What can this site achieve?

[Scott Warren]

Brian,

When I offered my honest comments on the maintenance meld at one particular GCA darling, the hysterical response of one of their maintenance staff was met with a chorus of "bravo"s - said super also sent me abusive messages. What hope do we have of honest debate happening if that is the culture that develops

To which course are you referring?

[Jared Kalina]

Many who are on GCA.com today found the site by Googling a famous course and finding Ran's profile.  The profiles are to me the soulf of GCA.com while the discussion group is the pumping heart!

Couldn't agree more with this sentiment.  I know several people who fell into this site this exact way--googling a golf course and having Ran's profile show up as one of the top results.  There are quite a few clubs where Ran's profile and pictures are the best (if not the only) way to see and learn anything about the place.

To the other point being discussed in this thread-- negative criticism-- I think it is healthy and absolutely vital that GCA'ers continue to speak their minds and not put a spit-shine on anything and everything they want to say here.  If it becomes all positive feedback, you don't really know who is speaking the truth and who is just putting a sugar-coating on their comments.  The whole discussion becomes a little less valuable.

But, in my opinion, each negative comment has to come with two caveats:

1.  The negativity has to be grounded in first-hand experience.  If you don't like a course's routing or the way all the par 3's seem to play the exact same way and you've actually been there and played it, go right ahead and say that.  I find that info to be valuable. 

But if you're bashing an architect based off pictures, I'm not sure that's fair. 

In the same fashion, if you want to bash a superintendent or a maintenance meld for being wet when it hasn't rained in two weeks, that's totally fair.  If you're catching plugged lies in the middle of a drought, that information is negative but completely valid. 

But if you're speaking on the walkability of a course you've never walked or even attempted to walk then your opinion has become invalid.

2.  (I find this second point to be even more imperative to the integrity of this forum)  If you're posting a bunch of opinions under a pseudonym, then this forum has more in common with a youtube comment section than a place where frank and honest discussion happens.  I know this site had a problem with this years ago and forced everyone to post with their first and last names, and I'm sad to see it going back the other way.

If you want to post a negative comment, it's real easy.  Make sure it's true and based on real-world experience.  And, more importantly, put your name on it.

[John Kirk]

This site has already achieved the objective of popularizing and educating tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of golfers about the many facets of golf architecture.  The subject is vastly more popular than it was 20-30 years ago.

[SL_Solow]

Before we get bruised from patting ourselves on the back, let's not get carried away.  This forum remains largely a haven for a group of self professed aficianados to indulge our common passion for a topic which has received increased interest but remains a backwater in terms of general public interest.  As for popularizing the topic, given the number of "hits", we appear to be doing quite well but I suspect much more credit goes to the print media whose ratings (yes ratings) and accompanying articles help bring focus to the topic and those columnists who specialize in the area like Brad Klein and Ron Whitten.  Pioneering developers who have been willing to put theory into practice like Mike Keiser get much of the credit and most importantly, the architects who were willing to break the mold like C&C, Doak, Hanse etc are far more important than us.  Make no mistake about it; this is a fun place to meet, talk about interesting topics and make friends.  But let's not fool ourselves by inflating the impact and importance of what is essentially a meeting of hobbyists with the welcome addition of some wonderful and valuable professionals.

[Mac Plumart]

Before we get bruised from patting ourselves on the back, let's not get carried away.

 

Internet, Shel.  Internet.  It is powerful.

[RJ_Daley]

I found Vinnie's post to be very much in accord to my own feelings about GCA.com., and what it has meant to the subject of Golf.   The data base and sum of knowledgeable comments from experts to novices, and from practitioners of many associated fields with the general subject of golf- to the consumers of the product(s) has been recorded now for nearly 15 years of discourse.  Some of the material has authority and is valid resource material for various study.  Some of the material of the back pages is merely trivial and no more than prattle, nearly useless.  (I’ll own some of that)   

But, to the inquiring soul who seeks knowledge on some aspect of a very big subject of golf, with emphasis on design and the fields of play developments, I don’t think there is much question of GCA.com’s importance.  Is it akin to the Library at Alexandria?  Well, maybe not so much.  But, much good information and useful data has been contributed and stored in the back pages.

In order to have effect on golf as a general subject, the information has to have impact on readers seeking knowledge on the wide array of associated subjects.  Are we impressed by things we read and contribute here?  And, do we go forward in pursuit of our golf subject interests more informed than when we came here?  And, will we share what we have learned?   I think that is an indisputable process that has led to an acceleration of interest and knowledge.

Is anyone aware of a website centered on a completely different subject, with as voluminous  a  compilation of subject matter produced from a discussion forum, that rivals the information stored in this cyber library?   

This site has achieved a global body of shared information and has influenced an enhanced understanding that is in the form of cyber-discussion currency. The subjects of golf design and development have assimilated the information in an uptake of awareness that was not as refined prior to GCA.com. 

[John Kirk]

Is anyone aware of a website centered on a completely different subject, with as voluminous  a  compilation of subject matter produced from a discussion forum, that rivals the information stored in this cyber library?   

Dick,

The ARPANET, the first version of today's Internet, was established to allow the world's high energy physics laboratories to send research papers back and forth.  So yes, there are likely hundreds of similar libraries in other fields, especially in education and research.

[Craig Van Egmond]

Well this site certainly make it easier for future researchers to put together a complete Tom Doak Chronology.   

[John Kirk]

... 

[Mac Plumart]

Are we still living by our mantra of "frank and honest commentary"?

[JC Jones]

...

[Bill Brightly]

I'd ask you this question Bart:

Is the golfing public's overall awareness of the history of golf course architecture, and what consitutes good golf course architecture,  higher in 2014 than it was in 2000, prior to gca.com?

I say it is far higher, but there is much more room for growth in collective knowledge. I think this gets accomplished by word of mouth and clicks on the gca.com website (and other websites.)

And I don't think this knowledge gets passed on solely by posters making negative comments about courses, holes or architects. Praise about certain new work, certain restorations, and certain great old courses can have a far more powerful impact on the golfing public's awareness of what should be praised and emulated.

[Chris Johnston]

This site has already achieved the most worthy (planned or unplanned) goal...friendship...of like minded people across the globe.  It really is unique in this regard.

To Barts's initial post...a real life case in point...I likely wouldn't have asked Tom Doak to build us a course if it wasn't for this site.  And, I'm certain I would never have heard of Don Mahaffey if it weren't for GCA.  So, yes, this site has done much good.  Direct good.

Both guys (and many more here) have become good friends and that, to me, matters even more.  Generosity in spades.

[Mac Plumart]

Great points, Chris.

[DMoriarty]

Are we still living by our mantra of "frank and honest commentary"?

That depends on who you mean by "we."  Some are.  Others not so much.

If "we" were living by our supposed mantra of frank and honest commentary, then "we" probably would not have been so quick to smote down the slightest attempt at honest criticism of recent DW v. DR pillow fight.

For that matter, "we" probably would have had a frank, open, and honest discussion about whatever caused the abrupt demise of the thread. When the behind-the-scene conversations, machinations, and jockeying are more intriguing than the online contributions, then that doesn't say much for the level of frank and honest discourse, does it?  

[JC Jones]

If "we" were living by our supposed mantra of frank and honest commentary, then "we" probably would not have been so quick to smote down the slightest attempt at honest criticism of recent DW v. DR pillow fight.

Criticism/discussion of the merits of the thread or of the courses?  If the former, then that should have been dismissed.  If the latter, that should have been encouraged.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Sometimes I think this site has become to successful.

It seems everywhere I go and just about everyone I meet that is involved in golf knows about this site. What is written here does follow you around and while that may be fine for those who just play the game, for those of us in the game, it can be tough as every negative or "frank and honest criticism" seems to bother someone somewhere.

If you criticize a course, an architect, or a builder, it is very possible your comments will get to them, and they will not like it.

And all this open and honest should go both ways in that there are some here who seem to have it in for certain people and places. David M is never going to say anything nice about DR. Is he being open and honest? Or does he have other motives. There are some here who seem to cyber stalk certain architects and like to pose rhetorical questions or make veiled accusations as if their job is to correct and "keep 'em honest".  Frank, honest, and open seems to be only when we are pointing out our thoughts, not when the honesty is coming at us.  

[DMoriarty]

Criticism/discussion of the merits of the thread or of the courses?  If the former, then that should have been dismissed.  If the latter, that should have been encouraged.

The criticism/discussion to which I am referring went to both the merits of the courses and the thread, and in this case I don't think you can separate the two. If the thread is nothing but another shiny-happy-people whitewash of one or both the courses, then on a website supposedly devoted to frank and honest discussion of golf course architecture, the thread itself is most certainly fair game, isn't it?  

[Mac Plumart]

These last few posts have touched on exactly what I was wondering.

If the site is about frank and honest commentary, but industry insiders can't be frank and honest...then that doesn't help us achieve our mantra.

And if participants in the discussion group are not being frank and honest in their opinions (either with a purposeful and intentional negative bias or a biased positive approach), then we are not fulfilling our mantra either.

[Mac Plumart]

Frank, honest, and open seems to be only when we are pointing out our thoughts, not when the honesty is coming at us. 

People can dish it out, but can't take it.  Is that what you mean, Don?

[DMoriarty]

Don,

What have I ever said negative about the courses at Dismal River?  I've loved every Doak course I have ever played, and while I haven't played DR Red and don't intend to, I have no doubt the golf course is excellent. The photos look great. As for the Nicklaus course, I don't recall ever discussing its merits.

But Mac's question is about honest and frank commentary, and with regard to the Dismal courses, that most certainly does not exist on this website.  That is my beef against Dismal River.  The participants, including the owner, a superintendent, and one architect, and many vocal members, have made it impossible to discuss these courses openly and frankly.  To find anything about them beyond the informercial presented here, you have to go through back channels.  To discuss them you have to do it offline.   On gca.com, it is just pretty pictures, "iconic" descriptions, and a quick rebuff by the above named if anyone dares post anything remotely or even potentially critical.

It has become a joke.  A private joke, because no one dares say anything publicly, but it has become a joke nonetheless.

[JC Jones]

...

[Don_Mahaffey]

OK David, so it is your job here to keep everyone honest?
To make sure we all criticize properly as directed by you?

Every thread has to meet this Moriarty standard?

Mostly what I see out of you is negative attacks on people. Why? Is that what this site is supposed to be about? And if not, then why do you continue to do it? Why attack the people who like DR, or take the time to actually go see it?
Who the fuck are you to say what anyone should write or discuss here?

[JC Jones]

 After all, It is a BIG World  

[Ian Andrew]

.