The issues you raise are certainly valid but the sticking point in your suggestion is that when someone gets a chance to play a new course, they want to talk about it here. If I go play an out of the way course somewhere and think it was great or terrible or somewhere in between, I wouldn't really want to wait a couple of years until several other CGA types have stumbled across it and then try to remember what I thought about it.

Or maybe that's not what you're suggesting, Tom. I suppose there could be the regular old (speculative, unstructured) discussion threads and then a class of threads with names like

Official Discussion of [Your Course Name Here]

for the sort of measured, reasoned, consensus discussion that you're describing. But short of that we're stuck with the fact that many people like to use hysterical overstatement any time they play a new course and that in turns breeds a form of oneupmanship in which those who agree or disagree with the original overstatement try to top it with their own hyperbolic responses.

Tom - I am sympathetic to your logic, but where does this leave what I would describe, for want of a better phrase as "missionary" posts?

Put differently, there is a lot of interest when someone plays a new course which others have heard about and then posts, particularly if they post pictures. That would apply to some of your new courses "down under" where only a fraction of GCA members have been, but everyone I am sure is very grateful when an early, "missionary" report comes in.

I am sure you would not want to delay discussion until some sort of quorum existed? After all, albeit not this site's primary role, it still has some news content and most people enjoy getting new "news".

Tom -

I'm trying the simple approach, posting photos of Pacific Grove and seeing if it will stimulate any conversation.

I bet no ...

Again maybe it's proximity to lawyers making me think like one, but there's one eensy-teensy problem with Tom Doak's approach:

Without asking on here, how in the hell will one know if five or ten members have played a course, thereby allowing for the "official" discussion?

 

TomD,

I understand the big picture idea of not rushing to discuss a living thing at Day1, since it needs time to grow, evolve, be maintained, etc..

But playing Devil's Advocate a little bit, has your approach to this subject changed in the last few years as your status has grown and the judgement timeframe on your courses has decreased?  

I would have to guess that somewhere in your pitch to client (or their expecations for contacting you) is that they want "something as good as PD or Barnbougle, if given the right land".  So if you're now charging larger fees, the client is in turn expecting not only a great course, but almost immediate feedback that his/her investment was a good one.  

When you reach a certain status (in any profession), the rush to judgement will always be a bigger factor.  It's the risk/reward side of life.  

Hey TomD;

Who the hell is Raphael Palmeiro anyway? I never even heard the dude's name until there was all this flap over something or other but I didn't read what the problem was. Did he take some 14 year old over a state line and rape her by mistake thereby violating the Mann Act of something?  

Raphael Palmiero was recently outed for being the old man still in existance with a porn 'stach from the 1970s.  He won't be reinstated to baseball until that thing is removed.  The 'roids stuff is just a smoke-screen.  

Yes, in our society it's a matter of pride to be paid to endorse a hard-on pill in a television commercial but it's a matter of shame to use certain other substances to...err, pump up ones biceps.

If someone has played a course that I haven't...new or classic...just tell me whether you had fun and why. Some pictures are also nice.

One of my frustrations with this site is that you do exactly that ...

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=17881;start=msg316617#msg316617

... and it generates 4 comments and slides off the front page into oblivion in half a day in favor of some raging Michele Wie thread.

AD

Asking people not to compare and contrast is like asking a dog not to scratch fleas.  

Even Tom Doak's book compares and contrasts courses simply by giving them a numerical designation on a 10-scale.  I find that a very nice way to rank courses and try to use it on any post where I discuss a course.  

Even the Rich Goodale/Tom Paul "Michelin" approach uses a numerical scale, albeit the much more vague and ultimately meaningless "three star" approach.  

Perhaps somewhat narcisstically, I'm wondering if this thread wasn't at least partially stimulated by my recent review of Trump National, where I claimed that it was a Doak Scale "8", and one of the best five courses in the state of NJ, in my opinion.  

I knew those opinions would raise eyebrows for a few reasons;

1) Those who claim "bias" wouldn't know what to say when they saw me hailing a Tom Fazio course.

2) There are a lot of personal feelings among people about Donald Trump and his organization, and his previous forays into golf courses have generally not lived up to his grandiose pronouncements (i.e. "Best course in the state of NY").

3) There are a lot of good to great courses in the state.

Yet, I said what I did because I've played most of them and that's what I believe.  Future playings may cause me to modify that opinion, but I don't think by very much.  I can't recall ever playing a course that I thought was fabulous, only to have it falter over time.  

Ultimately, our opinions will be judged by those who know us, and by how effectively we present our case.  Those given to total hyperbole without backing it up will lose credibility and people can feel justified in ignoring their opinion, or challenging it.

If I'm one of those, that's fine.  I still think a person can make a pretty solid value judgement on a course through a single playing, particularly if that person has some insight, a good knowledge of architecture, solid historical perspective, and experience in seeing a lot of the best courses that the game has to offer.

I think Tom Doak and most of you believe that, as well.  Otherwise, why would he have written the "Confidential Guide" in the first place, and why would so many of us have hailed it as a wonderful contribution to the game?    

Redanman:

Generally great thoughts... but re the "official discussion" idea - see my previous post.  How in the name of Fazio are we supposed to know when a course becomes eligible for "official" status if we can't ask on here.  I dare say it's a rare participant indeed who regularly corresponds off-line with enough people to facilitate this...

Quote from: Craig Sweet on August 05, 2005, 04:13:05 PM

If someone has played a course that I haven't...new or classic...just tell me whether you had fun and why. Some pictures are also nice.

One of my frustrations with this site is that you do exactly that ...

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=17881;start=msg316617#msg316617

... and it generates 4 comments and slides off the front page into oblivion in half a day in favor of some raging Michele Wie thread.

AD

Andy,
There seem to be relatively few people of the site from the SE; I share that frustration with you.  The Kinderlou thread, like the Settindown thread this week, just don't generate much comment, despite the great quality of the courses.  I had the same thing happen with a Cape Fear CC thread and a Cateechee thread earlier in the summer, though I don't post pictures.

Conversely, I haven't played extensively in the NE, so my ability to discuss courses there is equally limited.  I don't have a solution to this, but it is frustrating at times.  On the other hand, without this site, there would be NO discussion of these things, so it ends up being a "half-full vs. half-empty" situation, I suppose.

I don't know if you have played Arrowhead Pt. at Richard Russell State Park on the GA-SC line or not, but it was a wonderful surprise when I went there in July.  Relatively new (2 yrs.?), virtually unpublicized, and a true hidden gem by Robert Walker that plays along the shoreline the RB Russell Lake.  The course compares favorably, IMHO, with anything on Lake Oconee, but I haven't bothered to post on it because I knew that there would be little or no response.  Such is life in a big, big country.