I sort of hesitated posting a thread like this but now I'm glad I did. There were some wonderful and inciteful responses last night--really honest and useful--Tim Weiman, MikeC, Jeff Brauer, Rich Goodale and I particularly liked Ian Andrew's (talk about realistic).
Of course, ultimately, I'd like to see Golfclubaltas become as helpful and useful a resource as possible but I suppose that always has to be tempered with privacy concerns at any course or golf club, and unfortunately those at some golf clubs who really get concerned can sort of stop everything dead in its tracks (if you know what I mean). In that way this whole issue is sometimes a little like the old Marine Corps cliche that you can only go as fast as your slowest man!
There have been some topics on here in the past that did get adverserial as hell with a club or two and the fascinating thing to me is one of the biggest targets of all has risen above it all (always did actually) and has never appeared to hold any grudges. I find that amazing and also admirable (if I was him I doubt I could have done the same!).
Putting honest and open dialogue in the context of accesibility (to play the course that is) is always going to be a bit of a tricky business, in my opinion, and I don't believe any of us should place what we say in that particular context alone!
But now that I'm on this subject why not let it all hang out?
Ultimately, I really do think a site like this can be a win/win situation for contributors and clubs (at least it can be with the best of both). There seems to come a point where respect can be gained and if it is good things can and seem to happen (or are starting too). This is when it starts to translate down to real communication (maybe not on here though) and even into architectural desisions and actions.
Maybe, I shouldn't mention them but I'm going to anyway. Two people, particularly, who continue to post their opinions openly and honestly on here, I'm seeing beginning to cross that line into what I see as ultimately some really positive arrangements and relationships. Tom Doak and Geoff Shackelford.
Doak, obviously because he's in the business, and his really good recent work is getting the attention it deserves but I think too because in a smaller way his opinions on here are unusually honest and open and he expresses them regardless of what some out there might think. That's great and it looks like some of those who may have resisted him for it are those that seek him out now.
Same with Geoff Shackelford. A guy with unusually strong opinions but ones he can back up and explain clearly and cogently that ultimately appear to get the attention, and yes respect, of those that seem to be getting hit hardest. Those that one would think are the least likely to want to deal with him are apparently seeking him out now.
And I did see that last year at a large forum in Atlantic City with numerous superintendents in attendence. His presentation (with slides) was extremely good and commonsensical but occasionally very hard hitting (but with a good and calm tone) and in the end anyone could see he'd totally gotten the respect and attention of some real heavy weight superintendents in the audience. It was great to see.
That's the line I would like to see this whole site cross over into some day.
But unfortunately, as much as in anything, in golf architecture, it's very true, that a little knowledge can be a very dangerous thing! It's not rocket science, but when you include architeictural concept and it's application, construction, agronomics, restoration and preservation issues and maintenance too it's a large and sometimes complicated jigsaw puzzle and putting its complex pieces together can be tricky business many times.
And so all of us should always remember the best adage of all;
"Always know what you don't know".
And, Oh yes, that one other good one:
"Golf and its architecture is a great big game and there really is room in it for everyone."