Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Tim_Weiman on October 08, 2003, 01:31:24 PM
-
Golfclubatlas has reached a critical mass. It is surely the most widely followed golf architecture related site on the Internet. It has a core of lay people – golf architecture junkies – passionate about bringing the “consumer’s” point of view. It has some superb course reviews and interviews. It is widely followed by people in the golf industry, more so than some care to admit. It thrives in part because once the bug for golf architecture gets in your blood, it isn’t likely to go away, but also because GCA is the one place where honest, critical feedback flows freely, if not always fairly. Finally, the discussion usually remains fairly civil, at least by the standards of Internet discussion groups.
Still, it is not without room for growth or improvement. We remain far too American centric. Participation by folks in Australia is steadily increasing, but European participation remains disappointing especially when you consider the wealth of great golf architecture in that part of the world. Yet an even more fundamental gap remains the relatively limited participation by people in the golf industry: developers, golf architects, design associates and shapers, contractors, maintenance personnel, green chairman, etc.
We recognize folks in the business are in a completely different position than lay people. They have a personal stake in projects and simply can’t always speak openly or freely. We offer the protection of anonymity, but that doesn’t seem to encourage that much industry participation. There are even concerns that anonymity, far from encouraging industry participation, may actually discourage it.
In sum, we have arrived at a point where we are long on candid criticism – a Tommy Naccarato will stand up and criticize work by prominent architects at prominent clubs (Fazio/Merion) – but short on the kind of special insight only people closely associated with courses/projects can bring.
Overcoming this problem won’t be easy. Observers such as Tom Paul and Pat Mucci believe it will take a private page with more stringent rules on conduct, a change that doesn’t seem on the horizon.
Anyway, what would industry folks be able to contribute, whether is be from anonymous posts or from people willing to sign their name? Here are just a few things that come to mind – things that I feel would enrich our discussion:
Site feasibility issues
Pre-construction property characteristics
Project vision, for new builds, renovations or restorations
Architect selection, process, candidates, why the winner was selected
Design associates, project managers
Guidelines/instructions given to architect
Permitting issues – challenges and compromises
Key routing issues
Hole design, strategy, hazard placement
Construction issues, key challenges, earth moved
Contractor selection – who made short list, who was selected & why
Key maintenance issues, e.g., green speed, water, rough maintenance, budget
Budget – high level, if not especially detailed
I’m curious what else people might like to see and if you have any thoughts on how we could encourage more industry folks to participate here.
P.S. Just so I don’t slight anyone, let me thank those people in the industry that do freely contribute. I’m sure it is appreciated.
-
It ain't broke.
-
Mike Hendren:
I'm curious.
Would you not find greater industry input on the issues I listed interesting? Are those subjects boring? Are we getting you all the industry input you would like?
Acknowledging that we have come a long way, what's the harm in striving to go even further?
-
Tim,
Tangential to your main question, I wonder if we could get more foreign (esp. European) participation if the discussion was more on-topic and less "Americanized"--we talk a lot on here about American politics, American sports (lately baseball and college football), etc., and I wonder if the perception by those in other countries is that this is largely an "American" site.
That being said, I enjoy those discussions because they are fun and help me get to know the participants a little better, certainly faster than if we stuck just to architecture. So I'm not saying anything should be changed, but if the goal was to make this a truly global DG, then that might be something worth looking at. The number of off-topic posts by foreign participants seems to be quite low.
-
Mike, I would love more industry participation. I believe we are lucky to have as much unbiased industry feedback as we get now. It is becoming a more compretitive industry and therefore agendas become more the rule than the exception. I hope we can continue to attract the quality people we have now and grow from there with generally unbiased commentary. It really is not broke. I do wish we could attract more commentary from the UK and Europe too. I love when the Aussie courses come up, especially with pictures, for I have not been there yet.
-
Chris, are you a Texas Owl or an Owl living in a tree far far away.
-
I'll be glad to contribute more on those topics, however, I don't know how much more interesting people would find it.
-
The differences in the American, compared to the British golf scene was ably presented some thirty odd years ago by Dan Jenkins. He wrote an article which appeared in Golf Digest entitled "Do Shower Slippers make a Difference." It was an hilarious send off on some of the quirks in the British social system. A comment on the half of a towel and tepid shower water, together with the idea that club dues might approach a decent bottle of wine was, at the time, spot on.
-
Tim:
You had a thread about anonymous posts and someone offered about a half-dozen examples of good threads started by people with screen monikers. I initially thought good point, but then I realized none of the people in question had a true need to stop short of revealing their identity.
I think we all use the site for different reasons and appointing an arbiter of appropriateness is a bit heavy-handed. Ran's broad range of allowable topics seems to be adequate and he is doing a good job of kicking out the riff-raff.
-
Shivas:
There may be some technology differences. I agree on the text messaging thing and also believe Europeans got into the cell phone thing in a bigger way than we did here - at least that was my impression working in London and Paris. Not sure on the computer thing, though certain areas may have been behind the States in offering attractive access plans.
Based on private feedback from folks overseas, I do agree with ChrisB that there may also be a cultural issue. Sports here in the States are different than in Europe. I know when I'm in Europe I feel a little out of place when television reporting covers European sports. So, if Europeans feel the same way here, it wouldn't surprise me.
As for discussion of politics, Robert Kagan offers an interesting perspective in "Of Paradise and Power, America and Europe in the New World Order". Kagan starts out with a bang:
"It is time to stop pretending that Europeans and Americans share a common view of the world, or even that they occupy the same world.......on major strategic and international questions today Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus. They agree on little and understand each other less and less....when it comes to setting national priorities, determining challenges, and fashioning and implementing foreigh and defense policies, the United States and Europe have parted ways".
I cite Kagan in part because his essay has received so much attention among policy making elites on both sides of the Atlantic, but also because he so clearly and forcefully lays out the cultural differences between European and Americans today. In this context, I agree with Chris that our frequent discussion of American political issues may be a turn off for Europeans. As someone quilty of engaging in these discussions from time to time, I think we may want to cool it a bit if our purpose here is to focus on golf architect matters and broaden participation.
But, that's the international issue. I really hope we can also encourage more industry folks to come on here as well
-
Tim- My first reaction was similar to "if it ain't broke". But continuing your read I feel the forum is here. Industry insiders who want to learn about other areas within their industry from perspectives not necesarily "the party line" is hopefully the optimal use of this site. Their participation isn't necessary in the discussion if they choose to "just watch" as long as they learn from "watching" and apply what they've learned into their respective fields.
Dilatante status has it's upside by not being forced to be Politically Correct, truth often wins out.
As for expanding to other golfing regions of the globe I think that will take time. Yesterday, I was paired with a gentleman from England , just he and I. By the second hole I lifted my sweatshirt to reveal one of George's gca T-shirts (the collector item one with the misspelling). After spending four hours together it was obvious to me that this man was "one of us, one of us" and was keen on checking out the site when he returns home in a fortnight. He's a member at a private club and seemed passionate about his golf and it's fields. He proclaimed his golfing claim to fame was being called "a bandit" by Christie O'connor Sr. almost 20 years ago in a competition sponsored by Ford pairing England V. Nor Ire, wales and Scot.
-
Tim Weiman
You are the world's most boring man and are excluded from this DG forthwith.
Cheers
-
Tim,
I'm sorta with Jeff on this. I have a large collection of historical documents and photos that I share when I have time. It still makes its way off the first page in less than a week. Martha Burk and other non-architecture topics hang on for a month. The threads that last are often not about architecture.
What you want is what I want, but its not what a majority of the people on the site want. I kinda agree with the idea of the site is very good as is. I may wish for more architecture, but I also may be very disappointed in the results of that wish coming true.
Things I would like to see more of.....
Tommy's bunker discussion threads
Any Turner post (I'm hooked)
The course routing contests by Jeremy and Tommy
Ideas......
A question and answer thread by Bahto, Brauer, Doak, and the other interesting golf industry people. One agrees, we post questions and they agree to watch the site daily and answer questions
Encourage profile threads on some of the people. I would like to see what Kelly Blake Moran has done because I have not been fortunate enough to meet him. I would like to know what Schaupeter, Chris Brands ;D, Eckinrode and the other "quieter" posters are doing in the coming year.
Just some thoughts........bet you can tell the kids are in bed early tonight!
-
Ian,
Thanks for your comments. A couple points in response:
I don't know what the majority view is, but clearly there have been some people very resistant to the idea of trying to dig deeper into golf architecture matters. One person was so hostile to the idea that he pretended to be Ran in an apparent attempt to shut down the conversation.
What puzzles me is that golf architecture only becomes more interesting when you get exposed to some of the issues I listed. At least, that is my view.
But, maybe the medium is wrong. Maybe an open Internet forum with people having very different levels of exposure to golf architecture issues just isn't the right format. It's hard to disagree with Jeff Brauer when we have people who almost take pride in not reading classics works in the field.
In my initial post, I tried to carefully acknowledge the positive things the site has achieved. But, obviously, there is fear that something would be lost if we made efforts to broaden participation and to attract more industry/international contributors. It is beyond me how people interested in golf architecture would find that "boring".
Thanks again.
-
Tim,
I think most in the industry are extremely careful of such sites and have much to lose and nothing to gain by commenting.
While I find it enjoyable and at times educational, it has too much down side to attract comments from the industry.
Just a few years ago, you would see all types of PR by architecture firms saying what and where they were working. Today, you lay low so that no one knows where you are working. Architects adhere to the wishes of their client and work in his confidence. Nothing to gain discussing work on the web. Just my opinion.
-
Mike,
Your points are well taken. Architects may get all they need from lurking - consumer feedback. So, of course, attracting greater participation from them is never going to be easy.
Honestly, I've been pushing this issue mostly to benefit lay people for whom golf architecture is a hobby. We could benefit enormously, but you have to have the appetite. Apparently quite a few people really don't.
-
Tim,
I just don't think many in the industry have much to gain by participating here. Take supts. for instance. I've been corrected on things like mowing square tees vs. oblong shaped by someone who I'll bet has never mowed a tee in his life. I've mowed more then I care to think about, but my experience meant little when compared to someone who posts often here who had a "little knowledge". I recently posted an article on green speed management that would have enlightened many who think it's simple to get greens to roll a certain speed. Two folks responded, you and another supt. from Mich. Yet, if a frequent poster writes about green speed, he's sure to get 20 responses from "experts" willing to debate the reasons for differing speeds. That may be a poor example, but if your a design associate who is trying to give his clients what they want, why would you come here and debate that if it goes against the obvious grain that we see here. I enjoy this site and find it very informative and interesting much of the time. But, it can also be very cliquish and has an obvious bias towards certain architects and certain styles of golf courses. If your not one of those architects and/or build courses that you know are not well received here, why would you participate?
-
HAPPY HALLOWEEN !!!
http://www.hothouse.force9.co.uk/elvira.jpg
-
Don,
I thought the Crystal Downs article was excellent. It demonstrated the professionalism of your industry colleague. It pertained to a subject of interest to golfers - green speeds. Lastly, it pertained to a classic course where concerns have been raised recently about green contours exceeding what works with modern agronomy.
But, I guess people find all that stuff “boring”. This is a golf architecture discussion group, after all!
I’m not sure how to address the “favored architects” thing other than to encourage people to write more on what they like about architects who aren’t favored here.
Why would those not favored participate? Maybe they shouldn’t. But, I can’t figure out why the lay people here aren’t interested in how to encourage them to do so.
-
This site could use some maintenance forums and some miscellanous forums to grow the site.
Ran could charge for advertising.....here is a bowling site that is thw equivalent for golf maintenance and management.
http://www.bowltech.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi
JK
-
This site could use some maintenance forums and some miscellanous forums to grow the site.
Here's a site that happily says "NO!" to a free forum on maintenance...
http://forums5.gcsaa.org/webboard/wbpx.dll/~GCSAAForums
What's the use of the exchange of ideas when only a select group can use it?
Noonan, I think your idea is a good one. At least, perhaps a "Technical" Icon could be developed for topics specific to the profession.
-
Making Golf Club Atlas more interesting would be like spending time trying to make gin more interesting. It's a far better use of one's time in my view to simply enjoy the delights of what is already here to enjoy.
Tim...wouldn't this be akin to remodeling a classic?
-
Forrest,
From what I can remember of GCA's glory days (1999-2000), what's needed is restoration of a classic!
-
Forrest:
Like most lay people, my "inside" knowledge of golf course projects is limited - probably to less than ten venues. Honestly, some of this "inside knowledge" couldn't be disclosed here. But, it does shed light on both the creative process of designing/building a golf course and all the various aspects of a project. I find that stuff makes things far more interesting - not even a close comparison to simply going out and playing a course.
That's why I push this issue, even though I recognize the problems attracting more industry input to this site.
-
Tim,
I like your ideas. I suspect you have more insight and ability than either you disclose or realize. Let it out!
-
Tim,
If you can do it better, start your own website. You can also ban anonymous posters!
Speaking about not touting current work, when is Doak going to start telling us about his joint project with C&C located on the Dingle Penninsula? I hear it's progressing nicely through the planning stages.
-
:o 8)
In spite of the great appeal and plans of having a round table discussion at the recent GCA Land of Enchantment Tour with our host Ran, we never got around to it. In the end, the interaction with Baxter Spann about BM was among the highlights, but it was really the group spirit and common interests and just playing together that made that outing great and I imagine likewise for all the other GCA events that have been held. It was so even for our small 30th Parallel outing last year in SE TX.. New friendships, new discussion and debate centered around golf and gca.
This site is nothing more than a portal into our collective psyche, the good the bad and the ugly, and the anonymous. It ain't broke and folks get ignored everyday and superfluous items get paid undue attention as well.. just like in the real world.
One has to ask, why do certain threads get thousands of hits and responses while others few?
I say if anything, eliminate the statistics from general view and you'll eliminate some of the popularity contests that seem to flourish.
And everybody should finish their home course review (that we've all started but never quire finished) and submit it to the site. :D
-
As one of the Europeans who occasionally posts on this site, I have to say that I come across very few English golfers who know who designed their home course let alone have any interest in golf architecture in general. Funnily enough, I was playing as a guest at a local club with the captain elect and a past captain and I mentioned the name Tillinghast. Neither had heard of him. The name of Mackenzie is revered at certain clubs such as Alwoodley, Cavendish and Reddish Vale and there is a Mackenzie confraternity on these shores, but most golfers would associate the name with a two-tiered green with a step in it. I very much doubt that many would associate him with Augusta.
If the contents of our home-produced golf magazines are anything to go by, interests are mostly tuition, tour golf reports and gossip, equipment reviews and a bit of travel. Our local library stocks about 75 golf books. Only one (World Atlas of Golf) is in any way remotely connected with architecture. Go into any average bookshop and there will be golf biographies and tuition books, but to find a book on golf design you have to visit somewhere like Foyle's in London or order via the internet.
Once a year Golf World publishes its Top 100 courses (GB & I one year, continental Europe the next). You can bet that the letters pages of the following month's edition will have no more than one letter about the list. The rest will be baying for Monty's blood or offering an opinion as to who should be Ryder Cup captain in Ireland.
I consult GCA frequently. It is a valuable resource - stunning photographs, excellent aerials, informed opinion, and frequently I find out something new about one of our British courses from someone who lives 5,000 miles away. If it helps to keep an error out of something I'm working on it it has done a great service.
-
Bye:
You might note I began this thread by stating “Golfclubatlas has reached a critical mass”. That suggests to me it is better to build on what has been accomplished here rather than splintering off to develop other sites.
Your question about Doak, C&C and the Dingle peninsula is a classic example of anonymous sniping that doesn’t add much. If you really are a professional in the golf industry and have any understanding of the complexities of permitting, then surely you know that the process can be long, have many ups and downs and is often not served by premature public discussion. There is more than one project on the drawing board in the Dingle peninsula. When either project team is ready to make an announcement, I’m sure they will. But, it could be years before that happens.
Forrest:
I've only learned enough to agree with Redanman: I know very little, nothing compared to professionals who have spent years in the business.
But, I do enjoy learning more and find it gets more interesting the more you know.
-
Making the site progressively better should always be the goal. We can all do our part in this endeavor. One way is to be more open-minded and receptive with other people's view of the world. Doesn't mean you have to like Fazio's varying styles, or agree with Dr. Moriarty's politics, just don't personalize the debate si much or make aspersions on their character (actually, in the case of DM, it is ok to do so; D).
In as far as having more industry contribution to this site, that's fine as long as we don't just accept what they have to say as gospel. I've met many architects and superintendents in my time, and for the most part I find them to be well versed in their fields of expertise, but not necessarily as aware of the golfing public as one would expect. In business, most people are taught that the customer is always right. I sometimes think that architects, superintendents, and club managers don't look at golf from a business perspective very well. A common theme that I've gleaned through the years is how little regard SOME of these experts have about the customer having any perceptual capabilities with respect to golf (i.e. that the typical golfer has a problem differentiating his ass from a hole in the ground). Ask an architect what he was thinking about when he built a back spine on a long par-3 making it nearly impossible to two putt from the back portion of the green when the pin is in the front, and see what response you get. Or ask a superintendent sometime why the fronts of his greens are so wet as to render the ground game extinct. It seems to me that in an industry where there are few only-one-correct answer issues, that some of the experts tend to be a little thin-skinned. Of course, none of our resident experts are of this type!
The comments of Steve, redanman, and several others reflect my view of the site. Perhaps the popularity and its effect should be measured in terms of viewer hours lurking and opining. From my standpoint here lately, there seems to be a much needed improvement to the site in the form of a self-help section, call it GCA Anonymous, for those of us who should be weaned a little from it in order to fulfill our other, seemingly secondary responsibilities of trying to earn a living and being husbands, fathers, and involved members of our communities.
-
Lou Duran,
Thanks for your comments. Seeing the site become progressively better has been my interest and that is the very reason I bother to initiate such threads.
You may recall a time when anonymous personal attacks were more pervasive. But, many people spoke out against that and for the most part we managed to clean up that problem.
But, there are other goals worth pursuing. Dave Moriarty, in my judgment, recently pointed to one of them: getting beyond generalizations and adding more specifics to our assessment of different architects’ work. If we can’t get more information to flow from the golf industry, maybe we can at least provide more going to it…….and kill things like over watering in front of greens.
Your GCA Anonymous idea might be a good thing, but long before GCA’s existence I fell in love with golf architecture and probably won’t be losing the bug any time soon.
-
BV,
Amen!
-
Golf course architecture, like the game of golf itself, is a wonderful, varied, interesting and fascinating subject. Full of endless possibilities for style, form, function.
But, like the game of golf itself, GCA in a vacuum is essentially empty. If we do not have others to share it with, it becomes only an individualistic intellectual endeavor. Only when we share it with others does it become passionate.
And it is when we find the "each others" that the magic can happen. The "each others" that share our passion. But, like the game of golf, each "each other" is a wonderful, varied, interesting and fascinating subject.
And, thus, in my eyes, this site has succeeded beyond belief. Because of the get togethers like the one in N.M., or the one last winter up East, the one at Rustic Canyon, etc. Or just the satellite ones, like the one Steve mentioned here in Southeast Texas, where I have been fortunate to host and meet a few wonderful people like Steve, and Lou, and LSU Bernhardt (BTW, John, I have the hat in my closet. I am just too damn lazy to send it. Maybe after Mack exorcises his OU demons this weekend.)
I, like others, found this site googling a golf course. When I started lurking on the DG, what amazed me most was that the people on it didn't just seem to have cyber-knowledge of each other; they actually had met and played and eaten and drank together. I was stunned. That seemed amazingly different.
So, Ran, take a bow. The subject of GCA has, through GCA.com, become a portal. A portal through which the intellectual pursuit becomes passion.
Could GCA.com become more interesting? Maybe. But I think its strength is not its subject, but its people. That is true success.
Interesting, huh?
-
Bye:
You might note I began this thread by stating “Golfclubatlas has reached a critical mass”. That suggests to me it is better to build on what has been accomplished here rather than splintering off to develop other sites.
Your question about Doak, C&C and the Dingle peninsula is a classic example of anonymous sniping that doesn’t add much. If you really are a professional in the golf industry and have any understanding of the complexities of permitting, then surely you know that the process can be long, have many ups and downs and is often not served by premature public discussion. There is more than one project on the drawing board in the Dingle peninsula. When either project team is ready to make an announcement, I’m sure they will. But, it could be years before that happens.
That was a snipe? I want to know about the project. Since you have the inside track, why don't you fill us in on what's happening in Dingle? I only know about the Doak and C&C project.
-
Andy:
I share your view that the people side of golf architecture can be its most enjoyable feature. That's why I travel to Ireland so often and no longer even care if I play golf. Just sitting in a pub listening to folks like Jackie Horrigan describe hiring and working with Robert Trent Jones is priceless. More than once I've been brought to tears.
People who work in the industry and/or those who sponsor projects help make the people side of golf architecture so enjoyable. Clearly, the business isn't just an engineering or artistic exercise. The people side is huge. They supply not only expertise, money or vision, but often the passion to create venues that golfers will enjoy for years.
Its often true that such people have serious confidentiality concerns and can't publicly answer inquires like that just posed by "Bye", but if we could find a way to encourage them to participate more, the enjoyment you get from the site would only increase, I believe.