Ian,

Stay the heck away from mediocre.....I am trying to corner that market.......

Garland,

I'm not going anywhere. I did not know that Kelly doesn't post anymore which is too bad since I enjoyed Kelly's comments a great deal. He took the time to think about what he posted and he wasn't afraid to be provocative at times. That is the voice you don't want to lose.

My point is if Tom Doak, Jeff Brauer, Forrest Richardson, Kelly Blake Moran, Paul Cowley, etc. don't post. Will the dicussion have the same depth. It's not just the architects either, this extends to the writers like Brad Klein and the supers like Donnie Beck too. You have to decide whether you want as many of the industry people here or not.

If you knew that some, or possibly all have mentioned they wonder why they come here some days, would some of you change your tone?

What I liked early on was I was spurred to go and read a lot more books and to go and see a lot of courses that were not initially on the radar at the time. This site helped educate me that what I was doing was not good enough. It lead eventually to me starting my own business. That's how important this site can be for some - but I can't wade through the layers of shit to find the same information anymore. I'm not against OT topics - but don't come here just to talk or argue with your friends for fun - use the your email or go to a chat room.

GolfClubAtlas.com is presented to promote the frank commentary on the world's finest golf courses.

Bill:

If it were only architects participating in GCA.com I suspect there would be no one defending my posts at all ... it might be like one of those Bruce Lee movies.    Either that, or everyone would be so civil that no one would ever ask a tough question.

But, I totally agree with Ian's belief that much of the discussion here lately is about personalities and not ideas.  I realized the site was going downhill when Pat Mucci tried to start his series on the "20 great hazards" from Mark and Forrest's book, and we didn't even get through the discussion of one hole before it fell apart.

I don't think the site should be confined to esoteric discussions of universal concepts -- I will happily leave those to Jeff Brauer and Jim Urbina -- but I do think there needs to be much more discussion about the merits of individual golf holes and much less generalization about the merits of individual golf course architects.

And if Ian quits the site, I'm right behind him.  [Sorry Ian if you have to field 100 calls from ASGCA members next week begging you to quit, but I know you'll do the right thing.]

Imagining Tom D. as Bruce Lee is — all by itself — worth having a variety of architects participate.

Until Ian mentioned me I have been pretty much out of the "mediocre" discussion, except for a brief retort to try and clear Jack Snyder's name. (I am not so interested in claring my name. I have finally taken Desmond Muirhead's advice that he passed on a few years before his death: [in an Oxford-educated accent...] "I don't give a damn what people think. I really don't you know. I used to, but those days are gone. I could care less now. And that's the truth!"

While I thought the tone of Eckstein's topic was a bit harsh, I must defend such posts. I always go back to the cocktail party — which is what GCA is...an informal discussion among people with a common interset. Having attended my share of cocktail gatherings I can report that there are odd-balls everywhere...and the world will never give up its inventory of people who cannot control their thoughts...or temper them to match the essence of the moment. Eckstein, I feel, may well be one of these individuals. We can all picture what he/she might be like at a gathering of interesting people — how he/she might fumble while talking, saying just the wrong thing at the wrong moment. All the while, he/she has decent ideas...but just an odd way of expressing them.

Ian — you bring up a good question in this post. I think the site would suffer, but I doubt that ALL architects would leave. In fact, if a few of us did say "goodbye" it is likely that we might be replaced with new blood. I think that our (what...maybe a dozen of us?) presence may actually drive a few away. Either they don't feel they can "compete" with some of our comments, or perhaps they feel it would somehow associate them with our likes. That is an opinion, of course.

This is an interesting discussion here. I hope it fosters a return of posts back to where many of us (not just architects) know that the direction should head: Thought-provoking and frank discussion about golf architecture, etc.

Mike — I already like your first design.

Paul — I think Ian, Jeff and I would be the following (order has been randomly selected):

 

As for Tom D. — I think he would be the:

 

Looking at this issue through the lens of my own business, (Advertising) I've had my work and my agency's work praised and trashed in the trade press. Pieces I really liked never got recognized by major award shows, and other things I was lukewarm about won multiple awards. After the first 10 articles and award shows, you learn to take the rough with the smooth. In most cases, whatever recognition I received never radically changed my perception of the weakness or strength of the work.

If, on the other hand, it was something I had worked on for a year, it would not make me happy to hear a bunch of wiseacres outside the business trash that work. Particularly if they didn't understand the obstacles and limitations faced during its creation. In my business, these people are collectively known as a consumer focus group.

If I were a golf course architect I would view the discussion group at golfclubatlas.com as a particularly large and unruly focus group...  

There's a couple of useful things an architect might get from this site. They get to hear from a geographically diverse group of people (with varying skill levels) what they like and don't like in golf course design. Secondly, specific critiques on individual courses and holes (theirs + others) from a fairly well-travelled and well connected group of golfers. As for the time it takes to separate the wheat from the chaff, that's an individual decision for each architect to make.

***In my experience most relevant comments are posted in the first 5-6 pages of any thread. After that, they often become about different personalities criticizing each other's comprehension skills.***

The main subject matter for the rest of us on this site will never disappear, unless all golf courses existing and future cease to exist. Of course, if the actual creators of this subject matter excuse themselves, the discussion group on golfclubatlas.com could become a gigantic echo chamber filled with half-facts, unsubstantiated opinions and virtual pissing matches decided not by the quality of argument but by how many of the top 100 GD courses you have played.

I sure hope this doesn't happen... I will try to do my bit to ensure everyone gets what they need out of the site.

George — We probably owe you bigger and more deserved thanks. After all, those of us who design courses get paid for this — in a way. I think it keeps us thinking...and it challenges us to look at stuff from other angles. Those armchair architects out there (at least I think... ) are not being paid....right?

This is an incredibily sad thread...the low point of my 3/4 years on GCA.

Don Knott doesn't post because I had a restraining order served on him in 2002.

Dan,

If you don't think everything Golf Digest is bashed on this site you have not been paying attention.  Burbeck was simply the last straw.

So Dan Kelly hasn't been payng attention? Everything Whitten has done has been trashed at GCA? Bold words. Bold words.

Just off the top of my head, Dan and others were paying attention at least enough to praise (i) Whitten's articles on the changes at ANGC over the last several years, (ii) Whitten's criticisms of various US Open and PGA set-ups, (iii) Whitten's championing of Engh, Brauer and other lesser known architects, (iv) Whitten's insights into Fazio's work over the last couple of years, and so forth.

So tell us again who has not been paying attention?

GCA is like a letters to the editor box at a large magazine. You get all kinds. People in the public spotlight need to deal with it. I think, by and large, they do.

Bob

Bob,

Must be me not paying attention...Except for noticing the latest bash of him on the Bloomfield thread didn't even get his name right.  

Tim Gavrich bash consisted of "disagree respectfully with Rod Whitten", and then went on in some detail outlining the different facets and perceived failings of the course in question.  

Other than some sloppy typing, I thought that was a gentlemanly way to disagree, and if that's bashing, John, then maybe I don't see it.