How far Afield Shall We Go?

[Gyrogolf]

Gentlemen,
Interesting that some of the responses to the thread about Rush Limbaugh's dependence on pain medication were mildly irritated that the subject was broached on this board.

I'm going to take a different position and suggest that GCA has long ago ceased to be strictly about golf architecture. I recall making a comment like this some years ago, so if I am repeating myself, mea culpa.

I find that as we get older, as the pressures and general life issues often increase, people tend to become more isolated. It is often difficult to find a truly intelligent discussion because everyone is always in a bit of a hurry or on the move.

The Internet was filled with promise, but most so-called "chat rooms" have been taken over by the shrillest, lowest common denominator who misuse this wonderful technology as a place to shriek drivel at each other.

Frankly, this is the most intelligent group of people I have ever come across. We have the occasional pinhead crash the gates, but if he has nothing to add, he is quickly shown the door.

The beauty is that if a newbie *does* have something well-reasoned to add - no matter how unpopular - he can count on being engaged in a discussion.

Anybody got an idea how rare a commodity that is today?

So, the point of this thread is to ask: Why do we need to strictly limit ourselves to golf architecture?

I am not suggesting we turn this into a free-for-all, but personally, I am fascinated by your opinions on any and all subjects.

The lovely and charming "guesst" will sometimes spend hours reading these threads when I go to work . . . . and she is a doctorate college professor in childhood music education. All she knows about golf is listening to you guys and reading our posts.

For her, the allure is the level of discussion and how a fairly esoteric subject can be explored from so many different angles. Believe me, in academia, everything is viewed through a prism of lockstep dogma . . . . which, of course, advances nothing.

What I am suggesting is that GCA.com might be even more interesting if we took the time to discuss the events of the day on any subject that strikes our fancy.

There have been many times where I sat around talking for hours with members of this board and the subject of golf design was never broached.

The repartee on this site is unfailingly interesting, but we are in danger of repeating ourselves. Being a participant here for a number of years has become something I cling to for happiness, learning and connection with friends.

The downside is that as new people come to the site, they tend to post and comment on subjects we long ago exhausted. Eventually, they get up to speed, but it would be a shame if the long-time contributors eventually drifted away out of boredom.  

This does not mean we should morph GCA.com into a free-for-all - but something different might be appealling and keep our minds fresh.

Personally, I would rather *talk* to the members of this board than anyone.

[ed_getka]

Gib,
  Nice to see you weighing in here. :)I think its a good idea, but since this is Ran's baby it is his call. I think to keep from having too many off-architecture topics, a simple topic of the day type post would be a good approach. I really enjoy thoughtful conversations also, although I generally learn more than I add.

[Jeff Fortson]

Bravo!

I agree with what you just wrote, Gib.  Since this is a site dedicated to GCA, it should obviously stay focussed on the subject.  However, I see absolutely nothing worng with the occasional off topic thread.  It livens up the board and you learn things about others here that you would not know otherwise.  

I also find the people that post here to be some of the most interesting and intelligent people I have met.  I look forward to loading this website up everyday.  I know I am going to learn something, laugh, or both.  It is definitely a great outlet for my passion of GCA, my opinions on other golf related topics, and a way to spread some humor around.

I second your opinion, that this website should not allow itself to become such a stuffy and monotonous place.  GCA should be the main topic at hand, but I think there is room for us to be human as well.

Jeff F.

[Gyrogolf]

Ed,
Excellent suggestion. We already have "aerial of the day," how about current event of the day? . . . .

Actually, even that is too limiting. If we are going to use this as a resource, why not the basic *life issues* we all grapple with?

Love, relationships, finances, house remodeling, educating your children, cars, how to handle work situations . . . .

Maybe part of the reason for this thread is that I received so much useful advice and encouragement in the last year from members of this board that it literally brought tears to my eyes .

Sometimes GCA.com is like a *support group* that actually does some good.

[Tim_Weiman]

Gib:

I understand the sentiment you express and, obviously, it is shared by many people - sometimes even myself.

But, I'm real concerned about the American centric nature of dialogue on political issues. I've received quite a few private emails from folks overseas who feel this is a real turnoff and a reason they and their friends are reluctant to participate.

To date my policy has been to avoid initiating a thread on a political issue out of respect for Ran, but often when someone starts a thread on some political topic, the political science student in me wants to reply and I often have. But, progressively I'm becoming less comfortable with even this.

How do we strike the right balance? I don’t know.

[Gyrogolf]

Tim,

By encouraging posts from other countries and being as respectful when discussing politics as we are when dissecting golf architecture.

You are right - Goodale has taught me this - that most Americans have no idea how different other cultures are in the rest of the world. Even in the U.K., which shares so much with us in terms of language and Judeo-Christian culture, I find an enormous difference in their basic orientation.

It is good for Americans to get a stark look at how we are perceived in the world. I may not agree with how Sweden runs their country, but I sure want to read the reasoning behind their form of Socialism.

Everybody gets on their high horse around here at one time or another - maybe and especially moi' - but as long as everyone takes it in the good humor it is intended, then we can learn a lot from each other.

But it has to be a two-way street. Dry, emotionless reasoning gets old, too! If there are some people from other cultures and courntries turned off by the pepper in our posts while playing political ping pong, I suggest they bear in mind we are an effusive culture.

One of the most enjoyable things about this site is reading Moriarty's liberal repartee. . . . . and Lou Duran's responses.  

Nacarrato and I disagree on nearly every single political and social view imaginable, but we are still close friends . . . . if you cannot needle your buddy, who can you needle?

Let's be respectful, but also remember this is supposed to be fun.

[RJ_Daley]

Gib, I also understand where you are coming from in wanting to branch out into other topical subjects of the day.  I for one feel like I don't know a more interesting group of poeple with whom I would like to talk about more than just golf topics.  But, I think you have to consider the dynamic here on GCA when a non architecture discussion takes off on a life of its own.  When that happens, more than 90% of the people shooting posts back and forth are among those of us who have been participating on GCA for quite a number of years now.  We have come to know eachother (some personally through golf gatherings and some just as frequent correspondents on the site).  We have established a comfortable familiarity.  Therefore, we take a few more liberties with our needling and challenging eachother's points of view politically and socially, much as a group of well acquainted patrons in a neighborhood tavern or a club would feel comfortable doing.  But, we also want the Golf Club Atlas to grow in participants and probably would scare off newbies that wouldn't understand that we have been cracking wise amongst ourselves for quite a while now.  Thus, the newbies might be inclined to think it is a free-for-all flame room and any topic is fine to interject, leading to chaos and the tower of babbel that so many other web sites have degenerated into.

I for one think we ought to go forward about the same as we have.  Once in a while a topic like the "galeeforrneeah" election gets batted around, but for the most part we need to stay anchored to our foundation of golf course design and golf/course commentary.  Yes, we old hands here find ourselves repeating for newbies many of the same old points of interest and discussion that we already covered a few years ago.  But, maybe we more senior contributors should take a sort of emeritus or mentor attitude with repetitive issues and maybe just make one or two comments on issues that are stale to us, and let newbies discover the things to be learned through their latest conversation like we did, when some of these issues were fresh for us.

[Michael Whitaker]

To those who complain about "off-topic" threads I suggest... DON'T READ THEM!

There is nothing in the "GCA HandbooK" that requires you to read or participate in every thread posted on this board. If you find a discussion that you don't like, avoid it and move on.

If you feel that there is too much clutter on the "Golf Course Architecture" board, ask Ran to set up a second discussion group for non-architectural topics. The software Ran uses to operate this discussion board provides for multiple groups. It can be set up in about two minutes and there is no additional expense for doing so... it's built into the software. A second group might make eveyone happy. The purists won't have to have their golf-architecture-only site fouled by "off topic" threads, and everyone else can enjoy their playtime in cyberspace as they see fit.

I think it would be worth a try.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Gib,

Your moniker is the answer.

Gyro ..........Gyroscope

Inertial guidance systems.

You need to have a force, an instrument to keep the site on course, permiting only minor deviations, but always returning back to its primary focus, golf course architecture.

Once you go afield, far off the focus on architecture,
you divert and dilute the discussions, and in so doing you lose your architectural compass, until the discussions drift aimlessly into miscellaneous topics, and in so doing, the site becomes mundane, like all those others that you describe and abhor.

In the process to go far afield, you will attract lurkers and posters who have no interest in golf course architecture, individuals with nothing to contribute and nothing to learn about the subject.

You will have mongrelized the site.

Don't take your eye off the ball.

Keep the focus on golf course architecture.

[Michael Whitaker]

Once you go afield, far off the focus on architecture,
you divert and dilute the discussions, and in so doing you lose your architectural compass, until the discussions drift aimlessly into miscellaneous topics, and in so doing, the site becomes mundane, like all those others that you describe and abhor.

No one, I repeat, NO ONE, diverts or dilutes a discussion board thread that doesn't want to be diverted or diluted. If you think a comment or response is inappropriate, ignore it! It's truly that simple.

If you are opposed to a television or radio program don't watch it. But, don't tell me the program should be taken off the air because it doesn't fit your idea of what is appropriate. Likewise, don't preach about topics "diluting" a discussion group. One has to make a conscious effort to read these "off-topic" threads... they only appear if you click on them with your mouse. If you don't like them, don't click on them and they won't bother you anymore.

[Gyrogolf]

Patrick,
I agree and disagree. We need to keep a focus on architecture because it is our passion. I also believe at the bottom of my heart that we are effecting change in the design world through our comments - which provide insightful input to the people who pull the levers.

However, I have come around to the thought that there may be more to life than ruminating over the specific orientation of a bunker to the line of play.

Not that subjects of that type do not provide endless fascination, but there are other fish to fry . . . . .

All I was trying to point out is that GCA.com enjoys an astounding collection of erudite men and women from all walks of life.

We ought to be able to view its purpose in a more elastic light . . . . a think tank perhaps?

Maybe this is stretching the point, but I believe that if we took the members of this board and replaced ourselves with the United States Congress, our nation would be immeasurably better run.

Take your pick, Geoge W. Bush or Sir Bob Huntley as Commander in Chief. Think about it.

Anybody want to argue that point?

I have not met a single person from this site who (in my judgement) possesses anything less than flawless integrity, high intelligence and worldly perspective.

Lots of different types of talent represented here in Ran's little Treehouse, eh? It seems a shame not to use it to its fullest capability.

Sure, let's keep our eye on the ball most of the time, but we can occasionally raise those same eyes and look at the world outside of GCA.

[DMoriarty]

Well I am in a no win situation here.  To agree with Patrick or agree with Gib?  Talk about being caught between a rock and a hard-head.  

I have to go with Patrick.  Gyro, I agree that this is a group where one could have an intelligent discussion about almost any topic, but I dont think we should let our capabilities define our agenda.   A number of reasons:

1. A common ground or passion fascilitates discussion.  Here, that passion is [supposed to be] golf course architecture.  If you do not share this passion, pretty soon you become bored, wash out and go away.  If we branch out into other topics on a regular basis, we will be providing the gca-passionless with a reason to stick around and dilute our architecture discussions.  Also, those here only for gca have less reason to be here.  Also, some of the best commentators on gca will be wasting their time talking about something else.

2.  Nothing is stopping us from getting together and discussing away outside the forum.  If you miss me telling you you are full of beans, just send me one of your rants via email or private message and I will be glad to ridicule it . . .

3.  The site would immediately be taken over by politics.   Most likely right-wing politics (including you so-called "libertarians.")  While there are plenty of closest moderate democrats who are regulars, It seems that I am often one of the few who gets sucked in.  I just cant stand to see some of the "stuff" go unchallenged.  But I am tired of it and dont have time for it.  I'd much rather be focusing on gca.  If you guys could manage to stay away from the political topics, I would be thrilled.  Again, lets talk about it off this site . . .

4.   In my opinion, posters have become the most rude, offensive, inconsiderate, and impolite when the topics move away from gca.  Any of the really nasty names that get thrown around occasionally are almost always about a non gca topic. Feelings are too strong, and most of the antagonists seem far, far away (though they are not.)  Id rather think us all gentleman who occasionally get on each other with good intentions, so I'd rather not see this type of blather on this site.  

I'd rather we struggle along trying to focus on gca but falling short occasionally.  I just wish it was a little less occassionally.

[Gib_Papazian]

David,

But here is the essential difference.

I do not mind in the least that you dismiss my well-reasoned discourse as little more than the rantings of a madman. . . . . . or a disingenuous lockstep-conservative masquerading as a Libertarian.

It must be the pain pills. . . .

The point is that I find your view unfailingly interesting and you would be one of my first appointments if elected as Governor.

The point of discussions is not for everyone to agree - we already have the Democratic party for that - but to point out the flaws or inconsistencies in another person's perspective and illuminate them.

You are right that politics would be the focus all too often, but how about if we agree to find other issues far from  Donkeys and Elephants?

If we can bring new light on golf design, we sure as heck can do the same with everything else. . . . . .

You will never find a group of people more capable of drawing reasonable, workable conclusions and ideas to the world's ills than right here.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael Walker,

That's nice in theory, but, in practice it doesn't work.

Just review the quality of the posts pre and post SI.

It the practice of posting non-architectural topics continues, when enough people tune out to the site, and not enough are left to post interesting topics, the site will have self destructed.

Why hasten its demise ?

Gib,

I don't think anyone objects to an occassional thread which goes far afield, as long as the internal gyroscope brings us back on topic.  

But, once you start to litter or overwhelm the site with non-architectural topics, you'll begin to attract a different element, in numbers, driving away those solely interested in architecture, and the site will begin to lose its architectural integrity, just like the many classic courses that were disfigured by people with different interests, resulting in the loss of their appeal, design and soul.

Is the risk worth the reward ?

[RJ_Daley]

But, once you start to litter or overwhelm the site with non-architectural topics, you'll begin to attract a different element, in numbers, driving away those solely interested in architecture, and the site will begin to lose its architectural integrity, just like the many classic courses that were disfigured by people with different interests, resulting in the loss of their appeal, design and soul.

Pat, now that was a nice tie in of a far afield subject to classic golf course architecture.

Gib, I sense there is something on your mind about which you are itching to get this groups take.  We beat the California election scene to death.  We all know that Rush is bouncing off the walls at Betty Ford and is incomunicato and can't give ditto heads their daily fix... So, what is it you are pondering and who amongst us can offer any meaningful insight?  

[TEPaul]

Gib:

I'd love to answer your question and put my two cents into this discussion but I WILL NOT even think of doing such a thing UNTIL you get "guesst" back on here FIRST!!  

[TEPaul]

Matter of fact, I think I just might boycott GOLFCLUBATLAS.com and all its formulaic and statistic minded blinker-visioned contributors altogether until the mellifluous and crystal-clear thinking "guesst" returns!  

[TEPaul]

Well, alrightee then, I really don't know how far afield we should go on here except to say maybe we shouldn't go any farther afield than Fireball Roberts. If there was ANYTHING AT ALL about Fireball Roberts that had even a SINGLE IOTA to do with golf or golf architecture I must admit I've always been unaware of it!!  

[Gyrogolf]

Tom,
I shall do my best, but the lovely has returned home to proselytize from her lectern in academia on childhood music education. A rather discouraging loss as it mostly limits my intellectual conversations to testosterone-crazed produce market loonies and the curmudgeons at the local 19th hole tavern.

You might have hit upon something here - this thread might be an unconscious desire to fill the void with some substance.

Dick,
No specific topic really. Just life issues. Last year, Shivas and Berhardt and I were sitting at a beach cafe on a flawless afternoon watching the waves crash and bikinis wander by.

I don't not recall what we were talking about (not golf architecture, that is for sure)  but a combination of the company of two great friends and the setting made for one of the best days I can remember.

Or sitting on my front porch with the Emperor, sipping fine tequila and chasing mental butterflies at 2AM.

It occurs to me that you can partially recreate moments like that with this wonderful invention we have here . . . . . and it does not have to be focused on pasture pool.

[TEPaul]

"Shivas and Berhardt and I were sitting at a beach cafe on a flawless afternoon watching the waves crash and bikinis wander by."

There you go! There's something fundamental, natural and even sensual about even imagining waves (water) crashing as bronzed skinned little bikinis wander by!

Maybe that is a life issue----maybe it isn't and maybe you don't want any connection made between that image and golf course architecture.

On the other hand, if you do want a connection made between that image and golf course architecture it can be made in a New York second! Just watch me!  

[Jeff Fortson]

I am still with you Gib, which isn't saying much for your cause.  

Unfortunately, there are some here who disagree with the idea of a free thinking forum with a wide spectrum of topics.

The beauty of a website like this is that if you don't want to read or get involved in a thread that isn't directly linked to GCA, YOU DON'T HAVE TO!  Are we all adults here?  If so, can't you ignore a thread you have no interest in?  

I know this is Ran's property and I respect whatever guidelines he chooses for this website.  I, too, don't want this website to veer offcourse into some beer guzzling, PGA Tour fan, trash talking, GolfClubAccess place.  However, I think that this website has become an even better place since the SI article.  New faces and opinions are refreshing to see.  I still enjoy reading posts from many of the "gods" in here but posts from new guys/gals are good for all of us.  It keeps this website evolving and free from stagnation and rot.  

Talking about an occasional topic not related to golf keeps this website from becoming too stiff.  Please don't take my opinion as believing that the website should be devoted to all things.  Quite the contrary.  I just think we should concentrate our posts on GCA related topics and when the occasional non-GCA topic comes up then we can choose to join in or ignore it.  We're all adults and we should be able to handle a non-GCA thread from time to time.  Heck, we should enjoy such threads.

Jeff F.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

David M I shall be you on this one to the last period.

[ForkaB]

Anybody who really thinks that this site should be limited to discussions about GCA should go right now and read Tom Paul's posts on the "immutable laws of golf" thread.  If after reading those you still believe that this site would be better off sticking to its knitting, as it were, well, you probably had an unfortunate accident with a coconut sometime in your life..........

As to this topic, gyro, I'd be happier with the politico-philosophical discussions if there were more evidence of people actually learning from them, rather than using them as an outlet for their already hard and fast views.  Of course, we have this problem with GCA issues too, don't we.....?

[TEPaul]

"The beauty of a website like this is that if you don't want to read or get involved in a thread that isn't directly linked to GCA, YOU DON'T HAVE TO!  Are we all adults here?  If so, can't you ignore a thread you have no interest in?"

JeffF:

Whether or not we want to call some on here other than adults or not there surely are some who both do not want to read some threads, probably don't, and also don't even want threads that they're unwilling to read on here. One might call that the "reverse dog in the manger" syndrome. There're others on here who don't seem to like to read much either except things in little less than fifty word sound bites!    

[TEPaul]

Rich:

I'm proud of you. It seems you're beginning to open your mind a bit and let some light in. It appears you're beginning to see some potential analogies between golf architecture and such things as being hit on the head with a coconut or even being caught by your son and nephew in flagrante delicto with Fay Ray! There's some hope for you yet, thankfully!