How people count decades is a bit of a mystery to me but by one method, GolfClubAtlas.com is now four days into its third decade. How did we get here? More importantly, where do we go? Essentially, what do you make of GolfClubAtlas.com?
Does it continue to grow? Yes, both in terms of meaningful content and viewership base. True, Google remains slightly
in front in regards to market cap but the bright news is that our systems are so tight that we have - as of yet - had no troubles with WikiLeaks.
Sean Arble's piece on Burnham & Berrow was a headliner in 2010 and we enjoyed a greater range in Feature Interviewees than ever before. Various GolfClubAtlas gatherings including Oregon, North Carolina and England all met with rousing success. Listening to Tom Doak during dinner at Bandon before Old Macdonald opened was a highlight for some of us.
Yet, how people communicate and network and look to gain knowledge is ever evolving. I have been told that Facebook and Twitter could render a web site like GolfClubAtlas.com meaningless within a few years. How disappointing
though personally, I don't agree or see how. The voluminous amount of free content found within this site is hard to match. Be it on a tree program or restoring classical features to a course, a web site like GolfClubAtlas.com provides information to those that make decisions re: golf courses. Green committees can be as well informed as they elect to be. There is no topic relating to golf course architecture too small for us to delve into with relish and we should each feel proud of the role that we play in making pertinent information available on line that can be used freely around the world.
For better and a few times for worse, GolfClubAtlas is best known for its Discussion Group which underwent some significant changes this past year. Gone is a number limit on who can post. Previously, we had it at 1,500 but the Discussion Group isn't about volume/numbers, it's about quality discourse. Maybe the Discussion Group should be a smaller, tighter group of ~ 500 or maybe it should be ~ 2,000 - who knows?
Time will show us how to achieve the best alchemy but if you wish to add well thought-out view points on golf course architecture, there will always be a seat reserved with your name at the table. Of course, boorish behavior might alter that. Some people were heavy-handed in their approach to networking through the site and some of those very people no longer have access to the Discussion Group. Some people posted and posted ... and posted without ever saying much on golf course architecture
and they are no longer posting. Ben and I continue to strive for the same thing: will a first time visitor to the Discussion Group find it a place to share and exchange ideas?
Sure, we all know a few threads will go haywire here and there (and we know pretty much who will be involved in such threads and Ben and I aren't going to act as giant African pouched rats sniffing for land mines throughout the threads) but the overall tenor should be one of meaningful discourse where people aren't hesitant to get involved.
We all enjoy different takes on things and interactive exchange has its own rewards. For instance, Renaissance Golf Design's Christmas card was lying on my kitchen table, showing an heroic par three akin to the scale of the epic 9th at Yale. Dad glanced at it, and said, "How do you get there?' I explained that the photo was taken from the tee and you hit over the water to the distant monster green. Dad responded, 'No, I mean how do you physically get from the tee to the green? I thought you said this was a Doak course? Since when did he start building cart ball courses?' I was stunned! I had been admiring the photo on and off for a week since receiving it and the thought never crossed my mind. :-\I told Dad that I was sure the walk path must just be cropped off one side or the other but he was unimpressed, saying, 'Why not include it? Otherwise, it sends the wrong message.'
One moral of the story is don't ever try to separate a Morrissett from his trolley but another is simply that two reasonable people can look at the same information and have significantly different takes. THIS IS GREAT AND IT IS AS IT SHOULD BE. People are free to disagree but for the love of God, be decent about it. JFK once noted, ' Civility isn't a sign of weakness' - and he was right. A regular poster sent me a very kind email recently and in part, he wrote, 'In a world where bad behavior is taken for granted it would be great for GCA to continue to set an example for public discourse and elucidation of perceptions. That would make the site transcend the niche genre and have a wider influence, which would be a real achievement and indeed, an incredible one.' Lofty goals but who here isn't up for that?
Bottom line: Ben and I will keep trying to foster the kind of environment where opinions/thoughts can be exchanged within the Discussion Group in a sprightly manner.
What does 2011 hold? We are exploring the idea of streaming video for one thing, both for individual hole analysis and for doing Feature Interviews for instance. We also kick off 2011 with two great In My Opinion pieces re: Cherokee CC in Tennessee by Mike Threlkeld & Ken Creed and on Palouse Ridge Golf Club by Todd Lupkes, CGCS. January's Feature Interview is from England and then we shift our attention eastward to the Isle of Slyt for February's Feature Interview with Rolf-Stephan Hansen. A profile on Royal Hague (which gets my vote as continental Europe's best course) will go live in one week or so. People like Christoph Meister, Paul Turner, Tom MacWood, and Tom Paul made the course profiles that were added to the Courses by Country section less bad in 2010 than in years gone past and I am very appreciative of the time that these people graciously spent.
As always Ben and I are keen to receive feedback and hear your thoughts on how we can make the site better. After all, there are no road maps for this kind of thing. What is acceptable to post and what should be off limits on a site devoted to golf course architecture? Personally, it is awkward for me to see a club pumped on the Discussion Group knowing that the club has gummy
financials or one where an owner has run afoul of the law. Still, it is a site for golf course architecture and not the National Enquirer so I suppose mum is the word.
Overall, wasn't 2010 a net positive for golf course architecture? Far fewer bad courses opened and many fine old ones continued with welcome refinements. What's not to like about that?! Some outstanding work has been quietly done at places like Oyster Harbour, Quaker Ridge and Whippoorwill while other work has been done amongst great fan fare such as at LA North and Pinehurst No. 2 (the work on Pinehurst No. 2 is the subject matter for the March 2011 Feature Interview fyi).
Golf as a sport though suffered another down year, low lighted by the over commercialized Ryder Cup and the total disregard shown to women's golf by the de minimis coverage granted to their premier (albeit rain delayed) event. Though television failed to stir interest, remember: TV wasn't around in the 1920s and that was a Golden Age for the sport. We are all here more vested in the health of the sport itself rather than the coverage of the sport. So what that the roots of golf don't necessarily lend themselves to selling magazines or driving ad traffic for web sites? FORTUNATELY, thanks to the generosity of those people listed in the Contribution Section, GolfClubAtlas is in the ideal position to focus on the joys of core golf. Profiteering or other masked commercial interests in no way drive the running of this web site. If we so choose, we can dwell on the pleasures of a bag slung over one's shoulder, walking along with the family clumber spaniel on Chobham Common while battling a friend in match play. Such moments capture the heart of the game, which I think beats as strong as ever. Yes, layers of folderol get dumped on it from time to time but it is up to us to articulate those things that are enduring vs. whose that aren't.
Hopefully, all of us here will continue to add to golf course architecture (and therefore the sport) in 2011 as opposed to merely taking golf for granted. Criticism of the past helps shine the light forward and that is the role that we can each aspire to when we post information on this site. With that in mind, we look forward to another robust year on GolfClubAtlas.com and thank each and every one of you for electing to spending time here and making GolfClubAtlas.com the best it can be.
Cheers,
Ran & Ben