[Nigel Islam]

I'm actually not. There is really not much evidence Raynor did anything other than the greens at ACC, but when he did the routings of the two courses were altered some. Thus the current first hole of the course occupied the same land as the first hole of the Lake course. Now did Ross alter that hole? Did Raynor build that green? I'm saying I don't think the club really knows for sure.

What’s evident is you have no clue and you’re attempting to obfuscate and pretend that because you have no clue that the club has no clue and therefore your friend wasn’t mistaken. 


See Kalen and Tom’s post after yours. 


Tony Pioppi, the president of the Seth Raynor society corrected the IG post to in question to point out the course is the Ross course and he was ignored.  The Raynor course is currently the country club hills neighborhood.


I get that Raynor is en Vogue right now but this reminds us old folks of Phil Young running around claiming Tilly did way more than he did.

All I am saying is that we do not have a lot on Augusta Country Club. I personally don’t think Raynor did very much there other than convert the greens on the Lake course from sand to grass. I’m not really sure why they didn’t convert the greens on the Hill course at this time. They did after Raynor died with Ross. The routing of the two courses changed somewhat around this time. I feel as if these are factual statements. I think Ogilvie probably gets left out on the credit for both courses though.

[JC Jones]

I'm actually not. There is really not much evidence Raynor did anything other than the greens at ACC, but when he did the routings of the two courses were altered some. Thus the current first hole of the course occupied the same land as the first hole of the Lake course. Now did Ross alter that hole? Did Raynor build that green? I'm saying I don't think the club really knows for sure.

What’s evident is you have no clue and you’re attempting to obfuscate and pretend that because you have no clue that the club has no clue and therefore your friend wasn’t mistaken. 


See Kalen and Tom’s post after yours. 


Tony Pioppi, the president of the Seth Raynor society corrected the IG post to in question to point out the course is the Ross course and he was ignored.  The Raynor course is currently the country club hills neighborhood.


I get that Raynor is en Vogue right now but this reminds us old folks of Phil Young running around claiming Tilly did way more than he did.

All I am saying is that we do not have a lot on Augusta Country Club. I personally don’t think Raynor did very much there other than convert the greens on the Lake course from sand to grass. I’m not really sure why they didn’t convert the greens on the Hill course at this time. They did after Raynor died with Ross. The routing of the two courses changed somewhat around this time. I feel as if these are factual statements. I think Ogilvie probably gets left out on the credit for both courses though.

Just make sure to remind everyone the “we” here is you and that you don’t have a lot because you are refusing to accept what is known and has been shown to you and is readily available. 


The “we” here is not the club or anyone else.

[Jon Cavalier]

In an attempt to redirect my own thread back to the point, this isnt about LinksGems or Augusta CC.


But, the responses, especially the one referencing LinksGems's number of followers (as if that is the currency and in and of itself validates everything) are the core of what Im trying to get at.

Perhaps if you didn’t bury your points in personal vitriol, it would be easier to see what you’re getting at.

Jon, I did not mention you specifically but rather was citing an example of what I see as a larger problem.  There are other people that partake in similar actions but yours was the most recent so it became the cited example. 


I'm sorry you see this as personal, I do not know you and have nothing personal against you.  My criticism, while you may see it as cruel, is general in nature.

Based on the substance and tone of your posts about me and the unchecked inaccuracies in them, this is either laughably false or you are incapable of discussing a point you’re trying to make in an objective manner. Which is a shame, because I think buried under all of it, there are kernels of a subject that might actually be worth discussing.

[Bernie Bell]

"But, the responses, especially the one referencing LinksGems's number of followers (as if that is the currency and in and of itself validates everything) are the core of what Im trying to get at."

I'm confused by this.  I mentioned the number of followers just to answer your question whether the posts were of value to followers or just to the poster.  They're obviously of value to followers or they wouldn't follow.  In terms of the "core of what you're trying to get at," what is it exactly?  I have questions about Instagram and started a thread on it some time ago, but honestly I'm not sure what your point is.  Historical inaccuracy?  People posting photos the club doesn't want posted?  Yeah, conceptually bad, but seems like that's between the club and the poster, from where I sit.  Should "we" care?  I'll save my mad for other stuff.

[JC Jones]

In an attempt to redirect my own thread back to the point, this isnt about LinksGems or Augusta CC.


But, the responses, especially the one referencing LinksGems's number of followers (as if that is the currency and in and of itself validates everything) are the core of what Im trying to get at.

Perhaps if you didn’t bury your points in personal vitriol, it would be easier to see what you’re getting at.

Jon, I did not mention you specifically but rather was citing an example of what I see as a larger problem.  There are other people that partake in similar actions but yours was the most recent so it became the cited example. 


I'm sorry you see this as personal, I do not know you and have nothing personal against you.  My criticism, while you may see it as cruel, is general in nature.

Based on the substance and tone of your posts about me and the unchecked inaccuracies in them, this is either laughably false or you are incapable of discussing a point you’re trying to make in an objective manner. Which is a shame, because I think buried under all of it, there are kernels of a subject that might actually be worth discussing.

Jon, I think you’re inferring tone because your posts are the examples I chose to use; which is also causing you to miss some of my points.  Regardless, the posts weren’t about you specifically until Michael Wolf called your name out.  Either way, we aren’t going to agree on this point so we might as well let it be.

[Don Mahaffey]

I think it’s just a result of the current trend that if one is in the know, it’s all about the knowing the architect and not the course. If we really care about quality golf, we’d be way better served to study the courses themselves rather than just trying to become another rater of golf architects.

[JC Jones]

I think it’s just a result of the current trend that if one is in the know, it’s all about the knowing the architect and not the course. If we really care about quality golf, we’d be way better served to study the courses themselves rather than just trying to become another rater of golf architects.

That's a great point, Don.

[PCCraig]

I think it's the definition of a first world problem when people are worried about which architect is cited below an Instagram picture of a golf course. Sounds like it was an honest mistake, which was corrected.


To be fair to Jon, he may put together an annual calendar which he sells, but he is also very generous in sharing his (very good) golf course pictures. I think there is a benefit of him sharing them personally on places like Twitter and Instagram as it gets people excited about getting out to see new and interesting golf courses, and therefore more into GCA. Also, Jon has been kind to share his photos with both me personally as well as to be used for golf course profiles on this website, free of charge. That's a nice thing to do, regardless of if you think he desires to be an "influencer" or not.

[Chris Mavros]

As far as the value of IG, it's a platform that makes it easy to communicate to a far ranging audience quickly.  I'm sure that's why many use it, from enthusiasts to course designers, who use it to chart the progress of their work, announce new projects or tout completed projects.  As far as misinformation or accuracy goes, IG is no different from the internet in general.  There is no fact check system to ensure content is accurate.  It's up to others to correct it but since it's no different from any social media or internet platform including this site, I don't really see anything unique with IG in this regard. 


Personally, I go to great lengths to make sure anything I write on IG or on my site is correct and I'm sure that's the case with others as well.  If I don't get something right, I'd hope someone would correct it and if it ever happens, I'd be quick to clarify, which is exactly what seems to have happened in the OP's example. 


It's simply another platform to discuss what's discussed here. 


In terms of influence, that's an entirely different discussion.  In my opinion, there's so much that goes into influence and perception nowadays that IG is only a very small part of it.  But architects, design companies and yes, even golf clubs are recognizing it and using it to their advantage. 


So much more information and dialogue now on course design, which I see as a good thing.

[Ryan Hillenbrand]

I think it's the definition of a first world problem when people are worried about which architect is cited below an Instagram picture of a golf course. Sounds like it was an honest mistake, which was corrected.


To be fair to Jon, he may put together an annual calendar which he sells, but he is also very generous in sharing his (very good) golf course pictures. I think there is a benefit of him sharing them personally on places like Twitter and Instagram as it gets people excited about getting out to see new and interesting golf courses, and therefore more into GCA. Also, Jon has been kind to share his photos with both me personally as well as to be used for golf course profiles on this website, free of charge. That's a nice thing to do, regardless of if you think he desires to be an "influencer" or not.

At least Jon's not selling LinksGems headcovers, visors and other merchandise, or pitching a future LinksGems Golf Club

[Steve Lapper]

Lets also not forget that the majority of the revenue from the yearly calendars goes to charity!


Secondly, Jon has always shared his e-file of phots with the clubs that ask for them...free of charge*


I think it is disingenuous to post on this site a guised attack on someone's intentions. Everyone makes periodic mistakes and it is a sign of good character to admit such and make appropriate corrections.


*unless he is directly hired by a club to provide them with a photo gallery.

[Thomas Dai]

This is not a dig at anyone, just generalisations.
Far too many golf photos are now drone shots with wide-angle big frames full of bright, vibrant, dare I say it, digitally altered lighting and colours. I've seen soooooo many of these that they've become a turn-off. Similarly photos taken from the tee of the whole hole all the way to the green are pretty unimaginative.
Now closer-up shots say showing the ground contouring or those undertaking maintenance work or shaping or even playing and taken from different angles, like from the sides or the rear of greens and hazards, are much more interesting and informative.
atb

[Derek_Duncan]

As far as the value of IG, it's a platform that makes it easy to communicate to a far ranging audience quickly.  I'm sure that's why many use it, from enthusiasts to course designers, who use it to chart the progress of their work, announce new projects or tout completed projects.  As far as misinformation or accuracy goes, IG is no different from the internet in general.  There is no fact check system to ensure content is accurate.  It's up to others to correct it but since it's no different from any social media or internet platform including this site, I don't really see anything unique with IG in this regard. 


Personally, I go to great lengths to make sure anything I write on IG or on my site is correct and I'm sure that's the case with others as well.  If I don't get something right, I'd hope someone would correct it and if it ever happens, I'd be quick to clarify, which is exactly what seems to have happened in the OP's example. 


It's simply another platform to discuss what's discussed here. 


In terms of influence, that's an entirely different discussion.  In my opinion, there's so much that goes into influence and perception nowadays that IG is only a very small part of it.  But architects, design companies and yes, even golf clubs are recognizing it and using it to their advantage. 


So much more information and dialogue now on course design, which I see as a good thing.

Pretty practical thoughts here.


Rational people will attempt to post accurate information on the internet and social media (it's okay to laugh now). But it's not realistic for anyone to scour archives for original source material to fact check an attribution. If someone does have alternate information they can share it, and if it holds up it will hopefully become part the new record. That said, as always, reader beware.


As far as Augusta Country Club is concerned, the last time I was in contact with the club trying to get information on the NLE Raynor course, they had very little information on it. Maybe that's changed in the past two years, or I was speaking with the wrong people (including the club historian), but they just didn't know much about the Lake course so I don't think it's possible to say one way or another what involvement Raynor might have had, if any, with the original Ogilvie course that Ross redesigned in 1927.

[Lov Goel]

Having spent many hours with Jon, I think anyone attacking him as the "problem" on golf instagram are squarely focused on the wrong target.  Get to know the guy.  Some of the most captivating golf conversation I've been privileged to have with anyone.


As to each of the criteria listed in the title of this post:


1) value - extremely high.  Anything that helps grow the game, gets people excited to out to spend their dollars to see new courses, and interact with golf even for a microsecond of their day has value for those of us that are interested in discussing and preserving the great courses of the world.  It also allows hidden gems and great courses to be seen in a low-friction manner that encourages risk taking in terms of golf trip planning.


2) Influence - high - I've heard more than one trip happening to Taz, Cabot, NZ, and any other number of remote destinations just because they'd seen enough photos on instagram to convince the takers that it was a good idea.  I've also made a number of friends from the discussions we've started on instagram and had them out to play simply because we found common ground.


3) Accuracy - questionable - hey, you can always comment if you care enough to police it.  I'm honestly just there for the pictures.  And by the way, Jon's are some of the best.


-Lov

[Sean_A]

There is no doubt that the issues facing golf instagram are no different than any other area.  However, it wouldn't make much sense to discuss it generally on this forum.

Recently, a well followed photog and wannabe influencer posted pictures from Augusta Country Club and credited the course to Seth Raynor.  The current course is very well known to be the work of Donald Ross and recently restored/renovated by Brian Silva. 100 years ago, there was a Seth Raynor course associated with the club but it was on a different site and is very long gone.  And, this information is not well disseminated; while the course in question is not only widely known to be a Ross (there are pictures of his hole drawings next to the damn pro shop) but also to any well traveled golfer (especially one seeking social credibility and sales of photographs via Instagram) is quite obviously a Ross and even more obviously, not a Raynor.

My question is, should we care?  Does it matter if the influencers (at least as judged by frequency of posts and number of followers) are accurate?  What value do they have if what they are spreading is untrue?  Is there value to the consumer of these posts or is the value entirely for the one making the post?

JC

I am not overly bothered about instatwit accuracy.  Its easy to stop following folks if you find them to be inaccurate too often.  Like any media, its up to each person to wade their way through the treacle. 

The value is down to what you want out of the media platform.  Istagram for me is at least about the unusual, cool stuff which has nothing to do with golf as it is about golf.  Twitter for me is all about golf and overwhelmingly about nicking old black & white photos.  I don't pay much attention to all the self advertising, which Twitter seems to be increasingly about.  If you dig the content its great.  But there is certainly a bubble world of tweets and retweets...so loads of repetition.  Of course, for folks of a certain age (cough, hmmmm), much of what is posted is old news.  Just as it was old news when I first got into the subject.  Lets hope another interested generation comes along in another 20 years.

Happy Hockey

[Ryan Carey]

JC, I have to agree with Wolf here. Why so many recent posts hating on all social media relating to golf courses?


Can you not see the positives in showcasing golf courses, history, and architecture in the most popular method of disseminating information (and photos) in 2019?


And even if you personally don’t enjoy it, or appreciate it, why the hate on others?


Looking at the LinksGems Instagram account, he just surpassed his 5000th (!!) post. So you have an issue because he made an error in one? Someone should police the accuracy of posts made by someone doing something as a hobby? Not to mention, it seems that Jon has seen more golf courses than all but a scant few others. His voice is allowed too.


I should also note that Jon’s photo tours of courses are some of my favorite contributions to Golf Club Atlas too.

[Thomas Dai]

There is a historic perspective to this matter as well particularly the widespread sharing of old golf photos and plans etc that otherwise folks might not see. Imagine what a treasure trove of historical details we’d have availble to us now if such had been around in the Golden Age and before.
Might effect book, magazine sales though.

Atb

[JC Jones]

There is a historic perspective to this matter as well particularly the widespread sharing of old golf photos and plans etc that otherwise folks might not see. Imagine what a treasure trove of historical details we’d have availble to us now if such had been around in the Golden Age and before.
Might effect book, magazine sales though.

Atb

I think that is a great point.  And no doubt having the ability to search Instagram by location and see pictures of the golf course at various times will be interesting if not instructive in several years' time.

[JC Jones]

There is no doubt that the issues facing golf instagram are no different than any other area.  However, it wouldn't make much sense to discuss it generally on this forum.

Recently, a well followed photog and wannabe influencer posted pictures from Augusta Country Club and credited the course to Seth Raynor.  The current course is very well known to be the work of Donald Ross and recently restored/renovated by Brian Silva. 100 years ago, there was a Seth Raynor course associated with the club but it was on a different site and is very long gone.  And, this information is not well disseminated; while the course in question is not only widely known to be a Ross (there are pictures of his hole drawings next to the damn pro shop) but also to any well traveled golfer (especially one seeking social credibility and sales of photographs via Instagram) is quite obviously a Ross and even more obviously, not a Raynor.

My question is, should we care?  Does it matter if the influencers (at least as judged by frequency of posts and number of followers) are accurate?  What value do they have if what they are spreading is untrue?  Is there value to the consumer of these posts or is the value entirely for the one making the post?

JC

I am not overly bothered about instatwit accuracy.  Its easy to stop following folks if you find them to be inaccurate too often.  Like any media, its up to each person to wade their way through the treacle. 

The value is down to what you want out of the media platform.  Istagram for me is at least about the unusual, cool stuff which has nothing to do with golf as it is about golf.  Twitter for me is all about golf and overwhelmingly about nicking old black & white photos.  I don't pay much attention to all the self advertising, which Twitter seems to be increasingly about.  If you dig the content its great.  But there is certainly a bubble world of tweets and retweets...so loads of repetition.  Of course, for folks of a certain age (cough, hmmmm), much of what is posted is old news.  Just as it was old news when I first got into the subject.  Lets hope another interested generation comes along in another 20 years.

Happy Hockey

Sean, thanks for your thoughts.  I dont follow any of the people with whom I take issue.  But it does sort of strike me as odd, and maybe its just my unwillingness to bend to the idea that "likes" and "followers" are currency, that the old norms of media no longer apply to the new media.  It used to be, for example, that if you wanted to go to, say, Cypress Point, and take pictures and publish them in your magazine or newspaper that you'd seek permission first and would adhere to their wishes no matter the response.


Now, I can fly a drone over a property without permission, post the pictures on social media and acquire a social credibility that used to be earned through traditional means.  Or, as I mentioned in my post about the Golf Digest panel, I can access a private club under the pretense I am there to rate it (which the club is seeking), take pictures without their permission and leverage those pictures for social or financial gain.

[Sean_A]

There is no doubt that the issues facing golf instagram are no different than any other area.  However, it wouldn't make much sense to discuss it generally on this forum.

Recently, a well followed photog and wannabe influencer posted pictures from Augusta Country Club and credited the course to Seth Raynor.  The current course is very well known to be the work of Donald Ross and recently restored/renovated by Brian Silva. 100 years ago, there was a Seth Raynor course associated with the club but it was on a different site and is very long gone.  And, this information is not well disseminated; while the course in question is not only widely known to be a Ross (there are pictures of his hole drawings next to the damn pro shop) but also to any well traveled golfer (especially one seeking social credibility and sales of photographs via Instagram) is quite obviously a Ross and even more obviously, not a Raynor.

My question is, should we care?  Does it matter if the influencers (at least as judged by frequency of posts and number of followers) are accurate?  What value do they have if what they are spreading is untrue?  Is there value to the consumer of these posts or is the value entirely for the one making the post?

JC

I am not overly bothered about instatwit accuracy.  Its easy to stop following folks if you find them to be inaccurate too often.  Like any media, its up to each person to wade their way through the treacle. 

The value is down to what you want out of the media platform.  Istagram for me is at least about the unusual, cool stuff which has nothing to do with golf as it is about golf.  Twitter for me is all about golf and overwhelmingly about nicking old black & white photos.  I don't pay much attention to all the self advertising, which Twitter seems to be increasingly about.  If you dig the content its great.  But there is certainly a bubble world of tweets and retweets...so loads of repetition.  Of course, for folks of a certain age (cough, hmmmm), much of what is posted is old news.  Just as it was old news when I first got into the subject.  Lets hope another interested generation comes along in another 20 years.

Happy Hockey

Sean, thanks for your thoughts.  I dont follow any of the people with whom I take issue.  But it does sort of strike me as odd, and maybe its just my unwillingness to bend to the idea that "likes" and "followers" are currency, that the old norms of media no longer apply to the new media.  It used to be, for example, that if you wanted to go to, say, Cypress Point, and take pictures and publish them in your magazine or newspaper that you'd seek permission first and would adhere to their wishes no matter the response.

Now, I can fly a drone over a property without permission, post the pictures on social media and acquire a social credibility that used to be earned through traditional means.  Or, as I mentioned in my post about the Golf Digest panel, I can access a private club under the pretense I am there to rate it (which the club is seeking), take pictures without their permission and leverage those pictures for social or financial gain.

JC


I can't really speak to the idea of folks taking advantage of clubs for personal gain because I don't know of any such incidents.  Its none of my concern anyway. 


So far as likes and followers, I think folks follow some people simply because they have loads of followers in the hope that their tweets will then see a larger audience...perhaps with an eye for financial gain at some point.  For sure, there is tons of advertising happening in the guise of content, rgardless, if the content is good or not.  I strongly suspect that a great deal of followers actually block content after a while.  If not, following 500 or 1000 people must be overwhelming. I officially follow 24 people and even then I find too much at times.


Happy Hockey

[Michael Wolf]

JC,


I think you'd love the twitter content over on @BamaBearcat. Give him a follow and don't forget to pound that Retweet button!!!


Michael

[Peter Pallotta]

I'm not sure what 'the law of diminishing returns' is or means, and I'm not on any social media sites except this one -- but if the law of diminishing returns is actually a thing, I can't think of a realm in which it has ever been more of a thing than it is today in the twitter-instagram world.

[JC Jones]

I'm not sure what 'the law of diminishing returns' is or means, and I'm not on any social media sites except this one -- but if the law of diminishing returns is actually a thing, I can't think of a realm in which it has ever been more of a thing than it is today in the twitter-instagram world.

I agree that the twitter-instagram world seems about as good of a test case as any.

[Mike Hendren]

The net result of this thread appears to be everyone involved has wet cuffs on their trousers.  Stay thirsty my friends.

Bogey

[Sven Nilsen]

The net result of this thread appears to be everyone involved has wet cuffs on their trousers.  Stay thirsty my friends.

Bogey

For me its learning that JC Jones met the handicap requirement to be a GD rater.


 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()