You don't think that you're generalising?
Your latest post is about the owners son, so it appears as if it's not a private/proprietary bias.
I am just curious of where and based on what experiences this low opinion comes from?
What exactly is this knowledge or experience that you've got that they, the media and the golfing public lack and how did you aquire it?
The point is all about little knowledge being a dangerous thing and, yes, I've yet to meet a committee that was well read on the subject of architecture or, heaven forbid, actually came from an architecture background. Examples; the history of the game is littered with them. Where do you suppose all the trees came from? Respecfully Ryan, I'd suggest you read up on it for a bit of insight. What's your architecture library like?
Read back through this thread and you'll see that Adrian makes reference to committees at his courses. It's just stansard I'm afraid. And personally, well, the current band at Hayling leave a lot to be desired. There are clear demonstrations of zero knowledge which the novice GCAer would immediately pick up on. And yes, I've addressed it with them to no avail, although I'm always keen to point out that they should now be given time.
My library is limited. I'm low on theory, but gaining in practical. More importantly, I have the self awareness to know what I don't know and not to confuse opinions with facts,or assume that those with a different view need "educating".
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Indeed it is. And it appears to be an irony completely lost on you, presumably down the back of one of your bookcases.
Turning to your committee experiences, it is clear you have limited to no experience beyond what you read and as I stated originally you're generalising. In practice, I've found some are great, some are woeful, some clubs could not exist without their free services, some committees as a collective are poor, but they have one or two members who know their stuff. Some committees have butchered their courses. Some have moved sites, some have rallied and survived through two world wars, some are great custodians. Slating committees is just lazy and in many cases absent of fact or reason.
Pretty much every course you likte and every set up you approve of was determined by a committee. Yet to you, all are idiots - FIGJAM.e and every set up you approve of was de
Did it ever occur to you that many people on here also serve or have served on committees? They may even share your views on courses, they may even collect books, they may even be former Supers. With respect, don't be a fool and tar them all with the same brush.
Ryan,
That is insulting bullshit.
I am fully aware that reading a few books does not make one an expert. I am equally aware that I have zero experience in the practicalities of designing a course, am no agronomist and wouldn't know where to begin. That said, I am quite capable of grasping the principles of design in a way that 99.9% of golfers simply don't. The fact that I'm part of such a small percentile of people says little about me however and everything about the sorry state of the understanding of the game. Despite your limited knowledge, I'll bet you already understand your home course better than anyone else you play the game with, certainly I'll bet that your eyes have been opened and you would now concede that any former confidence you might have had about your knowledge was misplaced. No one knows how little they know until they begin to know something. You'll no doubt enjoy a MacKenzie quote along those lines when you read his work soon.
Pretty much every course you like and every set up you approve of was determined by a committee. - Ryan Coles. File that quote and revisit it in a while. You are utterly wrong. All the courses I like have either needed to get a professional architect in to restore the place to its former glory or still need to do so but haven't yet realise what a mess they, or rather their predecessors, have made of the place. In essence, designed by a great architect, ruined by committee, restored by a great architect. Look around the industry and tell me what work you see going on. It's exactly what I've just described.
Of course there are exceptions but, by and large, golf club committees are made up of people that have no knowledge in the subject of golf course architecture but assume that they do. Now that is utter arrogance. Frankly, your offering on the subject has read like yet another classic GCA day one post from someone that didn't know what he had stumbled in to. Again, I suggest you file this post and review it in six or twelve months time. The position you've taken is utterly naive and in time, since I suspect you're smart enough, you'll come to realise that.
And understand this, whilst you are absolutely correct to assert that everyone is entitled to an opinion, a basic understanding of perceived wisdom is, or should be, a prerequisite for involving yourself in the well being of a golf course. And yet it very rarely is.
I fail to see how we ever got to a point where it was condescending to point out that some people would benefit from a little education. We all need educating and we all, if we actually give a damn about the game, have a responsibility to pass on what we know and understand. If Harry Colt walked into this conversation right now, I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to suggest that "everyone's entitled to an opinion but I think you're wrong." No, I'd shut up and listen because my opinion wouldn't be anywhere near as valid as his. He could educate me. And so it passes from one to another.