What this site is....and what this site isn't

[Ted Sturges]

Time never stands still does it?  Ran and John started this site a few years ago, and it grew, and it grew, and it grew.  Then, "Golf's Most Loved Figure" has his mug in Sports Illustrated, and the site grows some more.  The old gang doesn't hang out as much around here as they used to.  Too bad.  I have learned so much from some of you who don't frequent the site as much these days.  I too am guilty of not participating as much as I once did.

What this site is (to me)-

This site is a miracle.  Through this site, I've made some great friends and met some fascinating people.  I've met people like Tom MacWood, Robert Huntley, Steve Smyers, Brad Miller, Khristine Januzik, Richard Mandell, Bob Harrison and of course, Tommy Nacarrato.  I've shared rounds of golf with people on both coasts that I had not met (other than at this site) prior to meeting them at the 1st tee on those special days.  I would NEVER had made many of these acquaintances if it were not for this site.  How cool is that?  This site is a place to LEARN.  My mother told me when I was about 10 years old that I would have a much easier time learning with my ears open and my mouth shut.  (Advice to GCA participants:  There are some really smart people who are willing to help the rest of us learn more about architecture at this site.  If we stop telling everyone else how much we (don't) know, and ask more questions and listen to the answers you get, you just might learn something).  Have fun with it and enjoy the wealth of information this site can offer.

What this site isn't (to me)-

A general site on golf.  (It's about the architecture stupid!)  Please leave the non architecture topics to sites that cater to those topics.  This site also isn't a place for lynchings and mean spirited posting.  I know there are the occasional uninformed posters hanging out here, but who among you knew everything there was to know about architecture the day you were born (OK Ran, don't answer that question).  All these fueds and wars really drag this site down (and is why, I believe, many of my favorite GCA'ers don't participate as much any more).  PLEASE COME BACK!  Anyway, enjoy the site for what it is (a place to make friends and learn about golf architecture) and when posting, apply the rule Ran always uses when he evaluates topics on this site: "What can we learn about architecture within this topic".  

OK, I'll get off of my soap box now.  Thanks for listening.

TS

[Mike_Cirba]

Ted;

Tremendous post!

I would simply add that there is nothing at all wrong with passionate, strongly argued debates about golf courses and golf architecture, leaving personalities aside.  People should feel free here to speak frankly about their likes and dislikes, but I'd encourage all of us to try to explain our tastes in a detailed way that stimulates further education and discussion.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Ted, Absolutely the best post of the year, and not just because you had my name in it!:)

I would like to express to ALL of you, and I can only assume that Ran would concur, is that this is a GOLF ARCHITECTURE site--PERIOD!  

Ted outlines, If we stop telling everyone else how much we (don't) know, and ask more questions and listen to the answers you get, you just might learn something.

I too agree with this statement because even with all of the knowledge I have gained from all, I still learn more and more each day. You simply have to have an open mind and an open ear. If you think you know it all, then you really don't, no matter how passionate the argument. Its like going out time and time again to your favorite modern course, learning each and every nook and cranny of the course as well as how it plays to your game. Its what keeps you coming back again and again.

Let this TOPIC of Ted's be the rebirth of Golf Club Atlas, and welcome all that have joined us since the SI article. Make every question no matter how simple to some, even more interesting to all so we can keep furthering our minds on the subject.

And my list:

Things that amaze me the most about golf architecture that I have learned on Golf Club Atlas--

1. That golf courses and their architecture do parallel life in many more ways then most could ever think.

2. That the simplest of natural features are in most ways some of the Game's finest.

3. That Golf Club Atlas may be the new age or old university Philadelphia School, as far as when it comes to honoring the old masters as well as the modern artisans of OUR Golden Age. It is OUR job of hi-lighting these GREATS who go out of their way to prove to themselves as well as us, of the interpretation all while educating us in the process. It is also OUR job of showing the descrepencies of those who think that anything less then a full effort is futile. (For those of you architects who have gone to school, paid the price, and have had the opportunity to produce, we will always celebrate your efforts until it becomes nothing more then just another course in just another place. Golf Courses are much more then that. At least the good ones!

[Mike_Sweeney]

I pose a question then: Is the thread tittled "Tiger and The Ryder Cup" allowed into GCA ? It was a very poular thread that dealt mainly with Tiger, strategy, Curtis Strange...... There was not much about hard core GCA architecture. On the other side these events Ryder Cups, Majors and Tiger's play have a deep effect on the public's view of golf which puts pressure on architects to stretch old courses or build long new courses.

Thus is "Tiger and The Ryder Cup" on or off in the New GCA world ?

[Rick_Noyes]

Ted,

Great post!  As an architect I applaud the the honest and often no holds barred discussion on architecture.  I e-mailed Ran when I signed on that what I liked best was that it was just not an "I like or I don't like" site on various courses and design.  I have learned to appreciate certain criticisms of design and often people tend to view these criticisms negatively.  But the worst discussion on architecture would be no discussion at all.

I have seen on other sites, non-golf course architecture related, where they have a separate board for other topics of discussion.  Maybe Ran could add another board called the Lockeroom or the Grill or the 19th hole or some other cheesey name for these topics to be addressed.

  

[Andy Hodson]

Ted

Superb post!

I can't even remember how I found this site. Must have been from some search engine, but I can't remember what I was searching for. When I found the DG, I couldn't believe what I had stumbled on to. And I couldn't wait to get involved in the discussion. Only one problem though...it became apparent quick enough to me, that although I'm a decent player and had pretty strong ideas on what I liked and didn't like in golf courses, I didn't know **** about the "academia" of golf course architecture. I realized I was overmatched in that area, so most of my posts stuck to the area I know the most about...playing and how it relates to the architecture (or vice versa). But now a funny thing is happening to me:

I now have a rapidly developing thirst for more knowledge about the classics (courses and architects) and less of a need to feel like I need to blast my opinions on areas I've come to realize I have, at best, half-informed and half-baked ideas.

And so, I'd like to add my two cents on what this site is: Its about the architecture...but to me, more importantly, its about the people on here who have the knowledge and passion to discuss and inform and teach about gca. And, in the process,  pass that passion on.

And so, Ted, as you say: "Anyway, enjoy the site for what it is (a place to make friends and learn about golf architecture)"

[THuckaby2]

Hmmmm....

Ted makes some very good points.  Obviously a wonderful by-product of this discussion group is meeting some GREAT people.  I have met and played golf with too many to list here, all of whom I value, all of whom I consider good friends.

BUT... as a regular participant in threads like Tiger and Ryder Cup, I am a firm believe that golf course architecture cannot exist in a vacuum.  That is, you can talk about the what Raynor would have done, where to put a bunker, is this course worthwhile etc. till the cows come home, but in the end the playing of the game matters most.  Are these courses works of art to be looked at from afar, or are they living organisms to be PLAYED?

Obviously this is Ran's site and he has full autocratic power.  If he comes on here and says he wants pure architecture discussions and nothing but, then that's it, end of story.

I just do believe "architecture" means a lot more than what others do... Tommy N. has it right - golf courses and their architecture do parallel life in many more ways then most could ever think - so prohibiting discussion of the "life" part of this equation seems shortsighted, to me.

Of course there are limits to this - we don't want inanities - but the every so often inane post can certainly be tolerated and even laughed at, if the overall discussion is good.  And I still find the overall discussion level here to be fantastic.

Tommy N. can also attest that discussion groups come and go and this one is experiencing the normal life cycle of such ... too popular, too big leads to too many inane posts, the regulars complain and/or leave, some regulars stay, life goes on.  I for one think this dg is great enough and has a strong enough group of "regulars" that we will survive the SI-related onslaught.  It really hasn't been that bad to date... jeez you guys should have seen golfonline's grillroom and how horrible that got, from what was once a wonderful dg... Several regulars here were regulars there and they can attest to that.

So I'd just say hang in there guys - this is a fantastic dg - my God have I learned a lot here - this too shall pass.

TH

[Jim_H]

I am a relative newcomer, and I came to this site solely to better understand golf course architecture.  But I am also the one who started the Tiger & The Ryder Cup thread--after asking for indulgence in starting a non-architecture topic.  I assumed that it would be deleted if not appropriate, but that it was too topical not to be proposed as a subject.  I have asked several other purely architecture questions.  I will look to others who have been around longer to decide what is out of order, and would encourage more use of the delete button.  I fully agree with the thoughts in the What This Site Is and Isn't post.

[Justin_Zook]

This is what the DG is to me...

First of all, I am 18, and in college studying turf(WE ARE PENN STATE!!!!).  I actually don't get to play much at all, but I too have learned a great deal from this site.  I too have been guilty of posting threads that deviate from architecture, but I have learned from them.  I also have learned "how not to hi-jack my own thread!!!!"   Anyway, I love reading all of your posts and opinions and being able to take all this information in and form my own opinions and so forth.  This is a great distraction from school work and allows me to relax when I get stressful.  To an extent it keeps me grounded, and focused on the ultimate goals of becoming a super and maybe even a designer.  Anyway, so all of you who know a lot about arch. and don't post as much, get back on and help a young impressionable kid learn about the Great Golden Age Designers!!!

Thank you everyone,

Justin Zook

[Jeff Fortson]

I think this was a great post myself, but what did we learn about course architecture from it?

Jeff F.

[THuckaby2]

Justin - it is GREAT to have people "in the business" participate here, and although some may say you are "only 18", to me a student of turf is way more valuable here than some yahoo like me who just likes to talk!  So please do chime in on whatever you want, I'd say.

I won't mention last Saturday's events, hate to kick a man while he's down.  And what the hell, after the last two years, this season is a roaring success even with last Saturday's "event"....

TH

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

Ted,
Great post.

I would like to the see the Tiger and the Ryder cup posts go by the wayside, but retain the people who are posting them.

I remember reading the site for six months before I joined the DG.  There was so much to learn in the DG and other facets of the site, that I felt I should get that under my belt first.

You summarized it so well, I will leave it at that.

Ben

[THuckaby2]

Interesting.  Ben, I know you and I have talked about MANY things besides golf course architecture... but we have always done so "off-line".  So yeah, I'm not gonna get into the prospects of my beloved Sharks on here, but isn't Tiger and the Ryder Cup just SO "topical" given last weekend's Ryder Cup, in the "golf" context... that how could you love the game of golf and NOT talk about it, at least for Americans and Europeans?  If Weir dominates in the next Presidents Cup, are you Canadians gonna be silent about it on this dg?  I'd be the first one wanting to hear how the nation felt about that....

Yes, none of this involves golf "architecture".  But is this site really to be that mundane?  We can't talk about golf as its played at all?

Again, don't get me wrong, I don't want to go overboard and make this a PGA Tour dg.  But the RC is one BIG event and to ignore it is to put one's head in the sand, right now anyway...

I'm at a loss as to what's wrong with that thread.  Someone enlighten me.

Again, what Ran says goes.. so until he weighs in....

TH

[Jeff Fortson]

I ask again, what have we learned about architecture from this thread?  This all seems like a little bit of hypocrisy to me.

Jeff F.

[George Pazin]

Good points, Ted.

Re: the Ryder Cup type threads:

I believe Ran has stated in the past that when there are topical issues of the day, the site will allow discussion for a limited period of time, but that it reserves the right to terminate these discussions if it feels that things are either out of control or too dominating intheir presence. Speaking as one who frequently participates in said discussions, I think David has done a tremendous job indulging us, but I fully support any decisions to pull the plug on such threads.

As far as adding separate sideboards, good lord, haven't our hosts done much more than enough? If you want a sideboard, start one yourself.

Look forward to meeting more of you soon...

[THuckaby2]

I'd say we can bear with it, Jeff.  It's a chicken/egg thing.  Where else could one discuss the status of the board and what is proper/improper than on the board itself?  I guess this could be handled via email with Ran, but that man has enough to do.

TH

[THuckaby2]

George: I concur 100% - thanks.

TH

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

Tom,
You are very correct in saying we have discussed other things, but always off the board.

I just feel that these discussions are best saved for the instant message option or email.

Jeff,
The point of the post would seemingly be to get the group back on architecture.  A worthy endeavour indeed.

[THuckaby2]

Ben - ok, gotcha.  I just think George P. summed this up well - topical golf-reated matters aren't out of place here, so long as they remain civil, etc.  That's why I have no problem with the ryder cup discussion....

TH

[Justin_Zook]

This thread can ultimately help us learn more about architecture.  This individual thread will not help us learn anything about architecture, but if this thread stimulates us to get back to discussing primarily architecture in the DG, then in a way, it will help us learn.  But someone must stimulate such change in some way, and I think Mr. Sturges has done so in this thread.  

Also, deviation from architecture isn't alwasy a bad thing.  I remember on September 11th in school, most teachers forgot their lesson plans, and allowed us to just talk about what happened, and get the emotion out.

Personally, I didn't agree with the game plan of the U.S. at the Ryder Cup.  Because I love this country and because I love golf, and specifically match-play, I just felt the need to post on the Ryder Cup thread, kind of like when I spoke up in class.  

Perhaps, talk of Majors, and other events like the Ryder Cup, Walker Cup, Presidents Cup could be allowed.

I don't mean to compare the events of Sept. 11th to our loosing of the Ryder Cup, please don't get me wrong here, but I think the analogy does a good enough job of showing what I mean.  I think we all Americans who had a vested interest in golf were upset that we lost.  

Justin Zook

P.S.  One thing I forgot to mention in my previous post, is that this DG has helped me become a much better writer, and when you are still in school, this improvement has really benefited me so many ways!  Anyway, that's another thing that this DG has helped me with and why this DG is important to me!

[THuckaby2]

Well said, Justin.  You are most definitely wise beyond your years, I'd say.  Great thoughts most definitely!

TH

[Joel_Stewart]

This is a good thread and I'm appreciative for it.  I have to believe its in response to my other thread and if Ted or anyone can get this site back on track then I'm all for it.  I've thought about this over the last few days and wondered if golf is a gentlemans game why should this site be any different?  

I'll leave with an email that has been circulating and of all the people to send it to me, it was my wise mother.

Golf is an honorable game, with the overwhelming majority of players being honorable people who don't need referees.
    
  Golfers don't scratch their privates on the golf course.
    
  Golfers don't kick dirt on, or throw bottles at, other people.
    
  Professional golfers are compensated in direct proportion to how well they play.
    
  Golfers don't get per diem and two seats on a charter flight when they travel between tournaments.
    
  Golfers don't hold out for more money, or demand new contracts, because of another player's deal.
    
  Professional Golfers don't demand that the taxpayers pay for the courses on which they play.
    
  When golfers make a mistake, nobody is there to cover for them or back them up.
    
  The PGA Tour raises more money for charity in one year than the National Football League does in two.
    
  You can watch the best golfers in the world up close, at any tournament, including the majors, all day, every day for $25 or $30. The cost for a seat in the nosebleed section at the Super Bowl will cost around $300 or more.
    
  You can bring a picnic lunch to the tournament golf course, watch the best in the world and not spend a small fortune on food and drink. Try that at one of the taxpayer funded baseball or football stadium. I brought a Coke into Oriole Park at Camden Yards last year, and an usher came to my seat and told me I had to dispose of it, or I would not be allowed to stay in the stadium.
    
  In golf you cannot fail 70% of the time and make $9 million a season, like the best baseball hitters (.300 batting average) do.
    
  Golf doesn't change its rules to attract Fans.
    
  Golfers keep their clothes on while they are being interviewed.
    
  Golf doesn't have free agency.
    
  In their prime, Greg Norman, Arnold Palmer and other stars would shake your hand and say they were happy to meet you. In his prime Jose Canseco wore
T-shirts that read ;Leave Me Alone.;
    
  You can hear birds chirping on the golf course during a tournament.
    
  Ladies are welcome players.
    
  At a golf tournament (unlike at taxpayer funded sports stadium's and arenas) you won't hear a steady stream of four letter words and nasty name calling while you're hoping that no one spills beer on you.
    
  Why I play golf.  Now you know

[Bye]

Joel,

I happen to do some work for a very highly ranked professional golfer. You'd be amazed at what they get at each tournament, it's a hell of a lot more then a couple of plane tickets and a per diem!

Make no mistake about it, professional golfers are the number one prima donna's in the nation. Just ask a "non-American" pro for his comparision of the PGA Tour vs any other tour in the world, that's why they play here.

[Ed_Baker]

Just be careful what you wish for gentlemen, since the new Dg format the responses are running an anemic 5% to views.
Theres a whole lotta folks out there lurking and not writing.

Now, I'm no doyen, but I put up a bunker thread yesterday that got 1 response, in the old days at least 10 people would have at least chided me for a shitty topic, yet we get 45 written responses on yardage markers on sprinkler heads?

The regulars are gettin' tired or bored and the newbies are intimidated to post, pure architecture threads are a nice goal, but until we can archive the threads from the old format its tough to find an original topic. Some of those old threads had 100 "nuts and bolts" responses cogent to the topic and could spawn several other threads. I just think were in a little slump,
but I sure wouldn't put any pressure on the new guys worrying about whats pure.

End of my $.02

[Dave_Miller]

Ed:

Could not have been put any better.  While there are some topics that stray from the pure architecture it's not all that bad.
 
The discussions of Augusta, Ken Venturi, etc. were timely and entertaining and during these threads we do tend to learn something about courses, how they play and what people think of them.

Almost everything in golf revolves around the architecture of the course including the new technologies on balls, and clubs.

Heck it's not really a stretch to say the Ken Venturi thread related to architecture because so many things he said and tried to explain over the years revolved around the courses, how they play, what type of shots are required, etc.  Isn't this all dictated primarily by the architecture.

Mean spirited posts have no place, ignore them.  Light hearted or humorous posts, enjoy them.

Long Live GCA and Golf's Most Beloved.

That's my $.02

Fairways and Greens (They gotta' be architecture)

Dave