I am curious Forrest...why?

I simply believe that for the good of the game, the ASGCA should eliminate rules restricting free speech. As the leading organization of golf architects they send a bad signal, set a bad example, and is unbecoming of a game that is supposed to be democratic.

"Let freedom reign"...but not among golf architects who might entertain becoming ASGCA members? Wee bit odd don't you think?

Forrest,

Let's say for a moment I am angry. Does it weaken my argument? No. Why does the ASGCA embrace freedom robbing rules? Rules that smack the most vulnerable (up and comers) the hardest, which in turn hurts the competitive nature of the business.

As for hate, I don't use the word, so having it control me or my thoughts is anethema to who I am. Hate is total condemnation, which I can only reserve for terrorists hell bent on destroying our way free way of life and living, and I don't spend much time contemplating their fate. I'm simply satisfied we have someone at the helm who takes the threat seriously, and men and women who will go out and defend our free way of life. God Bless them All.

I really wonder what the ASGCA would have made of Mackenzie, Hunter and Tillinghast?  

Now, you don't know me except for the electronic text that pops up here every now and again. Anyone who knows me or has met me would say I'm a mild mannered guy who actually laughs a lot and is a practical joker-entertainer. I've actually spent the better part of every waking hour with a not-too-frequent poster here during the last 60 days, and I believe anger would be the last word he would use to describe any part of my personality. When it comes to this business, I am passionate.  I love the game. I love its tradition of honesty and integrity. Combine that passion with the ASGCA rules, a little understanding of histoire, and you find someone who thinks the ASGCA rules do great harm. I can also cite numerous cases, personal and otherwise where the arrogance of these rules have been used to maximum ill effect.

I wrote Brian Phillips quite some time ago that I think every architect should seek to become a member of a professional organization, BUT not one where you have to check out your God Given human rights at the door.

So there you have it Forrest, and other ASGCAers; Nothing more, nothing less.

I like Desmond Muirhead, and kick myself for never driving down the 405 to meet him. Just thought he'd never have the time for a young punk. But his office was gracious and sent me a package of info when interested about the business. I enjoy listening to Tommy speak about him; he seemed like quite the character.

That said (about membership), times have changed. We can discuss architecture at the click of a button, whereas it wasn't so easy way back when. Doesn't mean the ASGCA is going to lose any of its might, it would be mightier though and better for the game if it allowed people of all stripes to say what they truly believe without the fear of consequences. That fear factor of speaking truthfully is about as distasteful a situation for anyone clambering in this or any business.

QUOTE
You are way off on the "rules" issue. No one harbors anti-freedom of speech "rules" in ASGCA.
END
Wrong. You even went so far as to tell me not to post the reflections of others which support said claim.

QUOTE:
Therein lies your entire dilemma. The question should be: "What would Mackenzie, Hunter and Tillinghast made of the ASGCA?"
END

No. The question is answered in their writings.

Mackenzie was a defender of free speech. Hunter ripped one of his colleagues to shreds in The Links. Tillinghast wrote quite freely too. I believe two would have condemned the freedom robbing rules, and their potential for abuse.

The value in Mackenzie's Spirit of St. Andrews is found at the back. His views on politics, freedom and taxation were direct, concise, well explained and most valuable in giving us insight to the man's mind on freedom. I think he'd abhore the ASGCA rules... which restrict the right to speak freely. The worst about it is they are cloaked in such a wishy washy manner, that 10 different people can (and will) define it 10 different ways. That is, and has proven Dangerous.

QUOTE
Sorry, Tony. I asked my wife and she, too, says you are wrong.
END

Good to end the day on a funny note.
Over and out.
Got a BBQ to attend to with the crew.

Ryan,
Seems this has become a discussion of the good and bad of ASGCA.  As we have seen in the past this discussion can go on for days with no answer.  As mentioned earlier I would say 99% of the members are good guys and it would be a different 99% to different people.  
I am not a member of ASGCA.
 All I can tell you is my own personal experience and it is not to downgrade any individual involved with the group.
I went thru the apllication process in the mid ninties as an architect that had never worked for another member of the ASGCA.  I went thru the entire process and had my courses evaluated and letters and everything necessary for the review by the board. I went thru the review and was told everything seemed ok.  A member in my area had a problem and i was turned down.  As most would I resent that especially when I read things on here saying most people are denied for ethical reasons.  Last year I was told my sponsors did not know me well enough.....(does that mean you are not qualified) Today, it might be that I apply again and if I did one of my goals would be to "bitch" about this very type of thing.  AND I do believe that many in the ASGCA are intent to change such things....
Today I have over 35 courses to my credit, all with my name on them, and yet it could be that i don't meet their requirement because my qualifying courses might not fit their time line....where last time I aplied they did fit...thus one can be qualified one year and a few years later with more experience and as a full time architect not be qualified because he chose to either build projects out of country or in a way that he did not build enough in their required time frame.
As an independent business owner I see some issues with the ASGCA requirements that may be some of what Tony is getting too....

1.  They require a bank reference which is good....BUT how does an associate working as an employee for another architect get a bank reference to his business ......I would say he doesn't....
2.  Peer review is a subjective matter not objective....some peer review is fine as long as the exam or qualifiying test is objective ...if not then it can be come an issue of coveniently hindering competition"
3.  I am confident there are members of ASGCA that don't have much field experience but have "hung around" with a firm long enough that the principal owner/ASGCA member has given him credit for 5 of their courses and "scratched the backs of his cohorts" in order for the person to gain membership.....I have even seen this used a few years ago when hiring an employee and the employee telling me that he was told by another arhcie(ASGCA member) during an interview that he would put him in the ASGCA and that I could not.....NEPOTISM within member firms has always made it easier to join as a member of a member firm....I am told this has been changing but it has been a past issue...

4.  There is no basis for the ASGCA to say "the cream of the crop" comprises its makeup.....it is all opinion and marketing
5.  There is no basis for the ASGCA to say their members are more qalified....
6.  On several occasions i have had municipal bids where one of the requirements was to be a member of the ASGCA(got it eliminated but).....I would assume the ASGCA promoted such or in the very least never tried to dissuade such statements....
7.  One of the largest parts of any business is the ability to sell the job....I am confident there are members working for members that could not operate their own shop....(rare cases but a few) are they as qualified as independent owners that have to sell their own work?
8. AND most importantly the ASGCA is not a sanctioning body for golf architecture....and it is difficult to determine this if one doesn't know better....
9.  AND Most importantly....I once played 18 holes with a full member of ASGCA that did not know of Chicago Golf club.....(I swear)

There are still instances where personalities keep others out as it did with RTJ and Joe Lee or Dick W......I would think Tom Weiskopf would be a qualified member.....
HAving said all of the above....NO PROBLEM WITH MOST OF THE MEMBERS...it is their right to act as they see fit.....we could argue this for days an never come to a conclusion.....All i ask is that they , THE ASGCA GROUP, not make statements that insinuate things regarding non-members.....AND THERE IS NO ARGUING THAT POINT....


AS FOR THE STUDENT THING....
NOW...if I was a student and wanted help with arhcitecture I would review the classes offerd by the GCSAA during their annual meeting and sign up for those classes.....you can learn more about arhcitecutre thru construction and agronomy ......and buy their books....the artistic part of it would be a different thing.....being in any Assoc/society/art school/club doesn't give you talent.....IMHO
Mike

Well Tony ....it just seems you might be a little pissed about something considering your rather strident statements concerning the ASGCA and free speech.

I have never seen any examples of curtailment that you suggest......for example; assuming Tom Doak someday becomes a member and I stand up at the annual meeting and suggest that his name and his game rhymes with choke and joke....and if he wanted to dispute that fact we could settle it by arm wrestling or indian leg wrestling [since I threw down the gauntlet the choice of venues would be his].

I am quite sure that the rest of the members would clear an sufficient area for us to then settle our match....and afterwards we would go back to other important issues before us.

Now to the contrary, If I went behind Tom's back and made the same remarks about his golf courses to a potential client...that would be unethical and not allowed according to the rules and standards of the ASGCA.

....simple eh?

Jeff,

Hit a nerve I see.

First I am not blaming anyone for any troubles. I have none. I take responsibility for my own actions and life. So, Jeff, please cut the garbage and address the issue. This is, and let me make this very, very clear... A simple case of defending the most basic human right. The Right to Free Speech. Do not cloak this, you or anyone else in the ASGCA as anything other than that.

You know, I only do one-project-at-a-time, and I've done OK. Many will do more projects in 5 year to 10 years than I will do in a lifetime. I'm 100% OK with that. I sleep very well at night. Now, because I do one-at-a-time I could sit on the sidelines and not care a lick, keep my mouth shut, but now and again I choose not to. I see the ASGCA-EIGCA rules as an affront to all those up-and-comers, existing and future who may be eating it. I see it as an affront on a game of honor, just as I see the signature sell-out as incongruous with the spirit of the game.

Now, nobody from the ASGCA addressed me on anything (except for our discussion), and when we hashed this out many years ago you basically said, this ain't going anywhere chappy. Never heard peep, except someone advising me to tone it down to increase my chances at eligibility for future membership. My reply to that was, so it does matter what you say? And there we go. People telling others it matters what you say to gain membership. Not if you've done a good job, but what you say or write. That my friend is far from the ideal when it comes from the leading organization in golf architecture.

One rule in particular is open to all manner of abuse, and it has been abused.

I did apply to the ESGA, and had one of their members want to rewrite my advertising, and threatened me with the weight of their membership if I continued so. After that I figured I'd be better off solo than joining such a group. It was an education.  Now, check out my (very dated) website if you think I say anything that requires the input from any Architects Department of Censorship? What's funny is the only negative feedback I've received is from architects. Others, those working in the industry have dropped a line saying they liked reading about my commitment. You've lifted some stuff from it if I recall? In it there is comparative advertising. Not allowed? How else do you explain the vast differences? Flowery words don't work. You've got a few milliseconds to hold someone's attention, and if you don't it's "see ya"!

On the point of The ASGCA Department of Censorship, who is going to tell the young bucks their advertising is or is not "self-laudatory"? And for those wanting to make a mark in the business, where is the line in the sand and how fast will the Department of Censorship get back to us? You know, with the attitudes you folks have shown here, many up-and-comers or wannabes must wonder what they have in store if they express opinions that might be controversial. That's not where this business should be, and like it or not, you folks have influence. In this case negative influence.

Let me ask you, would someone saying the following be condemned by the ASGCA membership? "...there are more great salesmen than great designers among our ranks.   Modern golf architecture should be all the proof you need." Or would he be asked to join?

Should I have added, "in a Waffle House/Krystals kinda way?"

Should I have added, "in a Waffle House/Krystals kinda way?"

that would help and be appreciated by my clients....

Don says — "...but if you can't call 'em like you see 'em, then I don't see how anyone benefits other than the guy doing crappy work."

"Crappy work" is subjective, mostly, in golf design. Unless it falls down or hurts somebody, there really isn't anything that can prevent someone from doing such work. This is true, also, of ASLA, AIA and GCSAA.

In fact, it's probably more true of GCSAA than any of these. How many golf courses in the U.S. are in terrible shape, in horrid condition and very poorly taken care of? How many maintenance facilities have we seen that are junk yards, with little or no care about even hiding the mess from the golf course? A lot. And, at not all — but at many of these examples — you will find a proud member of the GCSAA at the helm.

I'll bet that you and I — and Jeff, Ryan, Paul, Tony and Mike, etc.  — would be able to mostly agree on "crappy work" in golf design. But, this still does not make it illegal or unethical. Unfortunate? Yes, of course. But we might also find someone who thinks that a lame design (our opinion) is appropriate for a certain client or program. Again, subjective.

Here is a good point: Of the thousands and thousands of members of the AIA how many do you feel do "crappy work"? Does the guy who remodels Sonic Drive-Ins do crappy work? Does the young graduate who labors over details for server room flooring layouts do "crappy work"? How about the architect that has the job of designing bathrooms for Federal Prisons? (I knew one, she was the parent of one of my daughter's classmates...and she was an AIA member. Now, that truly is "crappy work"!)

And a follow-up: ASGCA, I will submit, has a far, far smaller ratio of members doing subjectively "crappy work" than we would find in ASLA or AIA, using the same standards — which I define as work that will never win awards, will never enteratin us at golf, will not be judged the best or will strike a chord as being "the best" among the top professionals in the field.

So take comfort. Among the ASGCA members you have a great percentage doing interesting work, technically competent work and work for people who are very pleased to pay their bills (the capitalist part of this is essential...in a free enterprise system it would be difficult to continue working in a craft if people did not pay — and also it would be difficult to consider this work "crappy" if customers continue paying for it.)

Once again...this will lead us to a subjective discussion.

Forrest,
I have another example that maybe better than the one I used earlier.
I’ve yet to have the pleasure of reading one of your books that I think was titled “Routing the Golf Course.” Sorry if I didn’t get the title right.
Did you cite any examples of a poorly routed golf course? Surly someone who writes a book on a subject like that has seen examples where a course was routed poorly. Did you cite any examples of routing mistakes…by any members of the ASGCA? Or do you feel like every routing is a good one, especially if done by a fellow member?
I’m not trying to get you to pick on your fellow members, but you basically wrote a text book for the study of golf course architecture. If you were unable to cite poor routings by fellow members then all of those people who take your word as an expert on the subject may have received an incomplete lesson on the subject.
And please, trust me when I say that I have nothing negative to say about any of your books.
I'm just trying to cite an example to show that your society rules concerning commenting on other member's work could be a negative.
I have no doubt that you and Jeff believe that the positive aspect of the rule far outweighs the potential downside, but there are two sides to the argument.

Just a few thoughts,

I haven't had any experience with the ASGCA and as you say I'm sure the vast majority of members are worth thier salt.

My only reference point I have is a union I worked for years ago that didn't leave a good taste in my mouth.  Unfortunatly, as some of the issues have been described in this thread, they seem similar to some of the issues I ran into.

As the newest member of the union I had a probationary period I was subject to, of which included attendance and work performance.  I had no problem with that, except that the shop steward was the laziest person in the place and I worked circles around him, yet still had to be subject to his whims. It was extremely difficult to be fired because of the many bylaws that were in place to "protect" the union members from the employeer.  Specific tasks couldn't be traced back to individuals, official communication with management by anyone had to be approved by the shop steward, massive red tape had to be waded thru just to give someone a warning, etc, etc.  It was a complete joke IMO.

Needless to say it was difficult to keep a positive attitude as I was the lowest paid, under the most amount of scrutiny, and the veterans were just coasting, doing the minimal amount of work to avoid official action taken against them.  I hope I just had a bad experience with this and don't want to characterize all unions this way.  However, I do believe people should stand and speak for themselves and let thier merits or bad deeds carry thier own consequences.  When artificial boundaries are put in place it creates an environment for abuse and slothfulness.

In the ASGCA is there any type of 5 or 10 year period where everyone must come up for re-evaultion? Or does it work like colleges where once one has tenure they are in for good? As I've heard on hear many times, is a GCA really only as good as thier last course, or if your in the ASGCA is this irrelivant after your first 5? As a technology major, I had far too many courses that were irrelevant because a tenured professor was teaching a 15-20 yr old programming language that was a straight waste of my time.  Yet I had to take the course. There just wasn't any checks and balances to keep them current to the real world.

As it relates to gca, I'm just a mere grass-hopper, but I think the principles and concepts remain the same. Any type of organization where there is review processes needs to remain fresh, candid, and open. No one should get a free pass and be able to ride on young coat-tails.

The more I hear stories come out how certain GCAs were qualified but yet denied do to "concerns" of members, the more it sounds like a club and not an open society.