News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Did he really compare himself to Michelangelo?
« Reply #75 on: May 22, 2007, 05:04:42 PM »
John, Point well taken. :)
Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

john_stiles

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Did he really compare himself to Michelangelo?
« Reply #76 on: May 22, 2007, 05:26:53 PM »
I don't see the hype and descriptions of new courses changing anytime soon.  It has been used since the early 1900s or so.

Does anyone believe the hype ?

Ulrich Mayring

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Did he really compare himself to Michelangelo?
« Reply #77 on: May 22, 2007, 05:28:59 PM »
Greg Norman certainly follows a great tradition: Willie Park Junior used to say about every site he inspected, that it is the best site he ever saw. When he was done he invariably called the course the finest in the country.

Ulrich
Golf Course Exposé (300+ courses reviewed), Golf CV (how I keep track of 'em)

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Did he really compare himself to Michelangelo?
« Reply #78 on: May 22, 2007, 05:35:44 PM »
Even though such remarks don't bother me...isn't such a remark to be expected when you hire based on your marketing draw more than your architectural abilities......face it...none of these big fees of the "signatures" are for their architecture....they are for the "value added" element of the project.....so they better say some stuff......
NOW dont say I am slamming his work...no....just saying that the fee is not for design as much as it is for name.....
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Did he really compare himself to Michelangelo?
« Reply #79 on: May 22, 2007, 05:58:34 PM »
What bothers me about all these new signature courses with their marketing quotes is that the designers never really say anything about them at all.  Norman compares his process to that of Michelangelo but he doesn't tell you the third hole is one of his favorites that he's done or that the views are exceptional or that the bunkers are similar to Royal Melbourne which he admires; it's all generic and impersonal and the architects don't seem to be even remotely invested in the work they've just done.  It's all just posturing.

Can't disagree with that. The marketing of new courses DOES seem awfully generic, which leads to the obvious question - is the architecture as generic as the hype........?


Combining Mike Youngs comments with this - yes probably.

Of course, I have seen more courses than most and at some point, the differences aren't that big.  There are probably 25 designers out there who could match the design quality of the bigs, and perhaps another 25 who could nearly match it.

On the other hand, you sell gca jobs by convincing people in charge that you are 100% different from other gca's - hence the over the top marketing and presentation comments.  You just can't convey that you are a modest 1% better than the rest.

In reality, some one like Tom Doak who mostly has become successful through different design style probably is 10% different from the rest - granted there is no real way to quantify "differences in design".  Even so, if there were, I suppose that would be double the difference of , say Palmer Design Group and other gca names and the rest of us.

As Mike says, GN and the others are hired because they are presumed to sell real estate and/or memberships.  I wish there were better quantifications of that, because I don't entirely buy it.  What developers are really buying is confidence, and the knowledge that they made a safe, in expensive choice.

Only a few gca's are selected by passionate owners with a preference for a certain design style.  And those are often those new to the biz.  I saw a survey once saying that designers are hired the first time for creativity.  If rehired, they are hired for familarity and confidence they will get the job done.

Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Ken_Cotner

Re:Did he really compare himself to Michelangelo?
« Reply #80 on: May 22, 2007, 05:59:20 PM »
In all of art my favourite quote is from Lou Reed.  After the surprise success of 1988's "New York" the great one was quoted "Joyce had Dublin, I've got New York."


I send the lyrics, and sometimes the recording, from "Beginning Of A Great Adventure" to friends who are pregnant for the first time.  Sadly at my age, those opportunities are becoming rare...

Ken

Mike Sweeney

Re:Did he really compare himself to Michelangelo?
« Reply #81 on: May 22, 2007, 08:45:44 PM »
I think I have more of a background in writing about golf courses than most architects, and I am always trying to stay ahead of the curve and say something different ... but it's got to be something meaningful, too.

Be honest; if I had used the same quote as Norman you would have skewered me for it.  Somebody has to call b.s. on this practice or it's never going to stop.  You're welcome to call me on things whenever you feel the need, but you are not welcome to tell me to stop posting on any subject.  As for other architects, if they avoid this place because they think it's my fan club, it's their loss.  (Or their gain ... the jury is still out on that one!)

1. Of course I would have called you on referring to Michelangelo. If it wasn't for you and Jaka my own double standards might become more obvious! ;)

2. I NEVER did nor would I tell you to stop posting on any subject. I simply pointed out your double standard.

3. You can't pull out the 'background in writing' when it is convenient. Who wants to hear Norman pull out the "my life as a Major winner" when he screws up a hole. Tom, you appear to be an incredibly focused individual. If I had to guess you are a INTJ on the Myers Briggs scale: http://www.typelogic.com/intj.html (this is a complement) and it puts you in spots at times. For that reason, you are not even close to being a writer. Writing was simply a path to architecture for you and it worked.

« Last Edit: May 22, 2007, 08:54:27 PM by Mike Sweeney »

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re:Did he really compare himself to Michelangelo?
« Reply #82 on: May 22, 2007, 09:00:46 PM »
Well you have my personality type down pretty well anyway.  But, writing was not a means to an architectural end ... it has always been a hobby that I enjoy, and this is one place to get it out of my system.

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Did he really compare himself to Michelangelo?
« Reply #83 on: May 22, 2007, 09:02:43 PM »
Tom,

I'm sure the legions here would love for you to get it out of your system by writing the Making of Pacific Dunes...   ;D

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re:Did he really compare himself to Michelangelo?
« Reply #84 on: May 22, 2007, 09:05:16 PM »
Kalen:

The book is written, I've let several people read the manuscript and make suggestions.  The time-consuming part is putting together the photos and diagrams to go with the text, but Larry Lambrecht was just out there, so I could get the process moving again soon.

Don_Mahaffey

Re:Did he really compare himself to Michelangelo?
« Reply #85 on: May 22, 2007, 09:23:47 PM »
"In reality, some one like Tom Doak who mostly has become successful through different design style probably is 10% different from the rest - granted there is no real way to quantify "differences in design".  Even so, if there were, I suppose that would be double the difference of , say Palmer Design Group and other gca names and the rest of us."

Jeff,
At the fear of being called a "butt boy" you need to come down to the coast of TX and see what PDG did to some coastal property and imagine what Doak's group would have done. I'm guessing even you would say it's a bit more than 10% difference.

John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Did he really compare himself to Michelangelo?
« Reply #86 on: May 23, 2007, 12:19:46 AM »
My father's first job out of college was a salesmen's position at a large electric company in Cleveland, selling large power generators.  Although he made good money at it, he left the company a few years later.  He felt it was very difficult to be completely honest in his customer relationships.  A customer asks a question, "Can the generator do this?", and it would be hard to say no, thus separating the customer's best interests from his own selfish desire to make the sale and commission.

He then went on to a long and successful career working at a physics laboratory, which only paid modestly, but gave him great personal satisfaction.  As a result of his own experience, he encouraged me to pursue a career in science instead of business.  I took the advice to heart, and muddled through a modestly successful career as an engineer for many years.  However, I inherited the strong desire to live with a clear conscience and be truthful.

I love funny commercials, but I despise any sort of deception in marketing.  The world is so full of deceptive (and insidious) advertising these days.  In my mind, the real moral deterioration in American society is the extent which capitalistic greed has taken over.  It's getting hard to trust anybody who tries to sell you something.

For instance, almost everybody thinks glucosamine/chondroitin helps relieve the pain of osteoarthritis.  It doesn't work.

To clarify, whether Greg Norman or, more likely, the ad wizards, decided that Greg's work at Cornerstone is worthy of comparison to Michelangelo, it's stupid modern bullshit advertising.

The most compelling aspect of GolfClubAtlas, and virtually all of its members, is the honesty.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Did he really compare himself to Michelangelo?
« Reply #87 on: May 23, 2007, 01:19:54 AM »
"In reality, some one like Tom Doak who mostly has become successful through different design style probably is 10% different from the rest - granted there is no real way to quantify "differences in design".  Even so, if there were, I suppose that would be double the difference of , say Palmer Design Group and other gca names and the rest of us."

Jeff,
At the fear of being called a "butt boy" you need to come down to the coast of TX and see what PDG did to some coastal property and imagine what Doak's group would have done. I'm guessing even you would say it's a bit more than 10% difference.

Don,

Not sure about that.  While I haven't really fleshed out any comparison system, nor do I intend to, lets take a look at how similar golf courses are.  

If you are talking bunkers, there is scale, location, shaping, depth, edge treatment, etc.  The only thing really really different is the edge treatment that say, CC do vs. PDG.  That's a 90-95% similarity on what may amount to 10% of a course evaluation.  Thus, as much as we focus on bunkering, it really only makes the course 0.5% different.  

Ditto greens, routing, etc.

Granted, all the little differences add up and we all have our favorite courses and fave architects because of the little differences.  However, I think most courses are more similar than they are different, and that was my point.  If that is bad news, then the good news is that it only takes a little change or improvement in design style to truly stand out in the field.  

And, in a nice twist of irony, that would most likely be accomplished by......standing out in the field!
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Tim Bert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Did he really compare himself to Michelangelo?
« Reply #88 on: May 23, 2007, 01:32:59 AM »
Tom,

I'm sure the legions here would love for you to get it out of your system by writing the Making of Pacific Dunes...   ;D

I was hopeful in 2003 that I would see this book in time for my second trip in 2005.  Alas, the promise of the book has been strung out long enough that I'm not even going to be able to read it in preparation of my encore return in 2007.   :'(

It's the only Doak publication that is harder to come by than The Confidential Guide.  He could go direct-to-ebay with the book and make a fortune!

Mark_F

Re:Did he really compare himself to Michelangelo?
« Reply #89 on: May 23, 2007, 01:53:53 AM »
Of course Greggy is being disingenuous.

He is comparing his methods, and perhaps the end result, of something he is creating with one of the great artists of all time.  

Maybe what he has created is worthy of such adulation, but if it isn't, Norman's stature is still going to ensure that his work may be viewed as a masterpiece, and doesn't that set back architecture by instilling the belief in people that those types of courses are the real deal?

Rich Goodale

Re:Did he really compare himself to Michelangelo?
« Reply #90 on: May 23, 2007, 02:49:08 AM »
I'm pretty sure that in his response to the RFP from the Medicis, Big Mic compared himself to the best of the Etruscans.

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Did he really compare himself to Michelangelo?
« Reply #91 on: May 23, 2007, 04:23:55 AM »
Greg Normans quote was just a trite little sound bite.....one of the kind of comparisons I ignore or gloss over as they have so little relevance to what was actually created.

I expect I would feel the same way in Michelangelo's time upon hearing the original quote.

I find reading Toms original critique and his defense of it to be vastly more interesting and thought provoking.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2007, 04:30:36 AM by paul cowley »
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

TEPaul

Re:Did he really compare himself to Michelangelo?
« Reply #92 on: May 23, 2007, 07:27:50 AM »
Who was the architect, who, when one of his courses was praised to the High Heavens, apparently didn't admit to agreeing with that description but merely said he felt the course might be the least bad he ever did?

That's my kind of architect and remark.

Have you ever noticed how really good humor appropriately applied in golf architecture or about it may represent things that really endure?

That's why I love Brian Silva---eg he may be the funniest architect in the world.

If you call him up and ask him what he's been doing he may say something like he's spent the last several months in Maine designing and building the best 427sf ladies tee the world has ever seen or is ever likely to see.

Don_Mahaffey

Re:Did he really compare himself to Michelangelo?
« Reply #93 on: May 23, 2007, 07:35:41 AM »
Jeff,
I haven't seen Doak take any sandy, coastal property and completely ignore the surrounding terrain and build 30 ft+ containment mounds between most holes.
I'm looking at the macro site work, not how the bunker edge work is being done, and I'm in no doubt that there is a very large difference between what is being done and what could have been.

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Did he really compare himself to Michelangelo?
« Reply #94 on: May 23, 2007, 09:55:47 AM »
Michelangelo once said, 'I saw the angel in the marble and carved until I set him free.'

That's very interesting. I didn't even know that Michelangelo spoke English!

I did some additional research, and learned that, in his spare time, Michelangelo was a hobbyist winemaker -- once quoted as saying (in Italian; I've translated it for you): "I saw the wine in the grape and stomped until I set it free."

------------- Haven't read the rest of this thread, yet, but do wonder, of the architects here present: If you were FORCED to compare yourself with some artist, which artist would you choose?
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Matt_Ward

Re:Did he really compare himself to Michelangelo?
« Reply #95 on: May 23, 2007, 11:38:14 AM »
Just a quick thought ...

1). All architects have egos -- the bigger the size of their portfolio the bigger the ego becomes.

2). Individual architects see their work as the real "connector" what the game should be about. They view most others as nothing more than interlopes who simply "don't get it."

Once you understand the first two aspects I just mentioned you can then see where the quote fits.

I don't plan my golf visits on the nature of PR and other collateral hype. I take it for what it is -- self promotion and ego boosting. When I make an actual visit I soon find out if the rubber meets the road. ;)

CHrisB

Re:Did he really compare himself to Michelangelo?
« Reply #96 on: May 23, 2007, 12:15:25 PM »
I did some additional research, and learned that, in his spare time, Michelangelo was a hobbyist winemaker -- once quoted as saying (in Italian; I've translated it for you): "I saw the wine in the grape and stomped until I set it free."

Dan Kelly,

That's a good one (thanks for the research and the translation)!

I'm sure we all know plenty of golfers who seemingly before teeing off "saw the 105 in the scorecard and hooked, sliced, chopped, topped, three-jacked, shanked and foozled until they set it free"...

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Did he really compare himself to Michelangelo?
« Reply #97 on: May 23, 2007, 12:51:29 PM »
"In reality, some one like Tom Doak who mostly has become successful through different design style probably is 10% different from the rest - granted there is no real way to quantify "differences in design".  Even so, if there were, I suppose that would be double the difference of , say Palmer Design Group and other gca names and the rest of us."

Jeff,
At the fear of being called a "butt boy" you need to come down to the coast of TX and see what PDG did to some coastal property and imagine what Doak's group would have done. I'm guessing even you would say it's a bit more than 10% difference.

Don,

Not sure about that.  While I haven't really fleshed out any comparison system, nor do I intend to, lets take a look at how similar golf courses are.

If you are talking bunkers, there is scale, location, shaping, depth, edge treatment, etc.  The only thing really really different is the edge treatment that say, CC do vs. PDG.  That's a 90-95% similarity on what may amount to 10% of a course evaluation.  Thus, as much as we focus on bunkering, it really only makes the course 0.5% different.  

Ditto greens, routing, etc.

Granted, all the little differences add up and we all have our favorite courses and fave architects because of the little differences.  However, I think most courses are more similar than they are different, and that was my point.  If that is bad news, then the good news is that it only takes a little change or improvement in design style to truly stand out in the field.  

And, in a nice twist of irony, that would most likely be accomplished by......standing out in the field!

Sorry Jeff, I'm not letting you get off this easy. See my new thread shortly.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Did he really compare himself to Michelangelo?
« Reply #98 on: May 23, 2007, 04:10:39 PM »
I'm glad I took way too much time to read this whole long thread.  I must say, I find a lot of truth and irony in so many of the comments.  

To me there is an element of cognitive dissonance, in that I really personally think TD 'may' be the greatest living GCA and have said as much.  To TDs credit, he immediately and privately responded to ask me to take that down, as I remember.  Yet, I also agree very much with Mike Sweeney's first post which showed great independence and perspective regarding TDs posting this in the first place as double standard material.

For the record, I understand GNs statement the way some have stated that he was likening the process of melting down the land to a golf hole (of seeing the angel in the stone and carving down to it) not the specifically the quality of the result as comparable to the great works of Michelangelo.

I tend to believe the biography of Giorgio Vasari when contemplating the authenticity of Michelangelo and his works and times.  To insinuate that he didn't create the works (with shop understudies only to aid in administration of the mundane aspects) is an error in history an understanding of art, IMHO.  

And, no GCA has anything much to relate to by comparison to the great renaissance masters, IMO.  How many GCAs now or in the golden era had patrons or critics so powerful as to have you declared as a heretic and potentially imprisoned or burned or boiled if you created something outside of the dogma?  

Reading the "Lives of the Artists" by Vasari, or an autobiography such as that of Benvenuto Cellini should illuminate particularly to JK that not much is comparable in terms of the conditions the art is now created. (not even Mapplethorp's controversy)

BTW II, in cognitive dissonance: I have long turned away from my upbringing and cultural heritage of the RCC and renounce the institution; yet literally trembled when I stood before the David at L' Galleria dell'Accademia in Firenze or before La Pietà (even behind the glass) at St Peter's.  I believe such greatness in art transcends mere religious conviction.
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Did he really compare himself to Michelangelo?
« Reply #99 on: May 23, 2007, 04:19:45 PM »
I have long turned away from my upbringing and cultural heritage of the RCC...

My first thought was: Easier said than done.

My second: Easily said, not possibly done.
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016