ASGCA and great golf courses

[Peter Pallotta]

Yup, Kalen, and I'll go one further -- I've been trying hard to understand (on this and the earlier thread) why anyone other than the architects themselves has any interest whatsoever in discussing a professional association like the ASGCA. It's not like the ASGCA is involved in making sure that office buildings don't collapse on our heads, or that a kidney isn't removed when it's our liver that's the problem. It's a social network, a marketing tool, a forum for expert discussion -- some architects are part of it, some aren't; some want to be, some don't. Who cares? If the very worst that can come out of the structure and orgnanization of the ASGCA is a few mediocre golf courses (and I have no reason to believe that's the case), it doesn't matter one hill of beans.

Peter

[Garland Bayley]

Oh, and by the way, if it was Tom MacWood's intention to start another fight here. Then shame on him!

[Phil_the_Author]

Guys,

Sometimes a question is simply a question and nothing more. To ascribe wrong intentions to Tom Macwood for asking what he did shows that this "Merion Sickness," for lack of better words, has become far too pervasive. One can't criticize what has occurred or the parties involved on those other threads if they act in the same fashion on this one.

It is time to more than nip this in the bud. It must STOP!

Tom's question was legitimate. That he asked it without improper motives is clear to me in how he answered my direct questioning. He didn't attack or insult, in fact note what he did:

"Tom, Wouldn't a better question be "How many of the world's 100 greatest courses were designed by ASGCA members active or dead?"

"Phil, Good point....how many of the world 100 were designed by golf architects who were active members of the ASGCA, this incudes architect who are living and those who have kicked the bucket. "

He did that with every one of my questions... give him a break here and no more insults ... It is time we ALL became the better man!

[John_Conley]

It is time we ALL became the better man!

Phillip:

Sure.  Just know that if Macwood wants to tally up the count of Top 100s designed by members he needs just two things.  A list of membership (which I found in less than a minute at their website, which you probably can correctly guess is www.asgca.org) and a list of whatever Top 100 he wants to use.

Very easy to do.

There's an agenda here.  He even says as much.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom, you still need to define which of the "Top 100" were designed BEFORE the ASGCA came into existence. These include the 10 or 11 that Tilly did (depending on which list on uses) CBM's & those of Ross and a number of other's. The number may actually be closer to only 50.

I would suggest that if one wants to examine quality of courses versus membership in the ASGCA then you ONLY use the Top 100 listing of Modern Courses done by Golfweek. I believe by its definition that the only courses eligible for this listing HAD to have been designed since the ASGCA was founded.

I linked the World Top 100 from Golf Magazine, but I think it would be interesting exercise to do with all of the different ratings.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Phil,

Okay, okay.  Like you, I answered Ben Sims ASGCA questions mostly directly.  Tmac and I will boil over at each other occaisoinally as a result of the MCC threads but we usually get over it. I don't have time for any more lengthy threads or research on the question, but I shouldn't take off on Tom.

Many apologies to Tom.  There really is NO reason for anything said on this board to result in personal insults.

[Tom MacWood]

It is time we ALL became the better man!

Phillip:

Sure.  Just know that if Macwood wants to tally up the count of Top 100s designed by members he needs just two things.  A list of membership (which I found in less than a minute at their website, which you probably can correctly guess is www.asgca.org) and a list of whatever Top 100 he wants to use.

Very easy to do.

There's an agenda here.  He even says as much.

John
Its more complicated than that. I don't believe Bill Coore joined the ASGCA until 2004, give or take a year...so Sand Hills as example would not be included. What year did Pete Dye join? I reckon he has the most by a long shot.

[Garland Bayley]

It is time we ALL became the better man!

Phillip:

Sure.  Just know that if Macwood wants to tally up the count of Top 100s designed by members he needs just two things.  A list of membership (which I found in less than a minute at their website, which you probably can correctly guess is www.asgca.org) and a list of whatever Top 100 he wants to use.

Very easy to do.

There's an agenda here.  He even says as much.

John
Its more complicated than that. I don't believe Bill Coore joined the ASGCA until 2004, give or take a year...so Sand Hills as example would not be included. What year did Pete Dye join? I reckon he has the most by a long shot.

I guess I don't understand why this now seems to rephrase the original question to whether a course was designed while a the architect was member. Certainly joining is not a life altering experience.

I see no reason this criteria would have any meaning.

Please explain yourself.

[John Moore II]

To ask a question like this would be the same as saying the PGA of America is has poor quality golf professionals because some of the top 100 golf instructors in America are not members. Membership in a professional organization is not the end all-be all of a good teacher or course designer. However, these organizations do excellent work, provide a voice for the field they represent, and of course I could go on about what good things these organizations provide.

How about we talk about the works of architects (or teachers given my example) based on their own merits rather than trying to stir up a pot of shit by seemingly saying the ASGCA is a worthless organizaton?

[Phil_the_Author]

Garland,

The reason that it is relevant is that the question was asked which of the "Top 100" courses were designed by ASGCA members.

On Golf Digest's 100 Greatest list there are approximately 40 courses designed before the ASGCA came into existence and of the remaining approximately 60 a good number of them were designed by architects who weren't in the ASGCA at the time.

So by its very nature the question was both unfair and unable to gain any information that could serve for comparative purposes.

[John_Conley]

John
Its more complicated than that. I don't believe Bill Coore joined the ASGCA until 2004, give or take a year...so Sand Hills as example would not be included. What year did Pete Dye join? I reckon he has the most by a long shot.

Not really.

Some courses are too old, so they aren't counted.
Some courses are designed by foreigners, so they aren't either.

Does it matter if the number is 20, 30, or 40?  Only to you.

Bill Coore thought it was an organization worth joining.  He may have designed some courses before he became a member.  You might say don't include his course, another may wish to include it.

This doesn't seem provocative; it seems pointless.

[Garland Bayley]

... who weren't in the ASGCA at the time.
...

This is the part I find irrelevant. So what if they joined after they did the work. I ask Tom MacWood to give me something to show it would be relevant/meaningful.
As I noted above, joining can not be a life altering experience.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Hey, it was for me!  I got better looking, started dating hotter chicks, had groupies, the whole nine yards.

[Garland Bayley]

Hey, it was for me!  I got better looking, started dating hotter chicks, had groupies, the whole nine yards.

Sorry Juff,

But if you think that resulted, I think you must have started heavy drinking at that time. After all, wasn't there a thread recently about all you golf course construction types being alcoholic?

[Mike_Young]

I don't understand this thread..isn't it the sae as asking how many KA's, Sigma Nu's, APO's or SAE's designed a top 100?

I will bet you this....Bill Coore or Pete Dye would not be in their courses were not ranked.....there is probably some guy out ther right now building a course in some small town with a basic routing and nothing else and no intentions of drawing any plans......ifhis courses were to gain notoriety they would be all over him....trust me..I;m a Boy Scout

[Joe Hancock]

I don't have an answer for Tmac, but one thing that is a bit disturbing, and likely tied to the Merion throwdown, is that now, everyone who asks a question not only has to have a motive for asking, but must first state such motivation before participants of our esteemed group will oblige with an answer. How fun.....
 
Apparently a few influential lawyer posters' tactics have rubbed off on you guys, or you have frazzled nerves, or you have a streak of female trait in you.

Joe

[John Mayhugh]

Nothing at all wrong with asking the question. I'm just curious to see what sort of premise follows. Since correlation doesn't show causation, the data would seem meaningless.

[Garland Bayley]

Nothing at all wrong with asking the question. I'm just curious to see what sort of premise follows. Since correlation doesn't show causation, the data would seem meaningless.

That's why we love you John.

[Tom_Doak]

It's an interesting question ... or a fair one, at any rate.

One of the goals of ASGCA is to foster better education of golf architects and to improve the overall quality of work.  (I think.)  But, how much are they improving things if many of the best courses in architects' portfolios were built BEFORE they joined the ASGCA (as with Bill Coore for Sand Hills, or Jack Nicklaus for Muirfield Village)?  In that case the organization can't take too much credit for improving the state of the art, can it?

Of course, restricting the discussion to the top 100 lists is not necessarily the best indication of quality.  But it does make it easier to score.

[Mark Pritchett]

Anyone care to share what year Pete Dye and Tom Fazio become members?  Just curious.

[Ben Sims]

It can be interesting to tune in for the drama....

But I'm not really sure what kind of good will come of a thread like this.  Isn't it enough that there are many hard feelings and irrepairable relationships from the Merion threads.  I think its time for GCA.com to do more spirited comraderie-building type excercises amongst its members, not further alienate one another.

Kalen,

Like it or not, GCA.com is a discussion website.  No less than five architects have chimed in on this and the other current ASGCA thread (Mike Young, Tony Ristola, Mike Nuzzo,  Jeff Brauer, Tom Doak, Forrest Richardson, among others).

Whether supporting or challenging the society, it's a topic that garners attention from the collective.  As it should.  The society is the only professional group dealing specifically with golf architecture. Their strategic goals are quite lofty, but the tactical execution of that strategy is--in my mind--clearly flawed.  In short, though they represent in many ways the golf design business as a whole; it has become quite clear that there are some issues with the society. 

However, it hasn't delved into personal attacks--at least from my end.  And save for the unfortunate case of Mike Young--no one's personal integrity has been challenged in these discussions on this website or by any membership processes enacted by the society. 

As far as camaraderie goes.  I would be honored if any one of the men above wanted to talk about golf architecture.  I challenge any one of them to provide a topic for me to delve into fully, in order to learn and help others to do the same.  You want to do some projects on this website?  Let do some projects.  Like I've tried to repeatedly emphasize, the society is what we are arguing about.  Not individuals in the society.  And certainly not about our love of golf courses in general.

[Mark Pritchett]

Ben,

The two threads about the ASGCA are very interesting and thought provoking.  I for one have enjoyed the discourse and hope the threads continue in a civil and enlightening manner.  I hope more architects chime in.

As Bill Cosby used to say on Fat Albert-"If you are not careful you might learn something". 

Thanks,

Mark

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ben,

To paraprhase someone else's joke, its about as clear to me that there are "issues" with ASGCA as it is who designed Merion after reading GCA.COM.  If we want a challenging topic, we might pick "Do the views expressed on golf club atlas mirror those generally found in the golf industry or among golfers themselves?"

I am of the opnion that internet forums generally attract the most passionate people about the subject.  And, that passion is great but comes with either great opinion (if you agree) or an "agenda" if you disagree.......either way, I am not sure that opinions expressed on a forum are typically mainstream.

[Forrest Richardson]

Since a body of work (previous work) is essential to establishing an application to the Society, I am not certain why work accomplished before joining would not be within a list such as Tom W. leaps to devise.

Tom D. tries to make a case (and that is how I read it) that ASGCA is trying to better work, so therefore this becomes an ace-in-the-hole to the point that few contributions to "great" golf has come at the hands of ASGCA members.

Firstly, this thread must assume that "great golf courses" are embodied fully on a set of lists that anyone could agree on and still be friends.

Second, it does strike me that this is not so much a discussion to get to a conclusion as much as it is to twist and manipulate for the purpose of arriving at a set of data that gets to a specific, predetermined conclusion. For example, I would not expect any discussion along the lines of percentages — where we might compare the ratio of courses built within a decade to those making any of several lists...nor any list that would trace the lineage of ASGCA members to designers of courses on the lists, etc.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

You stated, "But, how much are they improving things if many of the best courses in architects' portfolios were built BEFORE they joined the ASGCA (as with Bill Coore for Sand Hills, or Jack Nicklaus for Muirfield Village)?  In that case the organization can't take too much credit for improving the state of the art, can it?"

If George Crump had lived and gone on to develop other courses, I think it would be safe to assume that they most likely would not have approached Pine Valley in greatness. Would that mean that his abilities as an architect would have regressed?

Just because an architects "best courses" came earlier doesn't mean that he hadn't actually grown as an architect in talent and ability. How important is the land upon which a course is designed integral to the quality of the design? So if one is not getting as good properties to work with the courses produced can not be expected to measure up to better ones, can they?

Wouldn't you say then that real measure of the growth of architext's as individuals or within an organizational structure is how they handle the properties they get to work with? When you look at a course done by architect "X" who now has been working for 20 years don't you look for the subtleties in the design that only a very experienced designer would see?

I think that is the measuring stick for an organization such as the ASGCA; are their member architects getting better at dealing with LESSER properties so that the courses created are better than they would have been if they hadn't been members?