[TEPaul]

.....about golf course architecture and if so to what extent?

[Dan Moore]

I thought that was the purpose of this website.

[Mark_F]

Isn't the reason Tommy now has a young bub to a dead chick because he didn't proselytize?

[Peter Pallotta]

TE
a good question. I think my answer is yes, but it's a qualified yes. I can only answer from a personal standpoint:

When I was in my 20s and spending too much time in bars and cafes, it seemed important that everyone should agree with my (undoubtedly correct) opinions on the best music, the best movies, the best books, the best politics etc.

Now that I'm older, it seems much more important to actually DO, myself, those things I think worthy and useful, and/or to actively support others who, in my mind, are putting the worthy and useful out into the world.

I think if we're doing that, and doing it without too much rancour, we are allowed to HOPE that our opinions about the worthy and useful win out in the end.

I think most have an notion of what "quality" work is, and would like to see that work flourish; but there's a wide range of opinions about what constitutes that quality. It's in the realm of ideas/discussions and in our choices that we cast our vote for what we consider best.

In short, yes, actively proselytize in words and in deeds, but expect and accept that others (of differing views) will be doing the same, and that in the end it will be a combination of much larger/grander forces that 'settles' the issue, at least temporarily, until the next generation -- upon which the responsibility will next fall.

Peter

[Craig Van Egmond]

Having you been hanging out with Sir Huntley?    

[JMorgan]

.....about golf course architecture and if so to what extent?

Tom Paul, who are we trying to convert, and to what doctrine?  I know,  , but I think one needs to answer these questions first before answering your questions.

[Craig Sweet]

Why do I think this will evolve into a thread about "firm and fast" and golf ball regulations

[tlavin]

Why do I think this will evolve into a thread about "firm and fast" and golf ball regulations

If it "devolves" into a thread about "firm and fast", you can bet that people will start pounding the USGA for the way they'll make Oakmont too crunchy and speedy despite our ardor for firm and fast.

[TEPaul]

"Why do I think this will evolve into a thread about "firm and fast" and golf ball regulations."

Craig:

I don't know about golf ball regulations but on the issue of firm and fast I don't see why this shouldn't evolve into a thread about that, among other things.

It seems to me that the fact that this country basically killed the ground game in golf almost totally over here is not an insignificant issue.  

It is also an issue not all that easy to resolve and solve either, and if people are going to proselytize about it they are the first ones who will really need to understand that fact.

Firm and fast probably isn't the only issue but it's an important one.

[TEPaul]

Terry:

You have a good point there.

As much as some of us on here love the "playability" of real firm and fast conditions (both "through the green" and on the green surfaces) we do need to recognize that the subject and the issue of "firm an fast" the way an Oakmont does it can cost some serious money.

This issue of firm and fast if not explained correctly probably does have the potential to be as dangerously misleading as the "ANGC Syndrome" of green (and potentially fast BTW ) or the PVGC "Tree-lining" Syndrome.

I hate to have to say that about firm and fast but I know it's true. I sure don't want to see an "Oakmont Syndrome" over the subject of firm and fast, that's for sure.

[Eric Franzen]

I wonder if this site would exist if people like Alister MacKenzie, AW Tillinghast, CB MacDonald and numerous other voices wouldn't have tried to actively proselytize about golf course architecture through their writing?

Or was that maybe more sophisticated ways of spreading the gospel by preaching rather than actively trying to convert people?

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

Tom,

Go for it. Put on your black suit and tie and your white shirt and go door to door asking people if they want to hear the good word. Tell us all how it turns out.

Anthony

[TEPaul]

Anthony:

One of the most interesting things about this website is how many people there are on here who profess to support the playability of increased firm and fast while at the same time coming up with every single reason under the sun why it will never happen!

[Craig Sweet]

Tom...I don't know very much about the history of golf in this country, but I will assume that 100 years ago there was little or no irrigation and some years a course might play firm and fast and other years not so firm and fast....I will assume that most courses were designed at the time with the summer drying out factored in...thus they were ment to be played firm and fast at some point in the summer months....

[TEPaul]

Craig:

I think that was exactly the case and it certainly is supported by the literature of that early time.

[Steve Lang]

 

We KEEMOSABE??

First: If you are trying to exert power and influnce by displaying mental acuity on gca.. are you going to push folks to your desired thoughts and mindset by being assertive or persuasive or pull them by bridging with your feelings or seductively attracting or counterintuitve subterfuge?   Or use all of these styles as necessary to justify the end?

Second: What is right?

Third: Who made you right?

Proselytise .. NO  .. Lead by example yes.

[Craig Sweet]

Personally, I think the only things we should spend much time proselytizing on is getting people to play the game, and increasing the opprotunites for access to courses...

[TEPaul]

"We KEEMOSABE??

First: If you are trying to exert power and influnce by displaying mental acuity on gca.. are you going to push folks to your desired thoughts and mindset by being assertive or persuasive or pull them by bridging with your feelings or seductively attracting or counterintuitve subterfuge?  Or use all of these styles as necessary to justify the end?

Second: What is right?

Third: Who made you right?

Proselytise .. NO  .. Lead by example yes."







JEEEEEESUS CHRIST!!!!

The sensitivity and defensiveness levels seem to be totally off the charts but I'm quite sure you're right about that!  

However, my technique is to be constantly and exceedingly pleasant, polite and respectful with everyone, unlike Pat who treats all memberships like ignoramouses who must be guilty of something nefarious or misguided.

[Adam Clayman]

F&f is but one note in the symphony on describing to any initiate all the factors that have caused all the worng trends, that occurred post wwII. Citing examples of the different styles, is not converting, it's passing along what one has learned through their vast experiences.

[Craig Sweet]

Adam, "wrong trends"? Says who?

[Kirk Gill]

The word "proselytize" has negative connotations for me. I think "Jehova's Witnesses."

That said, I have imposed my love of gca on my friends to the point that some of them are sick of me. I can't help but point out the strategic options of a hole, or the appalling lack of them, or the improvements that could be made.......a friend told me that I was negatively impacting his game, making him "think too much."

Maybe so. But I think enthusiastic discussion doesn't have to be a an imposition of will or opinion. And I'm working on that.

[RJ_Daley]

That is an interesting prospective of proselytizing.  Do we see the proselytizers as idealogues converting people from a wrong doctrine or set of golf architecture sensibilities to a correct one?   Or, do we see proselytizers as those that preach a positive awareness of well designed golf courses?  

Anotherwords, do we approach it from a negative stand point of saving the sinners from perdition of what we identify as bad architecture, or are we enlightening and heightening awareness of the ignorant to the heavenly works of GCA through discussion?

[TEPaul]

You are so right there, RJ. Treat anyone like they're ignorant or their opinions are ignorant and they will oppose you for that reason alone. If you want to convince someone of something the last thing you should do is insult them or their intelligence first. It's just amazing the amount of people on here who don't seem to realize that. I think the primary reason some on here do that is they think it shows the degree of their passion or something.

It doesn't work well at all.

[Adam Clayman]

Craig,  Says who? How about Max Behr beginining in 1923. Also, Says anyone who has repeated play at one of those post war venues and is bored with the lack of discovery most of them provide. And has played on course that inspire and stir.

 All I do is tell the person who never gave GCA a second thought, the argument that they have been duped by marketeers. So then they will hopefully have to think for themselves.

[Kirk Gill]

At the same time, TE, I can't take ownership of how people decide to feel about how I act. Just because someone thinks I'm an insufferable know-it-all doesn't mean I really am one (am I? Geez......)

Of course, if someone on the course just tells me to "shut thine piehole" I'm certainly willing to do that.

I don't know, RJ, if I feel like I'm either saving anyone from anything OR enlightening anyone. I don't know that I feel like I'm in a position to do either one of those things. But if in my excitement over gca I happen to whip out the occasional opinion or even harangue, it's my enthusiasm that is doing it, not any feeling that I have either the power or the knowledge to convince anyone of anything.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()