News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.

Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

ed_getka

Football vs. golf architecture
« on: September 21, 2006, 12:17:53 PM »
Is there any chance a moderator can try to limit the football stuff to one thread? I put up a post a couple of weeks ago to invite someone to join us up at Crystal Downs and that was deleted in 5 minutes, but we have PAGES of football dreck. What gives?
Logged
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.

Joe Hancock

Re:Football vs. golf architecture
« Reply #1 on: September 21, 2006, 12:25:01 PM »
Ed,

An invite to play CD was the very method I ended up meeting you several years ago. Apparently that can't happen on here any more.

Just remember that those that have the power can certainly influence the look and feel of this discussion group through their own interests and preferences. That's what power is. I would venture to guess that football will remain fair game, as it were, especially if it is USC, Michigan and Notre Dame on the table.

Joe
Logged
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Tom Huckaby

Re:Football vs. golf architecture
« Reply #2 on: September 21, 2006, 12:25:07 PM »
Quote from: ed_getka on September 21, 2006, 12:17:53 PM
Is there any chance a moderator can try to limit the football stuff to one thread? I put up a post a couple of weeks ago to invite someone to join us up at Crystal Downs and that was deleted in 5 minutes, but we have PAGES of football dreck. What gives?

Ed:  lighten up.  There are two threads (maybe three if you count Dave's Angels Crossing one) currently going about college football.  We participants are bad boys, we know it, but jeez in the scheme of things it's harmless.  I have no clue why your Topic would have been deleted - that's not my bag - but come on, let us have our fun.

In any case, I am cognizant of what bad boys we are being... my last post to Mucci offered an olive branch to try and put our battle to rest.

TH

ps to Joe - I sure as hell have no power here!   ;D
« Last Edit: September 21, 2006, 12:27:13 PM by Tom Huckaby »
Logged

Joe Hancock

Re:Football vs. golf architecture
« Reply #3 on: September 21, 2006, 12:36:48 PM »
TH,

Everyone has power within their circle of influence. I suspect you have a significant circle amongst this group. :)

I was reading your post and wondering how well your logic and justification for football threads would work for me at home:

" Honey, I know I'm an ass, and I should change, but lighten up. A lot of guys are asses so it's ok that I am as well. Besides, I'm only an ass to you a few times during the week...not ALL the time. Sheesh...and oh yea....sorry, if that's what you want me to say..." ;D

Joe

King of no influence 8)
Logged
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Tom Huckaby

Re:Football vs. golf architecture
« Reply #4 on: September 21, 2006, 12:40:58 PM »
Joe:

Well, I never.  I believe I've just been called an ass.  Of course that certainly wouldn't be the first time...  ;D

In any case, that's not my logic at all and I am bummed you take it that way.

The logic is more like this, if we were to apply it on the homefront:

"Honey, I'm sorry I watch football so much, and I know it's your TV too.  But there are three others in the house, there's room for us all to watch what we want and not watch what we don't want.  I know I should give you the big TV and I will... sorry I've hogged it so long."

Does that make better sense?

There are many channels here and Ed is complaining about two.  Oh I know, he also seems to be miffed his thread about CD got deleted... but complaining about the existence of college football threads doesn't seem to be correct if he wants to address his issues.  Not to me, anyway.

TH
Logged

John Kavanaugh

Re:Football vs. golf architecture
« Reply #5 on: September 21, 2006, 12:46:10 PM »
Quote from: ed_getka on September 21, 2006, 12:17:53 PM
Is there any chance a moderator can try to limit the football stuff to one thread? I put up a post a couple of weeks ago to invite someone to join us up at Crystal Downs and that was deleted in 5 minutes, but we have PAGES of football dreck. What gives?

Ed,

You are not a rater...the IM feature is still abuzz with rater outings and invites...Did you know that SFGC is for sale now on Mondays.  Having a thread where you are asking if anyone wants to join you at one of the finest courses in the country deleted is flabergastable..It also isn't nice to IM the world about where and when and who are members of great clubs...let the guys bag tag cool down before you start hitting him up....Please.

note:  I recently set up an outing where I was comped using the IM feature so I am either a hypocrite or love access and free golf...and nobody got hurt.

I'm so sick of the football crap I almost started a thread wondering if the recent uptick in architectural quality has made the field too boring to talk about anymore...I don't know what is wrong.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2006, 12:47:16 PM by John Kavanaugh »
Logged

John_Cullum

Re:Football vs. golf architecture
« Reply #6 on: September 21, 2006, 12:50:33 PM »
I like the ass comparison better.

Logged
"We finally beat Medicare. "

Joe Hancock

Re:Football vs. golf architecture
« Reply #7 on: September 21, 2006, 12:51:06 PM »
Quote from: John Kavanaugh on September 21, 2006, 12:46:10 PM
You are not a rater...the IM feature is still abuzz with rater outings and invites...Did you know that SFGC is for sale now on Mondays.  Having a thread where you are asking if anyone wants to join you at one of the finest courses in the country deleted is flabergastable..It also isn't nice to IM the world about where and when and who are members of great clubs...let the guys bag tag cool down before you start hitting him up....Please.

So this is how the not-in-the-business side of  golf operates? Once again, it's about the power/ circle of influence....I never get invited....

Joe
Logged
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Tom Huckaby

Re:Football vs. golf architecture
« Reply #8 on: September 21, 2006, 12:52:08 PM »
Quote from: John Cullum on September 21, 2006, 12:50:33 PM
I like the ass comparison better.



Yeah, me too.  But you have to give credit for a nice try.

 ;D
Logged

John Kavanaugh

Re:Football vs. golf architecture
« Reply #9 on: September 21, 2006, 12:53:27 PM »
Joe,

Believe me...You are in the business.  
Logged

Lou_Duran

Re:Football vs. golf architecture
« Reply #10 on: September 21, 2006, 12:57:58 PM »
Ed,

Certain subjects are okay to discuss.  Others are not.

Certain people can do a Chavez and say pretty much anything they want without repercussions.  Others cannot.

Certain people can set up games and even outings via the site.  Others cannot.

Open mindedness and free flowing discussions belong more in the theoretical realm than in reality.  Get over it.  This is not just the way it is here, but in most social organizations.

BTW, not that it is that important to me, but how many threads any more are substantially architectural in nature?  And how many of these have not been recycled numerous times before?

Even with the football stuff, and I am not a football fan, there is some interesting, entertaining banter.  Fortunately, no one is forced to read every thread and reply, or even participate on this site.

BTW, how was Crystal Downs?  It is high on my list of must courses to see.  
Logged

ed_getka

Re:Football vs. golf architecture
« Reply #11 on: September 21, 2006, 01:09:01 PM »
Tom,
   You are right, I should lighten up. :) I just get annoyed when I post a perfectly reasonable invite for someone to join us at CD and it gets deleted in a flash, and no one has the courtesy to tell me why or notify me. I suspect it is because of the access issues that arisen on this site, and if someone tells me that  I'm cool with it. However, deleting my thread when there are multiple pages of football (which I really don't have an issue with since I just don't read them much) and the moderator ignores that then I have a problem. I have always been in favor of having an OT feature of this site as there are so many topics I would love to discuss with the guys here. I do not know a more knowledgeable group of people to learn from.
    At any rate someone did see my post and joined us and if you ever have a chance to golf with Gary Baker I would highly recommend it. A super nice guy and a pleasure to spend a day with.
Logged
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.

Tom Huckaby

Re:Football vs. golf architecture
« Reply #12 on: September 21, 2006, 01:16:53 PM »
Ed:

Like I say, what happened with you and CD and that post is not my bag.  And I know Gary Baker very well (electronically)... he is all class and in fact did email me to say the same about you.   ;D

Just do lighten up on the OT stuff.  OK, we'll agree to disagree about the overall issue... I've never found any harm in OT threads.  You do.  Fair enough.

I just continue to fail to see how the presence of college football threads has anything to do with what happened to your CD post.  Oh, I get your complaint... I just don't agree with it.

TH
Logged

Adam Clayman

Re:Football vs. golf architecture
« Reply #13 on: September 21, 2006, 01:21:57 PM »
What if Atlas Shrugged?
« Last Edit: September 21, 2006, 01:22:39 PM by Adam Clayman »
Logged
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

ed_getka

Re:Football vs. golf architecture
« Reply #14 on: September 21, 2006, 01:22:06 PM »
Tom,
   You need to read to the end of my last reply. I am not up to Tom Paul length yet. :)  I generally don't have issues with OT threads.
Logged
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.

Dan Kelly

Re:Football vs. golf architecture
« Reply #15 on: September 21, 2006, 01:23:30 PM »
Perhaps the Barney Betterment of Golf Foundation could take care of this.

www.collegefootballbs.com and www.golfclubaccess.com are both unclaimed!

Logged
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Adam Clayman

Re:Football vs. golf architecture
« Reply #16 on: September 21, 2006, 01:25:33 PM »
Ed, It's all about perceptions. There are efforts to get away from anything to do with access. Even the reverse. Can you understand that's just the way it is. A perception issue is all. Swallow it and accept thats what those who protect this site see.
Logged
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

mike_malone

Re:Football vs. golf architecture
« Reply #17 on: September 21, 2006, 01:34:22 PM »
 I guess most football fields are penal in nature. The only strategic aspect I am familiar with is the drainage ridge that bisects the field. Some are so high that the QB may need to make some decisions about trajectory.

   Now, I haven't seen every field and ,in fact, I have only seen fields and not played on them for 35 years.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2006, 02:01:19 PM by mayday_malone »
Logged
AKA Mayday

Tom Huckaby

Re:Football vs. golf architecture
« Reply #18 on: September 21, 2006, 01:34:55 PM »
Quote from: ed_getka on September 21, 2006, 01:22:06 PM
Tom,
   You need to read to the end of my last reply. I am not up to Tom Paul length yet. :)  I generally don't have issues with OT threads.

I guess I read more into that than you meant... when you said you were in favor of having an "OT feature" I thought you meant the separate forum some have argued for from time to time.  My apologies.

But if you do have no issues with OT threads, why complain about such now?  Hey, your thread got deleted - but surely you can't think the reason for that was that it was off topic...

I'd say you should heed the wisdom of Adam's post... but again, it's not my bag.

TH
Logged

bakerg

Re:Football vs. golf architecture
« Reply #19 on: September 21, 2006, 01:49:26 PM »
Ed and Tom,

Thank you both for the kind words.  I am glad I did jump at Ed's kind offer when I saw it.  I understand that the access issue definately got out of hand on here.  It's just ashame that a few have ruined it for others because the people that I played with from this board have just been the nicest people you would ever want to meet.

G.
Logged

Geoffrey Childs

Re:Football vs. golf architecture
« Reply #20 on: September 21, 2006, 02:57:15 PM »
I agree with redanman - except for the Notre Dame thing as I could care less what they do on the football field.

This is a golf architecture site not a sports chatroom
Logged

Tom Huckaby

Re:Football vs. golf architecture
« Reply #21 on: September 21, 2006, 02:59:44 PM »
r - well, you sure are on record before as being against OT threads, so no surprise here.  I obviously disagree... and no need to re-hash this AGAIN.  I am right with you on your last sentence directed to me though!

In any event, my point to Ed was elaborated further... to me this isn't so much about OT threads as it is about other things.

TH

Logged

Tom Huckaby

Re:Football vs. golf architecture
« Reply #22 on: September 21, 2006, 03:01:03 PM »
Quote from: Geoffrey Childs on September 21, 2006, 02:57:15 PM
I agree with redanman - except for the Notre Dame thing as I could care less what they do on the football field.

This is a golf architecture site not a sports chatroom

And you too are on record for this sentiment.

But I have always been very clear I disagree.  This is a site devoted to golf architecture, but it's also a site where friends gather.  There is plenty of room for OT topics.  If OTs overwhelm things, then yes, that is bad.  But I surely don't see that now.... Of course that is a matter of perspective.

TH
Logged

Geoffrey Childs

Re:Football vs. golf architecture
« Reply #23 on: September 21, 2006, 03:03:27 PM »
Quote from: Tom Huckaby on September 21, 2006, 03:01:03 PM
Quote from: Geoffrey Childs on September 21, 2006, 02:57:15 PM
I agree with redanman - except for the Notre Dame thing as I could care less what they do on the football field.

This is a golf architecture site not a sports chatroom

And you too are on record for this sentiment.

But I have always been very clear I disagree.  This is a site devoted to golf architecture, but it's also a site where friends gather.  There is plenty of room for OT topics.  If OTs overwhelm things, then yes, that is bad.  But I surely don't see that now.... Of course that is a matter of perspective.

TH

TH - Its a site where friends gather because some have made it that way.  Ran has not given his blessing nor has he ever participated in non-golf related topics.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2006, 03:04:14 PM by Geoffrey Childs »
Logged

ed_getka

Moderator, please delete this thread
« Reply #24 on: September 21, 2006, 03:04:29 PM »
Adam,
   I am fine with that and I will drop it, but not before stating that I don't think it would kill someone to send a message when one of my posts is deleted. I understand the issue.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2006, 03:04:59 PM by ed_getka »
Logged
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up
Tags: