In the last several weeks I've run across some interesting people in golf--at some pretty significant clubs and also a few architects.

In talking about architecture eventually the subject of Golfclubatlas.com came up. Some of those were aware of the site, almost all had heard of it, and a number of them had looked in on it or tried to.

The overwhelming consensus was the discussion group was a smallish bunch of real architectural addicts some of whom are nigh onto needing pyschological counseling for excessive devotion to the subject of architecture and the mindbending  addiction to detail and minutae and voluminous discussion over God knows what! (it was pretty funny when one figured out who I was!).

But I thought the most interesting thing was all those who were even remotely aware of this site felt that Ran Morrissett's course reviews (the course review section) was really remarkable! Everyone of them agreed that this guy Ran Morrissett truly captures the essence of a golf course when he sees it and reviews it.

In that sense my feeling is Ran Morrissett himself is light years ahead of any golf magazine in intelligent architectural analysis and review product than any golf writer or golf magazine is and probably has been for many many a decade!

So it was interesting to see what those sort of peripherally interested and knowledgable about architecture thought of this site. Since the most recent mention of it was on Eastern LI the subject of Friar's Head came up too. All those who were aware of it seemed to agree it's a truly remarkable golf course!

Rich:

Interesting thoughts. Some on here, and even for a few years now, have scratched their heads as to possible ways to take this site to other levels, particularly as a valuable resource for others out there who are into all things architecture--particularly reseach and restoration or perservation.

It's both fascinating and frustrating at the same time. It appears to be undeniable that the extent of mild awareness or curiosity about this site is far greater than most on the discussion group realize.

But the ability to generate participation from that apparently huge group who are aware of this site has so many obstacles, I doubt much more could probably happen. Not the least of the obstacles being that this site is in that remarkable place of almost completely open access to the world of the Internet that still is staggering for someone like me to comprehend, and all the problems that unfortunately comes with that openness.

Ran Morrissett, I don't believe is all that thrilled with some of the riff-raff that goes on within this discussion group from time to time but I think he still is a long long way from restricting in a general sense the openness of access to it.

I have no real idea how this discussion group could become more of a two-way street, as it absolutely needs to be, in my opinion. A lot of opinion flows out of the discussion group from a very small group of people but it never really flows back from the subjects discussed on here.

Of course my hope has always been that an atmosphere could somehow be constructed where the discussion group could be a two way street and the posts and opinions of green and golf chairmen, for instance, could start to flow in here (as they almost never have!)---people like Greenwood of Merion, Studer of Oakmont, Poole of GCGC, TeddyW of Maidstone, Mullen or Conroy of NGLA, C Stevenson of Shinnecock, Van Gerbig of Seminole, Wilmerding of Fishers, Young of Mountain Lake, those at Yale, etc, etc.

If that could somehow happen this website would go many many levels higher and be many many factors more valuable and effective, particularly with the architects and supers who float around this site and might participate more if a two way street with the clubs and  courses could be constructed and used!

Tom

Your ideal is an enchanting one, and not impossible, and yet.....

As you imply, the real world (at least of golf) does not move as quickly as the internet.  Also, that world operates in a mode which respects confidences, appreciates humility (even if patently false) and demands common courtesies (such as carefully replying to honest questions from ones with "legitimate" interests).  If any or all of the august group you list were to participate on this DG, they would probably be very quickly overwhelmed by the volume (and quality) of enquiries of their domaines.  Without some sort of "filter", they would not/could not respond to all of them, and the ideal would soon collapse into a sea of frustration and recrimination.

Maybe.........what could be done is to set up a sub-site for, say, the Greens Convenor of Royal Melbourne, and allow us peons to post quesitons, but allow him (or her--are the Aussies that liberated, yet?) to respond as he or she wishes, at his or her own pace, to whichever inquiries he or she thought were worthy and appropriate for public discussion.  Do the same sort of thing perhaps for the USGA and R&A, for archictects who don't now post on here, etc. etc.

Don't know if that would work, but there has to be some way of reconciling the rough and tumble of this site and the need for others to have more time for reflection on the issues that are important to all of us.

Barney:

I didn't know about Terry Lavin of Olympia Fields but I'm very sorry to hear what you just said about him. I don't know OF at all so don't think I made a single comment on the golf course, except to say that the tourney seemed more exciting to me for various reasons than others on here thought it was.

But again, sorry to hear how Terry Lavin was treated. When this site has had an opportunity to discuss something with a significant member of a significant club who is in a position to know what he's talking about just tell me a single instance when someone has NOT blown that opportunity and driven that person away. I can't think of single time an opportunity was not blown eventually on here!

Ran the man! Unfortunately, as Ran's pieces have improved in quality the DG has deteriorated. Perhaps that was inevitable as we have covered an awful lot of topics. I think it would do the DG some good to slow down for a while.

You know what would really help?  Ran's own thoughts on this.  Can those who know him well encourage him to post on this thread?

I remain committed to the principle that this is his site and what he says goes.

All the rest is just interesting banter.

TH

Good call, Brad.  Ran will be there, no?  That would be the perfect forum.  We can post on here as much or as little as necessary of what is discussed.

TH

BradS:

The round table deal in September would be the thing then. Steve Lang is probably right that this discussion group is what it is. I can buy that right now but it will always be jusyt what its become now if nothing changes.

This wouldn't be a tenth so fascinating if it wasn't for the fact that there really is a huge untapped group out there that isn't just only large it's also really impressive in who they are.

We have to try to bring them in here somehow if we want this section to expand with participants and contributors, and some really interesting ones, and get more useful with this section as a resource for all. Perhaps even a nominal public apology or two might even be in order to accomplish that end.

Can you imagine how good it would be if we could get a ton more architects, a ton more supers, a ton more green and golf chairmen, more club presidents and course operators on here? Maybe even some tour pro golfers! Can you imagine if we could move this discussion group at least to one that could accept and discuss things such as golf today and architecture today with something a little more than just a super purist bent? I know that this site's basic "mission" is in the purist realm of golf architecture but the discussion group can at least discuss more than that without adverserialness and villification.

I say it a lot and maybe it's sort of considered a joke but I don't mean it to be because I really do believe that;

"Golf and its architecture is a great big game and there really is room in it for everyone." And that can mean on here too.

And the other important thing I've learned in these last 5-6 years of being addicted to this subject is to "know what you don't know." That may sound cute but it's so true and it's not all that easy to do sometimes.

I now think I know about 1 1/2 parts of the many parts of golf course architecture. I think I know architectural concept pretty well now--and I also know the extremely important area of club and membership dynamics--the committee world and how the process works---how it almost has to work if your interested in a constructive result at all. The areas of agronomy, construction, drainage, and numerous other parts of architecture I don't know very well but want to learn. Others, who don't know various parts should at least understand that they are extremely important in the entire jigsaw puzzle of all this and not minimize or discount the importance of them or make unintelligent assumptions about them. Everyone interested in architecture should always remember "to know what you don't know" and those that I admire most in this business still actively practice that adage.

But we really should try to get some of those important people on here and treat them decently because they really are watching and they're aware of this site. The sort of "train wreck" perception of this DG is sort of quaint but long term it's not the most useful perception to foster!

And I already know that Ran Morrissett would like to explore upping the level of participation because he's always told me that--many times and a long way back too.

Darren,

Forgive me for I am the worst of all.  I am really dissapointed in myself for what I took away from this Open in regards to Olympia Fields and I blame only my own ignorance and sometimes weakness in following the party line.   I am also dissapointed that the people who understand architecture never took the time to evaluate the great features that I am sure exist at OF that tricked up 95% of the field.  But no this site took the same route as TV and the Chicago Tribune and only stated the obvious.  Even you DK..short of years but long on architectural experience never got past the obvious in your critique...we should be above the average and the mundane....we should shed light where the ignorant golfing masses tread.   Yes that Open was and should have been boring to the general public...Tiger didn't win or contest...but where was the architectural analysis that has found OF to be a great course for the last 75 years....or do we simply buy into the changes of culture and technology that makes great design moot...I know I did..and now two weeks removed I publicly state my shame.

MargaretC:

Your two cents and common sense are always appreciated. I wish you could join us more frequently.

Your point about this being an international forum is one of my greatest concerns. Recently I received a lengthy private e mail from someone overseas that is extremely knowledgeable about golf architecture. He does feel, however, that the DG is a bit too clique-ish, American clique-ish that is, with all sorts of chatter about personal things that have little to do with golf architecture. He sees that as an impediment to attracting more international participaton.

Do you have any thoughts about the "culture" of the DG? Are we too American? Can we Americans do anything to make others feel more welcome here?

Lastly, do we need more "internal self policing"?

 Back in the early part of the 90's tech stock bubble i participated in a chat board.After several months it became clear that i could not trust a single thing people said.
   This board's discussion group can be brutal sometimes,but it usually is informative.My expectations are that one of every twenty posts will be good.I just do not know where or when.So i need to open up almost every thread and read.
   Where else can one get their fix for the GCA addiction?

Tom Huckaby:

You're right. Ran will have to explain what he means by an "architecture centric" site. But, I can't imagine why anyone who loves golf architecture would not want to see this site attract more industry and international participation. My guess is that it would lead to MORE not less personal friendships being established and generally greater satisfaction.

I don't find the industry and international associations I've formed as a result of GCA as being "impersonal". To the contrary, these relationships have meant great fun - just fun, off line and in person.

Yes, we might need to clean up our act a bit to attract more participation. That's a tradeoff I think most participants would accept. Personal stuff can always be taken off line.

Tim:

As so often seems to happen, you have misconstrued my point and taken what you think I mean to extremes that I don't intend.  I guess I finally must attribute this to my own poor writing skills.

Beyond that, my feeling is the silly banter back and forth between you and me goes farther to discourage partcicipation than anything else here.  To that end, I'm going to resist yet another defensive response.  I'd request that any other problems you have with me, you send to me personally.  This has gone on far enough.

You have my email address.

TH