[Niall C]

There seems to be dual conversations on this thread. One where one set of participants is determined to pick a fight or just generally derail the topic. The second is where everyone else is responding to Mike’s OP in the spirit it was intended. In the spirit of the second group I’d say the hang together aspect of golfclubatlas is a general love of good course design even if we don’t always agree what exactly that is. Personally speaking I cherish the fact that there are differing views as well as different golfing cultures represented on here. It certainly makes it more interesting.


Mike Y


Just as a matter of interest, how did you find out that your playing partner had been surfing porn for a month prior to playing golf with you ?


Niall

[John Kavanaugh]

As I alluded to in my first post on this thread, this has played out as 13 Reasons Why...GCA style.

[MCirba]

Michael H.

I like your edits.   I thought that someone had abducted you and taken over your keyboard. 

And I for one would miss you. 

[John Kavanaugh]

That is why I try to never edit posts. What Mike H said will live in infamy. Greatest post ever.

[SL_Solow]

An interesting post, not because of Mike's initial sentiments and not because it has anything to do with GCA.  Rather it appears to be serving as a form of Rorschach test for the membership.  The divisions revealed  in the various approaches to the topic expose the reason for the underlying sentiment to "stick together".  But stick together over what?

I start with the basic purpose of the site.  It is not a general golf discussion site although we do go off topic from time to time.  There are plenty of other sites to discuss all things golf.  So with all due respect, I am delighted to learn that many of us prefer to play on architecturally insignificant courses with friends rather than play seminal courses with strangers.  A perfectly acceptable choice but it doesn't add much to the study of architecture.

Similarly, political discussions belong in other forums.  Those who know me understand that I have held relatively consistent liberal views for a long time.  In the 60's, my peers thought I was too conservative, alas today many of those same peers say I am too far to the left.  But in discussing the topic that brings us here none of that matters.  Indeed our forays into those areas often take us away from that which brings us here.  Over time I have learned to have friends of all different political persuasions, ethnic backgrounds and socio-economic status.  Here, all I care about is the thoughtfulness of your views on GCA.  I have enjoyed meeting many tree house members and their positions on these ancillary issues have varied greatly.  So far, that hasn't seemed to matter.

Likewise our discussion of the American vs. Scottish model of clubs.  They are surely different and do limit access to courses in different ways.  They evolved at different times and we are unlikely to change them.  Again, I suggest that we focus on the architectural aspects of the courses.

Finally I turn to what I think is one of the most insidious suggestions; that we are wrong to focus on the very best architecture because somehow that is elitist.  When studying any art form, one starts with the best examples.  To utilize my friend Peter Pallotta's and my favorite analogy, when learning about jazz music, if you want to understand Bop, you should listen to Bird and Dizzy.  That doesn't mean you shouldn't enjoy a neighborhood club with a local group but if you really want to understand the idiom, you study the best.  The same is true for literature, sculpture, dance etc.  So it is no wonder that we spend more time talking abut the great course and the great holes.  they are the base points for comparison and if we can understand what makes them great, perhaps we can advance the art form and/or improve our own courses.

Returning to the first post, in some ways it illustrates the point I am trying to make.  I have had the pleasure of meeting the individuals in the picture and corresponding via this site with them. We have varying socio-economic status' and different political views.  Some are gone and some are no longer friends.  But each of them shared a common interest in GCA and that was enough for them to enjoy each others' company and thoughts.  Whether it helped them to understand that their other differences were not as significant as they might have thought remains to be seen; I am not a Pollyanna who believes that GCA will bring us together.  But I suspect the message being sent is merely that for the time we spend here, we should leave those other differences outside.  Disagree to be sure and do so with a passion but reserve it for the topic that brings us here.  Then go back to the real world and deal with your own issues as you see fit.  For the professionals on the site, it is more difficult to escape.  But treat the topic and each other with respect.

[Rory Connaughton]

Life has intervened and I am unable to pay as much attention to the day in day out of GCA like I once did, for years as a lurker and then as participant so forgive me for chiming in now.


The notion of sticking together begs the questions, what exactly is GCA? and who are we?


GCA has been gift to me as a person that came to golf late and then couldn't help but become immersed: tree management and the ideal maintenance meld; photo tours and discussions highlighting the architecture of celebrated and obscure courses; offline conversations with some of the great architects and students of their work; and friendships, great days with friends on great courses and courses most of you will never hear of, discussions about real life, heartbreaks and triumphs.


All of these elements have had a ripple effect across the world of golf.  Much of what has happened at my club over the last 16 years originated with discussions on GCA, ideas given to me directly and indirectly from participants on this site.  The influence of GCA will not diminish in my current role, it will increase.
I am confident that I am but one example of the collective influence of Ran, our participating architects and posters that have remained and those that have departed.


If sticking together means that we continue to befriend, educate, challenge, provoke and enlighten and learn from one another, Ran is most certainly right.

[BCowan]

Shel,


   I think your Jazz anaolgy is flawed. One can play a Ross 5 and a Ross 9 or 10.  The Ross 5 may have 2 holes superior to the Ross 9, but lack the deep bench or rest of land maybe weak.  Outside of tree remoVal I don't see enough of posting on what people have learned and applying it to lesser known courses.  You have to play both IMO to be able to try and explain deficiencies in a 5, if there is any.  Plus as Jkava has said in the past, we are told what to like. There is a lot of truth to that.  Scarcity of courses for a couple Archies has possibility of inflating their value. 


We will continue to discuss the UK vs US model, for that is very important to preserving golden age courses we can't get back. It's not like a building that can be Re created on a small parcel of land. 






https://youtu.be/qG1qVT1F934

[RJ_Daley]

This right here is the spirit that I think sustains GCA.com in both personal passion to learn from whatever means a non architect can, and the desire to share within a community of like minded GCA fans.

Bob Montel said:

I would love to play Merion or NGLA or dozens of other legendary courses that I can think of. I have made 1mm = 1 yard scale models of these courses and played them over and over again with friends.  But I knew, years ago, that I would never be able to play them.

Thanks to musician friends in Scotland, I was invited to come over to music festivals and graciously offered bed and board.  A side bonus was the ease of getting to play legendary courses over there.
The New Course, Brora, Machrihanish, N Berwick: Just call and get a tee time.  Come on over and play.  So every two years I take my bonus check (which I should be saving for my retirement when I get to 80 or whatever) and go to Scotland to meet friends old and new (many from GCA!) and to walk some of the lovliest courses I've ever seen.

And also,  because of GCA I have been able to meet many wonderful people, to play courses in the states I never would have imagined I would ever see and to learn so much about golf and gca.

We can't all work in the field of design and construction and enjoy bona fides as a professional.  But, I've seen the passion by our GCA.com friends to immerse themselves in the subject in any way they can work it into their personal lives from reading, to drawing dream holes and routings on topo maps, to sketching out their ideas on a bar napkin during a GCA.com gathering.  I think when one dives-in to the point of doing models and drawings, or sampling the many books and articles on the subject where one has a basis to discuss relevant details with like minded, then we have a basis to 'stick together' for a common interest. 

[Tom_Doak]

Scarcity of courses for a couple Archies has possibility of inflating their value. 

You should be careful dissing George Thomas in this way.  You'll get Shack's dander up.

[Mike_Young]

Finally I turn to what I think is one of the most insidious suggestions; that we are wrong to focus on the very best architecture because somehow that is elitist.  When studying any art form, one starts with the best examples.  To utilize my friend Peter Pallota's and my favorite analogy, when learning about jazz music, if you want to understand Bop, you should listen to Bird and Dizzy.  That doesn't mean you shouldn't enjoy a neighborhood club with a local group but if you really want to understands the idiom, you study the best.  The same is true for literature, sculpture, dance etc.  So it is no wonder that we spend more time talking abut the great course and the great holes.  they are the base points for comparison and if we can understand what makes them great, perhaps we can advance the art form and/or improve our own courses.

SL,

I'm sure you've seen the video of Joshua Bell playing violin in the subway with an open violin case.  Or let's say you came to a small south Georgia town and in an old diner you saw what happened to be the Mona Lisa in an old frame with a quarter inch of dust covering it.  Both are tops in their art form.  In golf architecture the atmosphere of a club and the quality of maintenance often have more to do with many claiming a great course or hole than the actual design itself.  Ans that's ok as long as we agree that maintenance has become the most significant factor in distinguishing architecture.  I would wager there are some great "Redan" holes or "Biarritz" holes across the US but they will never be considered great due to location, maintenance and editorial hype.  It seems to me that the judging criteria for great golf holes has forced an elitism toward monied clubs. 

[Kalen Braley]

I think GCA is what has been alluded to in several posts before:


To some its a complete lifestyle choice.  Everything from travelling, to meeting people, breaking into the industry, making a buck, etc....a full immersion.
To some its just an access vehicle only to play stuff maybe they wouldn't get to otherwise...
To others its a buddy meet up where architecture discussion is secondary and its a social thing to interact with friends
To others its a way to read up on a topic they are passionate about and nothing more.


I guess all of us fit in there somehow, or perhaps in hybrid config of those...

[Mike_Young]

Mike Y


Just as a matter of interest, how did you find out that your playing partner had been surfing porn for a month prior to playing golf with you ?


Niall

I'm just going with a hunch....the guy kept squinting and saying the light hurt his eyes and then he claimed to have tendonitis in his wrist and had not been playing golf...oh...and his golf bag was a Tinder.com golf bag and he kept calling himself a grinder....

[John Kavanaugh]

The site was built on a foundation of a common hatred of certain styles and architecture. What we love is a side note.

[Tom_Doak]

Finally I turn to what I think is one of the most insidious suggestions; that we are wrong to focus on the very best architecture because somehow that is elitist.  When studying any art form, one starts with the best examples.  To utilize my friend Peter Pallota's and my favorite analogy, when learning about jazz music, if you want to understand Bop, you should listen to Bird and Dizzy.  That doesn't mean you shouldn't enjoy a neighborhood club with a local group but if you really want to understands the idiom, you study the best.  The same is true for literature, sculpture, dance etc.  So it is no wonder that we spend more time talking abut the great course and the great holes.  they are the base points for comparison and if we can understand what makes them great, perhaps we can advance the art form and/or improve our own courses.

SL,

I'm sure you've seen the video of Joshua Bell playing violin in the subway with an open violin case.  Or let's say you came to a small south Georgia town and in an old diner you saw what happened to be the Mona Lisa in an old frame with a quarter inch of dust covering it.  Both are tops in their art form.  In golf architecture the atmosphere of a club and the quality of maintenance often have more to do with many claiming a great course or hole than the actual design itself.  Ans that's ok as long as we agree that maintenance has become the most significant factor in distinguishing architecture.  I would wager there are some great "Redan" holes or "Biarritz" holes across the US but they will never be considered great due to location, maintenance and editorial hype.  It seems to me that the judging criteria for great golf holes has forced an elitism toward monied clubs.

Mike:


When I stopped in to visit you a couple of weeks ago, the dinner we had in that driving-range shack was better than the two highly-acclaimed restaurants in L.A. I'd eaten in the two nights before ... and I did notice, in spite of the setting.  That it's not RATED as highly may be elitism, but not everyone is an elitist.


"Biarritz" holes are all over-rated because the name comes from someplace in France.  But if you know of a great Redan hole somewhere in the boonies, just post about it, instead of telling us we wouldn't appreciate it even if you did.

[Kalen Braley]

Finally I turn to what I think is one of the most insidious suggestions; that we are wrong to focus on the very best architecture because somehow that is elitist.  When studying any art form, one starts with the best examples.  To utilize my friend Peter Pallota's and my favorite analogy, when learning about jazz music, if you want to understand Bop, you should listen to Bird and Dizzy.  That doesn't mean you shouldn't enjoy a neighborhood club with a local group but if you really want to understands the idiom, you study the best.  The same is true for literature, sculpture, dance etc.  So it is no wonder that we spend more time talking abut the great course and the great holes.  they are the base points for comparison and if we can understand what makes them great, perhaps we can advance the art form and/or improve our own courses.

SL,

I'm sure you've seen the video of Joshua Bell playing violin in the subway with an open violin case.  Or let's say you came to a small south Georgia town and in an old diner you saw what happened to be the Mona Lisa in an old frame with a quarter inch of dust covering it.  Both are tops in their art form.  In golf architecture the atmosphere of a club and the quality of maintenance often have more to do with many claiming a great course or hole than the actual design itself.  Ans that's ok as long as we agree that maintenance has become the most significant factor in distinguishing architecture.  I would wager there are some great "Redan" holes or "Biarritz" holes across the US but they will never be considered great due to location, maintenance and editorial hype.  It seems to me that the judging criteria for great golf holes has forced an elitism toward monied clubs.

Mike,


I couldn't agree more with this sentiment. I've seen some neat golf holes with cool unique features on nobody courses that this site would never give 2nd thought to.  It is a shame in some ways, but given no one can see or play them all, I guess thats the nature of the beast.

[Peter Pallotta]

Shel - fine post as always.
JK - your last post is what I was alluding too. Ran may believe that we all share a common purpose/goal when it comes to golf architecture. I don't think we do; but even if we did in theory, the significant differences would emerge in practice.
There's nothing at all wrong with differences. We only think so when our side loses. But it's good to lose every so often - reminds us that the world doesn't revolve around us.

[Mike_Young]

Finally I turn to what I think is one of the most insidious suggestions; that we are wrong to focus on the very best architecture because somehow that is elitist.  When studying any art form, one starts with the best examples.  To utilize my friend Peter Pallota's and my favorite analogy, when learning about jazz music, if you want to understand Bop, you should listen to Bird and Dizzy.  That doesn't mean you shouldn't enjoy a neighborhood club with a local group but if you really want to understands the idiom, you study the best.  The same is true for literature, sculpture, dance etc.  So it is no wonder that we spend more time talking abut the great course and the great holes.  they are the base points for comparison and if we can understand what makes them great, perhaps we can advance the art form and/or improve our own courses.

SL,

I'm sure you've seen the video of Joshua Bell playing violin in the subway with an open violin case.  Or let's say you came to a small south Georgia town and in an old diner you saw what happened to be the Mona Lisa in an old frame with a quarter inch of dust covering it.  Both are tops in their art form.  In golf architecture the atmosphere of a club and the quality of maintenance often have more to do with many claiming a great course or hole than the actual design itself.  Ans that's ok as long as we agree that maintenance has become the most significant factor in distinguishing architecture.  I would wager there are some great "Redan" holes or "Biarritz" holes across the US but they will never be considered great due to location, maintenance and editorial hype.  It seems to me that the judging criteria for great golf holes has forced an elitism toward monied clubs.

Mike:


When I stopped in to visit you a couple of weeks ago, the dinner we had in that driving-range shack was better than the two highly-acclaimed restaurants in L.A. I'd eaten in the two nights before ... and I did notice, in spite of the setting.  That it's not RATED as highly may be elitism, but not everyone is an elitist.   GOOD POINT....I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THAT MANY ELITIST ON HERE....


"Biarritz" holes are all over-rated because the name comes from someplace in France.  But if you know of a great Redan hole somewhere in the boonies, just post about it, instead of telling us we wouldn't appreciate it even if you did.
LET ME READ THE DEFINITION OF A REDAN AND WILL GO FIND ONE SOMEWHERE IN THE BACKWOODS...AND I HAVE TO ADMIT I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN ONE THAT APPRECIATED COURSES MORE THAN HOLES SO I GOT TO HINK SOME THERE...

[BCowan]

Mike:


When I stopped in to visit you a couple of weeks ago, the dinner we had in that driving-range shack was better than the two highly-acclaimed restaurants in L.A. I'd eaten in the two nights before ... and I did notice, in spite of the setting.  That it's not RATED as highly may be elitism, but not everyone is an elitist.


"Biarritz" holes are all over-rated because the name comes from someplace in France.  But if you know of a great Redan hole somewhere in the boonies, just post about it, instead of telling us we wouldn't appreciate it even if you did.

Tom,


Nice post. Reminds me when I spent a few winters in s florida and we took one of our co workers who worked at an elite long island club in the summer to our favorite hang out in S Florida which was a bowling alley.  It turned into his favorite spot afterwards.

[Richard Choi]

Nice to see some of the "old school" posters reminiscing...


To me, what sets GCA'ers from normal, everyday golfers is the appreciation for asking "why".


Playing golf with "normal" golfers is fun, but it is very one-dimensional. Most golfers are just goal-oriented, they just want to get the ball to the hole. Their pleasure is all about accomplishing that mission. GCA'ers are about the process and less about the goal. GCA'ers want to know the why's and not just how's. GCA'ers want to study the environment and how it affects us both emotionally and athletically.


For me, that enhances the golf experience exponentially. There is nothing better than to spend a few hours on the course of interest with fellow GCA'ers. The discussions around everything that surrounds us is as interesting and enjoyable as hitting a 300 yard drive. That is what binds us, the quest to understand the "why".


I hope I get a chance to play with everyone on this thread someday, including Jaka...

[PCCraig]

Mike Sweeney,


Nice post.


I agree with your and Ran's assessment of the need to appreciate and seek out "smaller courses." Prout's Neck looks like an idyllic place for golf.


It's understandable to me why golfers want to play the "big" name courses. They tend to be lower risk options and when golfers are traveling to an area of the country where they haven't been before, they tend to want to see them as they don't know when they will be back.


That being said, many times golfers are missing some wonderful golf courses when they are only focused on said "big courses." For example, in Minnesota, everyone who visits seemingly wants to play Hazeltine, Interlachen, Minikahda, and White Bear Yacht Club. Those are all fine golf courses, and worthy of study and discussion. But there are many really fantastic golf experiences here in the state that go generally ignored. Northland in Duluth, Minnesota is (perhaps not a secret) one example of a course often "ignored" and is one of the most terrific golf experiences in the United States. Instead of scrambling to play 36 holes at Hazeltine and Interlachen in the Twin Cities, most golfers would be better off driving two hours to Duluth and playing Northland.


I've been very lucky to have been able to play some wonderful golf courses throughout my life, however I tend to favor more organic golf experiences. For example, last year I played Pinehurst #2 in the spring. It is obviously a terrific golf course, but it's hard not to feel like you are on a ride at Disneyland...staging areas, professional caddies, a 5+ hour round with a massive gift shop at the end of the trail. Perhaps my most enjoyable walk around a golf course last year was without clubs at Winter Park GC in Orlando, right before it opened. I walked around that course just taking in the architecture. I got more out of that round on an educational basis than I have any round in a long time.


Another example of the type of course/experience I have really enjoyed recently is the Municipal golf course of Charleston, SC. Supposedly Raynor had a hand in it's design and that wouldn't be a stretch based on my untrained eye. Regardless, the course is a real treat to play. Situated on right on the tidal marsh on the road that takes you from Charleston out toward Kiawah, there are some very neat low profile holes. It costs about $20 to walk and the clubhouse is tiny but has a great bar. One poster on this thread decided to play Wild Dunes a year or so back instead of taking my advice to check out the Muni. Oh well, his loss as Wild Dunes is an expensive mess and the muni is a charming place to play golf.
 

[SL_Solow]

Ben & Mike;  Perhaps you misunderstood me.  Nowhere did I suggest that there was anything wrong with playing lesser known courses or that there was nothing to be learned  in the playing.  What I suggested is that in order to establish measuring sticks it is appropriate to seek out what is generally considered to be the very best in any field  so as to have a basis for comparison when evaluating other work.  To suggest otherwise may be a form of reverse snobbery.  Good work is good work regardless of where its located, what it cost or who did it.  But without a standard of comparison, one runs the risk of (to use an old and probably politically incorrect phrase) of calling someone tall because he is the biggest pygmy in the jungle.

Ben;  as to your point about the different forms of clubs, if you raise the issue as a means of preserving older , failing private clubs it is an interesting concept which may or may not have economic viability in this country.  But usually the issue comes up in the context of people upset because they can't play courses here with the ease that they can get on many courses in Scotland.  For better or worse, I think those types of posts are largely a waste of time notwithstanding the fact that I would benefit from such a change.

[BCowan]

Shel,


  I agree with your post above.  I'm more concerned with the 2nd and 3rd tier survival and continued poor decisions.  That's all.

[Mike Sweeney]

Another example of the type of course/experience I have really enjoyed recently is the Municipal golf course of Charleston, SC. Supposedly Raynor had a hand in it's design and that wouldn't be a stretch based on my untrained eye. Regardless, the course is a real treat to play. Situated on right on the tidal marsh on the road that takes you from Charleston out toward Kiawah, there are some very neat low profile holes. It costs about $20 to walk and the clubhouse is tiny but has a great bar.
 

I actually drove out to the Charleston Muni and CC of Charleston on a day visit to Charleston in the Spring of 2016. I had my younger son with me, so I could not play.


The Maine version of Charleston Muni is Springbrook, which I have played and now Tom Doak and Ran have seen. This is Ran talking with the owner of Springbrook inside their clubhouse. The owner had the original layout on the back of a road sign (message from Mr. Moore), and Ran was talking to him about his "tree problem":





Somewhere in the archives, I said the land of Springbrook could be the "NGLA of Maine". Ran took me to task and compared it to Shinnecock $30 to play Springbrook in peak season!


Yes, Architect Al Biondi deserves a plug on GCA - http://www.angelfire.com/me2/springbrook/pro.html

[MCirba]

Might I humbly suggest that think globally act locally might be one of our tenets.

[Terry Lavin]

This whole gig can crash if the whiners, bleeders and three putt cheaters have their way. Ran and I and some of the early founders are fearful for our friend Rick Holland who is fighting for his life. It's reality and mortality that animated Ran's refrain. We do have to stick together. We are a bunch of mutts but we are stuck in the same kennel.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()