[Forrest Richardson]

A friend of mine is on some drug that makes him "happier" — in general, nicer to be with and more agreeable. Next trip to Mexico I'll look for the stuff and see if I can get some.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I was membership chair and talked to Bill Coore, although I think he contacted me first, and also had talked to others before getting the application.  Since he took the time to fill out the application, I can assume he wanted to be a member, if not a lifetime (to specifically answer your question, then at least for some time) and has been an active member, which is further proof that he sees some advantages in being in ASGCA.

Sorry to dissapoint, but I do have a keen grip of the obvious, and I am doubting yours, ever so slightly!

Doubt all you want Jeff, but its a known fact that Pete Dye is the sole reason why Bill Coore owns a plaid jacket.  I can also tell you that I find it hilarious that the fate of the golf architectural world would have rested on your vote as the membership chairman whether you accepted him or not. I will further state that the ASGCA has no way in fact affected Bill Coore, but in fact that Bill Coore has affected the ASGCA. You can put Gil Hanse in there too, as well as Tom Doak, despite him not being a member of the ASGCA, nor should he ever want to; even though you guys will have to somewhat accept him soon just to remain credible

Certain types of architects?  Tommy, you would be a worse dictator as to keeping out architects as anyone we ever had in the ASGCA.  You really have to accept a broad range of architectural opinions and styles to have the strongest group....

Lastly, again sorry to dissapoint, but technology does change things in every field.  Or do you still install the kite string and key favored by Ben Franklin?  Again, you can't say I don't have  a keen grip of the obvious!

Jeff, Yor right I would be a dictator, a benevolent one!  My rule would subject those who describe themselves as Alister MacKenzie specialists who have remodeled other Alister MacKenzie courses, (ASGCA member David Rainville) to harsh reprisals for misrepresentations and shoddy golf architectural practices. I don't have the time to list others, but will do so later if required. Trust me, I have many examples of shoddy golf architecture and the ASGCA members that oversaw it! You say, You really have to accept a broad range of architectural opinions and styles to have the strongest group.... I in fact would, but the ability to construct waterfalls and other aquatic presentations which have little to do with Golf Architecture would be closely scrutinized!

My rule of the ASGCA would be one that accepted or tried to interest the associates that don't get credit for work such the example of Jackie II which you failed to answer.

[ian]

Tommy,

"My rule of the ASGCA would be one that accepted or tried to interest the associates that don't get credit for work such the example of Jackie II which you failed to answer."

I'm one of those associates, and yes the ASGCA does give credit for work done under a partner or principal.

[Robert Thompson]

I swear that I've heard Doug Carrick talk about the ASGCA meetings he's been at where Jack Nicklaus was there and played in the outings....

Gosh, I thought the ASGCA was just an umbrella group for golf architects, like the Canadian Association of Journalists is in Canada. Of course, in any organization like the ASGCA, there will be people to have issue with -- after all, it is a big group. But I bet that even Tommy will agree that the organization has many fine architects -- some of create courses in the style that seems to be most supported by people on this posting board.

I also think that the ASGCA is recognized fairly widely, and in that respect, probably offers some legitimacy to architects whose names aren't as widely known as Bob Cupp, Tom Fazio, Jack Nicklaus and the like. It is even possible that membership helps some architects find work. That would appear to be a positive.

While it is fair to for Tommy to say that he doesn't care for the work of Jackie Nicklaus, that is just his take. The reality is there are fairly defined criteria for entrance to the ASGCA, and since Jackie has worked on courses -- many of which have been his designs -- since 1991, there is no reason why he should be kept out of the group. Like his work or not (and I've only played one of his courses and didn't care for it), he should be in.

And I don't really understand this debate about Bill Coore. If he has, in fact, impacted the ASGCA, isn't that a good thing? Isn't it better that his influence would be felt within the group?

I've also never been a fan of dictators, given that even the benevolent ones have a way of getting greedy and power hungry before the pistol wielding mobs come and force them to flee Haiti, or in this case California, for France.


Robert

[Tom_Doak]

Tommy,

First of all, none of this has anything to do with Dick Wilson.  As I understand it, Dick Wilson had a personal grudge against the ASGCA and/or some of its members.  I don't believe he ever applied for membership.

As for myself, I have not applied for membership to date, despite unofficial "invitations" from several prominent members in the past 3-4 years.  The reasons I haven't applied yet are muddled.  Years ago -- well after I'd built five courses, but before I was on magazine covers -- I had the sense that I would not be accepted if I did apply, both because of my field-oriented style and because several members were upset about my critiques of their courses.  In fact, one person warned me that if I were to apply, I would be asked not to write anymore as a condition of membership.  No telling if that would actually have happened, but I didn't want to put myself in that position, so it kept me from thinking about applying for several years.

More recently, I have been told by several architects that whatever I've written over the years is water under the bridge, and would not hinder me from being admitted to the society [although I suspect it will still be many years before I would get a unanimous vote on that   ].  At the same time, I've heard from a few architects who aren't members and who wish I wouldn't apply, because they feel excluded and it's good for them to have me as an example of another qualified designer who is NOT an ASGCA member.  Some of the feelings about the organization seem to be quite bitter and personal [including Tommy's!], but I can assure everyone that's not the case with me.

Many architects want to be members in order to gain credibility in the business, or to be part of the organization so they will get to know other architects and learn from them.  Others appreciate that they are able to gain access to the best courses in the world by attending ASGCA meetings.  None of that really applies to me.  I've never worried much about what others think of me; I've always known many other architects, and been welcome to talk with them about the subject, irrespective of membership; and I've always been welcome at most of those great courses independently.  

I did the Archipalooza thing a couple of times to make sure everyone understood that I didn't hold any grudges against them, and to recognize fellow architects whether they were ASGCA members or not.  (Some of those who weren't members yet, who were associates of members or practicing architects who weren't in the ASGCA, were especially appreciative of that.)  I also included international architects, who are only officially recognized by the ASGCA through their own societies, whose membership policies deserve tougher scrutiny than the ASGCA.  I would be concerned if my joining the ASGCA made others feel left out; or if my joining suddenly made my associates more competitive as to which of them should be next in line.

Tommy, your bitterness about the Society is misplaced.  Maybe it has something to do with your friendship with Desmond Muirhead; I don't know.  [If so, don't forget that I was as tough on his credentials as anyone in the ASGCA.]  I did understand that Bill Coore was only admitted on his second application, something which Jeff glossed over, but maybe I heard wrong.  If you keep this up, though, they are never going to let you in!  

As for me, I probably will join someday, just to stop the ridiculous speculation about my absence.  But I wonder if they'd give me an exemption about having to wear plaid?

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom — Don't think of it as "plaid", think of it as "a tartan"!

As I said in an earlier post, I really don't know about the situation with Dick Wilson. I'm sure Jack Snyder, my mentor, might have a take on this, but Jack deserves better conversation at this stage of his life...87 years.

Perhaps Jack Snyder's situation now might shed light on how the ASGCA fits into the lives of a golf course architect: Here is a man who is dealing with an advanced stage of melanoma — but he will tell you that he feels "pretty good". When we get together there is almost always talk of his friends and experiences connected with the ASGCA. Of course, this is not all we talk about. Jack speaks of family, his many experiences building courses in Hawaii, our trip to Russia, and many other life experiences.  

But...without the ASGCA there would be a dimension missing from Jack's very full life. As someone who has given his entire life to golf and golf architecture, I am grateful for what he has both given and received in return from this organization.

[ForkaB]

Given the well known fact that "dead men don't wear plaid", I would think that ASGCA membership might have immortality going for it.........

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tommy,

I have to say, your "known facts" are just wrong.   I am always amazed that you and others think you know better than I what happens in meetings or other goings on, never having been there. Other readers can choose to believe me or you.

I'm with Tom Doak, your long standing aggravation with ASGCA is very misplaced, even if your recent posts seem to indicate a bit of a softening of your opinion.  I know that you have met more of the members now, and finding that we aren't ogres, I suspect this has something to do with it, or at least I hope so.  Really a great group of reasonable people, and our membership rules are the subject of much discussion,  and deep philosophical thought, since we believe our members are our strength.  If some of your favorites haven't gotten in, it is simply a random happenstance of not applying, not doing the new work we favor, or something else.

As to some of your assertion, I am not sure really deserve an answer.

I have no idea why you think that ASGCA should have affected Bill Coore, other than letting him access his peers, for whatever that is worth.  Do you think we beat him up in the corner until he agreed to draw better plans?

While Pete was definitely a strong supporter of Bill, and has always been a strong supporter of getting every qualified architect in the group, so he may have been the one to persuade Bill to go ahead and apply, he was by no means the only reason he got in.

Tommy, I understand where you come from architecturally, and your views are fine.  I hate to sound too hard on you, and am sorry if I do.  

You are free to start the "Stubby Electricians Favored Golf Course Architects Society" (SEFGCA - wish I could come up with a better title where the initials spelled some funny, and appropos word) and I would apply in a minute, knowing full well my chances of getting in would be far less than 50%.....

You could have some of the members whar the Scarlett "W", if they did water falls, the Scarlet "E" for too much earthmoving, or the Scarlett "R" for ruining too many golden age classics.  Only a few chosen ones would get a golden "P" for purity, I suppose......   Its just that it doesn't work that way in a professional society,since in truth, we are each trying desparately to have a difference in philosophy from other members to help us stand out!

PS - Glad to hear Tom's reasoning for not applying, and his generally healthy attitude to ASGCA, even as  non member.  For most in the business, getting in is a priority of some kind, and I know first hand that it does hurt some feelings among those who tried and failed to attain membership, for whatever reason. I wish we could avoid that, but in the real world, we can't.

[A_Clay_Man]

Jeff- In the years I've spent on this site, you have shown from day one, your willingness to help educate, and generosity to us layman. But I must ask this: Aren't the extreme radical fundamentalist criticisms of our beloved emperor, a necassary in-put? Without them, full scrutiny isn't really possible and the spirit of open discourse is stifled.

Look at your last post, it explained the mis-perceptions and gave real insight into the mindset. Without the impetus to set the record straight, only a few know. Now, the world knows. Thank You.

[Forrest Richardson]

Adam — The world needs "extreme radical fundamentalist criticisms", for without such we would not be a better world. The trick, however, is recognizing these types of criticisms when they appear so they can be properly categorized in our mind.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Adam,

I did say in that post that his views were fine, didn't I?  I didn't even call them "extreme radical."  If I was insulted by the architectural views of others, or didn't believe that we as architects should be open to criticisms, I wouldn't be on here as often as I am.....

Again, I'm sorry if I sound hard on Tommy, who is a nice man with a point of view.  MY point is that if you cut me, I bleed Ross Tartan, and so over the years, his sometimes unjustified critiques of ASGCA prompt me to defend, what for me, has been one of the most positive associations I have in my life.  More than defend, I like to set the record straight when others claim to know what goes on in the hearts of members.

Given that we are 100 plus individuals, I guess I can only speak for myself.  Knowing the members as I do, I suspect many feel similarly, though.

Hopefully, this all comes off like good natured ribbing and in the spirit of fun.  I am never insulted by questions or even a few well placed barbs - I never have thought ASGCA is perfect, only very, very good.

I think Tommy is having a little fun with me, too.  He is what my father (who would ask our minister over to dinner to question the existence of God) would call "an agitator."  The world does need those!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Where you guys get anger is beyond me. I'm not angry with the ASGCA, I just think they are completely irrelevent when it comes to their stance of affairs when it comes to the Sport of Golf.

I have not one problem with the ASGCA finally taking in the young breed of architects, I applaude them for it, but how many years were they so exclusionary not to recognize the them until they saw how much work the New Breed was getting? Why do you think the new ammendment to accept restoration architects is in place? speaking of which, if we want to tak about communication, how many of these Restoration Architects will be reparing courses that had the original architecture destroyed by ASGCA members?

This is why Bill Coore, Tom Doak and others are in or are soon to be in. Because they are finally being accepted for who they are after years of the not fitting the critieria. Tom Doak writes one of the most ground breaking/earth-shattering books on the subject of golf architecture and is critical about some of their courses and they hate him. A few years later he builds four golf courses on sandy dunes and now he's ASGCA material! WOW!

Few notice, but The Confidential Guide to Golf was only released 7 1/2 years ago!

If the Society is such a important organization, please tell me what has the ASGCA done to combat the distance issue and what stance have they taken other then a pile of worthless press releases stating their taking the hard line? Why, even their current past president is retiring because he is sick of what the equipment has done to the Sport. Yet, what actions were taken during his tenure to do something about it?  THEIR STILL USING THE SAME GAME ENHANCING EQUIPMENT AND NOTHING IS BEING DONE ABOUT IT!

Does this sound like an organization that has some pull with-in the industry? Why then do the equipment manufacturers seem to have lots fun with it comes to mocking the ASGCA in a series of creative commercials, or do you actually think using Monty Python's John Cleese as the plaid jacketed Ian McCallister is a positive thing in the recognition department? What pull does the ASGCA have with the USGA, and if it does, how then is it we still have the governing body of Golf in the United States still asleep at the wheel when it comes to the equipment issues that are threatening the integrity of the Game?

Tom Doak,
Please give me one instance of what the ASGCA would do for you as an architect that you haven't already done for yourself! How long ago was it when you did your 5th golf course that would get you in? As I have told yo many times in conversation, I don't think you need this organization and three years ago, they didn't need you!  Now all of a sudden its water under the bridge? Do you actually think that an architect you may have been critical in the book is going to forget this?
 
Also, this has nothing to do with Desmond at all. In fact, for years I assumed he was in the Society until one day I asked him if he was going to the Valley Club for the annual ASCGA meeting and he said to me "what meeting? I'm not a member of the ASGCA!" In hindisght, it was pretty stupid for me to think he would be invovled with any organization that had the Jones boys in it.

While it is fair to for Tommy to say that he doesn't care for the work of Jackie Nicklaus, that is just his take. The reality is there are fairly defined criteria for entrance to the ASGCA, and since Jackie has worked on courses -- many of which have been his designs -- since 1991, there is no reason why he should be kept out of the group. Like his work or not (and I've only played one of his courses and didn't care for it), he should be in.

Robert, This has nothing to do with the quality of Jackie Nicklaus's body of work, but more how much work he actually did, and in fact if he did do it. The reason why he got into the ASGCA was simple--his name and the recognition value that it brings to the society. Even one of the ASGCA members that is particpating in this thread and who'll I'll not mention because I don't want to get him in any trouble with his fellow PLAID jacketers, who when he first started particpating in this discussion group, once stated that paticular event--when JNII was accepted by the ASGCA--was low mark of the of the ASGCA's history. You can even go back in the GCA archives to find out which architect said it if you like, or IM and I'll tell you.

In closing, After particpating at Bandon Dunes for the 1st Archipalooza, I'm reminded of a certain architect that had the balls to get up in front of the whole group and remark about  the positive atmosphere at that paticular event, and that the way things were being talked about was unlike any ASGCA meeting. Ian, you were there, you saw it. I consider that event to be a very GREAT moment in the history of golf architecture, and feel very fortunate that I was there to witness it for myself.  If the ASGCA took on that same air, especially with the new membership that seems to finally be allowed to join the party, then the ASGCA is doing the right thing.  

In being critical of the Society, I'm not talking about taking away the fun of your clam bakes and where Rees Jones gets to tell you how great Haig Point is and what it takes to be a GREAT architect. I'm talking about doing something with an organization that can have the power to make a difference and how when they speak--how to make people listen, instead of it just being another talking head press release that has about as much power of voice as the La Habra Elks.

I'm no pro at it, but I can certainly tell you from the public side of things, its a mere whimper.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tommy,

I have to say, I read anger into each of your ASGCA post.  I won't say we disagree, but once again, I think you overstate your case several times.  Here's why:

Re: changing criteria to let in resoration architects?

As to your young breed of architect, what should we do, take them in while in diapers?  We want established architects who have completed sound work in an ethically acceptable manner.

At one time, renovation (no mention of style) was allowed to get in.  Without it, I wouldn't have been a member at the time I was a member. In the late 80's, we had some deep discussions and decided that with the volumne of work out there, if someone hadn't done five new courses in that environment, they weren't trying.  In the last year, we recognize that if we don't allow some full remodels now, we would perhaps unfairly stop qualified applicants from getting in, because that may be the majority of work for a few years.

Maybe right, maybe wrong, but there is no concern for pure restoration, nor is there any attempt to keep any particular architect out.

RE:Are we important as an organization beyond the individual benefits I have mentioned previously?  

Satistically, we get a lot of press inquiries on all aspects of golf design.  Our profile in the biz has gone way up over 20 years, especially for a dues funded group of just 100 or so.  You could take the John Cleese commericials as a sign that our anti-distance campaign did register somewhere along the way, since they didn't ignore us, they lampooned us.

We also meet with the USGA privately, and publicly pushed for distance limits. For that matter, within the golf industry, many make the argument that it is not our battle to fight at all.  We are not into rules making, and we are not Manufacturers.

I think you overstate our strength as a practical matter versus the very wealthy USGA and manufacturers.  We simply don't have a war chest of millions as others do, nor, as I said does everyone think we should wage that fight.  

In any event, I won't apologize for the ASGCA not being as strong as you would like us to be for your personal issues, Tommy.  Nor do I think its necessarily fair for you to twist a few "known facts" in your mind into a negative spin on everything we do, even if those ARE the standard tactics of your typical muckraker.    However, I respect your right to fight, and that you passionately pursue what you believe.  I just don't think we as a group are going to jump on your bandwagon.

I won't speak for Tom Doak, or Bill Coore, but I suspect they would get the same thing out of ASGCA that the rest of us do - the seminars, a nice week of golf each year, and an informal chance to learn something from other craftsmen. That is what any professional society does, period.

Does anyone need it? Of course not, but it has been very nice for many  of us, and someday, for I hope for Tom, and every other qualified GCA too.

Do you think Tom likes to talk to other architects?  As a participant at Architpalooza II, I can tell you that for some reason, he limited it to other architects, and left the amateur designers and critics, like yourself, off the attendence roster.  I suspect it was because he knows where the most valuble opinions for mutal learning come from.

I can't judge the content of the first version, not having attended, but the second was a free flow of ideas and camraderie, and I enjoyed it very much.  But then again, so are ASGCA meetings.  

I don't know who made the remark you are referring to, but our meetings always reserve a good chunk of time for free flow ideas, in addition to golf and formal seminars on non-sexy topics that we find necessary from time to time.  BTW, Forrest Richardson is organizing a new, unique way for us to share even more next month in Hilton Head, which I think will be great.

Hey, this has been happening for years in ASGCA.  If Tom's meeting gets credit for the accelerated informalness of our meetings, we have no trouble saying we will steal interaction ideas from anywhere if they improve our services to members.

Even if we someday have to say that Tommy Nacarrato influenced us in some small way!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Please, do not spin this as me being angry. I'm not angry, your just reading it that way! If we were in face to face conversation, it would be exactly that--a conversation!

Do you think Tom likes to talk to other architects?  As a participant at Architpalooza II, I can tell you that for some reason, he limited it to other architects, and left the amateur designers and critics, like yourself, off the attendence roster.  I suspect it was because he knows where the most valuble opinions for mutal learning come from.

Jeff, I felt fortunate to attend the first Archipalooza event, and far as an invite to the second one, well, for one thing I wouldn't have been able to attend because of work and financial issues but also the space was limited due to it being at Sand Hills.

The first Archipalooza seemed to be a popular event that you unfortunately weren't able to attend due to time contstraints (if I remember right you had to cancel at the last minute, so it was either because of work or family issues, or a Dallas Stars game! ) and while I surely did miss a good time, I'm confident that the impact and the positive talk of the first event had on other architects that didn't attend, the reason why room was an issue at the 2nd event.

(Just to point it out, room was such an issue at the first event, but I made sure to it that Todd Eckenrode was able to be invited, and at the second, as part of the steering committee, Todd told me that I wasn't even going to be invited. How's that for a spin in popularity!)

Also, while you may have had a great time at the Sand Hills event without non-architectural people like myself there to contribute to the event, its all the more reason to see how many really embraced the idea of the original Archipalooza. But don't you find it ironic that they would attend two all-architect events, Archipalooza II and then the ASGCA event in the same year, and then the next year it was never held again? (Not that anyone think that Tom Doak should have been responsible for organizing these events every year, especially at the height of his new-found popularity!  

When Tom Doak originally pitched the idea of Archipalooza to me, it was, at least the way I took it, for a meeting of the minds similar to 20/20 only better, more in tune with Golf Architecture, be it Architects, Writers, Critics and even Tyrannists like myself.  The second event got away from that, and the third, well, I stand by thoughts that holding the event at St. Andrews Bay and Kingsbarns instead of specifically at the Old Course, as well as the main factor of 9/11 and travel and the possible lack of particpation due to time constraints by its founder, Tom Doak was the reason why it didn't go any further. That's my opinion of it.

There are some other questions I would like to ask.

Jeff, Do you think that Robert Trent Jones Sr. would have considered you equal to him in this business as far as being fellow Society members? I do think there is, or at least was at one time an air of superiority amongst other members no different from Jeff Gordon last week complaining about a sophmore rookie driver that put him into the wall. The point being, and the main logic of my complaint is that at one time this was a club not unlike that of the Skull and Bones Society, there was an air of arrogance. I don't view you or Ian as arrogant people, so hopefully you will have an effect as so many others who are part of the Society that are the same, and that the good of the Sport of Golf will prevail and that hopefully some architect that cares about the Game, just as much as he cares about the money, success and fame will want to approach the USGA, the manufacturers and help aid them to some sort of resolve. What Architect that is a Society member is going to be that person? Tom Fazio? Jackie Nicklaus II? David Rainville?  I hope I'm making my point.

My other question is, you still haven't answered my Jackie II question, and if you wish to remain mum on the subject, let that then be the understanding of your true view of the matter.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tommy,

I called up and  cancelled the anger management counselling session I had arranged for you.....point taken.  As you say, we are both much more polite in face to face conversation.

I think I missed A-1 due to a family ski trip. I'm sure it was great, and recall Tom ending A-2 with a discussion of where to go next, with both St. Andrews/Kingsbarn and Casa De Campo to honor Pete Dye leading the pack.  For the record, I was sort of hoping you and a few GCA guys would be there, and was surprised when you weren't, but understood the limited nature of the sand hills facility, and the unlimited desire of everyone to go out and play it, had on the guest list.  I feel fortunate that Tom asked me.

ASGCA  has discussed second meetings, to get away from business needs that inevitably accompany larger organizations, where we could golf and talk about the designs of a limited number of great courses in a given area.  So, Tom's idea certainly has merit.  I agree that it really makes sense for a bigger entity (like ASGCA) to organize these type meetings than one person.

Did any of the Jones consider me in their league as architects?  No, and rightly so, I suspect.  However, all three of the Jones have been so gracious to me that I could never say that for sure.  Mr. Jones called me once to have breakfast with him, which ranks as one of the thrills of my life.

Bobby and Rees have both been great to me at all times, even as a 26 year old assistant to Dick Nugent, and treated me like an equal, even if my status (then or now)didn't warrant it.  More recently, Rees has gone out of his way to relay favorable comments about my designs he has heard.  As you know, he really doesn't have to!

Of course, I have never put any of them into a wall!  I did play a practical joke on Bobby and Rees once, giving them a golf booby prize when they tied in the ASGCA tournament one year, which  I feared would put them off, but which seemed to make me "one of the group" in their eyes.  Another great ASGCA memory.....

As to Jackie, he probably has someinternal detractors who don't think he deserves membership as I have, and I probably have a lot more.  It's something all of us deal with!

All members go through the same process and scrutiny.  As a practical matter, offspring and relatives go through more, and Jackie passed.  One phase is an interivew (partly scripted) in front of the executive committee.  Some of the questions are very detailed, and it would be hard for anyone to get past that, without half a dozen architects smelling a rat, so Jackie did fine and knows what he needs to know.  (We once had a famous pro apply.  When asked what % of contour he used on greens, he said, "Oh the standard, 10-12%."  His chance of getting in ended right there, as we knew he wasn't around the jobs enough.)

And, Jack II has become accepted by all because he has taken on some projects for the group, and been a great member and person.

At some point, you have to give the members who sponsor and applicant, their owners, and all the review people the credit for ferreting out people who don't do the work.  I doubt we have made any grave mistakes with the process as it has developed since about 1985.  You are correct in the fact that years ago, the process was more of a good ole boys network, and that led to some unfairness.  But we started to resolve that as long ago, so its time to let that go.

And your attitude mirrors that of many members.  While we are an organization of the leading architects, many would often be more inclined to vote for a strugglling young architect who really displays a love of the profession to be a member over another that does more work, but doesn't really seem to care.  I don't see that lack of passion in very many members, though, no matter what the work level.  And I say that, whether or not I agree with their style or substance.

I hope that answers your question.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Jeff, it does, and thank you.

Just to let you know, I don't think Jackie is a bad guy mostly because I have never even met him, but I can think of a lot of guys that would love to feel part of the ASGCA that work in the business--and I think an organization like the ASGCA should pronounce equality amongst fellow architects, where the lowly assistant can learn to feel equal to Jack Nicklaus or David Rainville which can foster an even greater commraderie in the field of Golf Architecture.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tommy,

That is what I was trying to imply with my various examples.  Basically, once you are voted in, most members put aside any hard feelings and make everyone feel a part of the group.

The biggest problem is not shutting out the young guys, its getting to know them all!  In some ways, we are getting too big.  And, since not everyone makes every meeting, it can take several years to meet a new member, by which time he/she isn't new anymore.

[Joe Hancock]

Given the well known fact that "dead men don't wear plaid".......

A classic movie. " Foc? whats that?...it's where two people lay naked together and.....No no, F-O-C......oh, Friends of Carlotta..."

Sorry, but a bit of humor can't hurt.....

Joe

[ian]

Tommy,

Archipalozza was very exciting for me, while Silva joked about his little firm that expands ladies tees, it should have been me telling that joke. I was likely the least known of all 35, yourself included. Everybody welcomed me, and that was pretty cool.

I'm an unknown associate, from a small Canadian firm; but this is where golf is great. Tom was very gracious in having me come to Archipalozza, even though he had no clue who I was. I've had the same experience with the members of the ASGCA who have been just as inviting. The golf industry is incredibly friendly, and this is likely why people choose to join the ASGCA. Most see it as a chance to catch up with their friends, and ask some questions of the architects they admire.
The great part is that the Bill Coore's and Pete Dye's will help you when you have questions. Not every industry can boast this comradarie.

That's my take on why to join any golf architecture group, which includes this one.

[Rick Baril]

Tom,

At the risk of getting this discussion back on topic:

For years, I have heard a rendition of why Dick Wilson did not join the ASGCA.  But, for clarity, I asked Robert von Hagge to verify his "opinion" in this regard.  (It is commonly known, Robert worked with Mr. Wilson for several years.)  He said that 'Dick' hated certain people in the organization.  In fact (again, according to Robert), "you simply had to know Dick to understand."  Dick disliked several others in the profession as well.  But there was a certain "target" that, according to Robert, caused him not to join.  (I don't think it is really important to say who that was - most on here can likely guess.)  

Apparently, Mr. Wilson lived up to his name, which (also commonly known) infers (or rather refers to) a specific behavioral type. Robert worked for Dick (so to speak) toward the end of Mr. Wilson's career.  His tempermant and drinking habits were apparently notorious, during this time.  I don't know if his disposition and opinions intensified with age or if he was always harsh.

Hope this helps,

Rick

 

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Rick, At the risk of taking this back the wrong direction, it was EXACTLY that person whom you suggest who I feel did more damage to the industry and the Society, as well as was responsible for the dark ages of golf architecture from 1940 to 1987 (or thereabouts)

Dick Wilson must have been an excellent judge of character.

[Forrest Richardson]

When else in the history of golf was there a "destructive" period? can you name some other era in which golf courses suffered?

How about when watery filth was abolished as a hazard? Maybe it was when tees were separated from being near the holes? Or, could it have been when the all curious and entertaining stymie was removed from the rules.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Terriotorially speaking...............

America-1890 till the construction of National Golf Links of America, omiting Myopia and Garden City. Most everything else seemed to be very bad.

[Forrest Richardson]

Was this a destructive period? Or, was it a period of invention and tinkering on a very few sites, finally leading to NGLA, Oakmont and the others to follow?

How about the invention of the wooden peg tee...talk about destructive! Wow! Look at all the pristine tee surfaces we enjoy today that should be torn up and wrangled bumpy ground...ahhhh, the beauty of classic throw-backs....they are in my mind, but I cannot find them....all I have is photos and books of such rugged teeing ground.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Rick's explanation of the Wilson personality highlight that when an otherwise good architect is not in ASGCA, it is not always, or not even simply a conspiracy by the members to keep him/her out.

As the Jones vs Wilson thread pointed out, each seemed very capable of sllinging arrows, and Wilson perhaps knew that it simply wouldn't be a great experience.  For the most part, I think Tommy and others assume that Jones was the sole culprit, but these posts suggest otherwise.

Its a good thing Wilson didn't think of marketing himself a la Donald Trump.... as in calling himself  "The Dick."

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()