How often do golf architects have to sacrifice principles?

[David Wigler]

I just got done playing Flint Hills National in Wichita.  This is the best piece of work I have seen Tom Fazio do outside of Victoria National.  The course will be a very worthy host for next weeks US Women’s Amateur.  It is full of strategic options and different ways to approach it.  The bunkering is the best I have ever seen Fazio do and far more like the work Crenshaw and Coore usually provide.  There is none of Fazio’s typical banked fairways and bowled greens to prevent bad shots and randomness.  Through 17 holes, I was in love.  Then came 18.

18 should have been a fantastic risk/reward closing par five.  The hole measures just over 500 yards into the prevailing winds.  The tee box sits on the left bank of a river.  Across the river is  a two section fairway.  The approach then has to go back across the river to the green.  The gentleman I was playing explained my options and then hit a 4-iron across the river, a 6-iron to the second landing area and a wedge to the green for a routine five.  I decided to take the glory route.  Fazio placed a bunker on the rivers edge requiring a 220 yard carry.  I was told that carrying the bunker led to a fairway shoot that would run me within 200 yards.  It is a terrific risk/reward shot.  Because of the prevailing winds, a fade ends up too far right to get home in two.  A draw turns over into the river.  I hit a perfect shot over the bunker and caught the down slope.  When I went to hit my mid-iron to the green, a large cottonwood tree was on the bank and blocked my approach to the green.  My only option was to hit sand wedge to the second landing area and then sand wedge to the green.

There are many dumb trees in golf but this may be the dumbest I have seen.  It wrecks any strategic value to playing aggressively and destroys the hole.  I could not believe Fazio left it.  After the round, I spent some time talking to the pro shop.  They said that Fazio desperately wanted to cut down the tree but the course owner would not let him.  In fact, they pointed out a second small cottonwood tree a little further down.  The pro mentioned that the owner planted it after Fazio was done.  It will destroy the hole further.

It got me thinking.  Is it a frequent occurrence that owners goof up golf holes by overruling the architects they pay money to?  Flint Hills National is still a great golf course and very worthy of inclusion in John's hidden gems list but it is incredible to me that the final taste the course leaves is a hole that simply does not work an the architect knew it and was left with no choice.  

[BarnyF]

People who don't sacrifice their principles end up lonely and unemployed.  The key to succuss both monetarily and artisticly is deciding which principles to sacrifice or if you are lucky enough to have no principles at all.  Unfortunately for you Mr. Fazio has chosen to build his life on a foundation of truth and integrity at the expense of design utopia.  If only he had no principles and unlimited budgets just imagine the courses he could build.  This leads to the hard question...can the combination of no principles and huge budgets co-exist in the creative world.  Can the book be published...the painting be sold...the play produced that does not cater in some sense to the financiers.  How many of the great creative people in history died lonely and unemployed.  How many great golf architectural minds have gone wasted due to the shortsightedness of financiers.  This is one of lifes great challenges...You should not scorn the tree at Flint Hills...You should throw your head back and laugh at its symbol of natures infallibility compared to man.  Remember there are no dumb trees just dumb tree owners.

[Mark_Fine]

More often than you think!  I just played The Architects Golf Club in NJ at Media Day with Ron Whitten (who helped design it with Stephen Kay).  I heard hole by hole what they had to endure and what "input" the owners had and/or forced on them.  

[John_D._Bernhardt]

I believe in golf as in any other professional service business the client is the boss. I refer you to Doak's interaction with Mike K. at pacific dunes for an example. Therefore, it would seem that more often than not the design work is influenced to some significant level by the client. The rub is a client wise enough to spot talent and let him/her do their work without undue interference.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Here's some interesting things from the Flint Hills N. web site (the site is interesting in that it gives a lot of background and technical info on the making of the course, stuff gca's and supt's would be interested in).

"Every Fazio course I'd ever played was fair and playable,'' Devlin said. "He was the type of architect who could take a piece of land and make it play natural with no blind shots. His best strength was designing good short holes, which is the mark of a true architect.''

Hmm.  Blind shots are bad.  OK.

"Flint Hills National features 67 bunkers and 24 acres of ponds that brings water into play on eight holes."

Must have water.  Lots of it.  Better course that way.

"Flint Hills is as good a course as I've ever designed,'' Fazio said. "I always strive for a visual impact of a special place, one that people will remember. I seek something sensational and dramatic."

How many times have we heard an architect say that?  Every new course every architect ever opens is one of their best ever.  And we all know that visual impact is most important.  Strategy is not a factor.

"5,673 Trees planted, 70 different varieties"

We certainly can't have a course without trees!  Wind must not be a factor!

"Bermuda tees for iron practice (Midlawn Bermuda), Zoysia tees for woods only"

Just what I want to do.  Pick up all the range balls I dumped out, put them back in the bucket and lug my bag to another range to hit my woods.
 
 

[TEPaul]

"How often do golf architects have to sacrifice principles?" What principles? Principles to build golf holes and courses the way they think best?

Probably about as often as they want to or think they have to.

In that context BarnyF is probably right about his mention of someone like Tom Fazio. What are Tom's principles in golf architecture? By his own numerous admissions in his book his principles appear to be to build golf courses that satisfy his owner/clients. And he seems very proud of the fact that he has learned to do that as well or better than anyone. Environmental problems, owner problems, give him almost anything and Tom claims he can figure out a way to solve it if the money is there. Is that a bad thing? Not really, but it is another way to go with golf architecture.

But then you take a company like Coore and Crenshaw. What are their principles in golf architecture? It seems to be to build quality holes and courses as they see them. Of course they want to satisfy their owner/clients but there seems to be a limit to how far they will go to compromise what they think best architecturally. How else could you explain two courses a year when the demand for them might be ten times that?

I know they felt they probably compromised their principles at Riviera by being forced to do something and agreeing to it which they didn't want to do. I believe that hurt them personally to have done that but the good news is they learned from it and have agreed never to have their principles or beliefs or anything else pushed around like that again.

I could never really understand their modus operandi very well. It seemed to me that they would talk to you about your plans and even help you with them for the longest time (and almost always without charge) but then when you were ready to go they might appear slow to sign on. Finally, I realized, I guess I'm sort of obtuse, because I actually had to be told specifically, but that is their way of really being sure that they understand exactly what you want and if they are prepared to give it to you. And even more that you completely understand where they are coming from architecturally and if you will let them do what they feel they need to do and want to do architecturally.

This is not to say they can't or won't compromise but it's probably a good way of operating so noone has to sacrifice their principles in the process.

And they certainly aren't starving or unemployed because of it either!

[Mike_Cirba]

BarneyF;

Is there a slight gap between "starving and penniless" and the mega-business that Tom Fazio design is today?  Is this really an either/or situation?

I can recall a time when Tom Fazio wanted to work on a maximum 6 projects simultaneously because he knew that was the max he could dedicate appropriate attention to.  He also wouldn't take projects very far from his home state of North Carolina.  

Those were his principles at the time, which if I recall correctly, was perhaps 7 years ago.  

He seemed to be doing pretty respectably from a financial perspective at that time from what I could see.  

I would be the last person to suggest that anybody should limit their business growth if they want to become a mega-star, but obviously something has to be compromised in the process.    

[JSS]

Interesting question as I am planning on developing a golf course and believe I can and will let the architect have general free reign on what he wants to do.  On the flip side, I have a vision and if I don't like  what he is proposing then I have to raise an objection.

Davids point on the tree on 18 at Flint Hills probably has some reason behind it?  I'm sure the owner wanted some quirk in the course, wants a good finishing hole and try and find a balance between being fun and challenging at the same time.

[Ed_Baker]

I surmise that the "compromises" happen much more frequently than most would suspect.

I'm sure the Mike Keisers of the world are just as rare in the owners ranks,as the Doaks,Brauers,C&C's are in the architectural profession.

While I have the utmost respect for any "owner" building a golf course today,I can't for the life of me see why they would insist on ANYTHING that the architect was vehemently opposed to! Why hire the man in the first place and then put him in a "no win" situation.

[Brian Phillips]

JSS,

"I am planning on developing a golf course and believe I can and will let the architect have general free reign on what he wants to do. On the flip side, I have a vision and if I don't like what he is proposing then I have to raise an objection"

So what you are saying is that after you have chosen an architect to do his job (which he is qualified at) you are still going to interfere with his design if YOU don't like it.  Why would you interfere with his design if you are paying him to do the design, he/she has more experience ( I hope!!) than you could hope for.

The best design work I have seen is when the architect is left well alone with the constructing crew to get on with the job.

I have done a few designs and sometimes the clients vision is great but it costs a lot of money which they don't have or just would not look right in the terrain the client has.

On the construction of holes or courses I have built the biggest c**k-ups are when the client or the controller starts trying to design.  Let them do their job . By all means come with input but do not expect the architect to act on your opinions.

Your most important decision is to find an architect whose work you like and that the chemistry between yourselves is good so that you can bounce ideas off each other but without worry of upsetting the other if an idea is rejected.

Sorry if this seems blunt but I have seen courses that I have built that could have been so much better if the architect had been allowed to do what he wanted.

[Craig_Rokke]

Mark F.-

Would be great to hear your thoughts on the Architect's Club--maybe another thread?

[David Wigler]

Perhaps principles is the wrong word.  I guess what I was getting at was artistic vision.  I correlate golf architects with artists.  Although it perhaps happened, I cannot picture da Vinci's benefactor telling him that the Mona Lisa had too big a nose and to make it smaller, or a financier telling Frank Lloyd Wright to add another chimney, or the local theater manager telling Shakespeare to add a couple more women and a few love scenes to his latest play.  Why then is it almost accepted that an architect will have to alter their vision for an owner?  Apparently it is commonplace.

Scott, please do not mistake this for bashing Flint Hills National.  Although all course marketing is hyperbole, this really is the second most visually sensational course that I have seen Fazio create (Behind only Victoria National).  This course is well worth making a trip to Wichita for.  That said, if it is getting dark and you have only gotten through 17 holes, do not feel as though you need to play 18.

[ForkaB]

Sad as it may seem, Shakespeare did in fact alter his plays to fit the whimsies of the powers that be.  For example, one his greatest characters, Sir John Falstaff, was originally named Sir John Oldcastle, until Shakespeare was forced to change the name by Lord Cobham the inheritor of some of the "real" Oldcastle's titles

(I know this is a bit complicated, but trust me, titles and reputations were far more important in Elizabethan England than a tree in Kansas. BTW, are there trees in Kansas?)

Even forgetting the politics of nobility and fauna, any of you who have seen the movie "Shakespeare in Love" will recognise the finanical influence which theatre owners had over playwrights in Shakespeares day.  I think Mozart had similar love-hate relationships with his patrons, royal and otherwise.  To me, one of the catch phrases for analyzing the development of any major work of art of architecture (including golf courses, where this applies) is "show me the money!"

[aclayman]

 BarnyF writes; "People who don't sacrifice their principles end up lonely and unemployed."

If this doesn't epitomize whats wrong with the world and golf, I don't know what else.

Mr F (ife)? Are you in congress, or something?

[Tom_Doak]

The Tom Fazio discussion is interesting because 25 years ago at Butler National, he and George F. had the same argument with Mr. Butler over trees in the fairways on #7 and #18.  Butler told them to hold off until the end of the job and he would let them take the trees then if they still wanted to; then at the end he gave them the last check and said goodbye.  [The trees are still there.  Tom went back for the 25th anniversary and suggested they come out; the club said no.]

So, artistic vision is frequently "compromised" to some degree, large or small, although the truth is that if someone other than the owner was making the suggestion, one could consider it a valuable second opinion instead of being compromised.  In my experience it has been compromised as often by environmental issues as by owners, but again, you could look at both as "existing conditions" instead.

I don't remember ever having to sacrifice my principles during a job, but I'm sure that is only true for those of us who can afford to turn down jobs -- or those who have no principles!

[Tom_Doak]

My guess is the owner at Flint Hills didn't want his 18th hole to be too easy for the good players.

Years ago I did a routing for that same piece of property, back when I worked for the Dyes.  I'd be curious to see what Tom made of it.  [But not so curious that I'm driving to Wichita anytime soon.]

[TEPaul]

Tom Doak mentions above that an owner might have thought a hole would be "too easy" due to some recommendation by Tom Fazio.

I have NOT heard the argument of "too easy" used constructively one time in the few years I've been interested in architecture! Not one time! But it is a tricky argument to counter!

Maybe some of us on this website think we know more than we do but I have rarely seen the general point of "too easy" discussed much on here in any serious architectural context. Holes and courses are mostly discussed in the context of how much does a hole demand of a golfer, what does it make him think about and feel like, what does it do to his choices and those shots, what does the hole do to the ball in some situations?

If somebody doesn't want to hear these things or talk about them, it seems like their first reaction and argument is; "it makes the hole too easy."

We have a hole a Gulph Mills that was up for a restorative effort, that, in my opinion, would take it back to what it was originally intended to be by Perry Maxwell. Basically the hole is what I would call a conceptual copy of ANGC's #13--a short "go/no go" par 5.

Due to neglect and misunderstanding the meat of the hole has been shut down and closed off by trees and as a result it has become a one dimensional hole that has to be played about the same way day in and day out by most golfers. Basically the hole has lost it's gambling options and become fairly humdrum!

So we recommended that the trees come out  so a golfer can have a tempting chance at that gambling "go" option at the green in two again. And for the other 95% that can't hit the green in two there will be a tweak to the green that can also make their third shot multi-optional and exciting!

But those that can hit the green in two screamed bloody murder that taking out the trees and allowing them to go right at the green in two would make the hole "too easy".

But I believe we successfully countered them not by countering with just; "No, it won't be too easy", but with another argument.

Firstly, this hole has a quarry to carry that fronts the green (mimicing Rae's Creek). So we said, yes the hole will be eagled and birdied more than the way it now is. In that way it will be easier. But to do that the golfer will have to execute three superb shots or four very good ones. Failing that, or refusing to gamble on the hole might allow the golfer to make par but now the more conservative lay-up and third shot will be much more multi-optional. So for those that will now be able to gamble the hole will produce far more bogies, doubles and others than it does now! That definitely seemed to satisfy them and counter their argument of "too easy".

In a nutshell a simple way to explain this is that the hole now with its options shut down produces a very narrow spread of scoring through the membership, but with the options opened up again the hole will produce a much wider spread of scoring both very good, good, bad and very bad!!

This seemed to satisfy them and why wouldn't it since it's patently obvious? So the best way is to give them the "too easy" argument at first, PROVIDED that they hit a few really good shots! But failing that there will be a higher price to pay. Let's just call this simple argument the "wider score spread vs the narrower score spread" argument!

If they still argue that the hole will be "too easy" just tell them that they must be really good to hit those three or four superb shots day in and day out. You know they can't counter that one because it would be admitting that they are that good and of course they know they aren't that good and they know you know it too!

[...]

.

[Mike Touscany]

It is my experience not only in golf, but in life that most clients, owners, controllors, etc. simply lack the vision of the architect.  How often have we played a course only to find its creativity and sheer brilliance after the fifth or sixth round.  Much like a piece of art, appreciation for the masses often takes time while the creators envision the beauty ahead of time.

Sadly, this vision is difficult to explain to the untrained eye...much like trying to get my 5 year to believe nothing is hiding under her bed at 2:00 AM.  Little I can say is going to convince her.

[Birdieboy]

Watched the US Womens Amateur today from Flint Hills.  Very easy to see what David was talking about with the tree on the 18th hole?  Its was still an easy birdie hole as both women birdied the 36th hole to take it to sudden death.

[David Wigler]

Birdieboy,

I did not get a chance to watch it (Honeydo list that had been long ignored).  Did they play the hole 3-Wood, PW, SW and then hit the putt?

[T_MacWood]

I watched the Woman's Am over the weekend.   Flint Hills is certainly a visually striking golf course. I was struck by the width of the fairways, not a bad thing, but there didn't seem to be much going on with the tee shots. There were bunkers on the perimeter, but there placement didn't seem to have any relationship to the next shot. In fact they seemed to be placed to only punish a very wide shot and I don't recall seeing a single hazards through fairway. Its always difficult to get a good perspective from TV -- are my impressions off base?

[Ron_Whitten]

Perhaps it's because Flint Hills National is in my home state, and all the early hype surrounding it was that this course "could be better than Prairie Dunes," but I don't consider Flint Hills National to be a particularly good Tom Fazio design or a particularly good course. Its greens, in particular, are questionable, just a big bunch of bent grass sloped in the most inhospitable directions. (The ninth green, for instance, slopes left into a water hazard.) But my main objection to the course is its name. Anyone who knows anything about the Flint Hills knows this course doesn't represent a single thing about it. It's like building a course in Cleveland and naming it Sand Hills Golf Club. (Which is what Fazio did at Sand Ridge, until Crenshaw convinced them to change the name.)

I need to clarify Mark Fine's remark about my remark to him. Yes, the owners had input at The Architects Golf Club and yes, there was a lot of compromise involved. But sometimes the owners were right. Not all the ideas that I wanted to incorporate made sense on a daily-fee facility, especially when we're trying to operate within a budget. I suspect an architect who isn't willing to be flexible on his principles will likely starve. Unless he funds every course himself.

[aclayman]

Ron- I really enjoyed the honesty of your post. Not everyone can admit that the boos is right, on occasion.

I do wonder if the last line about your principles isn't a little misleading.

I interperet from what you wrote that the ideas you have had, that are in conflict with the owner's, aren't necc. principles. They are just ideas that deserve and need to be discussed and thought out.
Now, if anyone confuses their idea's with principles, and are head strong and stubborn about them, thats not principle, thats ego. Acting contrary to what you know to be truthful and factual, ethical and moral, is my definition of scraficing principles.

And more than likely anyone who would, probably doesn't have them in the first place?

[RJ_Daley]

In considering the question of whether the archie should have free reign and make all the decisions, I feel that the element that must be addressed first is; COMMUNICATION.  This element is vital to the decision making process between the great team of Coore and Crenshaw.  It is the important element between their understudy protege's, Axeland and Proctor.  It is the vital element in owner-client/architect relationships too.  

There are just too many different scenarios and relationship characteristics that vary between the architects and client-owners.  There are the owners that are intimately familiar with the land they decide to develope.  The land may be family land that the owner has been involved with all his/her life.  They may know characteristics about that land that an architect may overlook or not realise if he is only brought in recently to route a course over it.  Seasonal things like wind shifts, soil characteristics and drainage patterns can differ.  I feel that inorder to have a successful project, the owner-client and architect must do the routing together, with communication and agreement on issues before any soil is turned.  The constructor and the architect and/or golf game conceptor must have full communication to translate ideas.  Does anyone really think that Coore and Crenshaw just see things one way and go out and build it?  ONe has the constructor technical expertise and one has the golf game expertise.  They have to be willing to listen to each other and hash things out.

I think it would be rare or next to unbelievable that a client-owner didn't have input or a consultative relationship with the architect and strong feelings were not heeded.  The answer is in the result.  If issues are not resolved with the owner-client knowing when to back off, or vise-versa with the archie or constructors, the final product just won't be as good as it might have been.