The return of the old posts to this site is like a breath of fresh air.

ChrisB might have said it best;

"I don't know if and when this site went out of whack, but after reading a bunch of early threads one can definitely sense that the tone is much different here now than it used to be. Back then it appears to be a bunch of GCA enthusiasts in friendly discussions about what they like/dislike. Not much name-calling, discrediting of opinions, challenges of bias, laments about how the game and its classic courses are threatened, etc. Pretty high frequency of quality posts (and posts by Ran Morrissett! probably no coincidence there)."

I noticed the same thing.  People would post strong personal opinions without fear that they would be challenged in a personally derogatory manner.  

Somewhere, much of the friendly camaraderie and fun political incorrectness got lost.  The site too often today sounds like a room full of lawyers (my apologies to the legal eagles who pontificate here), splitting every hair, twisting every phrase, and seemingly running for political office on the strength of their debating skills.

There is a "soul of GCA", but at times it seems unnecessarily mean-spirited and trite.  Instead, this should be a marketplace of ideas and a 19th hole of camaraderie from a group sharing a common passion around a game.

I was saddened in looking back at the number of really interesting posters who no longer seem to visit us here.  Yes, we have grown, and I'm glad to see it, but it seems to have been at a cost.  

I'm not looking for this thread to degenerate into a finger-pointing exercise, and I would caution my brethren not to engage in such a futile endeavor.  Instead, I'd like us all to take this space to perhaps suggest ways that we can individually and collectively make this site everything it is capable of.

Thank you for listening.  

Mike

The title of this thread is "When did Golfclubatlas "jump the shark""?

I certainly don't intend to name-call in the slightest and I surely won't do that one iota but as far as I'm concerned this website "jumped the shark" when the Merion bunker project began to be discussed on here as it was. That was the most mega-significant issue Golfclubatlas.com has ever had!

Sure, there was a lot of passionate opinion and things were said then in the name of passion that didn't need to be said on the Internet. This had very little to do with what was going on architecturally at Merion--it got personal and petty and I thought this site took a wrong turn at that point and got a reputation out there from which it never has recovered.

There was a brief time I thought those involved in the Merion bunker project might actually come on here and discuss the issue and I even suggested it to them. But there was too much personal flak and I hate to say it but too much presumption as well of knowing things that those on here just didn't know.

That's when Golfclubatlas.com "jumped the shark" and because of it I don't know that it will ever be possible for this site to create that level of dialogue which was the hope of some on here initially.

There will be those on here who say that doesn't matter, that's it's more important to just say what you feel regardless of what memberships are going through or what they think. That it's more important to be constructively critical without worry about political things such as that.

Maybe it is in the end but I, for one, always hoped we could have those dialogues with the clubs. How interesting would that be, but I doubt it will ever happen after Golfclubatlas "jumped the shark" over the Merion bunker project. It even got this site some national publicity but where has that gotten us? Are we able to have a dialogue with those at a significant golf club whose architecture we're discussing?

Tommy, did you really mean to say "sediments"?  If so that was a hell of a pun.

I read a lot of old posts today... and it does seem to be a more innocent time back in 1999-2001... I read a lot of posts I did that would get crucified today, and they weren't then.  And I ask myself why this is so... and I have no answers.

I think it's mainly because back then people were more positive rather than judgmental.  Or maybe it just seems that way because it really was a small group of people, damn near all of whom knew each other off-line, and had for a long time... I don't know.

In any case, I sure could do with more positive feedback and less judgmental crap-giving.  But too much of that gets pretty damn boring also, so who knows... maybe this site is at the right happy medium today.

One thing's clear in my mind - it's the best damn discussion group about this game that's ever been, and that's as true now as it was in 1999.  And many of us were part of several predecessors, so we have a lot of comparison...

So what can we do now to make the site all that is capable of?  Hell if I know.  I'm really not prepared to say it's NOT doing that right now as it is....

Tom Paul;

Aye, there's the rub, isn't it?

As one who was probably as personally guilty of becoming emotional over the whole Merion bunkering issue as anyone, I still think the issues covered at that time are the defining paradoxical questions that this group wrestles with, and I'm not sure what the answer is.

Basically, the one big issue I see is this;

How do we encourage passion and honest emotions on this site without losing decorum and reason?

How do we offer honest criticism of architectural work without either someone being seriously offended (in this case, the folks at Merion), or worse yet, engaging in the type of heated diatribes back and forth that take up too much bandwidth and reading time here.

For instance, using your example, if I think the work at Merion (or any course or club) was ill-conceived, poorly executed, and ultimately inconsistent with what I think of when I consider the greatness of the course and club, how does one say that honestly and openly without getting politically alienated?  Is that possible?  Or, should we be Pollyanish in phrasing things so lightly and politically correctly that all relevant meaning is lost and we begin to resemble a political party controlled by special interests.  

Or, as happens in many cases here, someone will criticize an architects work, only to be engaged by defenders of same (think, "The Bridge" thread) in a rancorus debate that generates lots of heat but little light.  Egos are bruised, people in the industry are offended (although many must be truly thin-skinned), and ultimately the site suffers.

So, I'm left to wonder how we maintain our critical integrity, encourage open and honest dialogue, talk about pertinent issues in a courageous and direct fashion, yet avoid alienating ourselves as a bunch of Luddites, or worse yet, imploding within from contentiousness.

The only thought I'm left with is to always act as though the audience of any particular thread might be the gentleman sitting next to you at dinner, and not a world away on a computer screen.  

Phase "A" was the ascent. Phase "B," the gradual but perceptible decline, started in Aug. 2002 when "Sports Illustrated" ran an article on the GCA.com Web site and misspelled Tommy Naccarato's name. That was the SI-Golf Plus curse. Membership and traffc doubled in a month and the tone of discussion has deteriorated ever since. I covered a lot of this (see above) in my "Logorrhea thread."

Mike Cirba, that post of yours ought to be bronzed--and so should you!

Day in, day out, year in, year out, you've probably been the most valuable of all the contributors Golfclubatlas.com has ever had, in my opinion. You've always been a fair-minded guy who keeps consideration of others front and center---but you've always protected well your right to be objectively critical of architecture as you see it. You've steered clear of the clap-trap on here too. It's good to be that way anyway but it helps if one knows his "stuff" about architecture as well as you do. You've got the knack, my friend!

Golfclubatlasers, read that post above of Mike Cirba's and try to understand it! He sort of laid out a general dilemma on here and if it's never fixed this website will never be more than it is now and probably devolve over time into less. Of that I think I can guarantee!

I was thinking of starting another thread about this but this is a good enough place. A week or so ago while talking to a fellow from Philadelphian about a bunch of philosophical and historical rules matters (he's one of the best in the country on golf rules!) I asked him why I hadn't see him on Golfclubatlas in some years. And I assure you this fellow knows golf architecture better than 99% of us.

He said that after about 2 years of reading and sometimes writing on here it all just started to recycle. Basicially, there was only so much daily in-depth and interesting things you can say and hear about architecture. I asked him about a golf rules site he was on and he also said after about two years on that you've said and read almost all there is and it just starts to recycle. So he said, what do you want to do just hang in there and go over it all again?

That really hit home to me. I've been on this website for 5 years now and probably daily--it was a real shock to see the archives added today and my post count rocket to over 10,000, all of a sudden. I was actually keeping an eye on that 10,000 mark hoping to slow down and not exceed it as some indication of a sound mind.

But that didn't really bother me--so what's the big deal with 10,000 posts? But recently the discussions on the distance issue and they way I percieve some of the strongest and most competent contributors on here feel about it--well, it started to get to me. The opinion was we sure can't talk to the everyday golfer about it, we sure can't ask his opinion because his opinon may be dangerous.

What I've come to feel is the way this site looks at architecture and even golfers generally, certainly Joe Sixpack, is not good. This website has come to represent the new exclusionists, the neo-elitists, to me. And I love classic architecture, the Merions, PVGCs, the NGLAs, and Rivieras as much as any of you do!

I've been fighting the wars in golf organizations for over 20 years now and there's so many more defeats than victories. The same thing at my own club but there's a light at the end of that tunnel now, I think.

Criticize objectively and relatively mannerly like Mike Cirba always has--remember these courses belong to their memberships and not you and always consider their feelings too---that's the ony way anything constructive will ever be done by you. Try to persuade them logically instead of hammering them. And if they don't let you play remember the golf course doesn't know that.

Did you expect me to go out on a short post? Of course not. You fellas of Golfclubatlas, with all your knowledge and passion and faults have been wonderful, and Pat Mucci will still be wrong most of the time!

Bye!

In some ways, GCA has evolved, and in some ways it hasn't.

As Tom Paul rightly says, for those of us who have been on the site for a while, it can be far too much "deja vu all over again."  The recent resurrection of some of the old posts only highlights the fact that virtually everything worth covering vis avis GCA has already been covered, many times, often ad infinitum.  A lot of bandwidth could be saved and carpal tunnel syndrome avoided if there were properly indexed archives that would allow one who was interested in (say) the differences between "The" Redan and #4 at NGLA to go to a dedicated area of the site containing all the variations on this issue, rather than have to start yet another new thread that bores the tears out of those who have discussed this many times before, and is usually only an exercise in re-inventing the wheel, often not as well as how it was invented originally!

As for civility and open-mindedness, well it was obviously a lot easier in the old days when everybody "knew" everybody else, and there was a received conventional wisdom as to what made great GCA.  Once this peace was shattered by those willing to ask if the Emperor (not "The" Emperor--our Emperor--but the generic "emperor" of the stuff of which fairy tales are made) really had clothes, it was hard to maintain civility.  Why?  Well, because GCA is not a measurable thing--any more than is art or music or even potential lovers.  Whether or not GCA is good bad or indifferent is largely subject to the modified Potter Stewart doctrine--we know it when we see it but we can't define it, and we all see things a little bit differently.  Arguing about Merion's before and after bunkers is like arguing as to whether Picasso or Poussin was the "better" painter, or whether the Grand Canyon is more "beautiful" than the Cliffs of Moher.  Neither side can really make factual arguments pro or con, and so you end up with subjective invective which ultimately leads to the ultimate parent/adolescent argument of "Well, Just Because!!!!"

Some anal management guru once calculated that once any organisation contained more than 161 people it was impossible for everyone in the organisation to know everyone else, and thus structures needed to be put in place to act as a surrogate for intimacy.  GCA passed this threshold long ago, but some us of still expect the forum to look and feel like and act as it did when it was Ran and a few of his closest friends.  Impossible--and there ain't no going back.  Structures (e.g. better archiving--as per above, or permanent member profiles) could create more intimacy and currency, and I hope they will some day be implemented.

Nevertheless, as some have said above, in many ways, the forum is VASTLY improved from the "Good old days."  A much wider variety of viewpoints and experiences.  Far less USA-centric.  A much greater exposure to lesser-known architects and to older "hidden gems."  Tremendous and varied photographic resources.  A pool of participant "talent" that is far broader and deeper and diverse than what it used to be.

Sure, some good people have dropped out, but that was their decision, and we should respect it.  Maybe they moved on in their lives.  Maybe the forum moved on in directions that they were not comfortable with.  I'm sure we've all had those feelings from time to time.......

Two things:

1.  Man I never thought I'd ever say this, but Rich Goodale is absolutely 100% right on.  Read his post - he covers all that needs to be said on this matter.

2. Tom Paul is actually leaving us?  I refuse to believe it.  If so, TODAY is when the shark has been jumped.

TH

Mike,

      To say that the tone of the posts on GCA has changed dramatically in the past few years would be an understatement. I myself have not posted in some time because of the personal attacks and mean-spirited posts of some.
      There is a wealth of knowledge on this site about golf course architecture but there is also a reluctance of many golf insiders, who are also very knowledgeable, to give their views.
       I hope your post will hit home with some and promote a new free and easy exchange of ideas and opinions that can get GCA back to where it once was.
       

I don't get this bitching about mean spirited stuff....When people makes statements they think are going to make them popular with the masses...or get them the raters gig they covet...or an invite they desire....they need to be exposed.  Everybody knows I'm an idiot so what I say really doesn't matter but if you people think Pat Mucci is mean spirted you are way off base.

I have never seen one post of Pat's that is not based in the truth.....this site would be worthless without his sense of balance and fairness.  

I noticed the same thing.  People would post strong personal opinions without fear that they would be challenged in a personally derogatory manner.  

Mike,

I don't see that at all in the old threads...I just see a bunch of like minded guys giving pre-approved opinions.  Find me a stong personal opinion with an ounce of controversy....I mean something honest and out of the classical box like your bashing of Yeamans...bashing modern work is just tired backslapping.

Mike,
I don't see that at all in the old threads...I just see a bunch of like minded guys giving pre-approved opinions.  Find me a stong personal opinion with an ounce of controversy....I mean something honest and out of the classical box like your bashing of Yeamans...bashing modern work is just tired backslapping.

John, you ignorant slut  

Satire for all you old Saturday Night Live fans

I love strong personal opinions (such as my post stating that I believe Yeaman's is overrated and needs more features restored) and welcome them here.  That's not what I'm talking about.

But, there's a way to disagree and debate that doesn't make people feel they have no right to express a contrary opinion, and then there's the kind of post that welcomes it.  

I must admit that I was disappointed when I posted that when almost no one came forward to defend Yeaman's, or point out what I might have missed.  

John..I want to encourage debate.  Let's just keep it to debating golf courses and related industry topics, however.  When I see people having to defend their own personal integrity and intent here, then we've crossed a dangerous line that risks stifling communication, and all of a sudden people no longer feel free to do exactly what you suggest....state a strong, honest opinion, politically correct or not.

Or, as I suspect many other's are doing when they see this shit, they change the channel.  

 

Rich;

That's an interesting question.  

The "conspiracy theory" line makes me think of the old joke that goes something like, "I hope it's not a conspiracy because if it is, no one told me so I'm not in on it!"  

I don't think there should be any sacred cows here.  If I agree with you or anyone else here about 80% of courses, I think it's more fun for us to discuss the 20%.

I've tried to always speak honestly and directly here, even when it went against the grain (i.e. Hidden Creek, Applebrook), or conventional wisdom.  I wouldn't use John's word, "bashing", to describe those discussions, but I certainly am not averse to offering a negative commentary.

Once again, I'm asking people to debate more...not less....about golf courses and golf related topics...even off-topics if they're interesting and timely.

Personal attacks, however, are the bastion and deflection technique of a person who doesn't have the courage of their convictions to discuss the real matter at hand.