What has the ASGCA done for students?

[Mike Nuzzo]

Don,
Maybe this example is a better one:

Would it be considered "poor" to move entire holes at a point that will incure significant change orders - i.e. after shaping, drainage or irrigation is installed?

I know an awful lot of these stories, and without being a member of the ASGCA I still abide by this standard to not dismiss or be critical of a member's work - so I keep to myself.

[Kalen Braley]

Mike Young said:

6.  On several occasions i have had municipal bids where one of the requirements was to be a member of the ASGCA(got it eliminated but).....I would assume the ASGCA promoted such or in the very least never tried to dissuade such statements....

8. AND most importantly the ASGCA is not a sanctioning body for golf architecture....and it is difficult to determine this if one doesn't know better....

I'm curious how often those who are not ASGCA members run into #6?  Putting myself into the shoes of a GCA, this would seem to me to be a very frustrating issue if it occurs a lot.  Because then it would take a lot of extra cycles just to convince a potential client that #8 is not true.

For anyone who is in the know at the ASGCA, is this society marketed specifically this way to clients and the industry at large?

[Mike_Young]

Kalen..you state..
BEGIN
"in the ASGCA is there any type of 5 or 10 year period where everyone must come up for re-evaultion? Or does it work like colleges where once one has tenure they are in for good? As I've heard on hear many times, is a GCA really only as good as thier last course, or if your in the ASGCA is this irrelivant after your first 5? "
END
Maybe FR, JB or PC can answer this with much more authority than myself...I think it is a good question....

BUT...I will say I have had the same question whereby one of the "requirements" for admission is that one has at least 3 of his 5 projects completed in the last 5 years....if he doesn't he doesn't qualify...HOWEVER....I would bet there are many members of the ASGCA, as you mention, that did not meet this requirement over the last 5 years with the condition of the golf business.....no, I know there are many....

You also mention my statements.....
BEGIN
"6.  On several occasions i have had municipal bids where one of the requirements was to be a member of the ASGCA(got it eliminated but).....I would assume the ASGCA promoted such or in the very least never tried to dissuade such statements....

8. AND most importantly the ASGCA is not a sanctioning body for golf architecture....and it is difficult to determine this if one doesn't know better....""

'm curious how often those who are not ASGCA members run into #6?  Putting myself into the shoes of a GCA, this would seem to me to be a very frustrating issue if it occurs a lot.  Because then it would take a lot of extra cycles just to convince a potential client that #8 is not true.""""

For anyone who is in the know at the ASGCA, is this society marketed specifically this way to clients and the industry at large?
END

It is my opinon that when this happens in a municipal situation , it happens because the purchasing agent or whomever sent off to the ASGCA for a brochure on how to request bids for arhcitecture....AND when the bid is published non members see it...call their politician and have it amended.....that is what I have done and in both cases I ended up with the job.....
AND yes I think the society is marketed that way...if you read between the lines one will see that it does not cross the line but it walks it.....having said this....OK...that is what they pay their executives for.....can't blame them...and hopefully they can't blame non members from arguing such issues w/o crossing the line......

[paul cowley]

As Jeff has already suggested, Mike young is a classy guy....even if he doesn't do Huddle Houses ....and to that effect [ I feel kind of like the Wizard of Oz giving out things to persons who obviously have already achieved them]....I feel the ASGCA is missing a spirited tooth without him, and I will do whatever I can to sponsor his belated entry into this fine organization.

....besides he was born in 52...the same as me...which is special...because 52 is really 25 spelled backwards and we had a band named after us called ....get this 'Be' 52...really cool stuff once you get into it........KBM....Tom....are you out there?....Earth calling

[Mike_Young]

Paul,
B-52's started here and it keeps going.....you should be in Athens tonite.....we have 30 bands going right now and expect 40,000 at the main stage for the Drive by Truckers tomorrow nite at 7.....lots of GCA types hanging all over town.....I saw one old freaky guy with a Pennylvania tag drinking wine in a box...and typing on his laptop..with an old balck T shirt that said something about Maintenance Meld....mst be a band or something.....

[Forrest Richardson]

Don — I have great respect for the GCSAA and its mission(s). My point was that all professional organizations will have members that do not perform to the standards that many would consider "average" or "great". I suspect this is true of Hollywood, where it is evident that not every movie is an award winner. Does this mean the whole industry is crap? Of course not.

I did not intend for you, or anyone else, to read my comments as "basing GCSAA". But I do stand by my comments...GCSAA probably has more examples among it members than ASGCA, ASLA, or AIA of really, really, crappy conditions at the helm of its members. Now, I will agree that many of these conditions may be because owners or managers simply have not established the correct budgets or other resources.

In Routing the Golf Course I did cite some examples of bad routings. But I did so generically. I do not think I took any stabs at designers...and the reason was that it was not necessary to make a point. (I did show an example of a client-drawn routing which I have kept for years and it makes me laugh, even today.)

I think this is really the key. We do not need to be caustic or personal in our comments. As a professional in a small pond I find it better to NOT take the path where we bring down someone or a particular course. Occasionally it is unavoidable — again, it is a small pond.

In most cases there is a way to make a point by commenting on positive examples, etc.  Certainly when I am in a competitive situation I make it a point to focus on our strengths and not others weaknesses. And, for the record again, I consider ASGCA membership a strength, although it certainly is not at the top of the list.

[Mike_Young]

Forrest and Don...
Would you  both agree that it would be acceptable to call a specific arhcitect's routing a bad routing if it consisted of 110% doglegs with a 200 yard turnpoint and 250 yards to green etc....whereas a routing with industry standard turnpoints and doglegs would be a matter of personal taste?  I would have no problem saying a routing such as i mentioned in the first example was a bad routing......
Don,
there are more supts out there so there will always be more "foe paws" by supts due to shear numbers.....BUT i would say I have never asked a supt if he belonged to the GCSAA and never really cared.....I have great respect for individual supts yet I question some of the decisions of the GCSAA and how it has affected many of its members.....And yet I also have a great deal of respect for Steve Mona.....seems every time a guy becomes president he somehow loses his job in the next year or two.....you guys have the hardest job in golf.....

[Forrest Richardson]

Why not just comment on how you do it, or what you think is right? Why would one need to attack a routing?

[Tony Ristola]

For the record, the advertising I have is comparative. It says I do this and the typical is that. I supported it with quotes both contemporary and historic. I received a threatening letter because of it. Others have received similar warnings.

Second, Forrest (and others), as to your last comment; Why not let anyone sell themselves in any manner they like? Let the client decide what is in HIS best interests. By implying you should say this, shouldn't say that, your are drying up the well of information for the investor. The guy who pays the bills and takes the multi-million fold risk. The floodgates of opinion should be wide open. Once you say "self laudatory advertisement" isn't permitted, where is the line? What does that do to young guys with better service to sell? And who pays for this lack of info? All because you folks think someone shouldn't say something. That folks, is protecting the institution, and putting the institution ahead of the client, game and profession.

You state you uphold the highest standards and protect human rights. Then do it. Right now you restrict free speech, and have created an environment of timidity... not for those who are already members or cozy with members, but for the outsiders who are looking to make a mark and apply in the future.

Lastly, where does The Confidential Guide fit in? Tom Doak both praised and nuked projects (and architects in the process). Yet, he is courted for ASGCA membership publicly. Notice a double standard, or let's say a highly flexible standard?

[paul cowley]

I don't feel that one has to disparage competitors work directly.....critique of another's work while contrasting it with your own is a normal process and needed to let a client know about what one does and much of the time this is by making a comparison between your own work and others....for example [and I have been asked this on numerous occasions].   The client asks, given some concerns about elements of his sites topography, "how would you handle cart paths? Would you approach them as does Fazio?"

....and my answer would be something like " We know that the Fazio group for the most part prefers that cart paths are unseen and we generally agree with that concept, but in certain situations where they are difficult to conceal, we tend to take the opposite approach....and that is to make the path a well designed part of the hole....something that can actually be pleasing to the eye, instead of an distraction".

Now I don't think that is disparaging....its contrasting styles.
And a high road form of competition...and I think that is where it needs to reside.

I am not going to give an example of low road competition for that very same reason.

[Tony Ristola]

Paul,

I compare service. It is my one huge competitive advantage. Time. I walk the site for days or weeks, I draw the plans, work with engineers, and work with the builder throughout construction. I get on the machines myself from time to time too. I spend more time on-site in 3 days during construction than most do  for the entire project. I can't sell this? That is what you folks are saying. I've been smacked for it too, with the threat of the full weight of the membership. Does that seem right to you?

Let the people choose their own road, and let the investor decide. Your setting limits on speech is sure to be abused. And has been abused. The ASGCA attitudes espoused here are actually quite illustrative of a censorship mindset. "You can't say this, you shouldn't say that, you should say it this way and not that way, who are you to criticize us...etc." Is the whole membership like this?

You want to take one road, someone else may take another. Who is to say you are right? The investor. And as far as qualifying for membership, it should be the work that counts. Hunter, Mackenzie and Doak wouldn't make it under your rules. Their writings are self laudatory. But honest. And that's why their writing is so valuable; yesterday, today and long in the future. We don't need watered down pap, but people permitted to compete honestly and aggressively without fear of negative consequences from The ASGCA Department of Censorship should someone of the honest type decide to apply down the road.

Let freedom reign, let the investor get all the info he or she should get, and let that investor sort out the rest. Censorship and its effects hurts the investor, and the more vulnerable the investor (less informed), the more vulnerable they will remain.

[paul cowley]

Tony.....I think people have to get over this Confidential Guide thing.....Life's too short, even in business.

What we are witnessing with Tom is an extremely talented person going through the learning curves and stages of his career.....and as young as he is I'm sure he will throw in a few more curves, and I hope I'm around long enough to see what they might be.

Tom was more of a writer when he wrote the Guide....now he has morphed into one of golfs premier designers.
That is why I feel the Society is missing another tooth without him.....not because of his laurels, but because of his insights about design and the game.
I did not become a member of ASGCA to swap Top 10 accolades with others, or to find work.

I joined as an opportunity to commune and learn with my peers......and to get to know the faces and the personalities that go along with the names.
I also enjoy the fashion opportunities that go along with membership.

I have not been disappointed and it is a great group.

I think it would would be even better with the inclusion of a few others.....Mike and Tom being two of these.

[paul cowley]

Tony....you seem to have some very exaggerated images of what the ASGCA is all about and the powers it might possess....and I think you would be extremely disappointed in the group if membership was conveyed upon your ass.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tony,

BTW, I apologize in saying (from memory) that ASGCA contacted you. I did forward your previous gca.com rants to the executive board and it was discussed there.  I thought they might send you a note, but they probably decided that, being a single and strident complaint about our practices, that it didn't even merit a response.

Readers should know, BTW, that the first reason you can't get into ASGCA is that you are a European based gca, not american.  I don't think its exactly fair for you to give examples of how the ESGA denied you membership, threatened you, etc. as an example of how ASGCA works.    

I can't recall of a single case where someone has brought up a website as an ASGCA membership issue, nor is it an offical policy to check them.  Nor can I think of anyone who has brought an ethics complaint against anyone for their writings or advertisements.  On a very limited basis of contact, as a former officer of ASGCA, my personal impression is that the ASGCA is a lot more laizze faire than EIGCA.

There is no ASGCA dept. of censorship - we might get one ethics committee complaint every five years, and there is a lot of aggressive competition for jobs in between, including, I am sure, comparitive and contrasting statements.

The ONLY thing ASGCA code of ethics require is that we don't disparage others in pursuing work.  As Paul notes, you can compare and contrast with out disparaging.  Frankly, I think it would be possible to make that same comparison without even mentioning a direct competitors name in a presentation, but I guess that's a sales technique debate, not an ethics one.

The ASGCA ethics codes is briefly worded because, a) it was written in 1947, before anyone thought it would be debated to death on the net AND that was a matter of civility and b) it seemed like common sense both then and now.

You accused Forrest of covering his response in humor to hide the truth, but you leave out a few juicy morsels yourself - the fact that even in a free speech state, there are limitations that are recognized.  For example, you can't advocate the overthrow of the govt. in the US, and in most cases, you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre.  Like you, there is a fear that our free speech is being reduced as laws about hate crimes, political correctness, etc. all have people watching what they say in a responsible society for what at lesat some percieve to be a good reason.

There are also practical and voluntary reasons to forego free speech - you can be married and have the "right" to call your wife a bitch, but you won't stay married, as she excersises her rights and options for divorce.  You can be employed and call the boss or client a lard ass poo poo head, but you won't be employed.  You can join the CIA and promis not to reveal state secrets, excersize your "free speech" by telling them, and you will be hung for treason.  And, you can disparage other gca's and reduce your chances of membership in a professional organization of the same, probably far less than in the other examples.

IMHO, this debate falls under the heading of respsonsible speech and personal conduct codes that most live by far more than couching it only in "ASGCA limits my free speech."  IMHO, that is why your arguments sound kind of off the wall, but I have no real problem with it, so knock yourself out and say what you want, even if I wouldn't.

Cheers.


                                                                     

[Tony Ristola]

With the exact same rule (one word is different) I have had the Euros do it. I've had an ASGCA past president tell me to tone it down. Forrest did it here too. Why? In no instance did I disparage anyone or any project. Though that was implied, as was an attempt at character assassination.

You ASGCA folks in this thread alone have conveyed a troubling attitude. One which speaks volumes, and is enough to make one wonder what would be in store for an applicant who doesn't comply to your censorship standards.

This attitude is not in the best interests of golf, the business or investor risking millions. In fact, that specific rule-attitude used as a weapon against me in Europe is the product of the ASGCA. So, you can see, your ASGCA seedling produced the nastiest of fruit. Beyond that it creates a suffocating environment because nobody knows where the boundaries are that could jeopardize membership.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tony,

Troubling?  To who else but you? One strident voice doesn't make a consensus.  No one else has come forward in my 26 years in ASGCA with such a strident argument about this aspect of our ethics code - and you do it based on the actions on another society, even if they did take our words as a basis for theirs.  I have to guess that you must be the world's most troubled person about a simple code in the ASGCA rules.  

I stated in my last post just what would happen to your chances of membership in ASGCA - you would have very much reduced chances of getting in, just as you actually did in the ESGCA.  Its not hard to imagine the gents there having a chance to either put up with your unpleasantness at meetings or voting you down so they could enjoy themselves while there!  It is human nature to avoid unpleasantness for most of us, no matter what the rules might say.

I agree that it is an area that is subjective judgement, and some candidates might be on the cusp of ethical behavior.  In most cases, I think its a case of "we know it when we see it" and any vote on a candidate would be by all members, effectively forming a consensus of opinion, which is how most of the world works.

[paul cowley]

Jeff said;
"The ONLY thing ASGCA code of ethics require is that we don't disparage others in pursuing work.  As Paul notes, you can compare and contrast with out disparaging.  Frankly, I think it would be possible to make that same comparison without even mentioning a direct competitors name in a presentation, but I guess that's a sales technique debate, not an ethics one."

Jeff.....my comparison was an example of how I might respond to a clients direct question about how we might do something compared to another.....which happens.
I guess I could clam up and say 'no comment', or 'I don't know of whom you are referring to'....or 'excuse me, I think I left my car running in the parking lot' .

....but no, I would not use that comparison as part of my sales technique during a formal presentation.

[see Tony, maybe you are on to something after all...I was just making an innocent comment and now this....and believe it or not I just got a call from a Fazio attorney requesting I cease and desist in making any further comments on this thread....incredible!]                            

[Jeff_Brauer]

Paul,

Well, Fazio is the master of hiding paths. I played Dallas National Friday and wondered it the course had any as I stood on the first tee.  It would be a bad comparison for any of us.  For the record, I classify the debate as "handy vs. hidden" since you give something to get something.

I am not sure I have been asked to contrast myself from a competitor in such a direct way. Mostly, the owners just want to here what you would do for them. I might be asked about hiding paths, but never "can you hide them as well as Fazio?"  If I got that question, I would figure that Fazio already had the job, and would excuse myself to go to the parking lot.

Say hi to Miss Dawn for me!

[Tim Copeland]

LOL

I love it when you pocket protector boys fight.

This is almost as good as when you dont know where to paint lines for a bunker and drive up costs by doing it 4 times.

Priceless

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tim,

Pocket protector boys?  Generally, you are right. I invite Tony to take this over to professionalscatfights.info.

Here is the ethics code, from the ASGCA website that Tony abhors:

I.  Members shall reconcile the requirements of the game of golf with the preservation and protection of our natural resources, systems and environment, balancing these elements with the eco­nomic, social and aesthetic needs of golf’s development.

II. Members shall encourage education and research and promote the development and dissemination of useful information to improve the planning, design and construction of golf courses.

III. Members shall not discriminate against any employee, applicant, client or others involved in their work on account of sex, race, age, creed or national origin.

IV. Members shall not engage in any practices that involve dishonesty, fraud, deceit, bribery or misrepresentation in securing or executing their work.

V.  Members shall not promote themselves or their services with false, exaggerated or misleading information and publicity.

VI. Members shall report truthfully and clearly to their prospective client or employer their qualifications and capabilities to perform services.

VII. Members shall make full disclosure to their client or employer any financial or other interest they may have in any part of their project. Members shall avoid, abandon or remove such interests if they compromise their actions or prevent them from serving the best interest of their client or employer.

VIII. Members shall recognize and respect the work of other golf course architects and shall not knowingly make statements or offer opinions and comments that are false or attempt to injure or disparage their practice, projects or any of their work.

IX. Members shall not attempt to obtain or offer to undertake any commission that they know is already under a legitimate contract or agreement with another golf course architect.

X.  Members shall not accept any commission until they have ascertained that any former legitimate contract or agreement with another golf course architect has been terminated.  This shall be done by soliciting information and evidence from the client or employer and the other golf course architect.

I suspect Tony has problems with points 4-8 violating our "free speech" rights. It seems to me that ASGCA went higher than the US Supreme Court in setting its rules
- it went to the Golden Rule of treating others as you would want to be treated.  

Still not sure how too many people would have a problem with that.

[paul cowley]

Jeff,
I asked Paul to tell you Hello as well, but I understand he is under a "gag order" (what did he say this time???lol)
So, hello and hope you're doing well!
Dawn

[paul cowley]

LOL

I love it when you pocket protector boys fight.

This is almost as good as when you don't know where to paint lines for a bunker and drive up costs by doing it 4 times.

Priceless

Tim....I can assure you I don't have any issues with Jeff, but I could pick a fight with you for your presumption that I do things more than once or that my projects have cost overruns.

Ignorant statements like yours just show me you don't have a clue about where I come from, what I do, or how I do it.

[Tony Ristola]

QUOTE
Troubling?  To who else but you? One strident voice doesn't make a consensus.  No one else has come forward in my 26 years in ASGCA with such a strident argument about this aspect of our ethics code - and you do it based on the actions on another society, even if they did take our words as a basis for theirs.  I have to guess that you must be the world's most troubled person about a simple code in the ASGCA rules.
END

And the ASGCA.

Consider the following:

Once upon a time there was Young Tom, and he reminisces the exact scenario I explained:

QUOTE
Years ago -- well after I'd built five courses, but before I was on magazine covers -- I had the sense that I would not be accepted if I did apply, both because of my field-oriented style and because several members were upset about my critiques of their courses.  In fact, one person warned me that if I were to apply, I would be asked not to write anymore as a condition of membership.  No telling if that would actually have happened, but I didn't want to put myself in that position, so it kept me from thinking about applying for several years.
END

Hmmm? What you say can hinder membership chances. Told not to write as a condition of membership. This does not sound like America.


Then there is Older Tom, not quite old, but to the point where his membership would be valuable to the society, and is courted:

QUOTE
More recently, I have been told by several architects that whatever I've written over the years is water under the bridge, and would not hinder me from being admitted to the society [although I suspect it will still be many years before I would get a unanimous vote on that   ].  
END

What had changed? What had changed is Tom is a veteran with a pretty good track record. Young Tom had a pretty good track record, but he SAID some things a few people did not like. The message in all this is precisely as I indicated.

Who suffers? Golf. The investor.

Take The Confidential Guide off the market and you take out a pretty valuable literary addition. The book breaks the rule in the biggest way.

How much have we lost because people were afraid to share their opinion? That loss cannot be measured, and the attitude is 180 degrees to those giants from the turn of the century. What would we have lost had they been subject to this type of "regulation"?

It may have taken 26 years for someone to say something (I did some 6 years ago right here) but it does not minimize the fact the ASGCA's restrictions on speech is harmful. As restricting speech usually is.

[Tom_Doak]

Wow ... I could have sworn this thread had wound down a couple of days ago when I left home for locations off the net.

Tony:  You just posted, so I'll comment on your quote from me first.  The "person" who warned me that my writings might stand in the way of membership was not a golf course architect, but a golf writer who had taken the temperature at an ASGCA meeting a few years back.  I was never "officially" warned to be quiet.

Back to my post:

Paul's comment about members agreeing to "lay down their weapons at the door" in order to meet on a friendly basis did bring to mind an important question which I think I asked here once before.  Does the ASGCA code apply to members making statements about non-members, or is it open season on outsiders?  That seems a key point to me.  If the answer is that members can say what they will about outsiders, but outsiders must be careful to say anything if they ever want to become a member, well that is a bit of a double standard and something that any Ethics professor would love to dissect.

In the end, though, this argument really comes down to how one views the profession of golf course design.  

I always believed that golf course design was a part of the artistic/entertainment field, much like writing or moviemaking, where criticism on artistic grounds is accepted and allowed, and in fact considered essential to the growth of the industry.  

Many ASGCA members see the business as a profession like engineering or medicine, where competence is the only issue to be addressed.  In that light, my writings in The Confidential Guide were certainly beyond the pale, because I sometimes implied that architects were incompetent, when I only meant their work lacked artistry.  In fact, sad but true, some of them were never going for "artistry" at all.

That's probably also where the regulation against "self-laudatory" remarks comes in; from that viewpoint no qualified person is no more professional than another.  It's an odd view of today's business, where some architects charge ten times as much as others, and where most list every magazine award they ever won prominently on their web sites; it's a relic of the 1950's and 1960's when golf architects considered themselves more as landscape architects and engineers.  But nobody calls today's members on their transgressions of that part of the code -- it's only an issue for outsiders who have not yet proven their professional status to the satisfaction of the membership.  [What was it Nicklaus said about the architect who is currently consulting at Augusta National at the GOLF DIGEST Summit?  Has he been charged on disciplinary grounds?  Or is saying that a fellow member knows nothing about golf, as opposed to golf architecture, a very clever loophole that most here would not understand?  Man, I wish I'd thought of that one 15 years ago. ]

I've probably violated the ASGCA code as much as anyone over the years, unwittingly at first; but I wouldn't use that as an excuse because there are some interpretations of it that I would not agree with.  One of the primary reasons I don't apply for membership is that I don't care to argue with the membership committee about how their code should apply to me.  

I would guess that Tony is probably correct in implying that I'd be given the benefit of the doubt more than he would today.  And that's too bad, because it's an indication that he is right, much like Jeff and Forrest's assertions above that he would be less likely to be admitted because they don't like what he's saying.  

Whether I ever apply to the ASGCA, or not, I'm comfortable that I've held everyone to the same standard whether they have a Ross plaid jacket or played the Tour or not.  I've never said anything about somebody else that I wouldn't allow them to say about me.  Even if they're wrong, everybody's entitled to an opinion.

[Ian Andrew]

Tony,

The more I read this thread - the more I think your using this opportunity to draw attention and sell yourself - the argument has nothing to do with the ASGCA - and everything to do with you.