely on them.  Golf architecture, if it can be considered an art, should require participation to be appreciated.  Asking that the critic experience the subject matter is not too much, is it?  Hopefully those rating and opining on restaurants have actually eaten there.  Can a movie critic render an opinion based on seeing the trailer and some marketing materials?  I hope not.  Is one an elitist because he wishes that the opiner have some experience with the subject matter that is being ripped apart?  I think not.  That doesn't mean we shouldn't have opinions about ANGC, PV, Seminole, and other courses which we are not likely to see.  Holding everything else equal, it does put us at a huge disadvantage when discussing the relative merits of these courses with those who have.  And, in my opinion, should give us pause to put too much weight on them.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Lou;

Who based broad conclusions on pictures of Cascata?

I didn't hear one person opine on them at all, except that Tim Weiman mentioned a look of artifice being present, which is sort of like saying the Pope looked sort of Catholic.  

[GeoffreyC]

Lou- well said.

I don't believe that anyone wants to censor opinions from those who have not seen or played a specific golf course. However, it's naive to think that conclusions based soley on pictures can be used to make some of the rash statements that we've seen over the years. Those who have not seen or played a course can certainly make important contributions to discussions but I think they can best do so by posing questions to others rather then making conclusions as seems to be the case much of the time.

[RJ_Daley]

Lou, going for the analogy to having to actually eat at a restaurant is too easy...

Perhaps a better one would be seeing one of those coffee table books of all the views and details of the Sistine Chapel ceiling, and actually being there.  Can't one still render an opinion based on the photos of the paintings?  All I am saying is that many people read GCA and screw up the courage to actually post an idea or opinion of an uaccessable to them golf course based on a picture.  Maybe they have much experience with aspects of golf design, construction, maintenance, or history of the subject, or just have played alot of golf.  Just because they didn't actually play the course they comment on, doesn't mean they should be called a fraud, or dishonest, or that their thoughts don't have some merit.  Yes, the experience of actually playing a course is without question a vital element to having real credibility to comment, especially to criticize.  But for instance, I know people I really respect for their knowledge of designing and building and maintaining golf courses, and if they look at pictures of a certain course and they say, "it looks like crap" and yet they haven't played it, I am still likely to put more value in what they say, than some trophy course player who really knows very little about what really goes into designing, building, and maintaining a course.

[GeoffreyC]

RJ - you say

"But for instance, I know people I really respect for their knowledge of designing and building and maintaining golf courses, and if they look at pictures of a certain course and they say, "it looks like crap" and yet they haven't played it, I am still likely to put more value in what they say, than some trophy course player who really knows very little about what really goes into designing, building, and maintaining a course."

That's a bunch of crap (pun intended). We pretty much know one another's tastes here and we can make fairly accurate assessments of what for instance Mike Cirba's interpretation of Rustic Canyon is vs. David Wigler's.  I still would get a better feeling from either of their descriptions having seen the course then anyones interpretations from photos. We're not listening to some "trophy course player who really knows very little about what really goes into designing, building, and maintaining a course" here. Frankly that's a bit insulting to the regular contributors whose opinions we know pretty well.

[RJ_Daley]

Geoff, yes we regulars on GCA generally become familiar with each others tastes in course design.  I think I know Mike's ideas fairly well, and I have only had the pleasure of playing one round with Wiggles, and I haven't had as many in-depth discussions with him about various details of GCA.  But here is an example of what I mean.  Mike and David have both rendered opinions of Rustic Canyon based on playing it.  (without outing the fellow) another individual I know hasn't played it, yet once gave me an opinion of two isolated aspects of the course design that he only saw in pictures, which were negative.  To be clear, the criticism was of two isolated design-construction features, not the merits of the golf course in general.  In that case, while I certainly value Mike and David's first hand knowledge of the golf course as a whole, I also value and understood completely what the knowledgeable fellow had said about those two features.  If you think I'm going to tell you who or obliquely I.D. him by the features in question, forget it!  

[GeoffreyC]

Rj- that's fine.  This individual then could properly pose a question here asking about his interpretation of the photos.  Mike, David, Matt, myself, DM, TN or anyone else with personal experience at the site could try to answer the question.  We all then draw conclusions based on our feelings about the individual's tastes in GCA.  That's how I think we can have productive and civil discussions here.

However, I don't think that anyone here wants to conclude that most posters are "Joe sixpack" to use Matt Ward's term for Mark Fine's 99%  

[RJ_Daley]

Oh boy, I may come dangerously close here to I.D.ing the fellow which is definitely not my place or intention, but if my failing memory serves me this one time, he did make one of his rare appearances on GCA to point out what he felt was a design flaw of one of the very early pictures of RC posted in one of the first discussions of the course.  I hope that doesn't send the archivists into a long project to discover him, because I know he doesn't come on here much because he does see this as too acrimonious and personal regarding people putting others down too often.  But I repeat,  I highly respect that he knows that of which he speaks, and his criticism and comments are in my mind (even based on pictures) completely valid on the isolated features in question.  

Taking this away from RC, because it is really about the notion of giving due respect to others opinions (however they got their information via pictures or being there) and if not agreeing with them, say so without insinuating that someone has a character flaw.  

Another case to emphisize this is to consider some of individuals on the nomad construction crews of various golf course builders.  There are a whole bunch of these hard working "Joe Sixpacks" that don't hardly EVER play the game like so many of us who fervently pursue playing courses and who are the majority of posters on GCA.  Yet, these guys, who have seen these courses from the bottom up, get going as they sit on the tracks of their machine after a dirty days work -whilst enjoying a cold one - and sometimes hoot and holler laughing at some of the biggest names in GC architecture and the dopey stuff they have produced.  You can show them a picture of certain things, and they will have a take that won't suck.  But, it will be a take from their perspective.  Who is to say that their perspective doesn't have just as much merit as a person that just plays golf and comments? :-/

[Lou_Duran]

MikeC-

You gave all the proper disclaimers with your pictures, and I do not have a problem with anything you said.  My point is that based on my recent experience at Cascata, the pictures portrayed an entirely different course than what's there.  Personally, if people wish to draw conclusions based solely on internet photographs and coffee table books, well, that's their perogative, though they are seriously missing much of the experience.  My take based on my limited experience on this site is that too much emphasis is placed on the architect, the style, and, yes, the location.  One can love Ross and MacKenzie without thinking that Fazio and Rees are Anti-Christs.  Perhaps sometimes pictures are used to reinforce preconceived notions.  But I am all for posting them, and some day I will take the time to figure out how to do it.

Dick-

In the absence of the real thing, pictures sometimes have to suffice.  I think that a fairly large industry has prospered as a result.

Hopefully, I have not been one of those who have jumped in and stiffled discussion.  Newbies are important to the site and should be encouraged.  Civility is something we should all strive for, though it is nearly impossible or maybe even desirable to strictly control.  Lurkers have to realize that many participants are acquainted, and liberties are taken among friends which wouldn't be with total strangers.  Ignoring offensive or tiresome threads is the best way to make them cease.  And a few of us probably should play more, read more carefully, and think things out before responding.  Your last comment about the trophy player is a little perplexing.  Are you suggesting that the architect not consider the customer?  Does one have to know how a Ferrari is designed and built to appreciate it?  It may help, but one does not preclude the other.    

[RJ_Daley]

Lou, why so perplexed?  Are there not people whose greatest goal in their pursuit of the game of golf is to play the top 100?  And, that doesn't even get into whose top 100 and why.  They are trophy course players.  Many of them simply don't have the depth of architectural, design, construction, maintenance or historical knowledge that other people have that don't pursue the game for the purpose of filling a trophy case of courses played.  But, they have their perspectives and one can respect or question their ideas the same as those coming from other places in the golf world.  I think the aspect of sincerity and real passion for the subject is more important than the pedigree of their courses played portfolio.

I have come to believe that the architect can no longer consider the whole wide spectrum of customers.  The clientele has become too diversified, by means of technology, and affluence and access.   The architect in my opinion has to consider the focus market.  If it is a TPC sort of competition course, that is one thing.  If it is a gaudy CCFAD extravaganza to lure in the big bettors, that is another.  If it is a municipal course that caters to "Joe Sixpack" that is another.  If it is a golf club geared to really avid players with some advanced skills and refined understandings, that is yet another.  If they come up with something somewhat flexible to encompass more than a few of the subgroups, well good on them...

Revving up the old Ferrari must be quite excillerating.  Not many will ever have the chance to do so.  Then again, where would anyone go to 'legally' really work the old Ferrari out?  I don't know how the darn thing was designed, but I know what it looks like wrapped around the tree after it left the road because the driver exceeded his limitations while exploring the advanced design features.  Remember, speed kills.

Do you thing golf design can be like that Ferrari, over designed, causing extraordinary costs, too complicated for anyone but the highly skilled to really handle without hurting themselves...  How many rich guys buy a Ferrari and park it in the show garage and revv it up for their buddies to see, but can't really take it anywhere except downtown Hollywood where they can't drive more than 25-45mph?  Are they trophy car guys, like there are trophy course player guys?  

[GeoffreyC]

Dick- once again I think we are looking at this differently.  You're certainly not saying that the opinions of many on this site (vast differences in taste as they might be) are taken the same as Joe Blow who you meet in the bar after a round and starts discussing the merits of different golf courses are you?    I think we can all agree that participants in this group are all interested in and study to different degrees the art of GCA and not for the most part "trophy hunters".

[RJ_Daley]

Geoff, I think I am saying that I don't fully discount the fact that sometimes some of those joe blows have an insight that is as valid and insightful as those of us that are soooo wrapped up in the issues on a frequent basis, participating here on GCA as we do.  It depends on who joe blow is and where he is coming from in terms of his unique perspective.  One of the joe blow types I mentioned is the golf course construction worker who doesn't play 'em, just builds 'em.  There are other joe blows in the bar that play all the time, and have a preference about something that you may not have given enough consideration to, yet they may convince you otherwise.  And vice-versa is also a good thing where folks like us that do talk about this stuff all the time, might inform them of things they never thought of.  But, when talking to joe blow, I believe that talking about the merits of various courses (famous top 100 or not) is more instructive to joe blow than ticking off the list of those played just to say you played them.

I believe that our GCA writers and lurkers are a mixed bag where a great majority of them are in it to discuss, learn and share ideas, and there are a few that just like to say how many top 100 they played.  It is like you never know who is going to add or detract from the discussion, which  is much of the fun in keeping up with the posts on GCA.  I know for my part, I sometimes amuse myself while writing and get into a reply and think that I am in way over my head, and other times think, I really nailed that point.  Box of chocolates, I guess.

[GeoffreyC]

Dick-

I think I understand where you coming from but I still would rather hear Matt Ward or Mike Cirba or Ran Morrissett or Brad Miller or Noel Freeman etc. etc. give a cogent description of a golf course, how it plays and how it compares with others then anyone interpreting photos never having set foot on the property.  

[RJ_Daley]

yeah, me too...

[Lou_Duran]

Dick,

Most architects/designers place great importance on the customer (or target market) and the client's objectives.  While designing a course for all types of players is a nice ideal, I've yet to play one.  I suspect that Cascata would be polarizing with the gca.com crowd, but that's okay.

A trophy golfer is one that I am just not very familiar with.  I do know several people who have played a majority of the courses on most lists, but these guys have also played many other non-rated courses and are very knowledgeable of most aspects of the game.  It is just too hard to play all the best courses if the only intention and interest one has is to drop names at parties.   There just aren't that many people who play golf to impress.  Let's just not undermine some people because they have the means to select from a more upscale menu.  Certainly, within our own limited means, we generally choose the best quality we can afford.  And I would venture to guess that the guy who is jumping through hoops to get on at Pine Valley has the opportunity to learn more than the guy who just shows up at Dallas' Tennison-East, and certainly more than the guys who only experience either course from pictures.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()