[Brian_Gracely]

If I were running for GCA President, I'd campaign under this three pronged platform:

All citizens must have the basics
===========================
1) If you've technically savy enough to use a computer, you're savy enough to learn how to post a picture.  Get a free Photobucket.com account.  Post a picture of a place you played....and save us the 1000 words you would have written on an OT topic.

2) Just like the census, you must be accounted for and identified.  Newbies must post to "Who are you guys?" http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=240;start=0

3) Those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it, and those that don't use "Search" are doomed to repeat topics.  Encourage Ran to make Search more usable.

Eliminate the waste!!
====================
Just like Wheel of Fortune did several years back by making R-S-T-N-D-E automatic letters in the final round to eliminate redundancy, we'd automatically consolidate or eliminate any post that falls into the following category:

a) Discussions of annual ratings.  Smart people should be wise enough to realize it's a subjective process and influenced by many non-architect factors.  Learn to live with this.
b) Discussions about the PGA Tour courses.  Smart people should realize they pick courses based on their ability to hold alot of spectators and corporate tents.  If you're still confused about this, check the PGA Tour list against a magazine rating list...hmmm, they don't match up very well.
c) Discussion about "I'm on a business trip, which course should I play?".  Unless you're going to offer a hidden gem, smart people should realize this is a request for access and not people that just couldn't read the Top XX list from some magazine.  
d) Discussions about rolling back the golf ball.  99.99% of you aren't doing it yourself, so don't be hypocrticial.  
e) Discussions started by Patrick Mucci (or Pat Mucci) which start out good, but quickly move to a rainbow fest of "have you played the course?".  Just accept that people talk about courses they have seen pictures of and move on....or ignore them.
f) Discussions where Matt Ward tells us about how everyone is inferior to him because of his travels.  Ok, enough, we've gotten the point.  It says "God" next you profile, let's move on.
g) Discussions that are nothing more than lists.  If all you can do is add a list, save yourself the hassle.  Golf Digest offers a peg-board for people that need lists to talk about golf courses.  


Let the Architects, Superintendants and Club-Pros post under Pseudonyms (if they want)
===============================================
For the most part, these are the guys that bring the most interesting aspects to the Discussion Group.  And alot of them lurk and read the board, but they are hesitant to post an opinion or comment out of concern for their jobs.  So I say we institute the GCA Witness Protection Program for these guys.  

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Brian,

You'll be keeping a very low profile if you campaign under a platform, three pronged or not.  Fear not, nobody on this site would dare to throw a rotten egg or heckle while you campaign.  Everyone is so polite here....  

[Rick Shefchik]

If I were running for GCA President, I'd campaign under this three pronged platform:

we'd automatically consolidate or eliminate any post that falls into the following category:

d) Discussions about rolling back the golf ball.  99.99% of you aren't doing it yourself, so don't be hypocrticial.  

Brian, I'm afraid you lost my vote...though I'm waiting to see who does the impression of you on Saturday Night Live before I completely write you off.

The roll-back discussion is not about my game, or yours. I don't care if you play with a non-conforming ball that goes 500 yards (as long as you and I play the same ball if we ever have a match). My interest in the roll-back is solely about the entertainment value of golf as it is played at it's highest levels. I liked watching the game a lot more when 475 yards was not a driver and a wedge for the top pros. (No matter what ball I use, it's still a driver and a five-wood for me.)

Could you ask your researchers to take another look at this issue and come up with a revised position paper? Otherwise, I'm going to have to start looking at the Socialist...

[Brian_Gracely]

So Rick, are you in the "bifurication" camp or "one game/one ball camp"?  I see lots of people that want to make it tougher for the pros, don't want to see 8000yd courses, but have no interest in giving up their ProV1.  

[Rick Shefchik]

Brian -- Either. I'd be more than willing to play a rolled-back ball. I played such a ball for 30 years. In my limited competitive rounds, I'll play with whatever ball my fellow competitors are playing with.

I could go with bifurcation, too. As I said, my game isn't at issue here. I'm not the one knocking the ProV1 into the next time zone (I wish...) I don't believe pro golf needs to be played on 8000 yard courses to be interesting; but I do believe pro golf needs a ball that fits existing courses.

[cary lichtenstein]

Brian:

You make a lot of very good points

Cary

[Bill_McBride]

The reason there should be a competition ball for pros allowing amateurs to continue playing the Pro V1 is that the ball doesn't do much for amateurs but feel soft!  If your swing speed isn't >100 mph I don't think it does anything at all.

[Pat_Mucci]

Brian Gracely,

Why should we just accept what someone says about a feature, hole or golf course when they've never seen it ?

Why are you asking me to be intellectually dishonest ?

When opinions on features, holes and courses are offered by individuals who've never seen the features, holes or courses being discussed, those opinions have to be discounted or dismissed.

If you want to engage in thoughtful discussions, the litmus test remains the direct interfacing with the features, holes and courses.  Charles Blair MacDonald was an advocate for that qualification.

Why should the opinion of an individual who's never seen the golf course be accepted as credible ?  Should the pronoucement be left uncontested ?  As if it's the Gospel ?

As to photo based opionions, perhaps you'll recall the photo thread created by Tommy Naccarato about Boca Rio.
In that thread an individual who never saw the golf course provided his opinion on some features, that opinion differed substantively from what existed and exists on the golf course.  Kelly Blake Moran had to tell him to shut up and just listen, rather then offer his version of the features, based on his interpretation of a random photo.  Should Kelly and I have allowed his erroneous opinion to stand ?
Should we have allowed inaccurate analysis to stand as fact ?

Why should we accept what people who have never seen a golf course, proclaim about it, in an analytical perspective ?

Action speaks louder then words.
Start some interesting threads about architecture, instead of telling us what I should do.

In the last ten pages of threads I didn't notice one thread that you initiated.   Try becoming a significant contributor before you become a critic.

[Andrew Summerell]

I'd like to see more generic architectural topics. Coming from Australia, I don't know a lot of the American courses well enough to be involved in discusions.

It would be good to look at architectural issues that are generic by nature. Of course, examples can be given within the topic, but the discussion would remain generic.

Andrew

[Brian_Gracely]

Pat,

I just have a few questions so I can understand your level of expertise and experience on a few areas which you've recently brought up:

1) How many live conversations did you have with CBM?  How many rounds of golf did you personally play with him?  

2) How long did you play on the PGA Tour?  How many PGA Tour Pro-Ams have you played in this year?

3) How many years did you play football for Notre Dame?  When were you the Athletic Director at Notre Dame?

4) How long have you been a Catholic Priest, Bishop or Cardinal, and how was it that you were admitted into the most recent conclave?

5) How many golf courses have you personally built &/or restored?  How many years have you been an architect?  And of the courses you built, how many were also housing developments?  

6) Do you ever watch sports on TV, or read the newspaper.  If so, do you send in a letter to the editor on a daily basis when a reporter, who has never played in the NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB asks a question or draws a conclusion based on what they saw during the game?  

[Matt_Cohn]

Here's an easy one:

Every week, one thread on that week's PGA Tour course. Then, 52 weeks, later, that thread is resurrected and the conversation continues. Just a simple way to add some continuity and eliminate clutter.

[TEPaul]

TomD said;

"The main way to keep this web site at the top of its game is to think of good topics to post.  There aren't enough people out there coming up with interesting topics."

Good suggestion. In that case I'm going to post one which is a question to you I've been wanting to hear your thoughts on for a year or two now. The thread will be called "Backgrounds?!"

[Pat_Mucci]

do you send in a letter to the editor on a daily basis when a reporter, who has never played in the NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB asks a question or draws a conclusion based on what they SAW during the game?[/color]

NO, because they actually SAW the entire game, up close and personal.  They're not basing their opinion on a solitary photo that froze one nano-second of the game, from a single angle.  They have the benefit of more intricate and comprehensive knowledge brought about by having seen this entire game, as well as many, many others.

But, I"m sure you'd argue that you could rely on that single photo, taken from one angle, as representative of the entire game, and that you'd be equally familiar with and equally qualifed with those reporters, who actually watched the entire game in person, with respect to what happened during that game based on your limited view of a single photo, taken from one angle.

You couldn't have picked a better example to prove my point, you schmuck.
[/color]

 

 

[T_MacWood]

"You couldn't have picked a better example to prove my point, you schmuck."

I'd say eliminating the personal comments would make the site even better.

[TEPaul]

""You couldn't have picked a better example to prove my point, you schmuck.""

"I'd say eliminating the personal comments would make the site even better."

But Tom MacWood, in and around the great city of New York calling someone a schmuck is considered a high compliment! I would think that criticizing a regional compliment might be considered quite rude.

[T_MacWood]

TE
My old man was born and raised in NYC (Manhattan)...I've got a pretty good read on the term.

I'd say the biggest difference between this site during the first couple years and the last five or so, is a courseness among the posters. Golf is supposed to be gentlemen's game.

[Pat_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Perhaps you missed Brian's personal comments that triggered my response.

[Mike Hendren]

For the benefit of the other 1497 treehouse members out there:

I have met and played golf with Brian Gracely.  In my opinion, he is not a schmuck.  

Mike

[Brian_Gracely]

Tom MacWood,

Perhaps you missed Brian's personal comments that triggered my response.

Yes Tom MacWood, this personal comment where I complemented Pat about starting some good threads...

"Discussions started by Patrick Mucci (or Pat Mucci) which start out good, but quickly move to a rainbow fest of "have you played the course?".  Just accept that people talk about courses they have seen pictures of and move on....or ignore them."

Of course I don't follow Pat's logical that sports-writers, who haven't played professionally and are only watching the game can be trusted as experts, but he can constantly criticize people that watch the Masters (the whole telecast or by walking the grounds) year in and year out but aren't allowed to make comments about a shot.  

[Doug Wright]

I'd say the biggest difference between this site during the first couple years and the last five or so, is a courseness among the posters. Golf is supposed to be gentlemen's game.

I was thinking about this thread overnight and was going to post "No personal attacks" but you folks on EDT beat me to it. Civility has been the glue for this remarkable site; incivility (which, Tom, I'd say has been much more prevalent the last couple of years rather than the five that I've been on here) will be its undoing.

...and Brian Gracely is not a schmuck...  

[Mike_Cirba]

More humor; pointed, satire, silly, it doesn't matter.  

This is golf course architecture...it's supposed to be fun and for anyone who has played TPC of Jasna Polana (Insert your own favorite architectural disaster here), it can be extremely funny, as well.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

Oh, it was Pat who called someone a schmuck. That's different. It doesn't matter if Pat calls someone on here a schmuck because although it's taken me a while Pat knows by now he's wrong 98% of the time and Pat knows that everyone else on here knows he's wrong 98% of the time.

And so, if Pat calls someone on here a schmuck he knows, as we all do, that he's wrong and really didn't mean it.

[Pat_Mucci]

Brian Gracely,

but he can constantly criticize people that watch the Masters (the whole telecast or by walking the grounds) year in and year out but aren't allowed to make comments about a shot.  

Would you cite JUST ONE example of where I said that someone wasn't allowed to make a comment about a shot ?
[/color]

Tom MacWood,

Brian conveniently overlooked his other post, the one where he continued with the personal remarks.

How could a researcher of your caliber miss that ?

[Dan Kelly]

I'd say the biggest difference between this site during the first couple years and the last five or so, is a courseness among the posters.

I wish I'd had more courseness in my life, so that I could contribute more.

As for coarseness: I haven't seen much here. Some, yes -- and more than enough rudeness ... but very little that can't easily be ignored.

I, too, would like to see an On/Off  (topic) setup -- so that people would feel free to go off-topic, and so that pure-architecture threads won't get bumped to Page 2 within hours if they don't generate an immediate flood of replies.

[PThomas]

I think people shouldn't ever be afraid to post a new topic....even though I'm a newbie, I do...and sometimes people don't respond, which is fine....this is all about trying to stimulate good dialogue...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()