Has the spiral of silence theory affected this site in the last few years?

[Mike_Young]

Lou,
There is as much to learn from the 20 or even a 30 , if not more, than there is to learn from the scratch.  But it depends on how they became a 20.  I enjoy playing and watching older golfers who were once very low handicap players.  so much can be learned from them.  I don't think Il earn much from a 20 handicap player who is descending his handicap and will eventually become a low handicap player.  .  

[JC Jones]

 And I see it here when guys come on here and try to make a topic such as this political as with various comments trying to link this back to an event etc.  

Mike,

Im not sure where you're going with this.  You made this political by starting the thread with a political article.  We also get that, to you, liberalism is pie in the sky, head in the clouds, ignorant idealism.  What is hilarious is that the politics you claim to be yours are actually.......liberalism.  So perhaps you should use a different term to describe all the people you view as "not intelligent".

Conservative victimhood went out of fashion a long time ago.  We get that you don't like those who are different from you and view your "realist" perspective as superior to theirs.  What I don't get is how such a realist capitalist as yourself doesn't fully embrace Golfnow.com and other pressures on the golf business that the free-market so clearly wants.

JC,

1.  Hmmmmm...my post ask a question.  It never mentions politics.  Now the definition of the "spiral of silence" ewas taken from an article that was political and I assume the blog it was on was also political.  ( it was sent to me so I only read that one part)  BUT I intentionally did not print the entire article because it was political.

2.  Secondly, I have never claimed any politics on here.  ( I don't think I have) and I never stated if I was conservative or liberal or independent or what.  I honestly don't view people by their politics anymore than I do the football team they choose to support.  

3.  I never said that people that supported Idealism were  " not intelligent" as you stated.  I accept and appreciate that there are extremely intelligent people on both sides of any debate.  I stated that in a college town many choose to "fake" intelligence by going to the more liberal side.  That's not saying that liberal thinking people are not intelligent.  

4.  Conservative victimhood...never heard of that...but it's funny you mention such.  I have often felt that the largest factor in determining one's political lean in this country has been whether one considers himself a victim or not.  

5.  you state:  "We get that you don't like those who are different from you and view your "realist" perspective as superior to theirs. " ..."We" Have you been appointed to speak for some group now?  Why not rephrase it into something like" it seems to me that you don't enjoy people who are different from you and you seem to think that a realist perspective is superior."  Anyway...You or "We" are incorrect.  Everyone is different and I thrive on hanging out with people that are different from me.

6.  And lastly, as a realist capitalist I don't like Golfnow because they make golf a commodity.  Eventually when Golfnow has what they need they will stop the barter system and I might consider them but for now they don't fit  my needs.

Cheers...

I like lists!  Thanks for your response.  I apologize for using "we" instead of "I".  You are correct that it was improper for me to do so.

Perhaps I have inferred too much from your posts, not only on this thread but on several others.  I wont go line-by-line because I've said my piece and you've said yours and I take you at face value with what you've said here.

As to Golfnow.com, my point was if one wants to be a purely free market person they've got to embrace it even when the free market works against their personal interests.  

[Mike_Young]

As to Golfnow.com, my point was if one wants to be a purely free market person they've got to embrace it even when the free market works against their personal interests.  

[/quote]

explain....

[JC Jones]

I'll be brief because I don't want to take this any further than I already have but to me its about consistency and intellectual honesty.  I'll give you an analogy on the other side: If I am truly against unemployment benefits, when I lose my job, I shouldn't go and collect them simply because they are there.  

[John Kirk]

Ben,
I never was offended by the title of dissenter.
What offends me most often on this site is the aura of the enlightened and how enlightenment only comes to the left. I see it every day in Athens.  And I see it here when guys come on here and try to make a topic such as this political as with various comments trying to link this back to an event etc.  
As you know I live in an idealistic valued town.  It is the most liberal town in the SE USA.  I mean we have it all when it comes to being cool.  We have gay preachers and choir directors. We have little girls from affluent Atlanta suburbs ("townies") dressed in black with old black dogs enrolled in art school and yet can't draw a stick figure.  We have rock stars that bath with rocks instead of water.  We have coffee shops that only serve coffee beans that weren't picked by starving pygmies.  We have restaurants that serves squares of tofu in place of eggs.  I mean we go tit all when it comes to idealism and cool.   BUT the one thing that stands out the most to me in this college town when it comes to all of the cool stuff is intelligence.  So many of these gullible kids and adults with average or less than average intelligence feel that the best and most efficient way to be accepted and viewed as inteiligensia is to spout idealism and liberalism.  They become a member of the local herd and can never discuss anything.  It becomes cool to look at realist etc as stupid rednecks.  I see it everyday.  But I came here because it was sport.  It's like hunting in a baited field or fishing in a stocked pond to live in a town like Athens and watch these idealist and confuse them.  Many are good friends and we accept each other but even they admit that so many of their ranks go idealist to look smart and be accepted at the scooter store.

OK, I'm pissed, in a friendly, competitive sort of way.

I'll match my ability to filter out noise, and determine truth and logic based on facts any time.  I'd rather compete in logic than golf.

Don Mahaffey is a key example which refutes your hypothesis.  He is respected as a thoughtful innovator in irrigation science and golf construction.  Everybody respects his opinion, and he is not "to the left".  So at least you've got one guy.

My golf world is so thoroughly dominated with "fiscal conservatives" that I have trouble seeing the problem here.  However, studies have shown that, though only 5% of rounds at top 100 courses are played by self-described "liberals", they contribute a full 80% of enlightened commentary found on Golf Club Atlas.  

I don't know much about golf course construction, but I can play these courses and make opinions on the playability of courses, based on watching people play golf.  Knowing what you don't know is important.

I agree that a 20-handicapper is less likely to have a worthwhile opinion about golf, for lack of experience and/or ability.

Signed,
Karnak the Magnificent, aura intact.


 

[George Pazin]

"If you like Tom Fazio and Rees Jones courses, then say so and be prepared to say why."

And yet, you don't even have to think about doing that when you speak of a Doak or CC course, its presumed that you SHOULD love it, no?

While I am not sure of the reasons, or the logic of that article, we have all felt it here.  I'm not that deep, but I liken it to just plain old avoiding as much unpleasantness as I can.  

When's the last time someone posted, "I love Ballyneal/Sand Hills/Pac Dunes/Friars Head/etc" without saying why?

And if someone ever challenged a poster who loved any particular course or hole, when did the challenged ever respond with "You're just biased against Doak/C&C"?

My money is on never. Ever. Not in a single post on here.

 

Seriously, people wax philosophic so often on these courses, holes and architects that it borders on monotonous repetition. But maybe, just maybe, it's because these courses, holes and architects are just that damn good. And maybe, just maybe, the average non-gca loving golfer doesn't put a whole lot more thought into a course than "what condition was it in?"

-----

I've never had a problem with people disagreeing with me on here. Heck, there are a few that seem to relish it as a sport. Hats off to them, wish I had that much free time to burn.

This is the most non-groupthink group of people I've ever seen, who still share a common bond, the love of golf and its wonderful playing fields. If anything, there is something approaching a spiral of praise for most things golf, and that's a good thing. Occasionally, it will be intimidating, debating folks who are far more knowledgeable than oneself, but hey, it's just a golf course architecture discussion site, it's not life or death.

Critics just look for something to bitch about, makes 'em feel superior to the rest of us...

[Jeff Goldman]

A few years ago somebody, possibly Tom Doak, started a thread that somewhat dealt with the most favored nation issue. We took a nationally known course, And listed stuff like best hole, worst hole,  best par five, worst par five etc. etc. with reasons why. I think we only got as far as Chicago golf club, but it might be worth starting these type threads again. Might have some chance to get away from groupthink.

[Jud_T]

I don't know about intellectual discourse, I'm just waiting for another 3 handicap to tell me which courses I should like...

[Matt MacIver]

I've not played a perfect 10 (IMHO) and I've played TOC, #2, Bethpage Black, Pac Dunes, Carnoustie.

Actually that puts you at three (assuming that TOC is in St. Andrews and not Kiawah).  If St. Andrews is not a 10 maybe your opinion is not so humble!

I thought the theory of Doak 10 (not Bo 10) was debunked or at least shown to be a 9 with an added something which Doak admires and not a course where missing one hole means the world .  If I could only find that thread...

Ciao  

Tom - thanks, I did somewhat regret saying that about The Old Course.  It's a course I would love to play everyday over and over, and Sean is right it was a snarky comment meant to include the {old} 10 rating of not-missing-a-single-hole.  

But idealistically I would like to find the course that has 18 !!! holes combined with a great routing, four compass points, winds, width, angles, etc. etc.  

[Matt MacIver]

Matt,

Thank you. I will be the first to admit that my well seems to have run dry. There is no complicated theory. It just happens.

Don't sweat it the best work is born from inspiration whereas the volumes are build on perspiration.    

[Lou_Duran]

When's the last time someone posted, "I love Ballyneal/Sand Hills/Pac Dunes/Friars Head/etc" without saying why?

And maybe, just maybe, the average non-gca loving golfer doesn't put a whole lot more thought into a course than "what condition was it in?"

This is the most non-groupthink group of people I've ever seen, who still share a common bond, the love of golf and its wonderful playing fields. If anything, there is something approaching a spiral of praise for most things golf, and that's a good thing.
 
Critics just look for something to bitch about, makes 'em feel superior to the rest of us...

Sorry for the redaction of some of your comments for the sake of simplicity.

You are right about the courses that draw universal praise here.  Such is not the case about architects who are not held in such high regard here (reference the Hills thread and the comment about Fazio's dogs).  Perhaps I am overly sensitive about this type of criticism having played well over 500 courses, a good majority which are probably not candidates in anyone of the more credible lists.  I am trying to think of the worst Fazio I've played, maybe Bluewater Bay or Osprey Point, and if I was relegated to play most of my golf at either one of the two, I'd be barking with little remorse each time.  The common complaint here is that Fazio courses have the same characteristics and resemble each other.  It is curious that C & C and Doak courses aren't subjected to the same criticism though the architects do follow their own styles and preferences consistently.  Of course, this tendency is not unique to golf as the current political situation so clearly demonstrates.

There is group-think here in spades.  One of the favored architects once told me that giving certain VIPs on the site "the time of day" played no small part.  Fazio, Nicklaus, the Jones brothers, and Weiskopf apparently don't feel the need to be as ingratiating.   I am guilty of liking golf courses because I like to play golf, but insincere praise is not a good thing.

Your comment about conditioning is a bit elitist, don't you think?  Here I thought that we were all Paulians today (maintenance meld, golf is a big world).

Lastly, the role of the critic is an interesting one.  By nature he has to be somewhat of an idealist, and, therefore, a malcontent.  Having seen how much of the world works and experienced a bit of tragedy in my own life, I scratch my head when I read some of the stuff we bitch about.  I have a 3:14 tee time today on a course that would rate somewhat below Fazio's biggest dog.  Can't wait.

Jeff Goldman,

Great idea.  Why don't you start with Olympia Fields-North or Prairie Dunes.  On the latter, get a handle on the gunch and I would jump on board.  Best hole, #8, love the way the hole meanders up the dunesland, predominant wind pushing the drive the right, the green pinched tight up high, and the putting surface complicated as they come (gunch greenside left needs to be burned!).

Jud T,

Well, I am just under a 5, but if you don't like OF-North and Prairie Dunes, you're a .........

[John Kirk]

...

[George Pazin]

Sorry for the redaction of some of your comments for the sake of simplicity.

You are right about the courses that draw universal praise here.  Such is not the case about architects who are not held in such high regard here (reference the Hills thread and the comment about Fazio's dogs).  Perhaps I am overly sensitive about this type of criticism having played well over 500 courses, a good majority which are probably not candidates in anyone of the more credible lists.  I am trying to think of the worst Fazio I've played, maybe Bluewater Bay or Osprey Point, and if I was relegated to play most of my golf at either one of the two, I'd be barking with little remorse each time.  The common complaint here is that Fazio courses have the same characteristics and resemble each other.  It is curious that C & C and Doak courses aren't subjected to the same criticism though the architects do follow their own styles and preferences consistently.  Of course, this tendency is not unique to golf as the current political situation so clearly demonstrates.

There is group-think here in spades.  One of the favored architects once told me that giving certain VIPs on the site "the time of day" played no small part.  Fazio, Nicklaus, the Jones brothers, and Weiskopf apparently don't feel the need to be as ingratiating.   I am guilty of liking golf courses because I like to play golf, but insincere praise is not a good thing.

Your comment about conditioning is a bit elitist, don't you think?  Here I thought that we were all Paulians today (maintenance meld, golf is a big world).

Lastly, the role of the critic is an interesting one.  By nature he has to be somewhat of an idealist, and, therefore, a malcontent.  Having seen how much of the world works and experienced a bit of tragedy in my own life, I scratch my head when I read some of the stuff we bitch about.  I have a 3:14 tee time today on a course that would rate somewhat below Fazio's biggest dog.  Can't wait.

No problem with redaction, you can redact me anytime...

My point re: Fazio and Jones vs. Doak and C&C was not to compare courses, but rather the attitudes that posters seem to show on here. Jeff specifically said we take things differently with Doak et al, and I am calling BS on that, mostly because no one ever just says, I loved Pac Dunes or wherever - they always cites reasons and things they loved, almost to the point of going overboard. And if called out by someone, they usually respond with actual logic, not just cries of bias and lack of experience (the Matt Ward defense ).

I've actually played Osprey Point, can't remember much of it. I remember Black Mesa hole by hole, and I am one of the few on the site that didn't even love it. I don't remember much of the other Fazios I've played (I think 3 others?), but I did think the one out in Cali near Vegas was the most playable desert course I've played, and that means a lot to me. I've also praised Mirasol, where they briefly held one of the Florida stops - I'd rather play there than many other options, just going by the televised images. Since I don't think I'm much different than most on here, I don't think it's bias that results in different feelings, more just actual experiences on actual golf courses.

There may be groupthink here, but it may also just be that Pac Dunes and Sand Hills are better than Shadow Creek and the Atlantic Club, at least as regarded by architecture buffs. My point re: this site is that, even if there is groupthink here, there is less here than any other internet discussion board I've come across. There's always people on both sides of damn near every issue, and they aren't shy about voicing those opinions. That's the opposite of "spiral of silence", imho.

My point re: conditioning was certainly not elitist, merely an observation born of experience. And I'm quite certain I'm not alone in that regard. Ask most people about a course, and that's the first thing mentioned, and often the last - the conditions, particularly of the greens. You rarely hear anyone praise bunker placement, strategic holes or even the naturalness of a course. That doesn't mean one side is right and the other wrong, merely that different people have different values. If that's what gets someone fired up, fine by me, doesn't bother me at all - that is the Big Wide World of Golf theory in practice, not just in type.

My point re: critics is just that I'm sick of every nickel and dime philosopher having an explanation for why "we" do things.

Life is rarely so simple that it can be condensed into something some nimrod can waste 10 years "researching" and then write for a worthless doctoral degree in some worthless social science...

Now THAT was elitist, at least in some anti-elitist sense of the term.

-----

"Conservative victimhood" - now that made me laugh. Thanks, JC.

[Phil McDade]

When's the last time someone posted, "I love Ballyneal/Sand Hills/Pac Dunes/Friars Head/etc" without saying why?

And if someone ever challenged a poster who loved any particular course or hole, when did the challenged ever respond with "You're just biased against Doak/C&C"?

My money is on never. Ever. Not in a single post on here.

 

George:

I may be missing your point here, but try wading through this thread (yes, all 14 pages of it) and see if Mike Young doesn't have a point: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,44990.0.html

It gets pretty interesting around page 7, where the Godfather of Sand Hills starts accusing people contributing to a thread about the course's architecture of "urinating" on a golfer's "euphoric" encounter with "one of life's peak experiences" (and a place that the discouraging poster says, it should be noted, "haunts him," "haunts me during the winter months," and haunts him "when I sleep.") I guess courses like that should be shielded from the "frank commentary on golf course architecture" advocated on GCA's home page.

I left that thread not long after that -- why try to learn something about a course through words and pictures when one is accused of ruining such life-changing experiences?

But that's easily dismissed. What struck me about Mike's comment -- and is a more difficult issue to come to grips with -- is the exchange in this thread: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,44990.0.html

Two of GCA's more respected posters -- in responding to my critiques and questions of a course held in such high esteem that it's referred to in Biblical terms -- told me, essentially, that I had to see it and play it to understand why it was so good. OK, maybe -- but isn't that a cop-out of sorts? Isn't an argument -- on, of all places, a website with more good pictures of golf courses than anywhere on the web -- that says, "Well, you don't get it because you haven't played it," the exact antithesis of what Ran was (still is...) trying to accomplish with GCA? When I replied that my views were in line with those of a notable and well-respected (and well-traveled) golf writer, both of our GCA posters responded: He must've had a bad day at the course, with a lousy score. Which is a silly argument to make about golf architecture.

I think Mr. Young is on to something.

[John Kirk]

I'm bumping this back to the top.

I was fooling around this afternoon, and my contributions may have discouraged serious conversation.

I like George Pazin's last post a lot.

The GCA discussion group is populated by such smart, well educated and successful people.   Compared to other discussion boards, it's very civilized and productive.  Hard as people try, emotions sometimes get in the way of unbiased analysis.

[John Kavanaugh]

I always would've though Jim Engh would've done the Sharknado of golf courses.

As for courses that undergo significant evolution in the five years after opening, I think of them more as the Chinese Democracy of golf courses, only if Chinese Democracy were released in 1998 and then remixed, rerecorded, and remastered continuously and publicly until the finished product was stamped ten years later. Perhaps Sharknado will undergo a similar evolution. I really enjoyed the film and its campiness, but there's a fine line between campy and just plain awful CGI. I'd love to see them remaster it with better computer animation and more stock footage, but the same fantastic continuity gaps and surrealist sensibility.

Two problems: Engh hasn't built anything 91% fresh and Chinese Democracy was developed under the guise of great expectations from the critics. The critics wanted to hate Dismal River before it was ever grassed.  Collect call for Thomas Dunne...the 80's wants your reviews back.

I don't really know what this means--especially the 1980s reference--but I already suspect I'm better off continuing to add to the spiral of silence.

The 80's reference is due to my opinion that the following style of writing would better serve as fuel for a flux capacitor. http://www.departures.com/articles/extraordinary-nebraska-golf-courses

[Steve Lang]

  Lou,

... Paulians who like wide fairways and no trees in play, that is...

Regards from The Woodlands

[Sean_A]

As with most esoteric threads I get lost because I can't connect the references or tag the words to real life - well my real life anyway.  

I think Doak gets a bit more respect (ie group think praise) around here because he actually talks about design, the process, thinking, history etc.  Now, my theory is shot to hell once I come to one of the guys I respect most on this site - Jeff Brauer.  I disagree with much of what he writes (or at least I think I do - often times I am not sure if its is emphasis that throws me off), but this guy takes a lot of flak and keeps coming back.  He does what Doak does, but people (perhaps me as well - I will have to give it more thought) seem more easy about having a go at him more than they do at Doak.  It may be a group think process or it may be Jeff's attitude or it may be other things or a combination of things - I am not sure.  Whatever, I like Jeff's resiliency and patience and that he tries to keep things on track and impersonal.  Lord knows too much round here is taken too personally and some much too seriously.  

Ciao

[Bill_McBride]

As with most esoteric threads I get lost because I can't connect the references or tag the words to real life - well my real life anyway.  

I think Doak gets a bit more respect (ie group think praise) around here because he actually talks about design, the process, thinking, history etc.  Now, my theory is shot to hell once I come to one of the guys I respect most on this site - Jeff Brauer.  I disagree with much of what he writes (or at least I think I do - often times I am not sure if its is emphasis that throws me off), but this guy takes a lot of flak and keeps coming back.  He does what Doak does, but people (perhaps me as well - I will have to give it more thought) seem more easy about having a go at him more than they do at Doak.  It may be a group think process or it may be Jeff's attitude or it may be other things or a combination of things - I am not sure.  Whatever, I like Jeff's resiliency and patience and that he tries to keep things on track and impersonal.  Lord knows too much round here is taken too personally and some much too seriously.  

Ciao

I don't recall seeing much if any criticism of Jeff's courses on this site.  There is a lot of love for his courses up in Minnesota.  I've only played one that I'm sure of, the Wilderness in South Texas, and liked it a lot.  Some wild greens and a very playable course.   Is the "flak" you refer to in response to his commentary or courses?

[Tom_Doak]

As with most esoteric threads I get lost because I can't connect the references or tag the words to real life - well my real life anyway.  

I think Doak gets a bit more respect (ie group think praise) around here because he actually talks about design, the process, thinking, history etc.  Now, my theory is shot to hell once I come to one of the guys I respect most on this site - Jeff Brauer.  I disagree with much of what he writes (or at least I think I do - often times I am not sure if its is emphasis that throws me off), but this guy takes a lot of flak and keeps coming back.  He does what Doak does, but people (perhaps me as well - I will have to give it more thought) seem more easy about having a go at him more than they do at Doak.  It may be a group think process or it may be Jeff's attitude or it may be other things or a combination of things - I am not sure.  Whatever, I like Jeff's resiliency and patience and that he tries to keep things on track and impersonal.  Lord knows too much round here is taken too personally and some much too seriously.  

Ciao

Sean:

I am sure that I am treated more nicely sometimes than Jeff is.  In the beginning of the site, whatever respect I got came from having gone and seen so many courses, and being known as a student of the game.  Most architects are seen as primarily defending their own work and their own approach to design, but I was known as a both a critic and a fan of many great old courses, first.

After I built Pacific Dunes and Barnbougle, I've certainly been treated a bit differently, and not only on this forum.  Most of all I've been lucky that a lot of talented people want to work with me.

[John Kavanaugh]

Jeff"s work is treated with more respect by this site than Bob Cupp's.  Quarry National is loved while Liberty National is panned.  I would say mostly because Jeff is our friend.  I do not recall anyone ever saying a bad word about his work with the exception of saying nothing at all.

[George Pazin]

When's the last time someone posted, "I love Ballyneal/Sand Hills/Pac Dunes/Friars Head/etc" without saying why?

And if someone ever challenged a poster who loved any particular course or hole, when did the challenged ever respond with "You're just biased against Doak/C&C"?

My money is on never. Ever. Not in a single post on here.

 

George:

I may be missing your point here, but try wading through this thread (yes, all 14 pages of it) and see if Mike Young doesn't have a point: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,44990.0.html

It gets pretty interesting around page 7, where the Godfather of Sand Hills starts accusing people contributing to a thread about the course's architecture of "urinating" on a golfer's "euphoric" encounter with "one of life's peak experiences" (and a place that the discouraging poster says, it should be noted, "haunts him," "haunts me during the winter months," and haunts him "when I sleep.") I guess courses like that should be shielded from the "frank commentary on golf course architecture" advocated on GCA's home page.

I left that thread not long after that -- why try to learn something about a course through words and pictures when one is accused of ruining such life-changing experiences?

But that's easily dismissed. What struck me about Mike's comment -- and is a more difficult issue to come to grips with -- is the exchange in this thread: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,44990.0.html

Two of GCA's more respected posters -- in responding to my critiques and questions of a course held in such high esteem that it's referred to in Biblical terms -- told me, essentially, that I had to see it and play it to understand why it was so good. OK, maybe -- but isn't that a cop-out of sorts? Isn't an argument -- on, of all places, a website with more good pictures of golf courses than anywhere on the web -- that says, "Well, you don't get it because you haven't played it," the exact antithesis of what Ran was (still is...) trying to accomplish with GCA? When I replied that my views were in line with those of a notable and well-respected (and well-traveled) golf writer, both of our GCA posters responded: He must've had a bad day at the course, with a lousy score. Which is a silly argument to make about golf architecture.

I think Mr. Young is on to something.

Phil, I guess you missed the smiley, even though it's in your quote of me. I was kidding a bit to make a point, that the overwhelming majority of posters who comment on Tom D's and C&C's courses are very heavy with specifics. I recall the thread you linked to and I have no intention of re-reading it, but it has a lot of specific Q&A, even if it did get a bit overly personal and defensive at times. 14 pages is pretty much prima facie evidence that there is no spiral of silence!

Also, I have no problem with someone saying "you have to see it to understand". There is a lot that does not translate well to 2-D photos, layout diagrams and written dialogue, particularly if the writer is not that great. Sometimes it's a cop out, but sometimes it just means what it says.

I don't think it's realistic to expect everyone to respond in perfect parliamentary debate form every time on an internet discussion site. But this site sure comes a heckuva lot closer than any other I've seen. The very fact that we have these navel-gazing threads every six months or so is more evidence that there is no spiral of silence. The very fact that this site has existed so long is more evidence that there is no spiral of silence.

And if there was some sort of spiral of silence with respect to the Zimmerman trial, holy cow, I'd hate to see a full blown discussion! I've seen more posted on both sides of that issue than just about anything in recent memory.

[Tom Dunne]

I always would've though Jim Engh would've done the Sharknado of golf courses.

As for courses that undergo significant evolution in the five years after opening, I think of them more as the Chinese Democracy of golf courses, only if Chinese Democracy were released in 1998 and then remixed, rerecorded, and remastered continuously and publicly until the finished product was stamped ten years later. Perhaps Sharknado will undergo a similar evolution. I really enjoyed the film and its campiness, but there's a fine line between campy and just plain awful CGI. I'd love to see them remaster it with better computer animation and more stock footage, but the same fantastic continuity gaps and surrealist sensibility.

Two problems: Engh hasn't built anything 91% fresh and Chinese Democracy was developed under the guise of great expectations from the critics. The critics wanted to hate Dismal River before it was ever grassed.  Collect call for Thomas Dunne...the 80's wants your reviews back.

I don't really know what this means--especially the 1980s reference--but I already suspect I'm better off continuing to add to the spiral of silence.

The 80's reference is due to my opinion that the following style of writing would better serve as fuel for a flux capacitor. http://www.departures.com/articles/extraordinary-nebraska-golf-courses

John, I'm not going to worry too much about what you think of my "style", but I suspect you're more put out by the substance of the feature. I know you've always been a big backer of Dismal Nicklaus, but Spiral of Silence aside, fine, I don't think too highly of it. And if anything, I think Doak's new course only throws the shortcomings of its neighbor into sharper relief. For me, it comes down to site selection and routing before the conversation about golf holes themselves can even begin. I don't find the site of the Nicklaus design to be a particularly compelling place to explore--it felt like tracking aimlessly around a big bowl. I didn't find the routing intuitive, nor do I think it's successful as a walking course. (Whether that was a priority I don't know, but if it wasn't, it should've been.)

Doak's course, on the other hand, is a grand slam in terms of site selection and routing. I give Renaissance and Chris Johnston a lot of credit for electing to cross the road and create holes in the shadow of the buffalo run and at the Dismal River itself. The front nine is superb, but that back nine has a chance to be known as one of the finest sides in American golf. I happen to especially like courses where the routing tells a story of sorts by moving the player (easily) through diverse environments in natural and exciting ways. Is that too airy-fairy? Think Highlands Links, or Bandon Trails.

I believe Dismal has a bright future as a club, and I said as much in my Departures feature. CJ was a welcoming host during my visit and I very much enjoyed playing a round with him over the winter at Streamsong. He frames these differences in a positive light, and if I were in his shoes I'd do exactly the same thing. But as an outsider communicating my impressions to the readers of a (non-golf) magazine, I couldn't honestly say these two courses are in the same class in terms of...pretty much anything. Strategy, artistry, memorability of the journey? I'm sure someone will argue that I haven't played either of them enough (Nicklaus: 1 play; Doak: Walked the 18 during grow-in). I don't claim to know the nuances of the Nicklaus design even 1% as well as any Dismal member, and I always reserve the right to change my mind, but for now I feel comfortable enough with what I saw and wrote.

PS: The great thing about "Back to the Future" is that Biff gets his in the end, every time.

[Mark Molyneux]

"The larger the group, the more toxic, the more of your beauty as an individual you have to surrender for the sake of group thought. And when you suspend your individual beauty you also give up a lot of your humanity." (George Carlin)

GCA isn't the twitterverse. It's a smallish, select group. However, there are obviously a number of people with strongly held convictions, the willingness to share those convictions, and the time to do so. I find it a little frustrating at times (being employed... as a psychologist) that I go off to work and lose the thread of a conversation that I was part of at 7 AM but now it's been progressing all day with 714 additional posts. On the other hand, maybe that's my defense. I can say my piece and have a contribution which people are free to accept or to reject. I feel little need to "defend" my position or my observation. I am very interested in how others react but I don't feel defensive... or at least I haven't yet.

I'm thankful for the opportunity to go back and read up on the spiral of silence. It'll give me a chance to break away from all that tedious neuropsych research on the yips.

MarkMx

[Jason Thurman]

And if there was some sort of spiral of silence with respect to the Zimmerman trial, holy cow, I'd hate to see a full blown discussion! I've seen more posted on both sides of that issue than just about anything in recent memory.

Agreed. I did notice one thing though, and it's something I've been noticing with a lot of issues lately:

On my Facebook, Twitter, and news feeds, I saw many different perspectives. My wife, however, saw fewer on hers. She's from a predominantly upper-middle-class neighborhood, has never lived outside a major metropolitan area, generally follows people she went to college with and her family, and listens to NPR. She's also a black woman, and we live in a pretty hipsterish urban community. Her impression was that the nation was outraged at the verdict. She also never believed Mitt Romney had a chance to win the last election, she thinks the huge majority of the country favors gay marriage, and she generally thinks the country is quickly growing more liberal outside of a few stubborn and ignorant pockets.

Meanwhile, I'm from the Upper South. I've lived in metro areas, but also small factory towns. I follow a lot of people from those towns, including some pretty redneck members of my family. I'm a white boy who grew up surrounded by religion and traditional values. When my college friends start posting on Facebook, I think the whole country is turning more liberal. When my high school friends start posting, I think the conservative movement is alive and well.

What's the point? I think it's easier than ever in 2013 to isolate ourselves inside a comfortable bubble. Social networks connect us, but we can restrict whose thoughts we actually see on them. We can choose news stations that validate what we believe, and there's more spin than ever. As we become more connected electronically, we become less connected in real life. We don't have the discourse that happens when you're face-to-face in the real world. We have a controlled system of information delivery that pumps us with what confirms our frame of reference unless we actively manipulate that system to show us multiple perspectives.

How does it relate to GCA.com? The guys who post here are mostly guys who are interested in the current movements in architecture along with its history. Those two things predispose many of us to favor certain concepts and styles and designers. If I go to other golf forums I frequent, I get a very different perspective. It's one that evaluates courses by conditioning, visual impact of the design and surrounding scenery, elevation changes, and scorecard yardage. The guys on those forums are still knowledgeable golfers who care about the courses they play. Their tastes aren't wrong. They just care about different things than what the average GCA'er cares about.

This site is the MSNBC of golf forums. The other forums are probably the Fox News. Or maybe it's the other way around. Either way, we're all biased to what we like. I hope there's no spiral of silence around here, though there are a few obvious culprits who try to foster one. Mostly though, I just think a lot of us have similar tastes and prejudices formed from being surrounded by other people who confirm the validity of those tastes and prejudices.