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]   Go Down

Don Herdrich

Re:No Photos Allowed
« Reply #25 on: July 10, 2005, 09:23:47 PM »
I think Mr Klein's and Hearst's comments were a joke........at least I hope so

In my opinion raters do get comped way too much though.....
Logged

Andrew Cunningham

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:No Photos Allowed
« Reply #26 on: July 10, 2005, 09:55:34 PM »
SFGC's "unofficial" stance on pictures is that they are frowned upon.  Realizing that it is usually a once in a lifetime opportunity to visit SFGC most caddies will allow a limited amount of photos but none near or in the clubhouse area.  Discretionary clicking is almost never a problem, just don't look and act like a tourist.
Logged

Patrick_Mucci

Re:No Photos Allowed
« Reply #27 on: July 10, 2005, 10:24:11 PM »
Quote from: EAF on July 08, 2005, 10:22:51 PM
After reading the Old Sandwich thread, I was annoyed that the club does not allow photos to be taken of the course.

I don't think that Gold Digest or GW should include courses that prohibit full photo access on their course ratings lists. If the Old Sandwich course is excellent, then let the world get a glimpse of why the course should be included on the ratings list. GD and GW raters should not be allowed to submit rating evaluations for such private clubs.

Imagine if exclusive clubs like PV and Cypress Point had not allowed any photos of the GCA brilliance found there! The golf world would have been deprived of many architecture ideas.

Are there any courses currently on the GD or GW ratings that have "no photos allowed" policies?


I find this thread and your posts interesting, if not conflicted.

You don't post your name, but choose to hide behind anonymity, using initials as your monker.
You chose to keep your email address "hidden", but you demand that private clubs have an open book policy.

Do you see the hypocrisy in your posts ?

Perhaps you should begin by fully disclosing your personal information.[/color]

Logged

Ian Andrew

Re:No Photos Allowed
« Reply #28 on: July 10, 2005, 10:34:12 PM »
Since I asked at both clubs.

San Francisco GC does not allow photos, nor does Seminole.
While I don't understand the rule (I do honour their wishes).
They are the only two I have encountered to date.

Logged

Kevin_Reilly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:No Photos Allowed
« Reply #29 on: July 11, 2005, 12:49:44 AM »
Quote from: Ian Andrew on July 10, 2005, 10:34:12 PM
Since I asked at both clubs.

San Francisco GC does not allow photos, nor does Seminole.
While I don't understand the rule (I do honour their wishes).

Time spent taking photos could be time spent walking to your ball or hitting your shot...which is why I imagine SF doesn't allow photos...it is not a place for idle time on the course...play fast or play elsewhere.
Logged
"GOLF COURSES SHOULD BE ENJOYED RATHER THAN RATED" - Tom Watson

Mike Benham

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:No Photos Allowed
« Reply #30 on: July 11, 2005, 01:12:26 AM »
Quote from: EAF on July 08, 2005, 10:22:51 PM
I don't think that Gold Digest or GW should include courses that prohibit full photo access on their course ratings lists. If the Old Sandwich course is excellent, then let the world get a glimpse of why the course should be included on the ratings list. GD and GW raters should not be allowed to submit rating evaluations for such private clubs.

Last time I looked at the ratings in these magazines, they did not include a photo(s) of every course ...

The raters job is to rate the course by the standards set forth by the publication.  Since most of the rating (as I am told) is a statistical calculation of all the raters, then a photo has little use in this ranking.

Instead of photos, I would prefer a nice essay by any one of a number of good writers, describing the architecture, the strategy and options of play.  An essay by HWW of SFGC would be much more enjoyable and enlightning then 2 or 3 "unretouched photos".
Logged
"... and I liked the guy ..."

Ian Andrew

Re:No Photos Allowed
« Reply #31 on: July 11, 2005, 09:15:44 AM »
Kevin,

Time spent taking photos could be time spent walking to your ball or hitting your shot...which is why I imagine SF doesn't allow photos...it is not a place for idle time on the course...play fast or play elsewhere.

I'm a golf architect Kevin, photos are used to collect ideas. I can take two dozen photos, and still walk 18 in 3 hours; just ask anyone here who has played with me.



Logged

Kevin_Reilly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:No Photos Allowed
« Reply #32 on: July 11, 2005, 12:13:09 PM »
I was putting forth a possible rationale of SF.  The way they might look at it, if you could play 18 in 3:00 taking 12 pictures, then you could play 18 in 2:50 without taking any...which they'd prefer.  Again, just my guess as to the rationale.
Logged
"GOLF COURSES SHOULD BE ENJOYED RATHER THAN RATED" - Tom Watson

Top100Guru

Re:No Photos Allowed
« Reply #33 on: July 11, 2005, 12:14:08 PM »
Nice comebacker Mucci.........

My kid almost won the National spelling bee, so I appreciate good spellers!!! (jk)
Logged

Kyle Harris

Re:No Photos Allowed
« Reply #34 on: July 11, 2005, 12:17:34 PM »
Quote from: Kevin_Reilly on July 11, 2005, 12:13:09 PM
I was putting forth a possible rationale of SF.  The way they might look at it, if you could play 18 in 3:00 taking 12 pictures, then you could play 18 in 2:50 without taking any...which they'd prefer.  Again, just my guess as to the rationale.

You assume photos aren't being taken while waiting/waiting for others to hit a shot... etc.

Logged

Kevin_Reilly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:No Photos Allowed
« Reply #35 on: July 11, 2005, 12:29:07 PM »
Quote from: Kyle Harris on July 11, 2005, 12:17:34 PM
Quote from: Kevin_Reilly on July 11, 2005, 12:13:09 PM
I was putting forth a possible rationale of SF.  The way they might look at it, if you could play 18 in 3:00 taking 12 pictures, then you could play 18 in 2:50 without taking any...which they'd prefer.  Again, just my guess as to the rationale.

You assume photos aren't being taken while waiting/waiting for others to hit a shot... etc.



There is no waiting for groups ahead of you, and again, if the club had its way, the waiting you'd do while others are hitting is absolutely minimal compared to other courses. Rat-a-tat-tat-tat is the desired sound of a foursome hitting.
Logged
"GOLF COURSES SHOULD BE ENJOYED RATHER THAN RATED" - Tom Watson
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up