News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Melvyn Morrow


While many may well be content and happy discussing the top 25 of this or that, ranking and ratings leaving ‘Fine Golf’ (http://www.finegolf.co.uk/) to address the important issued in the game of Golf.

Have we (the members) here on GCA.com lost interest in posting our thoughts on GCA and on the major issues of the day affecting our game?  Are we really content to avoid the issues because we are arrogant enough to consider the opinions of others less worthy than our own? Or perhaps we have fallen into our comfortable chair displaying the confidence that our opinions really matter to the golfing world. Many add to GCA threads without first reading what has been written previously, so how on earth can they know or even offer a comment. Seems to say the debate is not interesting enough for them but they still want to make a point – yet how valid is that point to the debate?

Yet quietly Fine Golf has posted many of the issues that face golf today, while we are looking at course rating. They address the problems bring them into the open for thought and comments of those who feel they want to take the point further. GCA.com Members reaction is completely different in that we the Members place the issues on the board (hopefully for serious debate, point of interest , humour or perhaps an OT subject) in the hope of generating some thought and perhaps in some cases a  debate on the issues.

We have the people here who are more than competent to produce a good debate, but for some reason the subject does not matter, it seem less important than attacking the individual who posted the thread. Worst still many Members seem to run for cover not wanting to get involved, ignoring the attack, and thus forming an act of censorship in doing so, which in turn reduces the effectiveness of the site.

The message I detect from our site is a very strong underlying opinion that nothing will change so why bother. I am glad Britain did not feel like that in 1939. But why is GCA.com projecting this subliminal message. Why are we not grasping the issues and having a good debate on the subject after all we do that every time a list or ranking comes out, tell me what is more repetitive than that?

This site is here to open the debate and hopefully take it forward, perhaps one day to the Governing Body of the game. There are many, many sites that chat about golf, but just look at the talent we have at GCA.com, the list of Designers, Keepers of the Green (sorry hate the word Super), and a sliding scale of quality golfers down to the average and less than average golfers (like myself).

So why are we not given Ran and Ben the quality debates they deserve, that will put and keep GCA.com into the forefront of GCA sites? We need to question openly the rights and wrongs of the modern game. But of course it’s more fun scoring points against another individual just because you do not agree with his/her point of view or worst still with a tone you believe you have detected. To kill a debate for this reason is pure madness but we are all to blame because very few of us ever jump in and support the right of that individual to have his say – wars are fought for less reasons.

If you do not wish to debate may I suggest you leave the site otherwise enter into the spirit of things or are we going to leave it to more sites fully addressing the issued we face in golf.

Fine Golf has done a resounding job in producing a Newsletter that looks at the real issues while seeking to support The Royal and Ancient Game of Golf to the highest standards.

All our opinions are important, so perhaps we should show a little more respect for each other and we might find that we are addressing more than a top 25 listing.

Melvyn

PS As for your opinion of me or my posts, I would only ask that you delay in making up your minds until we meet, allowing you the opportunity to read my body language in conjunction with my comments. Perhaps we may have to still resolve issues by accepting that we do not agree but without the need for hostilities.

Phil_the_Author

Melvyn,

Curious after reading your post I took a quick look... and I must question every conclusion you made in your statement regarding www.finegolf.co.uk vs. gca.com. The first reason is because these are two VERY DIFFERENT WEBSITE TYPES!

GCA.com is proimarily a golf course architecture DISCUSSION site. There isn't any area for "discussions" on "finegolf." From what I can see it is simply a newsletter and personal opinion blog without any interaction whatsoever, again that I could see from a quick, cursory glance.

Sorry, Melvyn, even poor discussions based upon your version of what they are on gca.com trumps NO discussions...

It might be a good newsletter and the writing might be very good, but it is apples and oranges in the comparison...

Melvyn Morrow


Philip

I did mention that the sites where different, ours is about Members opinions against a Newsletter. BUt there is a facility to make comments.

They still wipe the floor with us on subject matter. 

Melvyn

Phil_the_Author

Melvyn,

Again I strongly disagree with that. The depth of the information contained in the "In My Opinion" pieces far surpass the short articles that the website and newsletter contains.

When one likes what is written it is Shakespeare, when one doesn't it is trash; that is the problem in making this comparison. I'm sure it is well-written and the graphics look lovely, but again, it is impossible to make even a rudimentary comparison. It is similar to making one between gca.com and Golf Digest... one can't...

Melvyn Morrow



Philip

Am Happy to disagree as its the message thats important. As for debate, its proven to be poor at times as others do not reading the earlier comments before posting theirs.

Melvyn

Ian Andrew

_ _ _ . . . _ _ _      
« Last Edit: February 26, 2011, 04:01:14 PM by Ian Andrew »

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
I think you all make great points.  To Ian's point about the current list of threads to choose from, I agree.  And perhaps that dovetails with Melvyn's post and why he was compelled to post it.  Given the current first page or so of threads, I am glad someone stepped forward. 

I'd add that it would be nice to have some way to categorize past (and current) posts into topic categories (history, architecture theory, specific courses by name, etc).  There are many excellent threads that are difficult to pull up once they get buried in the archives of threads.  Maybe pulling out some and having an "In My Opinion" type of link that highlights past quality threads would be a good idea.

 
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Melvyn Morrow


Ian

So you want to take me to task, yet you point out the current page on the DG which I believe totally supports my case.  As for In MY Opinion that’s a totally different part of the site and correct me if I am wrong, is open to non- Members to post via Ran. Anyway I was not referring to ‘In My Opinion but to the DG where comments can be placed.  I think I have submitted a fair case that the important issues of the day are being well supported by Fine Golf, to my regret GCA.com DG is not meeting that current challenge.

Melvyn


Ed Oden

  • Karma: +0/-0
Melvyn, just curious, what topics do you feel Fine Golf is covering that have not been addressed here in the DG?

SL_Solow

  • Karma: +0/-0
I never knew that we were in any kind of a competition.  This site was established as a place for students and lovers of golf course architecture to meet electronically and discuss that topic.  While other topics, both golf and non-golf related inevitably sneak in, this is essentially a discussion group among friends.  So long as we meet this objective the site will be just fine.  If you or anyone else finds greater stimulation elsewhere you are free to vote with your feet. 

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Beware’ Fine Golf’ may soon surpass GCA.com on serious golfing issues
« Reply #10 on: February 26, 2011, 05:34:24 PM »

I thought that my comments were fairly clear.

With all due respect may I suggest you read my opening post as it seems that some have not understood.

As for competition, what competition, where was that mentioned.
A friendly site does not wish others dead or should suffer a stroke, it was getting out of hand,  hence I presume why Ran’s cull a few months ago.

As for leaving, I had already coved that in my initial post. Refusal to acknowledge that there are problems will not make the problem resolve themselves.

Open honest discussion and debate free from threats is what we all seek, but refusing to communicate with someone who disagrees with you is not conducive to a friendly discussion.

Melvyn


SL_Solow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Beware’ Fine Golf’ may soon surpass GCA.com on serious golfing issues
« Reply #11 on: February 26, 2011, 05:42:30 PM »
You suggested that we were about to be surpassed.  That presumes competition or at least a rating.  I do not measure this site against others.  Moreover your post suggests that the other site does better with respect to "serious golfing issues".  This presumes that this site is devoted to "serious golfing issues"  as opposed to golf course architecture which may touch on some of those "issues" while remaining separate and apart from others.  This may not satisfy you or alternatively you may wish to define which issues are important.  That is your privilege.  My suggestion that the purpose of this site is clear is not a failure to engage you nor is it the type of disrespectful behaviour that you regularly allude to.  I don't accept your premise and therefore find no need to engage further. 

David_Elvins

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Beware’ Fine Golf’ may soon surpass GCA.com on serious golfing issues
« Reply #12 on: February 26, 2011, 06:13:35 PM »
Melvyn,

The discussion board on GolfclubAtlas is made up of a group of people who are passionate about golf course architecture. 

You are an exception to this.  In your many posts on carts, ettiquette, the American game(whatever that is) the future of this website,Old Tom Morris,  etc etc, you make barely a passing reference to the subject of golf course architecture. 

If you want the quality of the site to improve, my advice would be to stop posting off topic drivel and start focussing your obvious passion and writing talent on something to do with the topic of Golf Architecture. 
Ask not what GolfClubAtlas can do for you; ask what you can do for GolfClubAtlas.

Ronald Montesano

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Beware’ Fine Golf’ may soon surpass GCA.com on serious golfing issues
« Reply #13 on: February 26, 2011, 06:51:33 PM »
Now lads, this thread has simulataneous great potential and great threat.  The sensitive ones were offended by Mel's suggestion that another site is better, and by his summoning of the site by name.  I don't have any intention of comparing Fine Golf to GCA, as I hardly have time for GCA.  A wee pinch from time to time is good for us, so cease the criticism of each other and go start a thread on something of substance.  If that happens, this specific thread's potential will have been realized (and its threat, avoided.)
Coming in 2024
~Elmira Country Club
~Soaring Eagles
~Bonavista
~Indian Hills
~Maybe some more!!

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Beware’ Fine Golf’ may soon surpass GCA.com on serious golfing issues
« Reply #14 on: February 26, 2011, 06:55:15 PM »
The serious issues I have mentioned relate to GCA.  Yes, the simple cart, its cart tracks have a massive impact on the initial design its cost and on-going maintenance, That Gentlemen is golf course architecture, not your top ranking list  which is actually marketing .

It may surprise you that Land Fit for Purpose is another item very much part of Golf Course Architecture, as failure to find such sites put millions of $ on to the cost of the design/construction – what’s that if not Golf Course Architecture.

I warrant that distance aids may not be considered major in GCA but it too has its place because many golfer feel unable to play the game without distance aids be they markers, booklets or electronic.

As for Old Tom when did I mention him, but as you have raised the subject let me say that thanks to Allan Robertson, Old Tom, Charlie Hunter plus a list of other Morris’, Hunters and not forgetting Willie Russacks (my family).  I have a some idea of the design process as well as how The Royal & Ancient game of golf is played. You know the game in which you walk and think, not use carts and distance aids because you have a total lack of ability in judging distances.  

It seems that many of you have drifted so far from the game of golf that you do not seem to understand the architectural requirements anymore.

AS for this site being a failure, may I suggest that it’s not the site but many of its Members who may be found wanting .

Please Gentlemen read what I have written and stop trying to put words into my mouth.

One last point re Fine Golf – what world region does it relate to,  noting it’s subjects matters and courses information, now would you like to re consider your comments and read what has been said.

Melvyn


Mike Sweeney

Re: Beware’ Fine Golf’ may soon surpass GCA.com on serious golfing issues
« Reply #15 on: February 26, 2011, 07:07:19 PM »
I signed up for the newsletter. Thanks Mel !

PS. I still think you are nuts, but I like the website!!!

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Beware’ Fine Golf’ may soon surpass GCA.com on serious golfing issues
« Reply #16 on: February 26, 2011, 07:25:10 PM »
Lorne Smith (I think that's his last name) came to the 2010 Buda Cup and played well. He wore very natty plus fours.

Melvyn has this a bit wrong. Lorne's website, on which he writes everything, focuses on TURF, the "fine turf" of Fine Golf.com. He is a huge advocate for firm, what he calls "fine," turf for golf. There is not much architectural criticism or discussion.

Dónal Ó Ceallaigh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Beware’ Fine Golf’ may soon surpass GCA.com on serious golfing issues
« Reply #17 on: February 26, 2011, 07:41:30 PM »
While I don't agree with all that you have written Melvyn, I do get your point, and understand where you're coming from.

Totally agree with Mac and Ian (what happened to your comment?). The number of OT topics on the DG these days is causing me to question why I tune in several times each day. Some of the topics are tragic :( and so way OT that they should be deleted. This week, for the first time ever, I felt uninterested and had very little desire to check the DG.

I've been on the DG since September 2009, and these last couple of weeks have been the most uninteresting, topic wise. That's not to say that there weren't some good threads, but unfortunately the good threads were not heard in all the OT noise.

I have a number of topics I'd like to post (Colt's coastguard nine at Rosapenna, Tee re-construction at Bro Bålsta, Bro-Bålsta photo tour, Scandinavian Masters pics of Bro Hof, plus some other historical topics), but I'm worried that they will be totally drowned in a sea of OTs. I just don't want to spend 5+ hours (it does take time) working on something, and then see it drop down the first page of the DG without response.

Eric Smith

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Beware’ Fine Golf’ may soon surpass GCA.com on serious golfing issues
« Reply #18 on: February 26, 2011, 08:29:31 PM »
Lorne Smith (I think that's his last name) came to the 2010 Buda Cup and played well. He wore very natty plus fours.


It was great meeting Lorne last fall in Wales as I thoroughly enjoyed our chat in the Porthcawl clubhouse about Tenby Golf Club, which we had both recently visited.  Soon after returning home I began receiving his e-newsletter and find that both it and his website are wonderful resources.

I haven't yet met our website's founder, but I have seen pictures and think that perhaps the closest competition between the two sites is not so much serious golf issues, but rather, which of their respective founders has the best head of hair.

 

Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Beware’ Fine Golf’ may soon surpass GCA.com on serious golfing issues
« Reply #19 on: February 26, 2011, 10:35:06 PM »
What is the point of reading something that you totally agree with?

Melvyn
You often criticize this discussion group.
There are a lot of members and different ideas.
I'd be better off if you just read the interesting bits and saving the invalidation for someone else.
Cheers
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

Alex Miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Beware’ Fine Golf’ may soon surpass GCA.com on serious golfing issues
« Reply #20 on: February 27, 2011, 02:20:05 AM »
While I don't agree with all that you have written Melvyn, I do get your point, and understand where you're coming from.

Totally agree with Mac and Ian (what happened to your comment?). The number of OT topics on the DG these days is causing me to question why I tune in several times each day. Some of the topics are tragic :( and so way OT that they should be deleted. This week, for the first time ever, I felt uninterested and had very little desire to check the DG.

I've been on the DG since September 2009, and these last couple of weeks have been the most uninteresting, topic wise. That's not to say that there weren't some good threads, but unfortunately the good threads were not heard in all the OT noise.

I have a number of topics I'd like to post (Colt's coastguard nine at Rosapenna, Tee re-construction at Bro Bålsta, Bro-Bålsta photo tour, Scandinavian Masters pics of Bro Hof, plus some other historical topics), but I'm worried that they will be totally drowned in a sea of OTs. I just don't want to spend 5+ hours (it does take time) working on something, and then see it drop down the first page of the DG without response.

I would happily read those posts Donal and will do my best to encourage the discussion so they don't get drowned. Personally, I find the course tours of courses which I have little or no knowledge of to be the best part about the DG because I'm able to broaden my depth of knowledge through different architecture.

Also, I think the board is littered with OTs now is because the golf course industry has slowed in the past couple years in general. To blame the people on here for lack of content seems absurd. As Melvyn mentions, Ran and Ben have allowed some pretty substantial and influential people to participate here so it would seem to me that external circumstances are more to blame than the group assembled here.

Pat Burke

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Beware’ Fine Golf’ may soon surpass GCA.com on serious golfing issues
« Reply #21 on: February 27, 2011, 03:56:20 AM »
Melvyn,
I looked at the finegolf website, and it does look like a perfect match for your belief in
much of what is correct for golf.  It is very clear in here what you believe is right and wrong
in the game today.
My question would be.  As an American, who has pretty long term ties to the game in this country.
What do you actually agree with or like in the American golf culture?
I have a pretty clear idea of what you do not like (carts, artificial technology aids, the lack of ruling body's control or protection
of the game etc).  But, what is good about the game as you see it here in the states?

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Beware’ Fine Golf’ may soon surpass GCA.com on serious golfing issues
« Reply #22 on: February 27, 2011, 07:53:37 AM »
Lorne Smith (I think that's his last name) came to the 2010 Buda Cup and played well. He wore very natty plus fours.

Melvyn has this a bit wrong. Lorne's website, on which he writes everything, focuses on TURF, the "fine turf" of Fine Golf.com. He is a huge advocate for firm, what he calls "fine," turf for golf. There is not much architectural criticism or discussion.

Just to add to what Bill said, it was good to meet Lorne (however briefly) at Porthcawl last year.... The fine in finegolf is advocating the use of fine bents and fescues and many of his course reviews focus on this... Nice website but indeed different to this one...

David_Elvins

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Beware’ Fine Golf’ may soon surpass GCA.com on serious golfing issues
« Reply #23 on: February 27, 2011, 08:14:36 AM »
The serious issues I have mentioned relate to GCA.  Yes, the simple cart, its cart tracks have a massive impact on the initial design its cost and on-going maintenance, That Gentlemen is golf course architecture, not your top ranking list  which is actually marketing .

It may surprise you that Land Fit for Purpose is another item very much part of Golf Course Architecture, as failure to find such sites put millions of $ on to the cost of the design/construction – what’s that if not Golf Course Architecture.

I warrant that distance aids may not be considered major in GCA but it too has its place because many golfer feel unable to play the game without distance aids be they markers, booklets or electronic.

Melvyn,

Most on here agree that carts are bad, and most understand the general concept that building courses on unsuitable land for golf costs more money.  
Unless you are going to add something in depth on the topic, I don't see how repeating the same tired argument (that most people on here agree with) helps anything.  You have 3600 posts.  Lets assume that 600 of them are ones complaining about the website, that still leaves 3000 about land fit for golf, distance aids and golf carts, or 1000 posts per topic.  Do you really have that much information in each topic?

Quote
It seems that many of you have drifted so far from the game of golf that you do not seem to understand the architectural requirements anymore.
I have no idea where you get this from.  In 30 years of golf I have maybe rode in a cart 10 times.  In all the rounds I have played with fellow GCAers, I have seen one on a cart.  Golf bags designed for walking are sold with the GCA logo and are very popular.  Cart bags have never even been offered. Reading through the list of the best courses in the world as determined by the posters on thsi site indicates that they are also very big on recognising golf courses  on land fit for purpose.   Your enemy on this website is imagined.  There just isnt a groundswell off posters here who fail to respect the traditions of golf.

Sorry for being cranky, Melvyn, I enjoy your passion and I am sure you are a good bloke, but I am getting really tired of you telling me and people I know that we are doing a diservice to the website with the content we offer when you continuously offer repeat postings of the same superfical arguments on topics that are probably best described as on the periphery of golf course architecture.  

The sad part is, that IMO, this board definitely needs some frank opinion on golf course architecture coming from Britain.  The British posters on this board seem like the nicest bunch of blokes imaginable and their beautiful photo tours of some great courses and wonderful, much like going for a picnic in the park on a sunny day is wonderful.  Unfortunately their inabilty to take architects to task for some truly shoddy work contributed, IMO to the second golden age of golf course architecture having only a muffled influence on England, Ireland and Scotland.   (Thank god for Pat Ruddy and his forthright views, it is no surprise he has built something of high quality).

Unfortunatly we are now feeling the effect of this too, in Australia, where martin Hawtree is the consulting architect on 4-5 of our better courses (and doing some atrocious work).  One wonders if he was taken to task more often and more vigourously, in the way that say Rees Jones or Tony Cashmore was, whether he would have been able to ruin some of our better courses. 

« Last Edit: February 27, 2011, 08:24:03 AM by David_Elvins »
Ask not what GolfClubAtlas can do for you; ask what you can do for GolfClubAtlas.

Scott Warren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Beware’ Fine Golf’ may soon surpass GCA.com on serious golfing issues
« Reply #24 on: February 27, 2011, 08:18:51 AM »
^^^ +1.

Well said, David.

I'll also disagree that rankings list threads aren't relevant to architecture, given they are generally chock-full of "A is better than B because of X, Y and Z" - ie. discussion of their design and features.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2011, 08:23:27 AM by Scott Warren »