ASGCA meeting in Tulsa this weekend

[Sam Morrow]

Joel and others,

Jeff is a very loyal member of the ASGCA and is only the messenger.  He was one of my sponsors but I was so bad he couldn’t even help me.  

I don’t think one can say there are so many things wrong with the ASGCA if you stop and realize what it is.  It’s no different than any other organization of its kind.  Think about it.  There are around 175 members.  The perception is it is a golf industry association since the Allied Associations of Golf consider it a part.  But the other associations are not really familiar with it’s membership process.  It’s no different than any other fraternal type of organization.  They can choose who they want as members and they can discuss whatever they wish at their meetings.  So for me the problem is not the ASGCA but the perception it allows the industry to perceive of itself.  

Many of the members worked for other members and were sponsored by those members.  That is a much easier process especially if it is done when your principal is on the board or an officer.  There are two types of architects that are not members.  There are those that have applied and been turned down and then there are those who have never applied.  Once you apply and are not accepted you can expect that to be used against you in the future by some members when interviewing for jobs.   Someone can correct me if I am mistaken but membership is a subjective issue and not an objective issue as with the PGA or the GCBAA or the GCSAA.  The 13 member Board of Governors has to give nine votes to an architect for membership.  If they want you in, you are in.  I doubt Pete Dye ever showed them a drawing but they wanted him because of his fame.  Several of the tour players have to rely on their staffs to design but they needed them in there.  (rumor is there were many fights over such) And the same goes for some tour players family members.  It’s all about industry perception.  A few years back they would have never allowed Tom D in after the Confidential Guide but today they would take him in a second.
 
I had a major championship winner go thru the interview process in front of me in the mid 90’s.  He had many very good projects.  No go.  I know of another successful design partnership that split up the tour player of that group is an excellent archie on his own but his ex partner can probably keep him out for a while.  I guess the entire thing is sort of like if you were try to get into a fraternity and you were  banging the girlfriend of one the members, well, you probably will not get in.  But if you were already int he fraternity and you were banging the girlfriend of another member, there might be a fight , but membership would not be an issue.

IMHO many of the issues people have with the ASGCA would go away if they were an objective membership organization whereby you met the requirements and were allowed to join.  Presently there is no association for golf architects. There is only the society.  

Mike,

What do you consider the biggest flaws and what would you do to change it?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Joel,

Had you stated there may be a few bad apples in ASGCA, I would have agreed.  There are no saints, no choir boys, and it is a competitive business.

I don't doubt your Robin Nelson story at all.  In my time, there have been many similar charges, usually worked out amicably after someone gets a little hot under the collar.  And, I have to admit, if someone leveled such a charge at me I would be pretty upset about it, much like Robin was.  But, the key is, there was a process to file a complaint, and it was all resolved, which is the point, not necessarily kicking someone out of the group at the drop of a hat.

As to "bad work" it's pretty clear you a) value historic restorations and b) like everyone else, have your favorite architects.  No problems, but as in your presumption that ASGCA should have taken the R and A to task, I can't recall the different golf associations doing that in public ways in my 37 years in the biz.  Just doesn't happen, and not everyone looks at the world from the narrow prism of no change to old golf courses (even if, like TOC and Augusta National) they have already been changed from original intent many times before.

One hockey site (Puck Daddy) has a daily column title "What's the Hockey World pretending to be outraged about now?" and sometimes I think of that in reading this site.  Everyone was outraged at TOC changes around here, before they were even seen.  They occurred, life and tournament golf went on (with mixed reviews of the changes) and this site found other things to be outraged about.  Its not unlike ripping Faz for the look of Merion's bunkers when redone a few years back. Faz said the would mature and soften, even if the newly finished look was stark, and they did.  But, that didn't stop a month of riled up verbiage here at the time......

Short version, historic preservation is an issue, of course, but not one with a totally universal acceptance, so to base criticism of anyone on their reaction to a single issue important to you is probably too narrow a prism to look at things through, at least for a golf organization.  For the lower threshold standards of the internet, well I guess you can have at it.

PS - as to taking all day to think of something, I just took all day to decide whether it was worth typing, instead having directed you to our website.

[Joel_Stewart]

Again, Joel knows nothing.  As a matter of fact, we do have associate memberships, but that doesn't stop his increasingly incoherent rants.  Of course, the associate level requires the 5 courses, with 2 more required to attain full membership, and an aging process (reach 70 year old) to be a fellow.

Like Fox News, he doesn't bother to get his facts straight before ranting along!

I'm bothered by your attack on me on the above post.  I found the post in which I referenced different levels of membership.  My facts are not from Fox News, but from you and your blind defense of the ASGCA.  This is your exchange with Adam Clayman.

"Jeff. Have they ever considered expanding to different classes of membership like the GCSAA? Increasing revenue and potentially teaching those without all that experience."

Adam,

That comes up periodically, but has never really been considered.  In the end, when you are sitting in the room for the meetings, we like to think that you are either qualified to design a golf course or you are not.  Who would want to sit there with a "60% qualified and proud of it" badge?

Now you are saying there are different levels.  You're quite the hypocrite and quick to point out I know nothing.



You're asking Mike Young who was denied membership on how to fix the problem.  That's laughable.

The best thing the ASGCA is to appoint a small 5 person committee to evaluate the goals, rules and mission of the ASGCA.  This should not include past presidents and any member who has been in the organization more than 15 years (the old guard).   If the ASGCA has the resources, there are multiple organizations that evaluate efficiency and effectiveness among other things.  These are called consulting firms.   

[Jeff_Brauer]

Joel,

I hope you don't think I am attacking you for these, but it does seem you are REALLY stretching (often via wrong assumptions) to find something wrong with ASGCA.  

I agree we could do more (although not all the same things you may think we should do) and maybe a few things different, while realizing we just can't be all things to all people.  I did have a funny thought, but some would find it odd that George Crump could have never made it into ASGCA, had it been around, despite designing the No 1 course in the US because he only designed one course as an amateur.  Some things about membership do fall kind of funny, including restoration architects finding it harder to get into ASGCA, despite it becoming a pretty big segment of the biz over the last decade.

For the record:

I didn't ask Mike Young how to improve ASGCA, Sam Morrow did.

ASGCA does appoint panels similar to the ones you suggest to review the missions.

About five years ago, we did retain an outside strategic consultant, and have been slowly implementing their recommendations ever since.

Yes, there are different levels - associate, regular and fellow (as well as honorary for our Donald Ross winners), but all are regularly practicing architects (except honorary) The associates are new members, also professional architects, who don't have voting rights for the first few years, and who need to do two more courses before moving to regular membership, mostly to assure they are still in the biz.

I see your point if you thought I was saying there were no student, friends of, internet groupie, related consultant, or other levels.  We do focus on regularly practicing professional golf course architects.  So, misunderstanding yes, hypocrite, no.



Hope the women in your life are having a Happy Mother's Day!

[Tom_Doak]

 A few years back they would have never allowed Tom D in after the Confidential Guide but today they would take him in a second.

The main reason I have never applied to the Society is that I believed they would ask me to promise not to update the book, and I was never going to make such a promise.  I didn't want to waste the application fee to find out if I was right.

The clincher that I would never apply was the whole St. Andrews thing.  Instead of being very public about it myself [outside of Golf Club Atlas], I tried to reach out and build some consensus with other architects, both in the ASGCA and internationally, so that I wouldn't be accused of doing it to promote myself.  The President of ASGCA, Bob Cupp, was incensed by the changes in his initial response, but then became a deaf mute over the course of about two days, when he found out Jack Nicklaus was not going to back his view.  His asking me to wait, and then backing away from it over the next few days, made it impossible to mount an effective response while there was still a chance to impact the outcome.

Everyone has a right to their own opinion on the matter, but it was clear that ASGCA members were afraid to take a strong position, out of "respect" for their fellow members.  Too many went into political mode, whether it was in fear of the R & A, or that something they might say would come back to haunt them in a consulting job down the road.  Several members expressed support for my position in private, but would not say boo in public, for fear of offending some other member of the fraternity.  As one ASGCA member told me, it was the most disappointed he had been in the organization since he'd joined.

My own objections aside, Joel's rants seem both over the top, and pretty pointless coming from someone who isn't in the business.  The Europeans have a big student program as part of their society, and it just seems like a way to get kids to pay for access ... sort of like the golf rater panels that generate so much argument here.  The only way anybody learns anything in this business is if somebody takes the time to mentor them.  There are a few who have done so generously, and others who must want to keep the competition down for their sons ... but I'm not sure being in the Society has anything to do with that.

[Mike_Young]

Mike,

What do you consider the biggest flaws and what would you do to change it?

Sam,
A few years back I promised myself I would not get into these ASGCA threads again and now here I am.  

Since they are a private society, I don't think anyone can say their actions are flaws.  Their actions are their choices.  It's that simple.  And I could care less except when they affect me or my business.  

Twice in the past year I have come across projects where once the comment was made that "I was not a member which usually meant there was a "problem" "and second, where a city had stated in their bid that only ASGCA members could apply.  That kind of stuff pisses me off.

Go to their website and read their members page with the statements about membership.  I am as qualified or more qualified than many members but early on I pissed off the wrong guys.  It happens.   After reading that page it will say things like they need to be sure the members are mainly employed in golf design and they can technically put together a course.  Well, a few members don't meet that criteria and I would wager that many of the associates will not design the other two courses they need for full membership but that will be allowed anyhow.  Now, all of that is their prerogative.  
I find it interesting how many of the "five courses" you will see in the membership packets of member architects  were done for a design firm where they were employed and not the main designer./owner/signature of the firm.  Often they have moved on in the past few years and now have their own business and not a course with their name on it listed.  I'm not saying these guys are not qualified ;but come on ,designing a course for an employer where you do not have to acquire the contract and compete in an environment that naturally would affect the loser is a completely different world than an outsider acquiring projects in his own name.  Totally different.  

So, if I was to answer your question it would be these things if and only if they were seeking credibility instead of exclusivity.  

1.  Have objective entry requirements that are upheld and not discarded with subjective BS.  Imagine if the PGA or the GCSAA  were to have an interview process once one had met the requirements and let personalities decide the final outcome.  Wow....

2.  Judge not, that ye be not judged......that's an old one    It can be a petty group...I've had them call me a liar, insinuate that I have been sued on a job where no such thing ever happened... I even had one guy tell them I took kickbacks from a major irrigation company which was laughable ( why would a major company offer kickbacks to a regional redneck over the much larger job signatures? )  One said that we charged our clients too much when we did shaping etc...also laughable when comparing our priced courses to so many out there...I even had the director tell me that some things just don't fit for some people ....just a lot of BS from some petty people.  

But here is what's getting ready to happen across the board ....
Associations ,including state golf associations, supt associations and PGA are losing members.  If the ASGCA sticks to it's present requirements it will lose members and will also not have any qualified members to join.  The business is going to become smaller and smaller.  Lots of guys that are now members are not really making a living at it and will choose to not pay the $1500 dues.  FACT: there will be less architects...They will ask vendors for more support and guys like me will continue to hold those vendors accountable for spending money with a group that competes against us.  

Now having said all of the above, these are good guys but they are human and in many cases have preconceived ideas of outsiders.  I have a lot of friends in the group and if it were that important to me now I would do it again and politic differently.  Joining is not about the actual requirements nearly as much as it is about having the board of governors on your side.  I know many members that were turned down several times and will tel you it is all about applying when the right people are on the board.  I believe that....AND as TD said above....(I was in TD's camp and signed the letter or whatever we did)  ASGCA isn't about individuals, it's about survival of a professional society and not pissing off the big boys....

[Joel_Stewart]

 A few years back they would have never allowed Tom D in after the Confidential Guide but today they would take him in a second.

My own objections aside, Joel's rants seem both over the top, and pretty pointless coming from someone who isn't in the business.  The

I agree and apologize.  My rants tend to get ugly and it's something I'm trying to deal with on many levels.  I also don't like to talk with ignorant people.

With that said, there is nobody to my knowledge seeking change at the ASGCA.  As I have said many times, the ASGCA needs to be more active and have a stronger voice.  It bemoans the USGA with the lack of control on the ball and clubs but most are happy to jump on a bulldozer to build more tees.

Jeff is not the spokesperson for the ASGCA yet one of the few who will talk openly.  That is another problem, the ASGCA needs to talk as one yet trying to get a consensus among the group is impossible.   As I mentioned, if Fazio won't fill in Raes Creek in front of the 12th at Augusta, I'll bet you can find another ASGCA architect who will.  That is an ethics problem and lack of voice on preserving classics.

Tom, I am not in the business.  I have witnessed first hand many of the problems that trickle down from the ASGCA members.  Number 1 is poor quality of work from many of their members.  Is that a reason not to voice displeasure?  The ASGCA doesn't evaluate members work.  If Golf Magazine, GolfWeek and Golf Digest can build a system, can the ASGCA not figure out a system to evaluate an architects work?   Routing, Shaping, Bunker placement, Cart path placement, Irrigation, Drainage.  There is a public course in the Bay Area by an ASGCA architect that would rank about a 2 with those values.

Jeff acknowledges that the ASGCA needs to do more.  I believe everyone does except as Mike Young calls them, the big guys.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Joel,

Well, I hate to say it, but you (and others) will be sadly disappointed if you wait for ASGCA to take on a strong voice on changes to TOC specifically, and maybe even stands on restoration of classic courses generally.  It is difficult to "speak in one voice" when your membership is comprised of 160 fiercely individualistic people.  As TD notes, there was no consensus among members as to just what to say to or about the R and A, so they presented a few separate opinions.  As a group, we really do have the problem of finding areas where diverse folks can work together for the common good of our profession.  Sometimes, its more unlikely than the Dems and Tea Party teaming up on a bill everyone agrees on.

You say its an ethical issue to renovate golf courses in "non approved" ways, but the tradition of any design profession is to identify the clients problem and help them solve it.  I know, in your (and many) minds, we have an obligation to save them from themselves in then name of restoration, but not all feel the same way.  Every case is certainly different.

Its funny, but I was thinking about the Rae's Creek example recently.  As it happens, I am working with two courses where the state DNR is requiring them to remove dammed up, on stream lakes and change them back to natural creeks.  Formerly, old examples were allowed to stay, but enviro reggies are getting more stringent and governments more bold in what they tell people to do with their own private property. I know nothing of the Georgia DNR and how they feel, but I wondered what would happen if they decided the ponds on 11, 12 and 15 had to go back to natural creeks at ANGC?  Or the piped stream on 6, etc.?  In all reality, ANGC would have the political clout and legal resources to keep these features, but if some DNR lawyer wanted to make them an example, it could happen.

So, would the architect that helped them remove the creeks be a villain in that case?  That is just a wild hypothetical, but there are many cases where the needs of the present trump the desire to return the course to the original architects intent, which would be the dominant thought here, in the Ross Society, etc., but not as big a concern in the traditional architecture paradigm.

Not trying to incite the forces here, just pointing out the way it is, and somewhat why ASGCA doesn't seem to respond to the restoration proponents as strongly as they would like.

[paul cowley]

Just to be officially on the Record again:

In the past I have promoted and lobbied for both Mike Young and Tom Doak to become members in the ASGCA....whose absence I feel diminishes our stature as a Society which purports to represent the truly competent golf course architects and designers working today.

Both gentlemen have and continue to excel in their profession and I feel we are missing a tooth or two in the ASGCA smile without them.

I think the last I checked TD has the most courses ranked in the Top 100 with 4 or 5...a major accomplishment...and neither have a lot of felony convictions or need to register were they live with the police.

Plus it would be fun to have them on board to do all the mysterious chanting and arcane rituals we can't share with Others.

Anyway...that's were I stand.

[paul cowley]

Oh, and Jeff...you are doing a fine and thankless job as always...curious, can someone serve more than one term as ASGCA Prez?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Paul,

LOL.  Actually, I think Joel is right, it is time for the young guns to take over, and I think they are improving ASGCA by leaps and bounds.  It was good to see the Jeff Blume's and Ian Andrews being groomed for future leadership roles.  They will do great.

BTW, I had to ship your rental W and Putter back to Southern Hills, today, and get back my 5 Iron. It appears you and I can't even manage our golf bags........

[Sam Morrow]

Thanks Mike, I was genuinely curious and appreciate someone giving an actual opinion and ideas.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Got to thinking about this again this morning.  If in the end, this is about the idea of saying renovation of classic courses is being unethical somehow, I simply disagree.  For that matter, I would suspect that even the most pure restorationists would not endorse the idea that disagreeing with a design concept could more easily result in professional censure or worse yet, legal actions.  Yes, IMHO, public ridicule and criticism is the way to go, and enough on the punishment scale for bad work!

As long as design is subjective (which other than meeting regulatory compliance, it is) its hard to think any someone should or could set rules up for design, as I have mentioned before.  Every project is simply unique in its requirements and design solutions.

If a club doesn't like the work, while this somewhat sounds like blaming the victim, it is a result of them not carrying out their homework as well as they should.  No one with a Ross course should hire Jeffrey D Brauer if they want a pure restoration.  I have simply never done it, while others have.  The profession is big, and getting far more specialized, and that is simply not one of my specialties.

I understand the various dead guy societies push hard for pure restorations, and this site generally endorses that (Heck, we all do for truly significant courses without some glaring and real current problem) The profession is big, and getting far more specialized, and that is just one segment of the entire design world for ASGCA and others to address, not the ONLY issue we face, as some of those specialized groups would prefer when it comes to their favorite courses.  In all honesty, like most things, it has evolved pretty much as it had to.

PS, I hope some of my competitors don't partially quote me above, as in " No one......should hire Jeffrey D Brauer."

[DMoriarty]

So it is purely buyer beware, and your organization takes no responsibility for the work product if its members? Seems a bit much for your organization to hold itself out as some sort of sanctioning body for quality architecture, while at the same time totally washing your hands of responsibility in situations where an unscrupulous member architect may be taking advantage of an unknowing client.

[Jeff_Brauer]

We do not hold ourselves out as a sanctioning body, as a few here claim. We are a professional society, formed to further our profession as per our mission statement.  As such, and in common with AIA, ASLA, ASPE and others, we do not take responsibility for work of our members, and we sure don't imply that all 25 million golfers will like the artistic expression or design goals of all 160 members equally.

It simply isn't practical, and isn't demanded anywhere else except from a few wing nuts on golf club atlas.  AIA doesn't promise every architect it has will be the next Frank Lloyd Wright.......or that Wright would be the right choice for an economical one room house addition.

While it really is always buyer beware, or more correctly, buyer do some research, but who really decides that a client is "unknowing?" That an architect is "unscrupulous?"   I guess we do imply that to the best of the groups knowledge, the member architects are capable of designing courses in an ethical and competent way.  And, 99% of the time, our members do provide professionally designed green/tee/bunker that suits its purposes that and function as the club wanted it to.  (as do most non member architects with experience.....)

We certainly are not the consumer protection agency, nor should we be, when what Joel (and others) is asking is to somehow guarantee what is really subjective opinion of "design quality. " Again, who decides that on a global basis?   

Well, I would discuss more, but as an ASGCA member, I am off to catch a plane to design terrible, low quality golf holes in various parts of the country.....   Luckily, my clients are all unknowing boobs who didn't realize my unscrupulousness, but that won't be discovered until someone from golfclubatlas plays the course a few years from now and reports that "Tom Doak would have done it better....."

[Bill_McBride]

We do not hold ourselves out as a sanctioning body, as a few here claim. We are a professional society, formed to further our profession as per our mission statement.  As such, and in common with AIA, ASLA, ASPE and others, we do not take responsibility for work of our members, and we sure don't imply that all 25 million golfers will like the artistic expression or design goals of all 160 members equally.

It simply isn't practical, and isn't demanded anywhere else except from a few wing nuts on golf club atlas.  AIA doesn't promise every architect it has will be the next Frank Lloyd Wright.......or that Wright would be the right choice for an economical one room house addition.

While it really is always buyer beware, or more correctly, buyer do some research, but who really decides that a client is "unknowing?" That an architect is "unscrupulous?"   I guess we do imply that to the best of the groups knowledge, the member architects are capable of designing courses in an ethical and competent way.  And, 99% of the time, our members do provide professionally designed green/tee/bunker that suits its purposes that and function as the club wanted it to.  (as do most non member architects with experience.....)

We certainly are not the consumer protection agency, nor should we be, when what Joel (and others) is asking is to somehow guarantee what is really subjective opinion of "design quality. " Again, who decides that on a global basis?   

Well, I would discuss more, but as an ASGCA member, I am off to catch a plane to design terrible, low quality golf holes in various parts of the country.....   Luckily, my clients are all unknowing boobs who didn't realize my unscrupulousness, but that won't be discovered until someone from golfclubatlas plays the course a few years from now and reports that "Tom Doak would have done it better....."

  .  Keep that sense of humor, it comes in handy when dealing with the humorless. 

[DMoriarty]

Maybe "sanctioning body" is not the correct phrase, but it sure seems like, through its membership process and its representations, that your organization is holding itself out as responsible for qualifying and categorizing golf course architects "as qualified and well-seasoned in golf course design with a trained eye for both functional and aesthetic excellence."  And you claim to have a code of ethics and integrity, and make a number of other claims about the qualifications of your members.   If you are going to make claims about the qualifications, experience, integrity and ethics of the member architects, and commitment to an environmental approach to design, then one would think you might have an interest in ensuring certain standards.  

You ask, "Who decides if the architect is unscrupulous?"  Well, if you are a professional body with a Code of Ethics representing to the world that your architects meet certain requirements, then YOU decide who is unscrupulous.  You have taken on that responsibility.   Otherwise it would seem to be nothing but a well meaning suggestion, or worse, disingenuous marketing gimmick.

But perhaps I have it wrong, and your organization already takes its many representations seriously?   Here is a link to your Code of Ethics. http://www.asgca.org/code-of-ethics  How is the code enforced? How does one file a complaint when one feels a Member architect has violated the code?  Is this really a code of behavior, or is it just suggested behavior?  In the 78 years since its inception, how many architects have been reprimanded, disciplined, suspended or removed for violation of this code?  

Or perhaps it would help if we expanded on your example.  Suppose a client came to you looking for a sympathetic Ross restoration, and you represented that you were an experienced Ross restoration architect with the knowledge and capabilities to handle the job.  Wouldn't that be a violation of Code of Ethics IV, V, and VI?  If so, what would be the consequences of that violation under your  bylaws?

[Sean_A]

Ace - its more than just humourless, it reads more like witch hunt. 

Jeff - I have no idea how you put up this behaviour and this isn't the first time. 

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Flight cancelled, back at house, due to weather, so:

Of course we have an interest and we do take it seriously.  That is why we have a membership process that checks out scruples as best we can.  

If purported ethical breaches occur, there is a complaint process, which has been used a few dozen times that I know of over my 33 years as member.  I am not sure if they are all publicized widely, so I don't know the true numbers extent.  As in Joel's examples, after a hearing,  there is usually resolution short of expelling a member, but it is a possibility.  It is often a misunderstanding.  I will agree with Mike Young that once in, members probably get more benefit of the doubt than applicants during the membership process.  

While that may sound a bit unfair, it really is human nature to do that with someone you know well, vs. a stranger.  And, while we can all cite examples of less than choir boy behavior, to suggest that is the norm is way out of the realm of reality.  As stated, I believe 99% of our members projects are handled well, by any due care type of legal or general professional standard.  

So, I don't think your example correlates to what Joel is suggesting.  First, I wouldn't, and I doubt anyone would represent themselves as a Ross expert (or that in the information age, they could without being found out) If someone did lie about their resume, yes, it would probably be a violation of the code of ethics if another architect brought a claim.   You may have no idea how small and connected the golf profession (compared to the legal profession or others) really is.  There are only a few bad apples, and I think everyone is pretty aware of who they are!

But, those kinds of complaints, rumors, what not have been extremely rare, so we shouldn't over play them.  Further, no one has said that any architect has actually misrepresented credentials on this thread, so your example is getting pretty far afield.  Joel seems to be suggesting that a particular design has come out unsatisfactorily in his eyes, and thus "something should be done" apparently by ASGCA.  I have explained why it hasn't, basically explaining that he is attributing far too much power and responsibility to us.

Besides, while ASGCA has its missions, which don't always align with historic preservation perfectly, single purpose historic societies have formed and beat the drum, architects have specialized in it, researchers and consultants like Brad Klein and Phil Young have become active where asked, etc., to fill the void.  Whether any of these should have a say in the affairs of a private club if not retained as a consultant is sort of an open question, mirroring the whole political process/balance of "public good vs. private rights".    

I have already explained the problematic mechanics of testing ASGCA members to determine their continued ability to provide "quality design."  As mentioned, I doubt AIA and others are asked to do the same anyway.  While there have been some unfortunate mismatches of architects and projects from time to time, in reality those, too, are rare.  I believe the problem is being overstated, to say the least.

[Bill_McBride]

Ace - its more than just humourless, it reads more like witch hunt. 

Jeff - I have no idea how you put up this behaviour and this isn't the first time. 

Ciao

Jeff really is a stand up guy.  It's tough enough when Joel plays pit bull, now David is piling on.  Fifteen yards!   

I really have no idea how Jeff can be expected to defend a membership of 160 diverse, highly competitive individuals, but he seems both willing and capable of doing so.  I would have told them to f*ck off long before this. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bill,

Who says I haven't (under my breath?)

Well, its important to me, and in a different way to others in this group, so I don't mind discussing such things.  I know I will never reach the hard core anti-ASGCA crowd, but hopefully, and discussion enlightens a few lurkers here.

[Bill_McBride]

By the way I was glad to see The Wilderness on the list of Top 50 courses you can play in the Dallas Morning News.   Fun course where I beat my son 1 up by chipping in from behind 18!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bill,

Thanks. I don't think that one had made the list before.  Nice counterpoint to some of my courses dropping.  It's a pretty good one, and some folks say if it was on the north side of town, it would rank higher.

[Sam Morrow]

Jeff,

My group would all join if it wasn't so far south. It's one of my favorite in town.

[paul cowley]

Jeff - you are tooo good, but please let the idiots fester in silence...don't cede them the podium so they can play a 'look at me' or gotcha game...a little silence will make them drift away. Trust me, they will move on to other forums where they can get more attention.