Has Golfclubatlas.com lost its touch?

[cary lichtenstein]

The problem that I have with GCA and I'm sure many others have, as they have expressed it to me privately, is if you expose your thoughts that you know from past experience are inconsistent with the "bias", you have to prepare yourself for a fight, and after 2 or 3 of those, it gets tiring.

I could post how overrated quite a few courses are, ditto underrated, and it would educate those GCA who are open minded, but you have to take the rath of the "bias", and its not worth it.

Sometimes, I wish I could post under my name and an unknown alias, so I would feel freer to speak.

I enjoy traveling, and have met so many friendly and genuinely wonderful people thru this site, that I will always conribute, but giving reports based on my traveling are probably a thing of the past, as I'm not sure enough enjoy my opinion vs. the energy it takes to fight the bias.

[Dave Bourgeois]

I’m sure there are several topics that have been beaten to death and new contributors like myself may be hesitant to rehash topics that can be searched.  Also, it is my opinion that there is a small pool of people that have been fortunate enough to play a good amount of the classics so you don’t necessarily have “new blood” livening up classic debates.

I’ve seen some very good discussions on here recently (natural vs. manmade thread for ex.) and for someone new they been stimulating and educational.  However, I would surmise that more golf is played on non-golden age architects and non Hanse, Doak, DeVries, Coore etc. courses.  A discussion of most others does not seem very popular, and I think it is a shame.  I think I'll be less shy about posting and hope that this site remains welcoming and tolerant of people that are still learning.  

There’s a big world out there and it’s important to keep an open mind when running through it.  I know there is a lot more to talk about and when the season gets into swing this site will be humming!

[Gene Greco]

I personally wish some of the architects would document their work here.

As soon as we do it Mike we would be accused by some on here as self promotion.  I have some wonderful pictures of some tough sites that we worked on that I would like to post but it just doesn't seem right.

The other problem is we don't want to get our worked ripped apart by the crowd on here.

Why should I post pictures of the work Graeme is doing at Murcar for people on here to start judging the work?

Why should I post pictures of a site in Norway where we moved over 100 000 m3 of peat for it to be knocked for not being minimalist?

Here is a good quote to help you understand how I feel about this site:

If you give me six lines written by the most honest man, I will find something in them to hang him. - RICHELIEU, Cardinal (1585-1642)

   Indeed, if THE very best golf courses in the world are being examined for moles and ingrown hairs, and are chastised for these tiny imperfections, why would any hard-working golf course architect or super allow his ego to be slammed by a bunch of apparent "know- it- alls" by offering his work for evaluation ? Evaluation by examining ONLY small digital images on a computer screen no less, with no other sensorium employed!

Followed by the proclamation "I could build THAT, no problem.

Just might keep me away from here if I were in the golf business. Which makes any post by any gca on here seem rather bold, don't you think?

[Jim Nugent]

I could post how overrated quite a few courses are, ditto underrated, and it would educate those GCA who are open minded, but you have to take the rath of the "bias", and its not worth it...giving reports based on my traveling are probably a thing of the past, as I'm not sure enough enjoy my opinion vs. the energy it takes to fight the bias.

Hope you reconsider, Cary.  I enjoy your reports.  Hope to play several courses -- Lakota Canyon comes to mind -- you reported on, that I would never have known about otherwise. Pictures of the course look spectacular to me.  

[Tim Liddy]

1. For better or worse, this site is seen as Tom Doak’s site. It will be hard to get other architects to speak too loudly on this site.

2. I, for one, do not think this site should be used to promote architect’s work. It will quickly get out of hand. There is enough of it going on already.

3. It should be, as Tom P. sees it, as a site to discuss architecture. What is good and bad about it? The main problem is the subject is not deep enough for continued discussion. Not much new since the 1920’s, but always new ways to document and explore.  Photos are a great way to bring new depth to discussions (favorite greens, etc.). This site has been and can continue to be a great resource.

4. The attitude is not as bad as some state and easy to ignore for good discussion. This site has made significant changes in the thinking of golf course architects and golf course architecture in the past ten years, keep it up.

5.  The plumbers’ kitchen is always the last to be fixed.  Please do not be too hard on architects that work all day in golf course architecture, with many of its challenges, to write romantically about their latest green site. Most architects work 80% of the time so they can design 20% of the time. It is your joy of playing their work that motivates them. They do not always have the patient to debate their work infinitum as some would like.

[Dan Boerger]

I see this (as I do most other passion/hobby specific well run sites) as sort of a one-room school house. Some older students, some teachers, some graduates (those that basically don't post) and some new students (put me squarely in that category).

I recently posted about "The Hideout", a course that I strongly suspect has been discussed here before, but I wasn't able to use the search engine feature successfully to research the previous comments. Not that I'm asking those who already commented to comment again, but I remain interested in what they have to say.

[John Kavanaugh]

Most people on this site are scared of losing something...I know I am and it reflects in ever post I make.  It doesn't have to be that way.

[wsmorrison]

John,

If you don't mind, what is it you fear losing?  How does it affect your posts?  What do you suggest be changed (ethos or whatever) so it doesn't have to be this way?

[Ian Andrew]

I think many here are afraid to start a thread. We all have something to say architecturally, or a question that has always bothered us about a certain course or feature. I think it's time to express that.

I must admit I turned to writing a blog, because I couldn't find one thread on GCA that interested me that day - and I didn't feel like starting one anymore. I've been here since 1999 and I don't think the site's gone stale, I think I'm stale.

By the Wayne Morrison's Evolutionary Sand Splash is a good example of why I come to the site. Mucci's pond or no pond thread at Garden City is another. Tony Muldoon's thread on the original Biaritz was another recent gem. So, I will always come to the site regardless of whether I feel like participating. It's often too good not to.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Brian & Tim,

Is it self promotion if there are individuals who are interested in what you are working on?
I would very much like to read about your projects.  Post them for me please.

I learn a great deal by reading the posts of Tom, Kelly, Ian, Jeff, Mark, every single superintendent....

In the context that I'm sharing what others would like to learn about, I am ok with talking about my work and will be more in the near future if there is interest.

Cheers

[Craig Van Egmond]

John,

If you've been holding back these past few years, then we are the ones who should be scared.  

[Bruce Katona]

I enjoy reading the opinions of others, whether I agree or not.  The site has many fine contributers, both professionals in the business and interested accomplished players.

I've met and corresponded through the site different people involved in different aspects of the business.  For me, it's as much (if not more) a business than a hobby. Our company is involved in the business of golf to make money and deliver a good product to our customer.

We're very interested on how to expose new customers to the product of golf and retain those customers once they have been identified.  The game is not easy to play and retention of a custoemr base is required to be successful.

It's great to discuss the issue of " fast and firm v. hit and hold" as a hypothetical.  The opinion of the site is well known.  What matters as much to operators is the impact to the bottom line....can I move more customers through using one technique or the other, which maintenance method ultimately costs me more and which technique will retain the most customers.

[TEPaul]

Tim Liddy said;

"4. The attitude is not as bad as some state and easy to ignore for good discussion. This site has made significant changes in the thinking of golf course architects and golf course architecture in the past ten years, keep it up."

Tim:

My God, is that a hopeful note. You're out there everyday in the business to see it. Would you mind elaborating on that and explaining how that's happening, complete with some of the best examples you can think of?

If the sometimes rough and tumble, contentious, sometimes boring or maddening atmosphere of this website's discussion group can really have that effect on golf architecture, even a little bit, in the opinion of even some architects----then who would not say---it's all been worth it?  

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul,

I think it's definitely been worth it.

I'm not a big fan of the Far OT stuff and I think we should all do a better job policing ourselves from getting personal or insulting or just using the forum to spew vendetta.

However, I think that 75% of this site is still pretty good to great and that's not bad for a public forum with minimal restrictions.

My biggest gripe is simply that so many people contribute way too fast before thinking resulting in the case of good threads drifting off the first page and the more frustrating factor is that I barely have enough time to read, much less post as much as I'd like anymore.

[PThomas]

I wish people wouldn't be afraid to start threads....I've posted a few that didn't take off...but so what?  we all make "Mistakes", and  so what?

and I too want to know what John K is fearful of

Cary :  I wish you would post more...you travel a lot and see a lot of great places...and if people don't like your opinions that's too damn bad

I AM SO APPRECIATIVE when people like Jeff, Forrest, Tom Mike D, etc. post t on here...for a golf fanatic like me to hear what leading professionals think is SO COOL, I just can't thank them enough...the same goes for the others in golf professions like the supers, writers, etc

I remember after I played Greywalls Mike D asked for any opinions...I was very hesitant in doing so because me tellling a man who does it for living what I think about his work is only 1 step up from asking me to perform brain surgery

[mike_malone]

 I have been fortunate enough to have reaped tangible benefits from this site. As a result of the past few years of posting here , meeting fellow posters at my home course and other courses ,  walking my home course with people like Ron Forse (a few years ago) and recently Joe Hancock and his sons, and gathering with fellow GCAers at Pat's gatherings  I have built a level of confidence and knowledge to have had specific impact on changes made at my home course.

   This has given me great satisfaction because I have a passion for the course. But I have needed the Philly guys who post and lurk here and the far flung guidance of the Scots ,Brits, Californians and others.

     The interactions will continue because ,as I'm sure Wayne will point out , I have a lot to learn.

   Maybe after my meeting at the diner with Tom Paul and Wayne Morrison I will know all that I need to know.

[Craig Van Egmond]

Paul,

           Mike D is very good about handling opinions good and/or bad, next time ask him about RJ Daleys comments on the 18th at Kingsley.  I just about fell out of my chair.

[John Kavanaugh]

John,

If you don't mind, what is it you fear losing?  How does it affect your posts?  What do you suggest be changed (ethos or whatever) so it doesn't have to be this way?

It is really quite simple...I don't want to be thrown off the site.  That is what I will lose if I stray from the party line...and you know I'm on a high wire as it is.  I don't think it is a coincidence that TePaul feels like GCA has lost its touch the same week that a new ranking list falls on deaf ears....Hmmmm...funny how so many of those we have lost have ties to the list...scary..

[PThomas]

Craig - I did tell Mike my thoughts, and I know he disagreed with at least 1 of them, and maybe all of them, which of course is fine...I thought it was cool he even asked me for my thoughts!

[Jerry Kluger]

I really have no problem with the OT stuff as each thread has a subject and unlike wading through the prompts when making a phone call these days, you can simply look at the subject and if you want to read what is being discussed or participate in that discussion you can do so and if not, then simply don't open the thread.  I know that I have met a great bunch of people through this site and I think that despite the fact that sometimes the exchanges can be rather heated, nearly all of us would love to have a drink with the other guys and discusss architecture.  I have had my head handed to me after some of my posts but I never took it so personally that I would no longer participate.  So long as Ran is in charge I'm in - period - end of discussion.  

[Jim Sweeney]

Lurking and occasionally contributing to this site has significantly raised my awareness and knowledge of GCA and of playing the game, too. Because of my background my contributions tend toward the technology/rules/etc. topics, and I only hope I've made some valid points that some people have pondered whether they agree or not.

I still have a lot to learn. I am fascinated that Brauer, Doak, Richardson, Liddy, and so many other GCAs participate so actively beacause I have learned so much from them as well as all of you who are not in the profession but share your knowledge and love of the subject.

GCA has also given me the opportunity meet and talk with some of the most interesting and knowlegeable people I have met in golf, and for that I am especially thankful.

Yes, the little spats that erupt from time to time can be tedious when they devolve into name calling and get away from the original topic (though there seems to have been less of that in recent months); it detracts from the pleasure of tapping into the knowledge base represented here.

I have a lot left to learn; I imagine there is still a lot for anyone to learn. In addition to the pictures of courses I may never get to play, particularly "over there," the discussions of why this hazard on this hole, even the basics of one type of bunker or another and their appropriate uses, just the appreciation of how big a golf world there is to explore keeps me coming back.

Perhaps we just need to take a breath before pounding the keyboard with our instant proclimations or analysis. Perhaps a parallel discussion group for OT chat to keep the GCA discussions "pure."

Thanks.

[A.G._Crockett]

Tom,
I have tried (of late, at least) to stay away from the OT threads, at least as far as posting.  However, I'm not sure that "tightening up" is a good long-run idea.

The membership here breaks into three groups for the purposes of discussing GCA, as I see it:
 
Group 1--Professionals in the industry, including archies, supers, operators, etc.

Group 2--Nonprofessionals who have, for one reason or another, seen a relatively high % of the world's (or at least the U.S.'s) great golf courses, many of which are very exclusive and/or very expensive and/or very remote.

Group 3--Nonprofessionals who love GCA as much as the first two groups, may or may not know as much, but have much more limited access/experience seeing or studying great courses other than on television, magazines, books, or here.

Group 3 (of which I am a member  ) is by far the largest group, I would imagine, and that limits things here somewhat.  I can't discuss NGLA or Sand Hills intelligently, but I LOVE seeing pictures posted and reading others' thoughts, and every now and then something comes along where I CAN contribute.  I imagine many here are in that same boat.  If things tighten up a lot, this becomes only groups 1 and 2, and inbred pretty quickly.  
I can't really imagine how the site becomes better with MORE restrictions or limitations.  The "OT" label works for me.

[Mike Hendren]

FINALLY, I've found a benefit to my recent weight gain:  I can no longer contemplate my navel.

You guys feel free to go right ahead, however.  

Mike

[RJ_Daley]

I have no doubt that if such a medium like the Internet existed in the era of the early and great golf writers, architects, amatuer players, and mover and shakers that founded great golf clubs, when the game was in closer to its beginings; that the same sort group behaviors would have evolved.  

People are people and if given a social forum where they can express themselves they will act in all the diverse styles that mimic their personalities.  Some will post and interact cautiously.  Some will be gregarious and post affably.  Some will post on everything and anything, whether they know anything or everything.  Some will be disgruntled.  Some will assume leadership in the group and attempt to regulate the rest.

It is what it is, and GCA.com for better or worse will ride on the tide of the information super-highway.  

One reason that GCA.com has not become a flame war is that everyone on here shares a basic interest about some form of the game of golf, its playing fields, and the company of similarly inclined people.  So, we self regulate when something goes so far astray that the whole group forms a bit of consensus that something has gone off the track.  That is why we now have this redundant thread discussion the same basic theme of GCA loosing its touch, etc.

I'm surely no intellectual, and I hardly know any.  But, my understanding is that in serious intellectual circles, where ideas are sifted and winnowed in the most esoteric fashion, that those so-called intellectual people get pretty nasty in their discussions and debates.  One has to loose their sensitivity if one wants to play in that league.

Oversensitivity = repression = lack of real exchange of ideas = loss of knowledge.

[Mike Hendren]

Dick,

Well holed!

Mike