There have been a few healthy runs at architects over the years - and I’m likely guilty of one or two myself - but what if you managed to offend all of them and none of them participated in discussion anymore? Is GCA still valid or important?

I have spent a little time with a couple of different architects recently, and with each one we briefly got on the subject of GCA. Each one of us had participated in the site at one point, but I’m the only left who still posts here. Each one said that they have no further interest in participating in a site because it is so overly critical of most architecture. One of them is an architect you would like to hear a lot more from if you could. They both brought up the fact that the discussion group used to celebrate great architecture but now have more threads taking shots at architects. “There is a general meanness to the discussion on the site, why would I want any part of that?” The other commented that the standards are very myopic, and that it’s more of pulpit than a discussion group. He felt the open discourse has been replaced by grandstanding and shouting to the detriment of what it could have become.

So why have I written this? Jeff Brauer –and excellent contributor that I like to read – wrote a post the other day that really bothered me.

“I once had great goals and aspirations for golf course architecture....and then last week, I read here (and if its on golf club atlas, it must be true, no?) that no matter what I did, I was doomed to medicority.  So, now, I have no goals.  

I had been working on a set of the most wonderful green designs ever, full of the best features of the best greens, and without any flaws of the worst ones.  I threw those out, pulled out the circle template, and drew 18 perfect circles at ground level, put a spot elevation in the middle to make sure it drained in all directions, and put my stamp on it, now comfortable that I was designing greens that "fit" my station in the world of golf course architecture…………”

Somebody had the nerve to call Jeff mediocre – two awards would suggest that he’s a little better than wouldn’t you say. Why would any architect ever participate on this site after reading something like that about themselves?

The thread about Twisted Dune was another one that got out of hand. Watching poor Archie Struthers trying to defend everything he did to guys that have never built anything, and then deal with all their “recommendations” for change. I have no knowledge of Twisted Dune, but I’m sure none of the participants new all the background issues Archie had to contend with either.  I’m not against criticism and I certainly have earned my share for some errors in judgment that I have made or compromises I shouldn’t have made. We make mistakes. But what many of you have to realize is that it’s tough to be on the receiving end of this.

Many of the architects won’t participate because of the way they are treated. It’s one of the problems with the internet, when you don’t have to face someone you can say whatever you want. The Architects can not because anything we say can be brought up by clients, media or any one of you when we meet. You, on the other hand, can say whatever you want from behind your computer screen because you’re anonymous.  You want architects as part of the group, get off the pulpit and back to the open discourse before you lose the rest.

(and yes, I do expect criticism for this post – so let it rip)

Ian,

I believe it was Eckstein who labeled Jeff Brauer mediocre.  I don't think Eckstein is very representative of GCAers as far as tact and respect are concerned.

I think most people have a pretty good understanding of the difference between frank discussion and rudeness.  Sometimes, thick skins are required and that's one reason why I respect every architect who posts here.

Let's not point any fingers at individuals.  Those that cross the line should know who they are, if they don't I hope they are taken to task via IM or direct conversations.  This website would suffer greatly if the architects, superintendents, owners and operators failed to contribute.  We should all exercise common sense and courtesy.  As a group we must come off rather poorly when we criticize without being informed.  I think we can hold ourselves to higher standards and still have fun while learning on this site.  Ian, thanks for bringing this up!

I actually think there's been less worthwhile reading on this site for some time, that it is increasingly dominated by a handful of people with seemingly unlimited time they use to post, and too many people react and post, and then -- maybe -- think afterwards.

I'm glad for the people I've met through the site, but there are plenty of golf industry people who think GCA is a joke, full of nasty individuals who know little of which they speak. There may be some truth to that....

It just seems everyone is critical, often without much thought.

I assume, Ian, that's why your blog has such a nice readership -- it is insightful when it comes to architecture.

Ryan,

Jeff does indeed have thick skin and a sence of humour, but others don't. Did Tom MacWood leave because he has no think skin, or because the site gets out of control?

John,

No we don't, we get some, but reporters have to be able to look us in the eye. They can't run away from what they wrote either. And that includes here too. It's still different for you than it is for me. It keeps me in check because I am responsible for everything I say. You don't have to be.


In general,

I don't post much anymore because:

1. there is very little architectural discussion - lots about courses - but little actually on architecture.
2. The negative overtone (post SI) has always bothered me
3. A thread has a lifespan of two days, to many use the site to chat with friends without ever really discussing architectural ideas. It frustrating to try pick through
4. the people who like to discuss the history of architecture rarely post anymore
5. I have no interest in professional golf, which is the most common topic after courses

That's where the site has gone from almost all architecture in 1999. There were no superstars yet, it was just conversation between friends.

Ian,

Thank you for a well considered thread and opening post.

I see on here an evolving trend of there being (as gets mentioned a lot by others) a set of accepted norms and groupthink on a lot of concepts and issues. Such as the comments about there being annointed architects of praise and those of disdain. Those that say anything that conforms with the groupthink are often picked out as paying service to the accepted party policy, and those that say otherwise are often set aside as refusing to follow the party line. No win. I see a lot of newer posters over the past year or so often wanting to get amongst good discussion, who perhaps have to wade through the beaurocratic mindfield to be able to get amongst glimpses of free and wonderful discussion.

The supers on here have been brilliant for learning. The archies on here have been absolutely fascinating for learning. Everyone can jump on and post, but the non-industry types on here can sometimes bog down the searches for these insightful experiences through loads of other diatribe.

The bare bones of this wonderful asset are still here. And I believe that all the well meaning contributors on here can see when people try and take up a less than worthy cause. I hope the archies stay.

Dammit, I should have used smilies on that post.....  Ryan has it right, I thought that idea for a post struck me as funny.

That said, your basic thesis about why gca's don't participate here is correct.  I know many who read every day but either don't have the time or inclination to participate.  Mostly, its because they feel they can type all they want, but a "my mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts" attitude is prevalent here.  

It seems pretty clear to me that any mainstream gca will be generally thrashed here, while any young up and comer will be given the royal treatment.  I presume that Ian's, Ryan,s or Mike Nuzzo's second course will be better than their first, as is the case with most gca's, but expect his will open to rave reviews here.  I suspect its because of that great american tradition (yes, I know the internet is a worlwide reach) of rooting for the underdog, with the subtle overtone that if a newbie can make it, by god, so can I.  Deep down, every one here (as well as most golfers in general) thinks they can design the next great course, given a chance.

You, me, Paul and a few others, except Mr. Doak, who by all rights should be paying for this site, really have no reason to participate under that scenario.  We are just weird ducks, what can you say?  In fact, last night at a bar, a hot chick came over, said "show me your nuts" and I responded that "I participate on golf club atlas" to prove the point.......

Actually, I have expounded on why I do participate - the mental gymnastics involved when you actually try to write what you believe (I once wrote that I believed in the ten commandments, but never more than 8 at a time.....), the fact that these posts are often dry runs for my other writing obligations (not only my posts, but sometimes others as well!)

Oh, yeah, I have a really, really slow printer at work, and I need something to do while waiting for documents to print. If I ever invest in a high speed model, I am definitely outta here!

I agree with you that we don't talk architecture as much as we should.  However, the weakness of a chat room is also its strength - you never know just what direction the free flow of conversation will take.  Its kind of like eating at local roadside stops instead of chains when you travel.  You know what you will get at Mickey D's, and nine out of ten times you will get a lesser meal at the local place, but you live for the 1 of 10 where you really get something special.

That was another one of my fathers life lessons in addition to the aforementioned "write it briefly" lesson.  He also told me that the urinal cakes aren't mints, don't eat yellow snow, and only pick berries higher than a dog can pee.

Gee, I think I will miss Dad this fathers day......

For the record, I love the threads when we talk theory, using courses or holes only to illustrate a point.  I do understand that some may feel intimdated if the great Tom Doak (or mediocre Jeff Brauer) postulates an idea and wants responses - who are they to argue, they feel, with Tom?  

I sometimes feel they are more afraid to "put themselves out there" than any architect that participates here.

Of course, even Tom (how long before he can assume the mantel of "Old Tom" BTW?) knows that there is no absolute right and wrong.  In fact, any of our open noodling on design concepts often sounds just like the amateurs in the group.

For that matter, I do understand that thrashing courses is just an extension of "A picture is worth a thousand words."  Its also an extension of the old art line "I know what I like."  So, its hard to get upset with people with an interest in golf design who are just being, well.....people.

Have a nice weekend!  Enough for now......

Ian,

You could always catch me on Cybergolf or golf course news. Or, for that matter, pick up the phone.

BTW, how long has Tom MacWood been gone?  And what did he tire of? Is he in a straight jacket somewhere, or did he just get carpel tunnel syndrome replying to each of Pat Mucci's questions when he posted?

I wish him a speedy recovery in either case.  He is another great contributor and nice guy in real life, even if every once in a while, we'uns could get under his collar a bit.

"That was another one of my fathers life lessons in addition to the aforementioned "write it briefly" lesson.  He also told me that the urinal cakes aren't mints, don't eat yellow snow, and only pick berries higher than a dog can pee."

It seems you are straying away from the write it briefly lesson.  

I guess it’s a good thing..... You hade me laughing for a few good minutes there. You should write a book.  

"That was another one of my fathers life lessons in addition to the aforementioned "write it briefly" lesson.  He also told me that the urinal cakes aren't mints, don't eat yellow snow, and only pick berries higher than a dog can pee."

It seems you are straying away from the write it briefly lesson.  

I guess it’s a good thing..... You hade me laughing for a few good minutes there. You should write a book.  

So, three outta four ain't bad, eh?  And, I am not on steroids like those major league hitters.

A book? I saw Pete Dye's book in the bargin bin at half price books a while back.  So what is that? Quarter Price Books? If his closes out, then mine wouldn't have a chance.  I would try to make it a general read, rather than a text, if I ever get around to finishing it.  (see - attention readers, shameless plug approaching - cybergolf.com)

Sean,

Isn't there a bumpers sticker somewhere that reads "There are no bad days on the golf course."  I think there is, and by extension, no golf courses can be that bad either.  That thing probably sold a jazillion stickers, and its amazing, but apparently, not one single soul who frequents golf club atlas has apparently bought, seen, read, or absorbed the pearl of wisdom contained therein.

ASGCA had slogan of "60 Years of Great Golf Design" for its recent anniversary.  I know some design firms with a motto of
"Great Design since 19XX"  I suppose Ran could print a bumper stickers reading, "Great Golf Design UNTIL 1932.....and then it sucks."  Now, that would be catchy!

Archies and Supers are vital to this website. They should be given the respect they deserve as professionals. More respect than the non professional (even if the're wrong   )

I have privately complained to Tommy about this in the past.

The internet makes it easy for people to be be impolite. I am  suprised this site has lasted so long. Most sites, whatever the topic, would have broken up a long time ago. Maybe that shows the character of golfers in general.

Mike and Paul,

I'm not going anywhere.... people have to show a little more courtesy if they want the industry people to participate.

The point of this is respecting Jeff, Tom Doak, Brad Klein, etc. who chose to make this a more interesting place by their presence.

good to hear Ian!

and I certainly agree with your last two statements as well!  I would love to have more architects, supers, etc., post here so I could learn more interesting stuff!

TEP,

Alistair Mackenzie “A first class hole must have the subtleties and strategic problems which are difficult to understand, and are therefore extremely likely to be condemned at first sight even by the best of players”

Rustic Canyon and Barona Creek brought debate and arguments all the way along and some could not understand why Rustic Canyon could possibly be great. The debate that ensued from both sides was sometimes heated, but always educational. I enjoyed hearing each side on the subject.

That's why I went to see both when I went West two years ago. That's when this site works. Go onto any thread about Rees Jones or Tom Fazio and for the most part there is no discussion of architecture. The thread is a long criticism of what's wrong. There is too much worship of some and disdain for others to have an open discussion.

Your big world theory is a favorite, but you and I are very alone in that belief. I'm specific in my likes, but I'm not going to dismiss a style. Even on the architects that do little to inspire me I know it would be arrogant on my part to dismiss it entirely. It's simply not my taste - but that doesn't give me the right to call them incompetent or "mediocre"

I may be incompetent or mediocre, and so might some on this site if they were given the opportunity.