[Darren_Kilfara]

So...was the past week of posts fun for you? Did they help you enjoy the tournament? Did they help you learn about architecture in general, or ANGC specifically? Did you feel as though the site was better, worse or pretty much the same during the week when golf is probably as close to the center of the sports universe as it ever is?

Cheers,
Darren

[Bill_McBride]

One thing for sure was that it was all the Masters, all the time.  What will there be to discuss next week?  Let's talk about The Reverse Old Course - there was some meat for discussion there for sure!  

[John Kavanaugh]

I thought the discussion made it very difficult for me to enjoy the Masters.  Next year I plan on spending my time on GeoffShackelford.com where I saw a much more even handed stance taken toward the tournament and the architecture.

[ed_getka]

I wouldn't say it was fun, but Shivas got me to thinking about par/bogey golf  and recovery shots. And thinking about your viewpoints is always a good thing in my book.
    As I contended in the first few days I didn't feel the course was that far off from being an interesting test, and Sunday seemed to bear that out as players were able to play some quality shots and be rewarded.

[JESII]

The chorus of rabid anti-Fazio/trees/Hootie/etc...had me contemplating why I would have any interest discussing GCA in this setting...then I read some of Shivas' posts...

[Andy Troeger]

The general negativity about everything related to the Masters (with some exceptions obviously...I'm referrring to the general majority) on this site turned me off from reading many of the threads in much detail. Some of it I agreed with and the majority I did not, so I just stopped paying attention.

[John Kavanaugh]

It was nice to see Ran starting some excellent topics.

[Matt_Cohn]

I think it's hard for 50 people, let alone 1500, to have a discussion all at the same time. That's a flaw in any large internet forum, isn't it? For the most part, we each post our thoughts and hope somebody notices and responds directly to us. Otherwise it's a long thread of individuals each saying what they think - point, counterpoint, but not so much opportunity for synthesis of ideas in the middle.

It would be fun to get more conversations going in the threads but the simple number of people who want to participate makes that logistically very difficult to do.

[RSLivingston_III]

It was nice to see Ran starting some excellent topics.

I second this!

[John Foley]

It's amazing how much passion Augusta brings out (Glad to see Dave bring up some great points).

A few things are certain,

- no matter what fazio does, many people will villify him no matter what.

- any refernce to jack Nicklaus (& his record) as anything other than a diety will be frowned upon

- When Ran starts threads other than the monthly interview is available, it's a very very good thing.

[Guy Phelan]

I think it's hard for 50 people, let alone 1500, to have a discussion all at the same time. That's a flaw in any large internet forum, isn't it? For the most part, we each post our thoughts and hope somebody notices and responds directly to us. Otherwise it's a long thread of individuals each saying what they think - point, counterpoint, but not so much opportunity for synthesis of ideas in the middle.

It would be fun to get more conversations going in the threads but the simple number of people who want to participate makes that logistically very difficult to do.

I agree...the chances are that nobody will read this; however, this may be a good way to alter the ways of GCA members.

[Joe Hancock]

Ran, I'm sorry (somewhat ) for the extent of my "kamikazi posting" during the tournament.  Unfortunately, I felt that I had no choice, since I was taking on a dozen comers, all by my lonesome...I felt it was best in terms of providing a healthy discussion, given the dearth of viewpoints critiquing the dogma being presented as fact....

Dave,

I'm not smart enough to understand all the dynamics behind this semi-apology, but I have a feeling it is presented under some pressure. You are, and always have been a terrific Devil's Advocate. It is born of thinking beyond party lines. You presented ideas and opinions that were contrary to what many here think and believe. You challenged some of the cognoscenti to provide real depth to their thoughts. That type of discussion should be welcomed, not silenced.

If you honestly feel you owe Ran an apology, so be it. In my reading between lines, and assessment of the chacters involved in last night's odd postings, I don't see the need.

Keep it up,

Joe

[JMorgan]

It was nice to see Ran starting some excellent topics.

I second this!

Third.  

[Tommy Williamsen]

What I find paradoxical is that a site that is populated by folks who love golf and golf course architecture can get so caught up in negative and even angry discussions about something that brings us so much joy.

The discussions did not diminish my appreciation of the Masters but it saddened me that others could not find as much joy in it as they could have.

[Dan Kelly]

I didn't read one word of GolfClubAtlas.com during the Masters. Wasn't in the mood. Didn't think I needed to.

I've read some today -- and see that, if I had attempted to "keep up," I couldn't have. It's like a wildfire around here! (Sorry for the hackneyed simile.)

I never read a movie review, either, before I see the movie. I'm one of those yahoos (critics hate us!) who look only to see how many stars something gets -- just to judge whether it's likely to be worth my time. (I'll read the critics, afterward, if I'm in the mood.)

I like to come up with my own, party-of-one views, before I've given anyone else a chance to influence them.

I have a modest proposal to make: During some major championship to come, we should all wait till the tournament is over to pass judgment on the course setup for it. We should all SAY NOTHING here -- and then, at the conclusion of it, we should all e-mail our views (in brief or in depth) to one "member's" e-mailbox. That "member" could then post all of them in a thread.

And then let the discussion ensue -- possibly yielding a higher ratio of light-to-heat than I gather there's been here for the past few days.

It would be interesting to see, I think, how diverse the views are here, absent the knowledge of what anyone and everyone else thinks.

Maybe next year's Masters would be the time -- though the U.S. Open at Oakmont and the Open Championship at Carnoustie are promising venues, too, for this experiment.

[PThomas]

So...was the past week of posts fun for you? Did they help you enjoy the tournament? Did they help you learn about architecture in general, or ANGC specifically? Did you feel as though the site was better, worse or pretty much the same during the week when golf is probably as close to the center of the sports universe as it ever is?

Cheers,
Darren

yes, yes, yes, and better!

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I cannot think of what else was going on in the world Masters week to discuss. The golf universe including me focuses on the Augusta National Golf Club that week. It is a beautiful week for all of us especially if one is fortunate enough to be at this most magical of places. Now the golf season has begun and we can move on to the topics at hand as they arise.

[Doug Siebert]

Even though I felt like one of the defenders of the Alamo alongside Shivas and a few others, I enjoyed the discussions this week.  I'm sure I posted more in the last 4-5 days than I have in the past 4-5 months.  But its not like I could be playing golf instead -- it wasn't even what I consider playable in Augusta on Saturday

I think it was a really good thing to see the weather we did this week, it is pretty close to a best/worst case for the conditions the Masters would be contested under, so we can see the effect of the changes in a different light than they are in more typical years when the spring rains keep the course soft and permitting more of a target oriented strategy.

There were a lot of interesting and thought provoking comments on both sides.  Even if ANGC doesn't fiddle with the course again over the next 51 weeks, it will be interesting to see how some players may respond with adjustments to their strategy and what next year's weather conditions may bring us.  I still think a double digit below par score on the current course is quite definitely possible and perhaps even likely if we get that weather pattern the Masters often sees where there are frequent rain delays and overnight rains.  I will be interested to see how the criticism of the course changes when scores look better relative to par and there are more birdies and eagles to be found.

[Darren_Kilfara]

I think the key dynamic here is that all members of the board - however casual or intense - feel as though they know ANGC and the Masters well enough to comment intelligently about them, which is rarely if ever the case for any other course or tournament. (Whether or not most people *do* know enough to comment intelligently is another question, of course!) At the same time, the tournament itself inspires passionate discussion and induces more people to post and start new threads about it. I agree with Tiger B., of course - it's not like most people will want to talk about anything but the Masters during Masters week.

Cheers,
Darren

[Adam Clayman]

If this weekends postings illustrate one thing, it shows that those who speak of a groupthink mentality on this site are in err.

[Mike Hendren]

I thought the discussions were fascinating.  It is helpful to have a course that is a frame of reference for so many.  

I continue to believe that the recent changes must be placed in the historical context of a golf course whose DNA IS change and that Jones and Mackenzie had significant philosophical differences that were quickly and repeatedly manifested after the Good Doctor's death.  

Mike

[Ally Mcintosh]

has there ever been talk about creating a couple of sub-folders for different topics?

e.g.

1. Pure Architecture
2. General Golf Courses / Golf Holidays
3. Golf Tournaments

just a thought... i'm sure it's been discussed before

[Mark Bourgeois]

Michael,

That point about change is an interesting one.

We generalize at our own risk-your perspective differs from this for example I think-but generally it seemed that the Southerners lined up against the changes and the Northerners for.

It was like one camp was judging the course against an entirely different set of criteria (adherence to original design intent) than the other ("championship" test / major-like difficulty)

I believe you were an exception-as obviously is Hootie!

Still, was the position of the "Anti" camp down in part to:
1. Southerners's deep respect for tradition? Or as Northerners call us, hidebound and antitradition? I find that a lot of what passes for progress up North Southerners refer to as "progress," if you catch my drift.

2. Southerners go for mythmaking. We like our heroes tall and their deeds heroic. College football is as much about this as anything else. (for example, in La. Halloween for many is much more significant for Billy Cannon.) ask any Southerner his or her family history and it won't take long for a Northerner to realize that Faulkner made up a lot less than they'd thought.

This course didn't set up too well for mythmaking. And many wish zach well, but as the Memphis paper had it yesterday in the front page teaser, "A Guy From Iowa Beats Tiger."

These are all just generalizations and you can come up with enough exceptions to make you wonder.

Still, I always found it interesting that Jones partnered with a Northern moneyman, and that that guy seemed to be the one pushing harder for the changes. Not the only one, just the harder one.

But then Bob Jones was of the larger world than the provincial South, wasn't he?

Mark

[George Pazin]

I actually enjoy the many threads during major weeks, I think they can be quite illuminating.

On the other hand, I am getting a little tired of the Monday morning quarterbacking, where many seem to feel they know a player's game better than that man himself, even if he's won 2 US Opens.

[Mike Hendren]

But then Bob Jones was of the larger world than the provincial South, wasn't he?
Mark

Jones was not unlike the Apostle Paul:  he could be everything to everybody, but deep down there's no question that he was "one of us."

Fantastic post that has me thinking.  Thanks.

Mike

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()