[Joel_Stewart]

Joel...UNLESS you are really a HOT Southern Bell, who really spells her name Jo-El...and is really just funning us because you find people who build s++t out of dirt sexy and exciting (call me)...THEN I'm not going to write another word, or type another letter about you as it's a pure waste of time.

Convince me and this group of something the ASGCA has initiated and taken the lead on.   What has the ASGCA accomplished in the last 25 years?   

Mike, of course I don't mean every member.  There are around 175 members.  Pete Dye, Bill Coore and Gil Hanse are obviously leaders in the field.  Kyle Phillips has some very innovative work.   I'll even count Fazio as a an innovator.

[paul cowley]

0

[Mike_Young]

Joel,
I probably allowed the ASGCA to consume more of my time that I should over the last 20 years and therefore feel I do know a little about it as an outsider but definitely not as much as an insider.  Out of respect for friends I have inside the group I'm not about to start an argument about where we disagree on the group.  NOTE I SAID GROUP, not individuals.
First, I'm not sure of much that can be said any association has done over the years in the golf business other than provide the types of networking that the guys above had mentioned.  And I see nothing wrong with that.  I do think that once a trade association/club gets to rolling, it soon becomes critical to make sure it can survive financially and that often becomes of primary concern.  PGA, GCSAA, NGCOA and even ASGCA naturally have that battle and have to ask for sponsor support and become creative in how they keep or recruit members.  In the case of ASGCA, not many if any could meet the requirements of a few years ago for membership today.  I am assuming that has changed with the times and will continue.
I do know of a few things that obviously have changed.
It was once required you submit drawings but a few members of late do not do drawings.
It was once frowned upon that construction was mixed with design but that has changed.
It was once noted in the app that it had to be your primary business but Signature players have proven that wrong.

My suspicion is that if we were a fly on the wall when RTJ was around and in the beginning his main purpose was to create a feel of "professionalism" in the craft of golf design . Therefore such requirements were begun.  However via the good ole boy network( as with anything) it could be circumvented.  With the way Pete Dye designed a course, he would have never been considered if his courses were not gaining national attention.  I think over the years the signatures popularity often gained them entrance as much for the credibility of the organization as anything.
Jeff and Paul and Ian are some of the good guys...no need for you guys to get sideways...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Joel,

You can't confuse your favorite architects with doing something for design.  The simple facts are, by definition, only 10% or so of courses in any era are going to be classics.  Yes, many of our members design the muni's, the 9 holes, or even the affordable country club that can't be, usually for budget, top 100 courses.  And those guys have been very valuable to golf architecture, as much as the top guy like Fazio, Coore, and Dye.  And no doubt, the trend towards restorations a few decades ago got started outside our society, if that ruffles your feathers, but again, there is a lot more to architecture than restoration.

We have always asked for plans from new members, no matter how they get produced, and the guys applying this year still had to submit them, because in a regulatory environment we face, they are usually necessary, at least for new courses.  Being able to design a golf course within current and near future conditions in a technically proficient manner has been the focus of the group, at least to the degree of trying to define "design excellence" because that is, of course, a matter of opinion.

As Mike Y said, the first members did want to foster professionalism, from Ross on down.  They probably saw AIA and felt the profession was worthy of similar recognition, collective education and occasionally dedication to a cause.  It is still part of our mission statement, which you can read on the ASGCA website.

If you want to decide that we should have done "XX" and that we failed, when it was never really our mission or even a possibility of a group mission, and then knock us for not doing it, well I can't stop you.

As for taking the lead on certain things, we certainly have, but I do admit that there are some politics in the industry, and frankly the much bigger PGA and USGA usually feel certain things are "their territory" and of course, are much better position to lead on many issues even including slow play, new play, etc.  We even got reminded by our USGA liaison Steve Smyers that we really shouldn't even be discussing rules ( a la 15" cup) as that is an area covered by the USGA.  Think about it - what are the budgets of those groups?  Certainly in the millions, and we get $1500 from about 150 members, plus some ad and sponsorship revenues.  So yeah, by some measures, we wish we could really take the lead more, but simply aren't funded to do so.

Over the years, ASGCA has provided information and promoted better design on a wide variety of design related topics, including slow play, affordable golf, environmentally sensitive design and much more.  Yes, we have even worked on contracts, how to hire an architect (which does, as Mike Young says, suggest hiring an ASGCA architect, specifications for golf construction, etc. etc. etc.

Your post 10 and 20 are full of cynical and false assumptions, which is what I objected to.  And I still fail to see how you can call learning about new techniques others are using to minimize water use (it actually was Jim Moore of the USGA Green Section, who showed us how they are now measuring water areas with new monitors) is something we "should know" without study is just so far wrong, it boggles the mind. 

If you think golf architecture is so simple that it can be done by a chimpanzee you are sadly mistaken.  Like any profession, it takes constant study and improvement, and a professional golf course architect (as opposed to a typical tour pro) is one who takes design ideas and has the technical competence to make it actually work in areas like water use, drainage, soils, etc.

So, ASGCA has provided that for many conscientious members, myself included.  I am sure you can and probably will pick out some of the things I said here and find a negative light to shine on them, based on your uninformed perspective.

I have never said ASGCA is perfect, just that it's been one of my top life experiences, as suggested in my tag line.  So, you can take issue with us, and that is your right, but as you can tell, I will defend it when its not fair criticism and Joel's was as I originally said, part horse feathers (bad facts) and part cynicism (an attitude which varies from mine)  I obviously can't change the latter, and probably spent all the time I care to even trying.

Cheers to all.

[Chris Clouser]

Just wanted to say that it was good to meet some of the folks from this site in person.  Jeff Brauer, Lester George, Andy Staples, and Ian Andrew in particular were enjoyable to finally talk to in person.  I also wanted to thank Tripp Davis for working together on the presentation.  I don't know that it was as enlightening as Joel wants to portray it.  I doubt anyone had an epiphanies about Maxwell's career.  But it was nice to answer a few questions, including one from RTJ, Jr.  I enjoyed the time with these folks and others that I didn't list above and thank them for the time this past weekend. 

And, for the record, I know that Keith Foster and I never talked prior to his work at Southern Hills, so saying that my research influenced him is speculative and probably hyperbole.

As for the other presentations, what I caught of them was interesting. 

Lastly, as for the comments about the way the ASGCA conducts their business, the way I see it this is similar to other industry conferences that I've been to over the years in the finance and accounting industry.  I don't see it as any better or worse than that, just better golf courses.   

[Joel_Stewart]

And, for the record, I know that Keith Foster and I never talked prior to his work at Southern Hills, so saying that my research influenced him is speculative and probably hyperbole.

My mistake.  Regardless, great work.

Jeff, I'm done with you.  I learned 7 years ago from another ASGCA past president, there are people who talk the talk and others who walk the walk.  I now understand why you love the ASGCA meetings. It's your one time per year to put on the ugly jacket and walk around like a peacock and act like a big shot.  You get to interact with Coore and Hanse who are actually walking the walk.  You aspire to be like them.  Now you are back in Texas waiting for the phone to ring.

Paul Cowley is a young guy who is building world class holes on world class golf courses and actually goes to the meeting to learn as opposed to walk like a peacock.  He hasn't been brainwashed and understands the old guard vs. the new guard.  He isn't bogged down by the hypocrites and bureaucracy.  I hope the ASGCA accepts more people like him.

Here is a list I put together ranking the golf associations in order of importance.

USGA
R&A
PGA
PGA Tour
LPGA
GCSAA
.
.
.
Met, NCGA & SCGA
ASGCA

My point has and will always be the ASGCA should be more of an influence on the game.  They take no stance or positions on anything. Last year when the R&A was making changes, they couldn't come up with a response, instead posting inaudible responses from 5 members?

http://www.asgca.org/news/666-asgca-members-comment-on-old-course-modifications

The ASGCA are followers and should be leaders.  They should elect one of the new guards as president.  Having Gil and Trip Davis on the board is a step in the right direction.

 

[Adam Lawrence]

I'm sure Paul would be flattered to be called a young guy, but given he's been running his firm for 35 years I don't know how credible it is.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Joel,

You are entitled to your opinion, regardless of how I feel about it.  I think I understand where you come from on some of it (a gca.com participant with heavy feelings against ASGCA isn't anything new) and know I won't change your mind, even if it is mostly mean spirited, and factually incorrect.

Cases in point, it has to be hard for you to know exactly why I go, isn't it, given you don't know me? As to waiting for the phone to ring, I have three new courses in active design, scheduled for construction this year, plus a few renovations and master plans.  I am busier than I have ever been (almost, anyway)

But, typing stuff on the internet based on groundless assumptions seems to be what you do best...........Let's just say you and I can agree with you that there is no value in any further correspondence between us.

[Tom_Doak]

Over the years, ASGCA has provided information and promoted better design on a wide variety of design related topics, including slow play, affordable golf, environmentally sensitive design and much more.  Yes, we have even worked on contracts, how to hire an architect (which does, as Mike Young says, suggest hiring an ASGCA architect, specifications for golf construction, etc. etc. etc.

Jeff:  Well, slow play is still with us, and affordable golf is not.  But thanks for trying!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

The golf world breathlessly awaits for you to save us all.......if Tom Doak can't do it, what chance do we have?

Interesting question though. The last stat I read (and this was a few  years ago, and I bet it hasn't risen and might have gone down) is that the average greens fee is $36.  Probably a different thread, but what is your definition of affordable?

Starting golf in 1967 or so, I am sure I paid about $5-10 in Chicago, but with inflation, that comes out to $35-70 on my handy inflation calculator, and the courses may be better.  Not sure how you figure quality and value into it, nor the fact that inflation marches on, but middle class wages are eroding vs. inflation.

Do we just wish golf was cheaper than it used to be and start throwing stuff like that out?  Muckraking (or, charitably , "pointing out an obvious problem" is of course, the easiest thing to do, second only to "finding a scapegoat." (i.e. deciding ASGCA should do more, and then bashing us)

I will say that my one disappointment at ASGCA this year was that discussions and brainstorming along those lines quickly got back to discussions of the PGA Tour, just like it does here and elsewhere, and I was sitting in the back saying WTF does this have to do with real golf in America?  I have been to numerous industry conferences over the years, and everyone gets charged up, ideas are presented, etc., but then we all go back to our office and do what we normally do.  With so many associations, there still isn't really one in charge of truly making changes, presuming someone could even agree on what those changes might be.

Tough problems, and as discussed on the 15" cup threads, golf does seem a bit slow to do things radically different to solve its most pressing problems.  There are times when I think that they ought to do what railroads and other businesses in decline did - bring in people from the outside for a fresh perspective, because they were too stuck on "this is the way we have always done it."  Or, simply accept that market changers will come from the private industry side trying to make a profit, and hoping some new idea or tactic catches on!

[Mike Nuzzo]

bring in people from the outside for a fresh perspective, because we were too stuck on "this is the way we have always done it." 

How long does it take someone with a fresh perspective to design 5 golf courses?
I don't think the ASGCA cares about my fresh perspective.

Cheers

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Not true at all!  I think you would make a fine member, and provide great perspective.  As Mike Y suggested, we have relaxed it from 5 new courses to include some renovations, etc.  While some wonder about the membership requirements, and we do tweak them from time to time, that 5 courses requirement goes all the way back to the beginning, and we honor the founders intent by keeping that in some form in the requirements.

When I was addressing the slow play issue, industry conferences, etc. I wasn't referring just to ASGCA, but the industry as a whole.......

[Joel_Stewart]

Over the years, ASGCA has provided information and promoted better design on a wide variety of design related topics, including slow play, affordable golf, environmentally sensitive design and much more.  Yes, we have even worked on contracts, how to hire an architect (which does, as Mike Young says, suggest hiring an ASGCA architect, specifications for golf construction, etc. etc. etc.

Jeff:  Well, slow play is still with us, and affordable golf is not.  But thanks for trying!

I saw this today and thought of the ASGCA. The ASGCA is the Fox News of the golf industry.  They are ignorant and just wish problems would go away and everything could go back to the 1990's and 2000's so they could mail in designs and earn a big fee.  They play the blame game and take no responsibility.

Mike Young and Mike Nuzzo.

I'm surprised both of you are not members of the ASGCA? 

Either you choose not to be for your own reasons (which I would applaud) or the selection process is so rigid and stuck in the 1970's that with both of your portfolios it doesn't meet their criteria.

Even though the ASGCA wants to be transparent and open (so they say) they only have one level of membership.  If they wanted to be progressive, they should have an associate or junior level of membership allowing those trying to learn the business an opportunity.     

[Jeff_Brauer]

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.

The process has been updated several times since the 1970's.  If you don't like them, I will confess that yours truly was in the middle of it from the 1980-1995 era, with others updating them later.

I don't see anything wrong with setting some minimum requirements.  Most societies do, either by experience or education.  and, our membership requirements are posted on the website, like them or not.

I believe ASGCA is a respected and rational voice in the golf industry.  With golfclubatlas, maybe not so much, and of course, with Joel, not at all, but if anyone sounds like Fox News going after Bengazhi, it is none other than Mr. Stewart.  Like Fox News, he doesn't bother to get his facts straight before ranting along!

[Joel_Stewart]

Must feel great to attack critics and deny any responsibility.

You deflect and ignore all facts.

Here is your own previous statement posted on GCA.

First, the group has always been about practicing architects.

Second, most of our interaction comes at our meeting, which have always been about our own continuing education.  Frankly, our meeting agendas are pretty tight right now, with not enough time to devote to teaching students.

Third, any students attending presumably wouldn't have enough experience or professional level knowledge to pick up much from many presentations we hear.  Although, there would be some valuable things, like our reviews of the history of golf design in whatever area we are in.

That's inclusion?  If the ASGCA has now amended their bylaws and added a new category, fantastic.  Sad you and the ASGCA under estimate the knowledge and ability of people willing to learn.  Tackling such complex projects like water conservation at this year meeting requires a Phd?

You have constantly failed to address simple questions.  What has the ASGCA done to address any problems affecting golf over the last 10 years?  How has the ASGCA improved golf?

I now see why so few ASGCA architects participate on this site.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Joel,
I am reasonably certain your view, while valid, is a minority view.

I am 100% certain that nothing ASGCA does should raise your blood pressure and be a potential stroke inducing agent.....after the last few days, I am concerned you are getting to that point, and I would hate to see it.

I think I addressed your questions, and frankly you do most of the attacking here.  My problem in addressing them in any more detail would be that your standard is really "never good enough" so even what we do right, would just be answered by you raising another level or question.

If you want to see what we do, go to our website.  There will probably be an area that lists our publications, etc., If you think professional societies can do more, I understand, as stated a few posts above.  If you don't think designing the majority of golf courses across the world in a professional manner is doing enough for golf, because you hero worship a few architects, or a particular style, of course, that is your right.

As to how our rules for membership and how we conduct our meetings, all I can tell you is that educated people familiar with the profession and its nuances have discussed some, if not all, of the points you raise about who to include, what to pursue, etc.  That we came to a different conclusion than you is obvious.  I don't recall making the posts you attribute to me, but there is nothing in those quotes that isn't my opinion, or fact as it comes to ASGCA.  It shouldn't be a surprise that we cater to what our members want, and not educating college students, newbs, golf architecture groupies, or what not.  After all, they pay the dues that fund the meetings.....

That said, I/we aren't really underestimating students of architecture, and I apologize for that statement, but we are just consciously structuring our meetings towards our members.  One example comes from you - your obvious dismissal of our discussions on water conservation.  You, and I suspect most from this site probably wouldn't have much interest as golf design fans. On the other hand, it is a very serious issue professional golf course architects face, and it is surely an issue of continuing education we should address.  What we learned in college or whatever has certainly changed, and we do need updating from across the country and globe on technical topics like that.

As for why more ASGCA architects (or architects in general) don't participate:

They have better sense than me....
I type faster than they do, thanks to Dad insisting I take keyboard classes in high school, correctly seeing the future way back in 1971.....

[Bill_McBride]

I think Joel is still mad about the renovations at the Olympic Club.

[Joel_Stewart]

There are so many things wrong with the ASGCA this thread is just the beginning.  It starts with the lack of leadership and an outdated mission plan.

As I have said all along, the ASGCA should be a bigger voice in golf and have more influence.  They act like a governing body but then hide under their true charter of being a society.  Its an easy way out for not taking responsibility.

Its possible change is coming.  When the new guard gets control (which may be never) hopefully we'll see some quality leadership and common sense.   New memberships, meeting agendas, and especially my biggest issue, "quality of work on ASGCA members" are subjects that need to be addressed.

End of rant.

[Sam Morrow]

Why should they have more influence? I don't understand such hate for the organization as a whole.

[Mike Sweeney]

I think Joel is still mad about the renovations at the Olympic Club.

Bill,

Come on, this is really really important stuff.

I think the Olympic Superintendent's dog has now learned how to chase Sea Gulls off the golf course properly as result of the Golf Digest rating issues. Thank goodness the Golf Digest Raters are here teach us how the world should work!! Let's bring Paulina Gretsky into the discussion and make her the head of the ASGCA!!




PS. Actually, I am up for that and I think Paulina could re-invigorate my love for golf course architecture! Those Golf Digest guys are sooooooo progressive!

[Mike_Young]

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.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Joel,

Since you asked earlier, here is a list of things I have been involved in for the betterment of the profession and game.  I will admit that not all are universally effective to save you the trouble, and for everything I might have done, there are certainly 10X more given the 150+ members:

Education - annual meetings provide seminars and exposure to great golf courses

Interaction - outside the annual meetings, we have instituted study trips to NYC and Australia for Australian, Euro and ASGCA
architects to see more great courses

Publications - have provided publications with examples and tips for building environmental sustainable courses, affordable courses, Master Planning and Course renovation, architect selection, etc.  Over the years there have been many similar "white papers" or what not on emerging issues, including using golf as flood detention, and others I can't recall right now.

History - Established MSU library to house golf architecture documents, and provided many historic documents, plus video interviews of older architects.

Seminars - Annual GCBAA seminar plus periodic Renovation University for greens chairmen, etc.

Philanthropy - The ASGCA Foundations has funded some golf related charity and research projects.

Books - Published Donald Ross papers as "Golf Has Never Failed Me" and "Secrets of the Golf Course Architects, as well as magazine "By Design."

Contracts, etc. - produced (sometimes in cooperation with GCGAA) standard format "Requests for Proposal" for proper selection of architects, Standard General Conditions for Golf Course Construction, Standard Architects Agreements, all as sort of "starter kits" for use as a basis for these items.

I agree we would love to do more, and love to have more influence.  As mentioned, we are small fish.  I doubt the USGA among others will give it to us as long as they fund the projects......so we do what we can.  Not sure our mission statement is outdated, the classis ideals of continuing education, added professionalism, etc. never go out of style, other than on the internet!

As to your idea of sanctioning members, or improving design quality by stronger leaders, can you imagine if RTJ had the power when Prez to say that Pete Dye's design style was too radical and different, and ban him from the biz?  Or if Tom Fazio could have determined that CC minimalist style didn't have enough pizazz and banish them from the biz?  Your plan to have future leaders (presumably consulting you as some sort of czar of design) improve design quality if fraught with problems, and would jeopardize creativity in golf design, while limiting whatever will come in the post minimalism period (which is, BTW inevitable).  

And, its not practical, since yes, being a member of a professional society does require some level of respect for other practitioners.  We once had a member who pitched testing, created and graded by only him (as he believed he was the most and only qualified guy to do it) He left the ASGCA by mutual agreement soon after.  

Who would decide all that in your world?  I am certain that you would find the same issues if someone miraculously put you in charge of "design quality."  We all design differently, but respect that others do too.  What if Pete Dye got older and put PB and Perry in charge, and "the czar" decided he wasn't as good as in his youth, or when doing it himself.  Should PD get booted out of ASGCA?  Bill Love for one bad green?  Jeff Brauer for designing mostly $35-45 muni's that never make the top 100?  Guys who take on tough sites, low budget courses, etc. that have very little if any chance of making any list?

We have never thought we were a governing body of ANY kind.  We are a professional society, and the things listed above are the kinds of things AIA and others do.

I am sorry that you didn't care for the greens Bill Love remodeled at Oly.  In the ideal world we would have all happy clients, but that is never going to happen either.  I am also sorry ASGCA can't please everyone, but that is also the nature of the beast, and to be expected.  

Cheers, and here's hoping I am merely discussing, not incurring a new round of wrath......

BTW, as to Paulina G being an ASGCA member, I'm not sure, but I don't think her boob job would qualify as a "renovation project" when applying to ASGCA!

[Bill_McBride]

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.  

Love the fraternity references.  My Sig Eps would never bang a brother's girlfriend.   At least not until the opportunity arose!

[Bill_McBride]

I think Joel is still mad about the renovations at the Olympic Club.

Bill,

Come on, this is really really important stuff.

I think the Olympic Superintendent's dog has now learned how to chase Sea Gulls off the golf course properly as result of the Golf Digest rating issues. Thank goodness the Golf Digest Raters are here teach us how the world should work!! Let's bring Paulina Gretsky into the discussion and make her the head of the ASGCA!!




PS. Actually, I am up for that and I think Paulina could re-invigorate my love for golf course architecture! Those Golf Digest guys are sooooooo progressive!

I'm very disappointed you aren't taking this situation more seriously.   

[Joel_Stewart]

I'm not wasting my time to respond to your post.  It took you all day to think of something the ASGCA has accomplished and I could nitpick every point. 

For the record, I never mentioned Bill Love in any post.  Its your assumption.  Also for the record, there are alot of other ASGCA architects  doing bad work.  Take a look at Pinehurst.  Rees mucks it up and the ASGCA has no comment.  Bill Coore comes in and fixes it and the ASGCA is saying look how great we are.   No comment from the ASGCA on what Fazio is doing at Augusta or Palmer is doing at Pebble Beach.  The easy answer for any architect if they have to justify their work, "that's what the owner wanted".   I learned that line from an ASGCA architect. 

The other problem is ethics.   If Fazio put his foot down and told Augusta he won't change something, there are 50 Jeff Brauers out there that would be at Augusta in 2 seconds on a bulldozer.  Cypress Point wants to bulldoze the 16th hole.  Jeff Brauer is ready.  "The hole was too hard, that's what the members wanted".

I was telling another architect today in a private message a story I was told a few years ago by the late Robin Nelson who was an ASGCA member.

Robin had lost a bid to another ASGCA architect on a new golf course development.  About a year later he is at the San Francisco airport and he runs into the developer.  Robin asks how the project is going and the developer says fine but they are having a small problem with some detail.  Robin says maybe he should try this or that.   All very minor and incidental.

About a week later Robin get a call from the architect blasting him about butting into the project and trying to steal the project.  He notifies Robin that he is filing a complaint with the ASGCA.   Trying to steal a client is the biggest crime you can commit at the ASGCA.  Everything stops and the ASGCA goes to DEFCON 5 mode. 

Robin was the nicest, sweetest guy you could meet.  He was flabbergasted by this allegations.  His reputation was now at stake.

The ASGCA appoints a board member to lead the investigation.  As it turns out, it was the most unethical, dirtiest, course stealing architect of the ASGCA who many people fear.  I will omit his name to protect myself from a civil lawsuit.

Robin is summoned to this architects office.  Thankfully the architect listened to Robins story, verified it with the owner and dropped the charge.  It was over in 30 minutes.

Robin never trusted the ASGCA after that. 

Perhaps it should be stated that a few bad apples can ruin the entire crop.  I probably should have stated that at the start.   As much as Jeff thinks there are no solutions, there are.  The trouble is the old guard won't allow it.  Imagine Coore and Hanse coming to a Brauer course and evaluating and grading the bunkering or shaping.  Its a scary thought. 



 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()