Does Money and Technology Hurt Golf Architecture?

[T_MacWood]

Does Money and Technology hurt Golf Architecture?

Yes and no. Technology in itself is not bad, it is dependent on who is using it and how they use it. For example the Internet is an excellent tool, providing an unprecidented forum to discuss the finer points of golf-architecture. However in the hands of a clown like John aka BarneyF, who has no interest in golf design, the Internet is unfortunately mis-used to divert (pervert) the conversation to every conceivable subject save golf-architecture.

[BarnyF]

Please note that money and technology has done more to harm religion than they ever did to golf.

Tommy,

I am so glad to hear you are a Catholic so now when your pinto blows up maybe you will be lucky and it will just be the fiery tongue of the Holy Spirt bestowing the knowledge of Fazio upon you. You may find this hard to believe but I probably came very close to being removed as a Catholic for my actions as an evil alterboy.  The similarities of serving Mass and playing golf are astounding.  I am sure you have many stories and I would like to hear one sometime so I will tell you my greatest "choke" while serving.

I was taking the Eucharist...The really big one the Priest holds up during the Consecration...down the aisle before mass and looking at all my friends doing my silly walk I developed as a child...when due to my lack of respect for my job I dropped the Eucharist on the ground.  Of course the combination of Nuns screaming not to touch it and my friends laughing and old ladies at a near faint at my unholy act was only topped later by the sound of a Nun beating the holy hell out of me later in the day.  I still get that same feeling in my gut before the first tee shot of every tournament I ever play but its the course that ends up beating me at the end of the day.

[Tim_Weiman]

Lou Duran:

I judge golf courses by the standards of CP and PV because life is short, I don't have the time or money to see everything and I want to focus on the very best that is available.

About thirty five years ago I began to take an interest in golf architecture and gradually made my way to visit as many courses as I possibly could.  I really didn't start out with any bias against modern design or architects.  However, gradually I came to the opinion that something was missing with most modern courses.  Dick Daley calls it "craftsmanship".

So I wondered why?

Yes, I've heard all this talk about challenges modern architects face due to environmental restrictions.  Candidly, I'm wondering if this is overdone.

It seems to me just as likely that money and technology (I really mean the bulldozer) have undermined the golf architecture profession's collective "craftsmanship".

I mentioned Mike DeVries work at Kingsley because I think his work is an exception.  Do you think environmental restrictions prevent more such work being done?

Lou, I suppose we should define "craftsmanship" and examine whether  it is really at odds with the influence of environmental forces.

Ths is probably a huge topic in its own right, so I won't attempt to address it comprehensively.

However, if part of what "craftsmanship" is all about is the mental labor an architect must deploy to minimize earth moving, how is this contrary to the preferences of environmental activists?  I can see restrictions preventing a project from being built, but I'm not as able to appreciate how environmental rules undermine the mental effort to avoid excessive earthmoving?

Now, as to most golfers outside of this website enjoying Nicklaus or Fazio designs, I completely agree.  Very few people I know take any interest in golf architecture and have any interest in debating things like "craftsmanship".

[Lou_Duran]

Tim:

I commend you for your philsophy on life and golf, and your ability to pursue it at such a high level.  Perhaps if I had the opportunity to play and study CP and PV, I would be less sanguine about modern architecture.  I suppose that if I am to contribute something of value to this site beyond counterbalancing some very one-sided tendencies, I should expand my horizons.

Environmental, zoning, and other regulatory restrictions affect golf course development in many ways.  Not only do they add significant cost and time delays, but they can impact nearly every facet of the process.  While the movement of dirt specially on flood prone areas is a big issue, wetlands, protected species, and water quality are also major concerns.  Whereas in the old days one could drain a wet area, minimally shape it and make it an integral part of the course, the architect today often has to either play over it, around it, or skip the area all together.  A natural green site with a steep slope to a lake may have been a wonderful end to a cape hole in the old days.  Today, the cost to prevent runoff may be too high and that piece of ground may be unusable.  A strand of trees protecting an entry to a potential green site may prevent the use of this land for golf because bald eagles roost there for a few days during some years in their migration to the south.  These are but a couple of examples where even the most earth-moving abhoring minimalist would be prevented from realizing his design intent.  I suspect that MacKenzie and Crump never even thought about these issues.  Today's architect has these in the forefront of factors that will make or break his project.

As a commercial real estate broker with some knowledge of land uses in the southwest, I can report with confidence that the few in-field sites large enough for golf course development are generally priced for higher end uses, zoning restricted,  and not very interesting from a design standpoint.  Fazio's Dallas National is being built near downtown on extremely sloping, rocky terrain.  The $30MM reported budget reflects the high cost of the land, the extremely heavy dirt work required, and the importation of clean fill material and topsoil.  Again, MacKenzie and Crump did not have to deal with these difficulties.

You know Fazio's work much better than most of us.  Do you believe that he has a defficiency in "craftsmanship" or attention to detail?  Or does he and many of the modern designers undertake projects on very difficult or uninteresting sites on behalf of principals that are extremely demanding?  Mr. Daley makes the analogy to woodworking, masonry, and dairy farming.  These "crafts" required extensive preparation and, often, apprenticeships.  Is it not odd that many of the revered Golden Age architects had relatively little technical preparation whereas in comparison, today's architects are so well trained in such things as landscape architecture, drawing, engineering, drainage, irrigation, soil science and agronomy?  Many are even highly accomplished golfers.

I am curious if some of our better researchers such as Tom MacWood haven't come across some evaluations/critiques of courses built during the first third of the century.  I wonder whether the architects received much critical heat.        

[Gib Papazian]

It does not make sense to me that there is some sort of cause and effect relationship between more money, technology and the erosion of the craft.

Seth Raynor spent an astonishing sum of money (for the time) in building both Lido and Yale. He used every single resource technology had to offer and still managed to get it right.

My friend Art Dunkley says it best when he points out: "The difference between good and great is getting the last ten percent right."

Sage advice and a prescription for success - for everyone regardless of their craft or business.

If Raynor or Tillie or Mackenzie were building courses today, I am convinced they would still produce wonderful work because it is the  details that make the difference. You can move dirt faster, cheaper and more efficiently than 50 years ago, but the finish  work is still what makes the difference.

I also said above that pacing seems to be central to the problem in many cases -a point that went largely ignored. The holy grail of 36-36-72 with balanced sequences of par 3s,4s and 5s has ruined many courses because the client is terrified of the course being criticized or perceived by prospective investors of home buyers as "different."

The inablility of an architect to convince the client of the stupidity of trying to force something in pursuit of some idealized template is as much a reflection on the cowardice of the architect as the client's inexperiance.      

Every era has had inherent problems to deal with. In previous eras, dirt was expensive to move and routing a course was not a matter of laying cement from point to point.  Somehow, they managed to interject tried and true arrangements to peculiar circumstances. When this was impossible, they pshed the envelope and created something original.

Today, there are all sorts of complaints about restrictions and what not, but instead of pushing the envelope - which requires some real on-site elastic thinking - too many of the modern guys just jam something in there because they do not have the patience or the time or the wherewithal or the pure give-a-shit  to pull up a chair and  really think hard about it.

But this has more to do with a lack of creative elasticity than money and technology. Jean Luc Goddard once said that you cannot truly master your art until you have absorbed all the technical possiblities and put them to their fullest use in your creative processes.

With this reasoning, architecture ought to be better in the modern era!!! It make sesne that with less time taken in moving things around, that ought to leave  more time for the designer to really refine his work and get the tiny details right.

And I believe DeVries, Doak, Harbottle, C&C etc etc etc, for the most part, are doing as good a work as their predeccessors.

So, I guess the answer to the orginal question IMHO is "no." It only hurts if you let it. Money and technology are only tools, and like any tool, it depends on how you use it.

End of rant (small "r").

[T_MacWood]

There is no doubt that modern environmental restrictions have had an effect. But those restriction are not to blame for the ills in many modern designs. You can not convince me if all restrictions were removed that we see any significant difference in the product.

No one is forcing these designers to rely heavily upon water hazards, no one is forcing them to grade away the natural undualtions of the ground, no is forcing them to build holes that are not integrated in their natural environment. Where did the image of the fondness for instantly mature treed golf-course come from? I do not believe that would have been considered ideal in the past.

The golf-architects of the past, including MacKenzie, did deal with sites that were just as difficult, sites that required a huge budget and extraordinary measures -- Sharp Park, Lido, Yale, Banff, Cape Breton, Timber Point, Sea Island, to name a few.

Those architects of the past although basically self trained, were none the less extremely well trained. They didn't just decide one day to begin designing golf courses tommorow, years of study led to their move into design. Not only regarding the physical requirements - turf, drainage,  construction, etc -- but equal in importance, the analytical and artistic side of architecture. Thorough study of the ancient antecedents and an analytical exploration of all aspects of the game -- and this was done for the most part together as a group of like-minded artists. In my mind the current trend of a degree in L.Arch is not a positive development.

There was much greater analysis and critique at the time -- much of it among themselves. There is little or no criticism today  coming from our modern major media, and I believe that is unfortunate. There appears to be very little critical interaction among the designers of today, and that is also unfortunate.

[Lou_Duran]

Tom:

I know that changing your mind is impossible, but try clear cutting a site in many parts of this country and see what happens.  Many places have tree ordinances which prevent or make extremely costly the removal of trees. And public opinion driven by the tree huggers can be equally constricting.  Locally , a group of these folks took the City of Dallas to court over the removal of 200+ trees in a redevelopment of Tennison-West.  It delayed the project for over a year and added substantially to the costs.

Do you think that MacKenzie could have procured the permits to build CP today?  Ask Tom Watson about his experience with Spanish Bay.  Do you think that the CoE today would allow the daming (sp)of Rae's Creek?

I was under the impression that the ASGCA has regular meetings during which members discuss design issues.  I also understood that there is considerable interaction and collaboration among the members.  I know that architects regularly drop by the sites of their competitors and are not shy about sharing their thoughts (usually privately) on a given project.  True, criticism does not generally reach the public, but how is this different than the way it was in the first half of the century?  I don't remember reading that MacKenzie thought Thomas was an over-analytical, formulaic hack.  In fact, most references to other competitive projects were lavishly complimentary (didn't MacKenzie say in 1928 that Thompson's Banf Springs was "the best I have ever seen").  I would be interesting in reading the critiques of the old courses.  Can you give me a few citations?

[T_MacWood]

Lou
Clear cutting? This is an example of the problem of modern design, the need for instant maturity as reflected by a course framed by trees. This is largely a modern idea, that a golf course should be framed by mature stands of trees. In the past that was not the case, there was no need to ‘frame’ a golf course, their dominant feature was interesting ground features and natural undulations.  Trees were a minor consideration. The links courses were plenty mature and they had few if any trees. Open countryside presented a more ideal site. Let the tree huggers have their trees, look for open sites with interesting terrain.

I have no idea if MacKenzie would have been successful and no doubt he was, it would have been a difficult process. There are modern designs that successfully overcame the red tape  --  Spyglass, Spanish Bay and the new work at Monterey Peninsula.  Do you see any difference in quality? I don’t know if they would allow the damming of Raes Creek, did MacK dam the creek or was it done later? I’ve played numerous modern courses with dammed water course – too many.

You know more about the processes of the ASGCA than I do. I had not heard there was considerable collaboration. If you look back to those early days, you will the situation was quite different than an annual get together and symposium. You need to re-read the Spirit of St.Andrews, you will find MacKenzie’s criticism of Thomas.  Being a critic is not inherently negative -- a critic is someone who expresses reasoned opinion, who analyses, evaluates and most importantly appreciates.  Re-read the Spirit, you will find plenty of criticisms.

[Tim_Weiman]

Lou Duran:

You ask whether I believe Tom Fazio's work has a deficiency in craftsmanship or attention to detail.

Let me begin by making clear that I have no particular desire to pick on the Fazio organization.  My home club (Sand Ridge) is a Fazio design, so I don't possibly have any such motivation.

Moreover, I'm really not trying to pick on ANY modern architects.

Rather, I'm trying to understand why modern architecture as a whole seems to display less of what Dick Daley called "craftsmanship" than classic era designs.

I suspect money and technology may be a factor, not necessarily the only explanation, but part of it.

My own qualifications to answer my original question are extremely limited.  While I've seen a pretty fair sampling of finished products (both classic and modern), my exposure to the design and construction process is limited to only a couple courses.  You might say really only one: Sand Ridge.

If there was anything that stood out watching Sand Ridge being built, it was the sheer number of details that were part of the project.  Thus, as a person outside of the golf industry, I'm quite reluctant to suggest the Fazio organization lacks attention to details. I'm not qualified to say that.

However, I am more comfortable talking about "craftsmanship".

Is there, for instance, a big difference in the quality of the bunker work done by Mike DeVries at Kingsley than that done by Fazio & Co at Sand Ridge?  Yes, I think there is.

Does money and technology explain the difference?

In this case, I'd have to say no, at least not directly.  Mike DeVries' personal desire to get the "last ten percent" right seems to explain the Kingsley case.  At Sand Ridge such work could have been done, but it just wasn't for reasons I'm not sure I can explain.

It does seem that commitment to craftsmanship includes an appreciation for classic designs.

Not long ago I spent some time with Jim Urbina who spent quite a bit of time on site for Tom Doak at Pacific Dunes.  The scene was one of the world's great courses.  It didn't take long to see how much Jim enjoyed the little things or the details that can make a green complex so interesting.  Clearly, Jim and Tom wanted to get those things right when they built Pacific Dunes.  Throwing money or technology at the challenges of building the course wasn't - it seems to me - part of their thinking.

In the end, Gib Papazian is probably right.  Money and technology are only tools and it depends how you use them.  But, these tools sure seem to undermine emphasis on craftsmanship.

[Mike_Cirba]

There is nothing inherently wrong with Money or Technology.  In fact, they can both help to create great things.

However, following on Tim's post, I think there is one factor that is the determinant ingredient that explains the difference of craftsmanship, it's purely the element of TIME.

Many of today's modern designers have full workloads, handling multiple projects at once, certainly employing the most efficient methods at their disposal.  Donald Ross notwithstanding (who had just superb associates on site), you simply can't crank out over 5 new courses a year and expect the type of craftsmanship that we've come to respect from the masters.

Bill Kittleman spent weeks if not months on a single bunker complex at Gil Hanse's new Applebrook Golf Club.  The results are self-explanatory.  

As John Houseman might have said, there is NO substitute.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Barny,
You the Ford, me the Chevy.

But lets leave two of the Big Three out of this, for I too have had an experience similar, but without fail, one of the more embarrasing moments of my life.

My First Holy Communion......

All through my studies in Cathechism, I just didn't get the idea that the host would be placed in my mouth. When approaching the alter, I was somewhat nervous, all years of me, with all of my family there to see my glorious day, and when the host was placed, I left my mouth agape. I walked back to the pew in complete shock, teacher chasing after me to get me to close my mouth, all while being immortalized on my Aunt Marie's Super 8.

While it may not be as glamorious as your saga, It was needless to say life-effecting.

[aclayman]

Its a resounding NO it doesn't hurt!!!!!

Money is thrown into the sciences which discovers new technologies and where would we be without science?

Maybe, In a cave dreaming lustful thoughts of girls in see-through birkas...

[Tim_Weiman]

aclayman:

Are we talking about war and peace, golf architecture, SI's swimsuit issue, sexual frustration or all of the above?

Anyway, the closest recent story I've heard that covers "all of the above" was the recent announcement of a golf course opening in Syria.

I hear the views are better than Pebble Beach.....if you can get on.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sorry for posting just before a business trip - in which, by the way, I made several field changes to my computer drawn plans, as it should be - and then let you guys stew in your own juices for a few days!

RJ, I haven't been this mad at you since your last email to me came with a virus attached! For the love of God and architecture, there is no ASGCA manual on formula design and/or process.  Like Ron Kern, if there is one, I haven't seen it, and I think I have been a member long enough that they would show it to me, for Pets's sake.

For the record, ASGCA is just 130 guys (and a few gals) who beat each others brains out 51 weeks a year vying for jobs, in order to show their talents off, and then get together the other week to discuss the rest of the year!  ASGCA has nothing to do with individual designs or design methods, or philosophies.  Also, IMHO, environmental reggies don't usually affect the detail work of design. Simply put, a golf course that formerly took 150 acres to build now takes 200 or more - if you find 50 acres of "off limits" area for enviromental reasons, you just secure (where possible) 50 more acres.  And perhaps another 50 for the longer courses being built now.  If you do this, you don't have to force anything anywhere, although, it does happen the other way sometimes.

I would like to examine the craftsmanship issue a bit....while I agree with RJ that craftsmanship in all construction trades is gradually diminishing, I urge you to look at old photos of golf courses to really see if the bunkers were well crafted.   While many are, like CP, many are really very crude.  Really, what looks so good about the general state of Ross bunkers (for example) as they existed in the 30's?  They were simply shaped, scruffy, and as someone who has examined hundreds of Ross details at the Tufts Library, maddenling repetitive - one left of the green, one right.  If they look great now, it is because of continual refinement, and perhaps because the smaller scale bunkers, with revisions have acquired some "charm", especially as compared to the bigger scale more typically used today.

Yes, many were more irregularly shpaed than many bunkers today, probably because bulldozers in general work on a larger, less detailed scale. And yes, perhaps, it is not possible - or generally deemed worth it, to keep on modifying a bunker in subtle ways 99% of golfers probably won't notice.  Be patient!  A caring superintendent will take care of that over time!  If you like smaller scale bunkers with more irregular edges than you see mostly today (Ron Kerns Purgatory does not fit this decscription at all, however!) I can accept that. But there are lots of reasons behind that beyond modern architects being lazy, untalented bums.

In fact, someone mentioned comparing all courses to PV, in order to save time.  In actual fact, most courses built today should rightfully be compared to Tom Bendelow - trying to craft an affordable (I know we can argue the definition of that!) course for the masses flocking to the game, and an occaisional course crafted as a private venture and dream, or as a seaside resort.

Does Fazio have craftsmanship and attention to detail?  In my opinion, yes, in spades, and much more than most other architects, both big name and itty bitty.  His attention to detail focuses on many more things, like cart paths, access to fairways, hiding them, etc, than most of us ever consider. His bunkers are incredibly detailed, but are loved by some, and critiqued by the supposedly non existent critical media of today (at least by Ron Whitten, in some articles I have read) as too "gingerbread". Well, we each like our own style, but it is not the end of modern civilization! Who really believes that the media of the 30's (who didn't report FDR's illnesses, or Babe Ruth's womanizing) went harder on golf course architects than critics today?  (Ron W., Brad, and Geoff, you can jump in any time!)

Gib,

I think question of whether a particular routing forces more earthmoving is really site speific. If you ask Tom Doak, or almost any architect, they will probably tell you that in most cases they prepare over 20 routings.  Is there ever a perfect one? Not usually.  It is usually a matter of choosing between one routing which has, lets say, 15 natural holes, and three that need some work, versus one that has one spectacular, or favorite hole, but only has 12 or 13 natural holes. Which do you choose?  

Let's rephrase the question in that light.....on most gently roling ground, an architect might come up with a dozen plausible routings, with different strengths and weaknesses.  What exactly, given that scenario, would it take for you as an owner to recommend non returning nines (which costs both golfer convenience, and by most accounts, about 3000 revenue rounds per year)?  If there were two or more acceptable routings, what would make you choose one with back to back par 3's or 5's, versus one with a more traditional balance?  A desire for quirk? Trying to be different? And how is that any different from an owner who in the eighties, told Pete Dye to move more earth, or make the hardest course, or to do a Scottish imitation, to be different, and which is touted by some as the root of all evil in modern archtitecture?

Having said that, I will also admit that I just completed one project that is more along the lines many complain about.  A golf developer retained us for the second course he has built, feeling that his "in house" design job on the first wasn't adequate. He wanted an affordable public course, built fast, and was offered a piece of land in a real estate development.  Many things were set, but I was able to tweak some property lines, etc. more in line with my design ideals. BTW, after discussion, this course does end up with back to back par 5 holes. It also ended up with some long walks, mostly leftover from the original routing, and common to housing type projects.  So, we got a better course than may have been built otherwise, but not a perfect one, although,  I am sure that Des Moines area public golfers will find it quite acceptable.  Am I a bad guy?  Did I suddenly lose my talent, as compared to other courses where I had full control of the routing, done at the same time period?

Thats the long version arugment.  The short version is that while courses of all eras display different levels of craftsmanship and design, all "youse guys" are really saying is that you like older styles better than modern style, completely disregarding that there is probably more style diversity today, than at any time in the history of GCA.

Sorry for the rant, but thats what you get when you fly all day and the planes are late!

Jeff

[T_MacWood]

Jeff
I said little or no criticism. There is some very good analysis, just not nearly as much as in the past. Of the two major publications -- GDigest and Golf -- you can count the number of annual 'critiqes' on one hand.

Hutchinson detailed 3 to 4 weaknesses at Park's Sunningdale, including the par-3s and the finish, and was very active critic. Colt thought his best friend Low relied too heavily on the idea of central hazards. Low thought Colt didn't utilize central hazards enough. MacKenzie detailed why he didn't like Thomas's par-3 course. MacKenzie believed PV should have provided more choices. Simpson wasn't crazy about MacKenzie's Lido winner and summited his own entry after the fact. Darwin was a very thoughtful and active critic. Behr criticized some of Colt's work at Sunningdale and showed how it could be improved. Behr and Crane had running written arguement on strategy. Fowler wrote a long essay on what was wrong w/ the changes at St.Georges and how he would alter the course. Fowler was roundly criticised for the changes at Westward Ho!, for which replied giving a detailed explanation on what he did and why. They all thought their predicessors work was crap, and said so. They were generally very critical of the work of the professionals Vardon, Braid and Taylor. And I could go on. And these were not seen in only the major golf publications, but also in The Times and Country Life, two of the most popular newpapers and magazines in the world. (Could there be something written in the ASGCA byelaws to prevent this type of activity?   )

And it wasn't all criticism, there was a great deal of praise and appreciation -- which should be part of any ballanced critique. The amount of thoughtful analysis and point/couterpoint is not found today on a regular basis.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

There seems to be a good number of architects who participate on Golfclubtalas who are members of ASGCA. So instead of implying with a smiley face that there may be something in the ASGCA bylaws to prevent or discourage ASGCA members from criticizing each others work why don't we just ask them point blank if there is something in the ASGCA bylaws preventing and discouraging such criticism? If there is such a thing in the ASGCA bylaws that would probably be as good a subject as any to have an excellent point/counter point analysis. And I believe you could have a good point/counter point analysis on that subject alone!

I for one have certainly heard plenty of architects complain about and criticize the work of other architects, although I admit I haven't seen it in print. If the ASGCA, which is a trade organization, I suppose, tries to discourage their members from cutting each other to bits in print or otherwise, that may not be much different than some of the realty boards (also trade organizations) I've belonged to who do the same thing (in bylaws or otherwise).

They do that, presumably, to present to the customer and client and the general public a face with a modicum of professionalism where petty jealousies and competivenesses are not seen so much by the public who would then tend to look at the profession as a bunch of snakes in a pit---which is what they are anyway!

[T_MacWood]

I wouldn't characterize the past critiques as cutting each other to bits, it was more thoughtful analysis. It appears to me they lived by the philosophy 'what goes around comes around'. They knew their own work would be analysed by their peers, so when they provided their opinions it was done in a thoughful ballanced manner -- it may have also effected the level of their own work, in effect keeping them on their toes. They were friendly rivals - and possibly not so friendly - and the analysis went hand in hand with heavy doses of respect. I have to believe the constant process of seeing your work analyzed by others and the process of analyzing the work of your contemporaries is very healthy. And the amount of discourse and interaction had to benefit all involved.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom MacWood:

Thanks for highlighting the dialogue between classic era architects and for pointing out that this dialogue or analysis can be very healthy.

I can't imagine how exchanging ideas could possibly be harmful in any profession, so long as it is done in good faith.

Jeff  Brauer:

You comment that environmental reggies don't usually affect the detail work of design seems like an important point.  I'm curious whether other industry folks agree or disagree.  My hunch is that you are generally correct.

Also, you make a couple other interesting comments:

1) that environmental regulations might add 50 acres to the total land requirement due to placing certain areas off limits

2) that the desire for longer courses may add an additional 50 acres

Can you provide any data to support the latter?  Intuitively, it seems correct, but I'm just wondering if anyone has documented the additional land requirements/cost associated with additional length requirements.

[DRGAZ]

Jeff, very, very well said.

[RJ_Daley]

Jeff Brauer, thankfully we can't transmit virus in this format.  The worm mail virus I got infected with some months ago was truly a source of embarrassment to me for having caused so many of my e-mail friends difficulties.  

But, on to a response to your very fine dialogue...

I know there is no manual per se directing style and techniques that are stamped ASGCA.  I see enough difference in style between the archies to know that.  But, I am speaking of a core culture and conventional wisdom on design/construction techniques that in a very general way utilizes the available technology of machines and materials in certain widely accepted fashions to create a sameness.  I would point to the ASGCAs own seminars and ongoing educational programs to support this notion of a core culture and methodology.  Back in 1991-2-3, I took a series of seminars put on by the GCSAA in collaboration with ASGCA to teach construction/construction management techniques, restoration/remodelling and general principles of gc design.  One of those seminars (construction techniques) was taught by Dr. Hurdzan and Steve Harrall of Wadsworth.  They had a core curriculum on basic how-to utilize certain equipment and materials inorder to build bunkers, greens, grade fairways, separation mounding etc., along with management phazing of projects.  Geoff Cornish and Robt Graves had the Restoration and Remodelling and the Design Principles sections.  Again, they put forth a core set of principles about design features and placements.  This coming year the GCSAA will put on the most ambitious series of seminars ever in collaboration with ASGCA and your member Schriener will team with LU's PM Armstrong to teach Construction TEchniques, and Hurdzan will team with Hummel's CEO to teach Green construction theory.  (since I have had Hurdzan's presentation, I know it won't just be USGA vs California Sand Green method, but will deal with core principles of surrounds shaping and design too).  Jay Morrish will give a section on remodelling and design problem solving.  An LA from ASLA will talk about "sustainable" LA design principles and process and "enhanced aesthetics".  I believe that you Jeff most recently taught one of the on-going sections on restoration and remodelling.  Did you team with one of the big constructors like Landscapes Unlimmited or Wadsworth, and have other presenters of that section teamed with big name constructors in the seminar programs to set forth a set of core principles and methodology for things like utilization of specific equipment and materials to remodel or restore bunkers?  

Would those presentations detailing principles, techniques, and methodology be different if presented by independent design/builders not within the family and network of ASGCA and Golf Course Builders Assoc(?) and other professional organizations?   If these seminars were given by independents, would part of the curiculum be less about techinques to most efficiently utilize equipment technology to save money and time on project management and more about results to emphasise craftsmanship and that last 10% of detailing on the job that was pointed out by Dunkley and Gib above?  

I ask if restoration and remodelling university curriculum would be different if given by Doak's crew based on their experiences at Yeaman's Hall compared to one of the societies presenters like Graves in conjunction with Wadsworth and work products they have done?  Or, if Axeland and Proctor would present their work experience and techniques at Riviera, would there be a different emphasis?  I recently had a chance to see the results of the Bunkerhill work next to the new Fazio work being done on #8 at Riv.  It is recognizably different in what I would identify as "craftsmanship".   Why?  Money and technology, or conventional wisdom utilization of equipment leading to design sameness may be at play in the contrasting results...

IN fairness, I probably would go with the conventional wisdom based and well established ASGCA firm and high capacity constructor if I had a project that required rigorous approval process with much environmental red tape, or a project based on a large budget that was dependant on high marketablility factors of name recognition, broad based public taste acceptability, and tight construction management phazing on tight timelines.

But, I have a very short list of independents that I would go with if the project was one of those ideal properties that had a chance to be something rare and special, because the big concept high tech guys don't seem to have the attention to final detail and generate a sameness of conventionality in the design that somehow for me misses the mark too often.

Just my opinon - I could be a tad hardheaded  

[DRGAZ]

No one will ever convince me that the classic era architects would not be using technology today and moving more dirt.  Everyone should remember that most sites used today are C or D sites compared to the "non environmental pressures" days.  Obviously, there are exceptions, like Pacific and Bandon, but generally, it is land that is not great, but can be entitled.  Moving dirt and using computers does not mean "the evil empire" has taken over golf course architecture.  Jeff and Tom Doak are both fantastic designers, along with C&C, and to be honest, Tom Fazio.  Just my opinion.

[Tim_Weiman]

DRGAZ:

We will never have the oportunity to work with classic era architects, so why even bother to speculate on how much dirt they might have moved if permitted to do so?

It is far more important to ask whether the availability of money and technology can have an insidious impact, i.e., erode the commitment to craftsmanship.  That's what I was trying to get at.

Nobody is talking about "the evil empire".  Rather, we are merely trying to examine why that "final ten percent" often seems lacking in modern designs.

[T_MacWood]

DRGAZ
Who's trying to convince you? They did move dirt, the idea that they did not is a misconception.

What is your definition of an A, B, C and D site? I suspect many of our countries greatest courses were created on your difinition of C or worse site -- simple rolling farmland. And it's still out there.

[BarnyF]

Considering the torch of this thread is being carried by two fine gentlemen from the great state of Ohio...would someone please tell me what was so great about the site Muirfield Village is built on and how did money and technology hamper its greatness?

[T_MacWood]

John aka BarneyF
The site consisted of gently, and not so gently (hilly for this part of the world), rolling terrain, intersected by a network of natural streams. There was tons of earth moved to create great amphitheaters and other gallery viewing positions. The course of the streams was altered to fit the design, instead of the other way around. There are now numerous man-made ponds, which create a very common hazard. The holes taken individually are strong, although somewhat artificial -- unfortunately the golf course is more a collection of sound golf holes, rather than a homegenous natural golf course.