Impact of the golf course contractor

[Tom Soileau]

I was just curious what you guys think about the the impact of a good or bad contractor on the outcome and quality of a course.  Nicklaus Design puts a site architect on each of Jack's signature courses to ensure the design intent is maintained.  Knowing all the little things I catch on a daily basis that would otherwise have been missed had I not been there makes me wonder what other architects who don't put someone onsite has to live with because it is too late or would cost to much to come back and fix.  I know many architects who draw a set of plans and turn them over and make the occasional site visit and just accept what has been built, good or bad.  Some contractors have quality shapers and finish crews and project managers who really care about the outcome of the course while others simply low bid to get the job and then try to change order the client to death and cut corners to make more money.  

I would love to hear some responses from working architects and some of their experiences with contractors, good and bad.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom,

At the risk of starting a fist fight.....a verbal one at least, I'm wondering which firms you believe simply turn plans over to a contractor.

I don't see that happening with quality firms like Mike DeVries, C&C, Gil Hanse, Renaissance.

Who do you believe is doing it?

[TEPaul]

Tom:

I'd say this---when it comes to restoration, the contractor is or can be a huge factor, in my opinion!

I don't know whether we completely dodged a bullet or not in our recent restoration but one of the primary factors on our architectural choice of Gil Hanse is he had a guy on site all the time to work with the contractors (in our case it was Rodney Hines in the first phase and Jim Wagner in the second phase both of whom are really great) and also we were aware that Gil himself was going to do a lot of the basic shaping!

Rodney really got my attention one time at French Creek (or maybe it was Applebrook) when we were standing around a new green being prepared and he announced to the entire team of contractor laborers doing the work:

"You guys can do this a dozen times on this green if you want to or you can listen to exactly what I tell you and get it right the first time".

So, again, having Gil or someone like Rodney or Jim on the ground everyday just might have been a major league bullet we dodged without really understanding how important it was going in. But I do remember when we were making the architect decision that seemed really huge to me.

Ron Forse has his Jim Nagel who's really good and spends a lot of time on the projects I've seen them do, but I worry about Ron Prichard who I happen to think is a super-good restoration architect simply because Ron's a one-man show and he never has any real "eyes" from his company to leave on site all the time. To me that makes me wonder if there isn't a lot of coming back and fixing what he wanted when he gets back to a course again if the contractors aren't exactly on the same page he is.

TomS, sorry if this is off topic since I'm talking about restoration and not new construction but to me in restoration the contractor really being on the same page in every single detail with the architect is HUGE---and to assure that I think an every day on-site guy from the architect is huge! Maybe a lot of this boils down to things basically aesthetic but if an architect is on-site or keeps one of his really good guys on site all the time  like a Hines, Wagner or Nagel to watch those contractors like a hawk it sure would make me a world more comfortable that something wouldn't go wrong and need to be fixed later!

[TEPaul]

Matter of fact, I think Forse's Jim Nagel and Hanse's Jim Wagner are both so good I think I'll call both Gil and Ron today to tell them they better keep reminding themselves to stay on top of their game everyday because both of their Jims are gaining on them bigtime and if they don't keep paying strict attention to everything and anything they may both find themselves working for their Jims one of these days instead of the other way around!  

[Paul Richards]

Tom

After the architect, the most important person you deal with is the guy on the tractor - the shaper.

When Beverly did the restoration work, Ron Prichard put his ideas on paper.  Earth Force performed the work, but the real 'secret' was the excellent shaper - Gordon.  His work truly reflects the thoughts and plans of both Prichard and of Donald Ross.

I have seen many of the courses restored by Ron.  Some weren't as fortunate as Beverly was to have Gordon doing the shaping work.  It is amazing the difference in quality.

Lesson - make sure you have a shaper that understands the architects' intentions and can take them from the paper to the earth.

 

[Brent Hutto]

I don't know if this is exactly pertinent to the question at hand but my home course was designed in large part by the construction contractor. The course is built on a difficult piece of property, very hilly and with heavy clay soil and a fair bit of rock. Yet we think the course turned out very nicely and with some interesting individual hole (even though the flow of the routing could be better, especially for us walkers).

Anyway, as I understand it the original developers engaged the services of P.B. Dye who had been the architect of a couple of other courses in the area (Columbia, SC). He did a routing and some preliminary topo-map type plans but fairly early in the process a dispute arose over the amount and terms of his payment. The architect departed the scene and disallowed any use of his name by the course. I'm not sure exactly where the construction was at this point, I believe some initial clearing of corridors had taken place along with the building of access roads but I'm pretty sure no grading of greens sites, tees and so forth had started.

From that point on, the golf-course construction contractor (an outfit from Florida whose name I do not know) was given the unfinished plans and allowed to build the course as they saw fit. So I'm pretty sure the contours of the greens, exact shape of the bunkers and fairway boundaries and possibly even the exact placement of the tees were done pretty much as construction was being undertaken and without the involvement of any architect per se.

Would the course have been better in some way with P.B. Dye overseeing the details? Quite possibly but it's really hard to imagine a much better course on this property. I think the greens are quite interesting and many consider them the best feature of the course. The greens should be almost entirely credited to the anonymous members of that contractor's staff who finished out the details. I do think that credit it due to P.B. Dye for finding a workable routing over difficult terrain.

[EDIT] Oops, forgot the name of the course. It is the University Club in Blythewood, SC. The course opened in 1994 and is a non-equity private club with an associated housing development now under construction.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

I make it on site during construction 2 to 3 days per week now, depending upon the phase of construction.  Hard to know what gets by me the other 4 to 5 days. It seems to work pretty well so far since I am the name architect the contractor gets the philosophy and direction straight from the horse's mouth so to speak rather than through an interpretor.  

I am curious Tom, what fee does Jack get on a signature project?  What fee is charged for you to be on site?  What is the average budget on a course with this arrangement? Since Jack is the lead designer has he ever had a project he takes and stays on site each day?

[TEPaul]

Kelly:

When I mention architects who spend time on-site, I'm sure not thinking of the likes of architects Fazio, Jones or Nicklaus. If one had to spend the kind of additional money it probably takes to get guys like that on-site more often I'd tell them to just send the photos of themselves (on the course once or even some other site that looks like it) and stay away!  

[Jeff_Brauer]

I have gotten to the point of my career where I do my own field work nearly all of the time and use (unless absolutely demanded by the Owner) nothing but certified members of the Golf Builders Association.  To me, any cost savings are temporary and illusory......

As to shapers, I had an associate ask Tom's question one day.  As it happened, we were working on two courses, so I had him draw the exact same plan for a short par 3 on both.  The difference was amazing.  The "good" contractor's green had fuller slopes, better integration of green slopes with surrounds, etc.  The foreman directed the shaper to hide the cart path crossing in front of the tee with a small ridge, whereas the other sat in plain view, the cart path drained, basins were hidden, etc.  

The good shape also went back to the tee often just to see how it looked, rather than shape it without looking.  From there, he noticed things that he knew I would be looking for like the overall flow of the skyline of the green.  (The brand X green had very pimply knobs, rather than free flowing rolls and valleys)

So, yes, Virginia, it does make a difference.  I disagree that the gca has to be his own contractor.  In fact, I think most projects benefit from a contractor and shaper who has worked for many gca's.  They often see applications of one designers theory on another project, to its betterment.

Also, we can't forget the importance of financial strength of contractors.  One bad job can put weaker ones under, and if that happens while they are also building a project for you, it can hamper their attitudes and performance.  

[Tony Ristola]

In a rush...

Having worked on a crew for a Nicklaus project, with a second down the street (which I spent minimal time), the Nicklaus Co. sought to use different shapers (same contractor), so as not to get the same look. Some of the redo work was interesting.  One I'll never forget...grading a fairway from 200 yards out because the green (ready to be cored) had to be dropped 6 feet...it sat too high. (I wonder why the on-site associate and the travelling associate never picked up on this until it was too late?)

Great stuff if you can work that way. (Not really)

I'd say excellent contractors are important if you're not around, or another architect isn't around to lead the effort.

I'd also say an architect with some heavy equipmnt skills can take a group of good operators with little GC knowledge and produce excellence too.

That said, a 1997 or is it a 1999 survey from GC News found that 42.8% of architects found it difficult to get qualified builders.

Art Hills in Driving the Green thought there were only a dozen proficient shapers.

Tom, I wonder what the sales pitch was to those clients who had plans handed off with the architects working in a hit-and-run fashion without an on-site associate? Know you can't answer it...but perhaps this one...

...how much does Jack put in during planning?

Also, don't you feel you're input is worthy of your name on the project? If Doak can spend a handful of time with Jack and be co-architect...what about you with your daily presence?

Who really is the architect?

[Mike_Young]

Tom,
I sort of divide the business into two groups.  the signatures that can create value for a client thru their name of which Jack Nicklaus is certainly one and the rest of us who are competing for jobs on a daily basis.  
In the case of the signatures, I have seen where many will tell a client they have no interest in a job unless there is a certain amount available in the budget.  Using a signature greatly increases cost but it may be justified just by selling 2 or 3 lots.  Under this scenario, the contractors available have a higer budget and can justify doing things over and over if need be.
For the rest of us, IMHO, I feel we need to or three shapers that we work with and know our likes and dislikes.  I either work under a construction management scenario where the owner will contract thhe different subs and we direct them or we will work with a contractor where he places our chosen shaper on the payroll.  
I use the T2Green software just as you guys and I keep it on a laptop in the field.  We make daily changes both proposed and as-built but we never just give the contractor a set of plans.  We have always asked them to bid "unit prices".
By the way, I do enjoy JN work, especially the Jime Lipe projects.
Mike

[Tom Soileau]

Tom,

At the risk of starting a fist fight.....a verbal one at least, I'm wondering which firms you believe simply turn plans over to a contractor.

I don't see that happening with quality firms like Mike DeVries, C&C, Gil Hanse, Renaissance.

Who do you believe is doing it?

Tim,

I would rather not get into bringing up names of the firms who I know do this.  Of course I am not talking about the firms you mentioned, but there are firms who draw plans and turn them over.

To Kelly's question;
(I am curious Tom, what fee does Jack get on a signature project?  What fee is charged for you to be on site?  What is the average budget on a course with this arrangement? Since Jack is the lead designer has he ever had a project he takes and stays on site each day?)

Most of Jack's signature's gets a fee of 2 mil.  The clients only pay for my expenses.  We have over 50 courses under construction world-wide right now, so I don't think Jack really has time to spend everyday on-site.  Although, when we built The Bear's Club, he was there everyday when he was at home in North Palm Beach.

In response to Tom Paul's post;
(When I mention architects who spend time on-site, I'm sure not thinking of the likes of architects Fazio, Jones or Nicklaus. If one had to spend the kind of additional money it probably takes to get guys like that on-site more often I'd tell them to just send the photos of themselves (on the course once or even some other site that looks like it) and stay away!)  

TPaul, do you really believe that the above mentioned architects provide so little of value that without their presence at all, the project would be just as well off?  Such a typical, uninformed opinion coming from this site.

Question in response to Tony Ristola's post;
(Having worked on a crew for a Nicklaus project, with a second down the street (which I spent minimal time), the Nicklaus Co. sought to use different shapers (same contractor), so as not to get the same look. Some of the redo work was interesting.  One I'll never forget...grading a fairway from 200 yards out because the green (ready to be cored) had to be dropped 6 feet...it sat too high. (I wonder why the on-site associate and the travelling associate never picked up on this until it was too late?)

Tony, may I ask which projects these were and what you role was on the course that you said you worked on? I would love to ask the on-site architect or the design associate about this situation and answer your questions.

And to answer your question about how much does Jack put in during planning, Jack is involved with every aspect of every course he puts his name on.  We may do a preliminary routing, but he reviews and adjusts all routings before they are staked in the field.  Depending on the site and the type of course, he usually reviews the routing in the field before construction begins.  He develops all strategy for the course and designs all green complexes.  

You ask should I be given credit on the course?  Absolutley not.   Jack is the architect, I am one of his associates and have been taught to look for what he would look for.  The reason Tom Doak is the co-designer is because together they are designing the strategy for Sebonac.  

It is amazing to me how you guys on this site worship Ross, Tillinghast, MacKenzie, but never ask the same kind of questions about how much time they spent on site.  It was fine for them to have associates that put their ideas into the earth, but not for the modern day architect.  

To Jeff Brauer and Mike Young, thanks for your insightful responses to my question.  I appreciate an opinion coming from working architects who understand what they are talking about.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Tom,
From the Nicklaus Design Website:

Nicklaus Design offers the most comprehensive and professional plan documents in the industry. By drawing on our experience around the world, we have perfected the plan document process and have developed a custom-designed computer system that can apply both English and Metric units of measure to a project.

Does your level of documentation vary from project to project?

With detailed plans it is possible to get different results with different contractors.  As Jeff said, with a highly qualified contractor the results can be similar depending on the lead.  Often if a "local" builder is selected they may not even be able to read a contour plan and a lot more site time is needed.  

Regards
Mike

[TEPaul]

"TPaul, do you really believe that the above mentioned architects provide so little of value that without their presence at all, the project would be just as well off?  Such a typical, uninformed opinion coming from this site."

TomS:

No, of course not. I was only trying to be humorously ironical (which of course never goes over very well from me on here) since there are enough on this website who generally seem to act like those three aren't architecturally worth the air they breath.

If you want a smiley---here you go.....    

[RJ_Daley]

I haven't any personal knowledge base from which to even guess the answer to these questions.  But, I'll ask those of you in the business, how many quality dozermen and finish shapers, and site foremen do you really believe exist out there?

I look at the roster of ASGCAs and then consider the British equivalent, and then the Aussies and all the independent archies out there (most just hoping to get one job to break through each year) and wonder how many quality construction personnel can service them all.  There must still be 600+ golf courses being built world-wide each year.  Who's really building them in the dirt?

You have your big firms like LU, Wadsworth, MacDonalds, Bruce, Oliphant, and a ton of small outfits.  They all have to have atleast a few go-to guys.  But, I've heard it said before, and as Art Hills (ironically) states, their is a pretty small number of real artists out there.  Is that true, and to what quanitifiable degree?

Are we actually in a situation that of the X number of courses built each year, 10% or some such small number have quality construction personnel on site, constantly?  I don't know, I'm only asking...  

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom,

Thanks. I can fully understand.

[Tony Ristola]

Tom,

It was Cabo. Palmilla & Cabo del Sol.  Casa de Campo was under construction at the same time (Dye Designs)
Contractor: Fairway...which had much of its staff gutted (50 plus people) by Paragon in 97 or so I believe.
My roomy was one of the shapers.
I was just a laborer.
The on-site associate...cannot remember, but he was trained with a bunch of others at the Ibis projects.

Quoting Tom: "It is amazing to me how you guys on this site worship Ross, Tillinghast, MacKenzie, but never ask the same kind of questions about how much time they spent on site.  It was fine for them to have associates that put their ideas into the earth, but not for the modern day architect."

If that was directed at me, reading any of my stuff from long past, you would find I do ask those questions.  I believe they should be asked. Why not? I believe there should be some improvement in accuracy of credit given. There are guys taking credit for work they have not accomplished...while the guys who really do the work...don't get the credit. Or guys who should get some credit don't. Can you agree on this? You don't feel you should have any credit on this project...fine.

The company has 50 projects on the go. Tournaments and other business interests. Family.  I'll let someone else do the math.

Tom, wouldn't it be interesting to see how different courses worked out with different associates (and builders...something the GCBAA is trying to achieve by having the company put on the scorecard)? Not all associates (or builders) are equal, and Nicklaus admits as much, as Dye quotes him in his book basically admitting this.  Further, Mike Young made my point, "By the way, I do enjoy JN work, especially the Jime Lipe projects."

Doak puts in Maxwell, Hunter and Russell as associates for MacKenzie's work. That's great, but why stop there? I don't see why this can't be done today for modern work.  Shouldn't standards be elevated? Why not some historical accuracy? It would be interesting to look back in 30, 50, 100 years to see which courses you had accomplished with Jack, or another architect and then perhaps your own? That would be interesting to study, and in the future someone most likely will (afterall, who would have ever thought there would be anything like GCA.com?) I think it is too bad more of this wasn't done in the past, but that is where modern architecture can improve drastically. No?

As for making the "same" decisions? No two minds work exactly alike, and with 50 projects and other business interests, you certainly have to make some decisions in the field...or?  Some Jack may not 100% agree with? Or Jim Lipe during his pass through the site before Jack arrives? This would represent your interpretation of his field notes or?

[Mike_Young]

Tony,
I think most architects give credit to associates and sincerely understand how critical the entire team is to the design effort but:......I think as long as the associate is signing the back of the check and not the front then the credit should go to the architect of record.  And I see no reason for the builder name to be on a scorecard but then I have one course where they put the chef's name in the yardage book...Now if a course wishes to have a plaque such as many buildings, then list all companies involved.

[Tom Soileau]

Tom,

It was Cabo. Palmilla & Cabo del Sol.  Casa de Campo was under construction at the same time (Dye Designs)
Contractor: Fairway...which had much of its staff gutted (50 plus people) by Paragon in 97 or so I believe.
My roomy was one of the shapers.
I was just a laborer.
The on-site associate...cannot remember, but he was trained with a bunch of others at the Ibis projects.

Quoting Tom: "It is amazing to me how you guys on this site worship Ross, Tillinghast, MacKenzie, but never ask the same kind of questions about how much time they spent on site.  It was fine for them to have associates that put their ideas into the earth, but not for the modern day architect."

If that was directed at me, reading any of my stuff from long past, you would find I do ask those questions.  I believe they should be asked. Why not? I believe there should be some improvement in accuracy of credit given. There are guys taking credit for work they have not accomplished...while the guys who really do the work...don't get the credit. Or guys who should get some credit don't. Can you agree on this? You don't feel you should have any credit on this project...fine.

The company has 50 projects on the go. Tournaments and other business interests. Family.  I'll let someone else do the math.

Tom, wouldn't it be interesting to see how different courses worked out with different associates (and builders...something the GCBAA is trying to achieve by having the company put on the scorecard)? Not all associates (or builders) are equal, and Nicklaus admits as much, as Dye quotes him in his book basically admitting this.  Further, Mike Young made my point, "By the way, I do enjoy JN work, especially the Jime Lipe projects."

Doak puts in Maxwell, Hunter and Russell as associates for MacKenzie's work. That's great, but why stop there? I don't see why this can't be done today for modern work.  Shouldn't standards be elevated? Why not some historical accuracy? It would be interesting to look back in 30, 50, 100 years to see which courses you had accomplished with Jack, or another architect and then perhaps your own? That would be interesting to study, and in the future someone most likely will (afterall, who would have ever thought there would be anything like GCA.com?) I think it is too bad more of this wasn't done in the past, but that is where modern architecture can improve drastically. No?

As for making the "same" decisions? No two minds work exactly alike, and with 50 projects and other business interests, you certainly have to make some decisions in the field...or?  Some Jack may not 100% agree with? Or Jim Lipe during his pass through the site before Jack arrives? This would represent your interpretation of his field notes or?

Tony,

You all find it so hard to believe that Jack could really be the one behind the quality of our courses. You and many others have mentioned Jim Lipe lately. I believe the reason Jim's jobs turn out so good is because of several reasons.  First, Jim is extremely talented and does an incredible job.  Second, Jim is the senior-most assiocate with the company and in turn usually gets the "cream of the crop" sites, but not always.  Third, Jim has been with Jack for 25+ years and more than anyone else, thinks like Jack.  He does what Jack wants and in turn produces great golf courses.  

Several people on this site, Matt Ward for one, have talked about how much better our work is becoming.  That is because Jack Nicklaus is changing and growing as an architect and we are growing with him.  Giving us credit is not what any of us want.  Of course Jack can't be there everyday and with the exception of the architect with one job, noone can.  I think even Mr. Doak will agree that as his firm has grown, he has not been able to be onsite as much as he would like and has to turn over some responsibility to his associates.  That is the nature of building a firm and working as a team.

The thing that agravates me about this site is how if the name Nicklaus, Fazio, Jones, others... is mentioned the thread is lost and it becomes a bashing contest.  I remember a recent thread about one of our courses in SC called May River.  That thread became more about The Secession than about May River and the quality of the course that Jack, Jim and Kurt Bowman created.  (Doug Graham, the talented shaper as well)  This thread was supposed to be about the impact of the contractor and in typical GCA fashion, has become something else.  

I love the concept of GCA.  I log on a couple of times a week to see if there is anything of interest that would help me in my job.  I open a few posts to see what they are about but usually lose interest after reading, again, about another dead architect, Golden Age course or bashing of some modern day architect.  I appreciate hearing from guys who are actively working in the buisiness like Jeff Brauer, Mike Young, Tom Doak and others, because they bring a sense of reality to this board.  I think more architects would contribute if you guys left out the bashing and talked a little more about reality.  I don't know, maybe you don't want that because this seems to be more of a club for the ones of you that love a certain type of course.

I understand that most of you love the Golden Age courses and the handful of architects that produce those type of courses today and that is your right.  But there are many, many, many golfers out there who don't necessarily like those types of courses and there are many, many architects that are producing great golf couses that aren't necessarily in the minimilist form.  That doesn't make those courses bad.  If the architect has produced what the owner wanted and the golfers who play those courses enjoy them, then they are good golf courses.  

Anyway, enough of my babbling.  I need to get into the field and do some work.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom S:

You are correct that I don't always get to stay on site as long as I want to, and that I am letting my associates have more input into the finished product as time goes on.  That's my choice, of course ... I would rather do the routing and the editing for 3-4 courses per year than shaping every last square inch of one course per year, but I've been able to make that choice because I'm confident that my associates are doing excellent work, sometimes even better work than I would have done myself.

Another key is that some of them are VERY fast as shapers ... so in the case of a project like St. Andrews Beach, all of the greens could be shaped in my presence, even though I was only there for two ten-day visits during construction.

It's interesting to hear the perspectives of different architects on this topic, and I hope we hear more.  

To get back to your original question, ABSOLUTELY the golf course contractor has an impact on the finished product, but my goal as a designer is not to have to rely on them for the quality of detail work, but to control that stuff myself.  

In the end, I have yet to meet a golf course contractor that really wanted to stay out there all weekend to get a green just right.  You can get them to do it if they consider you important and they want to work for you again, and occasionally you come across an individual working for the contractor that really wants to make the course as good as he possibly can ... but he's usually getting an earful from his supervisor to just get the damn thing finished so they can get out of there with some money in their pockets.  Since you are working for Jack you probably hear less resistance from the contractors than others have to deal with.

I am a great believer in the value of shaping work but I think that some people are mesmerized by the work of a certain shaper or two and do not realize how many talented guys there are out there ... I've got several on my payroll, so they can't be that scarce.  And every one of my guys would say that the finish work is just as important as the shaping to the final product; that's how we pick which contractors we'll talk to.

[George Pazin]

The thing that agravates me about this site is how if the name Nicklaus, Fazio, Jones, others... is mentioned the thread is lost and it becomes a bashing contest.  I remember a recent thread about one of our courses in SC called May River.  That thread became more about The Secession than about May River and the quality of the course that Jack, Jim and Kurt Bowman created.  (Doug Graham, the talented shaper as well)  This thread was supposed to be about the impact of the contractor and in typical GCA fashion, has become something else.  

I love the concept of GCA.  I log on a couple of times a week to see if there is anything of interest that would help me in my job.  I open a few posts to see what they are about but usually lose interest after reading, again, about another dead architect, Golden Age course or bashing of some modern day architect.  I appreciate hearing from guys who are actively working in the buisiness like Jeff Brauer, Mike Young, Tom Doak and others, because they bring a sense of reality to this board.  I think more architects would contribute if you guys left out the bashing and talked a little more about reality.  I don't know, maybe you don't want that because this seems to be more of a club for the ones of you that love a certain type of course.

Hi Tom -

I hope that you do keep posting, even if it means telling many of us that we are full of shit!

In defense of the group, many times it is simply a misconception of how things are done. But without the input of architects such  as yourself, how are we to really know how things get done? In my business, screen printing apparel, one fo the first things I do with any prospective client is explain the process to him. I think you would agree it is only natural for someone who is not familiar with the process to assume it is absolutely vital to have the architect present at all times. Similarly, I'm sure many think we're actually sticking up for guys like you when name architects are dismissed in favor of their associates who appear to be doing all of the work. But, as you say, the most successful associates are so because they act effectively as proxies for the head architect.

I hope you bear with us in our misconceptions and continue to share the realistic side of the business with us. I have always believed the biggest reason Tom D & some of the others get the "favoritism" shown by many is that they actually share things with us and participate on the board. It sounds like Jim Lipe has benefitted from this recently, and there is really no reason more shouldn't avail themselves of the opportunity to set the record straight.

Thanks again for your input.

[Mike_Young]

Tom S,
Do not take my mentioning Jim Lipe as designing a JN course as a slap at JN.  Personally I think JN really does work at his designs.  I can't say I feel the same for all professional golfers.  
I know how hard it is to  get the good sites, good clients and good budgets.  Being associated with JN brings all of that to the table and is a plus for any associate.
You are correct in what you say of your May River post.  That is a fine project but people will continue to take such post and turn them because they do not know how to respond.  Don't let it bother you.  Many have never even seen the courses they are discussing.  And ...then a few say something you can store for future reference.
Any associate that can align with a Signature architect should definitely take advantage just because of the contacts, budgets and sites.  My only concern would be how long does one stay?  As some of the signatures of the past 20 years fade into the sunset what will the associates do?  They either make a living as an "expert renovator" of the signature courses or they have to hang out a new shingle.  
Man, I got off track.
Mike

[Bruce Katona]

I, too would like to put in a plug for Earthforce.  Sid and Gordy did a wonderful job with me on a renovation we did in NJ.  We sodded a green in early December.  It still is the best on the course. They are gentlemen and a pleasure to work with.  Additionally, they brought the work in on time and on our budget.  Gordy is a fantastic shaper.  The work they did at Morris County Golf Club is very, very good.

Anyone looking for a golf course contractor should consider Earthforce.

[Mike Nuzzo]

As some of the signatures of the past 20 years fade into the sunset what will the associates do?  

Mike
Will the value of the signature fade that much.  I'd guess that a "JN" designed course will always be sought after.  People still buy Fords - well not Fords - but you get my drift.
Cheers

[Mike_Young]

Mike,
I think it goes away completely.  Just like a dead artist.  People know someone else is doing the work.  We don't see any Ben Hogan courses being sold to realestate developers do we.
JMO.
Mike

[Tags:]

Tags: