Architectural deimse -Tommy Naccarato is right

« **on:** July 21, 2004, 03:34:01 PM »

Look at the thread titles and count the number of non-architectural topics and compare that to the number of architectural topics and you're struck by the absence of discussions dealing with golf course architecture, and the abundance of inane non-architectural discussions that have managed to dilute the quality of this site.

If you're incapable of discussing golf course architecture, please, go to another site.

« **Reply #1 on:** July 21, 2004, 03:57:05 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on July 21, 2004, 03:34:01 PM

If you're incapable of discussing golf course architecture, please, go to another site.

Patrick,

We all are, I assume, capable of discussing golf course architecture by freely stating our opinions or observations, and of course, you will tell us if we are right or wrong.

Perhaps you should change your post to state that if anyone chooses to not discuss golf course architecture and would rather respond to any of the other inane topics, they should go elsewhere.

Just because we can, doesn't mean we do ...

Mike

« **Reply #2 on:** July 21, 2004, 04:00:47 PM »

By my count, there are 10 off topic threads on the first page(out of 25). It seems to me that OT threads peak just following a major tourney? That's what I've noticed anyway.

Give it another week and I suppose things will get back to "normal".

« **Reply #3 on:** July 21, 2004, 04:03:02 PM »

Is there a seperate site for non related golf stuff and this one for architecture only? I love golf and love talking golf both on an architectural level, equipment level, rules, state of the game etc... Where else does someone go to talk golf?

« **Reply #4 on:** July 21, 2004, 04:04:14 PM »

I seriously hope that this is not directed in anyway at my thread regarding The golf Channel's lack of COURSE ARCHITECTURE shows. If it was, then I should leave this site immediately.

I've only been a member of this site for a couple of weeks now but have been reading it for quite a while and really enjoy it and all of the people that make it up.

But, I'm still perplexed that a thread about someone wearing a hat backwards went, what, 10 pages deep with like 10,000 views? The "white trash" comment still gets me. If William Flynn rose from the grave and joined this discussion group, I doubt that his first thread could elicit such attention.

I do see what you're saying though.

« **Reply #5 on:** July 21, 2004, 04:05:05 PM »

Pat - I tend to agree with you and Tommy. What disturbs me as well, is the tone being used in some of these posts. its either highly vitriolic, boorish, pompous or just plain irrelevant to GCA. Its caused me to post less.

« **Reply #6 on:** July 21, 2004, 04:08:54 PM »

Looks who's agreeing with Pat Mucci now.

« **Reply #7 on:** July 21, 2004, 04:10:55 PM »

You've got to be kidding me

.

« **Reply #8 on:** July 21, 2004, 04:29:53 PM »

Shaun Patrick -

I don't think this thread was directed at all at your Golf Channel laments.

I haven't started too many OT threads lately, but I've participated in too many. I'm putting myself on JakaB probation.

« **Reply #9 on:** July 21, 2004, 04:35:01 PM »

George: resist. This is just the usual tri-annual chicken little thread and you know it. The OT topics are marked as such and those who don't like them don't need to read them. Hell, the fact they are marked OT ought to be seen as a huge improvement by the chicken little faction, if they gave this any real thought. And in terms of percentage, jeez... to me there is MORE on architecture than ever, not less.

This board has never been better. Self-probation remains silly. You have way too much good to add on way too many topics to deprive us.

TH

« **Reply #10 on:** July 21, 2004, 04:46:21 PM »

Well, there goes Tom Doak ("What Mrs. Els Said.")

« **Reply #11 on:** July 21, 2004, 04:52:14 PM »

Yeah. And that had no value or relevance at all, did it? I much rather would have read about how the 15th hole at Podunka National in Ecuador reminded someone of Tom Bendelow's best work in Peoria Illinois.

« **Reply #12 on:** July 21, 2004, 05:21:10 PM »

Quote from: Tom Huckaby on July 21, 2004, 04:52:14 PM

Yeah. And that had no value or relevance at all, did it? I much rather would have read about how the 15th hole at Podunka National in Ecuador reminded someone of Tom Bendelow's best work in Peoria Illinois.

The 15th hole at Podunka National in Ecuador can't hold a candle to Tom Bendelow's best work in Peoria, Illinois!

Get real, Tom IV.

« **Reply #13 on:** July 21, 2004, 05:22:47 PM »

Quote from: Jim Franklin on July 21, 2004, 04:03:02 PM

Is there a seperate site for non related golf stuff and this one for architecture only? I love golf and love talking golf both on an architectural level, equipment level, rules, state of the game etc... Where else does someone go to talk golf?

You might try the following equipment/general golf sites if you have not already done so -
www.4gea.com and
www.bombsquadgolf.com

« **Reply #14 on:** July 21, 2004, 05:24:03 PM »

Oh I'm sure it can't. And I'm also sure there are 50 people here who have played both courses.

« **Reply #15 on:** July 21, 2004, 05:53:33 PM »

Mike Benham,

In Ran Morrissett's description of the section entitled,
"GolfClubAtlas Discussion Group"
He says:
"A free access board for the discussion of golf course architecture related matters. (note, non-architecture threads/posts are deleted)

I'm just trying to restate Ran's intent and get the site back on track before it becomes so diluted that discussions on golf course architecture are the exception rather then the rule

« **Reply #16 on:** July 21, 2004, 07:32:37 PM »

Tom, I agree this site is better than I've seen it in the year and a half that I've been looking in.

Pat, I appreciate and agree with your efforts to be mindful of the primary intention of this site is the discussion of GCA. However, you post on the Golf Channel thread (which is OT) at 3:18 and by 3:34 you start this thread. Did you have a conversion in the 16 minute interlude?

« **Reply #17 on:** July 21, 2004, 07:55:20 PM »

Tom H. & Bill G.
Why is the site better than ever?

« **Reply #18 on:** July 21, 2004, 08:24:06 PM »

Huck, in a bit you might hear something of Bendelow's better work in Illinois, though not in Peoria.

Tom MacWood, don't you think that participation by folks in the industry is higher than it has been in a while? Jim Lipe came on to, among other things, set us straight about the supposed screw-up by his organization that created the greens at Pinehurst No. 2, Someone else from that organization has just joined, we have a few more superintendents than in the recent past, and you and Mucci continue to duke it out.

Jeff Goldman

« **Reply #19 on:** July 21, 2004, 08:54:28 PM »

I have always struggled in creating a good thread. It's hard to craft a good question that will bring out well researched debate (like the 16th at Garden City debate did). Without a good beginning thread, you can not have good discussion.

I don't think there is a lack of interest, I think that there is a lack of fresh new ideas. Call it the summer doldrums.

Since I have posted this I will try a thread.

« **Reply #20 on:** July 21, 2004, 09:07:14 PM »

Golfclubaltas.com has always gone through it's little cycles and Pat's intial post is true--it does seem like it's in a bit of a down cycle. Golfclubatlas.com will always have tons of potential, though. Don't worry about it--the interesting subjects and discussions will return!

« **Reply #21 on:** July 21, 2004, 09:49:05 PM »

I agree with TEPaul, the threads and topics run in cycles. I for one have been playing a lot of golf and enjoying the summer. So I haven't been posting much. That is a good thing. But, I also like the OT threads from time to time to get a take on what the friends I have made here think about this or that. Don't worry, the new comers to GCA who haven't read all the ever recurring topics will get a kick out of debating the GCA topics that many of us long time posters have already gone through a dozen times. That is also a good thing, since the topics continue to inspire newbies to join in the discussion and learn about the topic. And, you never know when one of these OT conversations might suddenly take a turn and break out into a GCA topic...

« **Reply #22 on:** July 22, 2004, 01:53:42 AM »

While I agree with the cycle-thing, I fully concur with Pat. too much time is being spent on helping or directing others where to play, which is nothing more then a veiled, "Hey can you get me on here!" request.

For all of the time spent on BS posts, I would like to see some come up with an In My Opinion or My Home Course piece. Maybe do a little research about the courses and the equipment and how they affect golf architecture. Instead we argue ad infinitum on the affects of Michelle Wie.

Yes, its simple to just take the mouse pointer past all of these posts, but the real point here is that why not just take it to the Golf Channel or Golf Digest message boards where it belongs!

Yes, "what does a shower head have to do with golf architecture" you ask, well, if you pay attention there are certain models that are the NGLA's of their class and others that are the Sandpines. Its all real simple. Golf Architecture and golf courses first--all of the menial BS last.

It all leads to one's credibility by participating with nothing but architectural intent in mind.

« **Reply #23 on:** July 22, 2004, 02:35:07 AM »

Tommy and Patrick,

My Gawd. It sounds like old guard versus new guard.
"Who are those lowly commoners moving in? And look what they're doing!"

If we didn't know better, your posts might suggest
rigid intolerance.

It's simple. This forum is attractive because people here are smarter and more erudite than those on other sites.
You may not agree with all of the recent content,
but all of us have an interest and respect, if not a passion for
golf course design. Consider this a part of the ebb and flow.
I, personally, find it much more interesting in recent weeks
than in recent years.

You lament variety? Could you consider it a compliment?

« **Reply #24 on:** July 22, 2004, 02:42:16 AM »

Wayne,
Don't get me wrong, I agree that levity has to be given to ever situation. I just think it would be better if we had many that contribute just an opinion to back it up with facts. It may take some research and study to do so, but its what you put into it.

Take Sean Tulley for example. Here is an assistant superintendent that goes out of his way to study, and granted many have families and cannot afford the time. But Sean puts a lot into it and gets no other complimentary back-up in return. The same goes for Tom MacWood and many others who spend an inordinate amount of time researching and get little in return for it.

Its totally unselfish what they do, and selfish for others who simply discount it.

News:

Patrick_Mucci

Mike Benham

Gary_Nelson

Jim Franklin

Shaun Carney

SPDB

HamiltonBHearst

Shaun Carney

George Pazin

THuckaby2

Rick Shefchik

THuckaby2

Dan Kelly

Steve Pozaric

THuckaby2

Patrick_Mucci

Bill Gayne

T_MacWood

Jeff Goldman

ian

TEPaul

RJ_Daley

Tommy_Naccarato

Wayne_Freedman

Tommy_Naccarato