[Don_Mahaffey]

Yesterday I was walking a few holes with the owner of the course Mike Nuzzo and I are building. Throughout the building process I’ve attempted to get input from the owner as it is his personal course and I want to be sure he is happy with what we build. But, he never really responds with anything more than something like “I trust you to build me something outrageously good” I mean the most input he’s had is to ask us to leave a tree or two that we might otherwise remove…and that’s it. And, I believe the course will be outrageously good. Mike has had a free hand to design what he wants and my mandate on the building side of things has simply been to do it right, take my time, and use as much of our own resources as possible. For example, early on we thought about bringing in one of the famous bunker gurus, but before we did that I suggested to Mike that we build a few and see how they turn out. We practiced a bit, found the look and a building technique that worked, and built all the bunkers in house at a tremendous savings to the client and great satisfaction to me. But, without a client who encouraged us to try and do as much ourselves as possible, we would have never taken the risk.

So as we celebrate great design and designers, shouldn’t we really be celebrating the folks who dream up the projects in the first place? Isn’t C & C’s real talent the fact that they only work for the right type of client? Isn’t picking the right job even more important then what you design? The architect and builders are very important, but it’s the dreamers who start the process and see it through who deserve most of the credit.

[Tom_Doak]

Don:

I'm not sure whether to agree with you or not there.  Certainly, every architect tries to pick clients who will let him use his talents.  But is Bill Coore's real talent just cherry-picking clients who see things his way?  I think there's more to it than that ... and I also think it's good to have an occasional client who challenges you to get outside your comfort zone.

[Eric_Terhorst]

Don,

I would think it's important to have "dreamers" who have good taste, knowledge of the game and great courses, not too much ego, and ability to work WITH other creative people.  In my personal experience, for example, Mike Keiser and Rupert & Jim O'Neal seem to have those qualities, not based on knowing them personally, but based on what they accomplished.  In contrast, consider what Donald Trump's taste and ego would bring to what is apparently a fantastic property in Scotland.  It's uncertain, at best (again, not based on knowing him, but based on his accomplishments to date).

Isn't another example Michael Pascucci, and Sebonack?  He decided well into the project to enhance the design TEAM.  He had the audacious thought that he could motivate all these highly creative, strong-willed people to work together, and the team apparently produced a superior result.    

And what about the people who grease the wheels of commerce to get permits for a project?

Seems like it's the team of owner-designers-shapers-bureaucratwranglers-etc. that deserve credit, not just the owner who deserves "most" of the credit.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Tom,
I was hoping you would respond.
Cherry picking sites and clients does seem to be the MO of C & C...or are you telling me that with their record the phone only rings once a year?
I don't think a client needs to be totally hands-off, but it is nice when they know what they don't know. I can tell you that the worst owner I ever worked for was a very successful (financially) Harvard grad who thought he could outwit mother nature.

As successful as you have been I'm guessing your choosy about who you will work for...that's sort of what I'm getting at...that it's almost impossible to have a great project (lets just use long-term top 100 in someone’s rag as a definition of great) with the wrong client.

Eric,
Yes, I also believe it’s all about the team and I’m hurt you left the Super off your list of team members, but it’s the leader of the team who ultimately makes it happen…even if it means he hires someone else to manage the team.

[Kalen Braley]

Don,

In the case of C&C, its my understanding that they only want to work on 1-2 courses at a time, so they can really devote thier time and enregy in "finding" the best layout possible.  So if they get 10 offers, why wouldn't they pick the "best" 2 sites of which to put a course on?  I don't see that as cherry picking at all.

[Eric_Terhorst]

Don,

Of course you're correct that the Superintendent should be included in the list of important team members.  I apologize profusely.

But if you're anticipating that the owner is always the leader of the team, you may be disappointed.

[Don_Mahaffey]

 Eric,
I was giving you a hard time about the super deal...I'm not that sensitive, so no need to apologize.
I've been involved in a half dozen golf ventures and although in most the owner didn't call the shots on a day-to-day basis, the buck did stop with him.
It's a little like a sports franchise; there are a lot of cases where the owner is out of the limelight but he usually does hire people to run the show who will operate in a manner he is comfortable with. I wouldn't sell the top dog short.

Kalen,
Picking the best cherries is not a negative. My point is that I'm making an assumption that picking clients who create an environment for success is almost as important, maybe even more, than picking a great site.

[Kalen Braley]

Fair enough Don,

I would certainly agree that yes the site can make a huge difference.  I guess there would be very few architects who wouldn't just froth at the mouth to get a chance to work on the land at Bandon Resort, Nebraska Sand Hills, or on Long Island somewhere.

Hey it worked for phil jackson in the NBA right?  Why go to a rebuilding team if you can go to a contender and get a crack at the championship?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()