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.


TEPaul

Re: Architectural "shapers" and "detail men" supre
« Reply #25 on: April 05, 2002, 08:49:32 AM »
TomD:

Sorry about not naming your guys--I do know who they are--sort of--I'm just really bad on names and worse on spelling, so I didn't want to botch their names. But if they were all the ones at Pacific Dunes-- it's just great stuff they did, certainly some of the very best I've ever seen.

Did you mean my list was really short-sighted, or just short? I only do know about 3-4 firms and the guys who work for them. I didn't see any reason to speculate about people who I don't know and whose work I've never laid eyes on or even heard great things about indirectly--except for that one guy that one of his competitors (who is considered one of the best shapers and handwork guys anywhere) just happened to say was awesome--an unbelievably natural talent.

Interesting about MacDonald & Co, and the shaper you mentioned. I think there's a good MacDonald shaper at Aronomink right now too.

But I've got to ask you--has MacDonald & Co. ever had anyone working for them that you've ever heard of who does any real detailed, rugged, natural looking handwork or not? Or does MacDonald and Co just not go in for that kind of thing?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Architectural "shapers" and "detail men" supre
« Reply #26 on: April 05, 2002, 09:01:29 AM »
Randy Trull:

Thanks very much for sharing your experience at Shadow Creek.

Don't worry about rambling on.  We are delighted to hear from people with first hand experience on such projects.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Tim Weiman

TEPaul

Re: Architectural "shapers" and "detail men" supre
« Reply #27 on: April 05, 2002, 10:47:08 AM »
Randy Trull:

Thanks so much for that really informative post on shaping, what it takes, what goes through a shaper's mind and eye, their backgrounds, various talents, etc.

As Tim Weiman said we get too little of the kind of post like yours. And I sure do agree with you that the shapers and also the real "detail men", if that's even called for, are the real unsung heroes of golf architecture. It doesn't take much more than to very carefully study the photographs in Geoff Shackelford's book on Cypress Point right out of the box in 1928 to begin to understand that!

There are a lot of contributors on here, not in the business at all but who really love architecture, who study it all the time and really know it well, can recognize it very well, the way it should play when really right, and the way it should look too when really right, maybe even be good at visualizing really good and interesting architectural concepts (but without the technical knowledge of how to make it and make it function properly with things like drainage etc and other technical issues), but they wouldn't have any idea how to even turn on a dozer or any of the other equipment so essential to create the architecture of a golf course.

So it's really good for those people to hear what goes through the minds and eyes of those that do make it, like the shapers. It's good too for those people who make it to hear all the things that go through the minds and eyes of those that don't make it but love to play it and study it and look at it and just plain love all things golf architecture.

I really do have to scratch my head sometime when I see someone who has never had a golf club in his hand in his life or probably not thought more than a half hour about how the game is played making a golf course, particularly with machinery, both heavy machinery, light machinery, all the way down to hand done detail work. Paarticularly frightening when architects, even assistants aren't around all that much.

Extremely interesting story about the creation of Shadow Creek and particularly the input of Steve Wynn. Wynn is no doubt one of the world's premiere creators of fantasy! There probably is very little he doesn't know about it. Things I'm sure I might never imagine.

And I in no way mean to be negative about the creation of fantasy, even things like Las Vegas, Atlantic City or a course that looks like Shadow Creek does once your inside it or on it despite the fact that it's in the Nevada desert that looks so vastly different naturally.

Obviously Wynn was really good at translating a vision of fantasy to Fazio and on down to the designers, shapers and others, probably every single detail of it, probably something like Ken Bakst just did in long Island with Coore and Crenshaw with all the thought and detail it took to create a golf course, but there one that fit in beautifully with what it was built on and even what's outside it and around it!

So I've got to ask you Randy, since you're obviously a man of talent, a great eye and maybe vision--would it have been possible to create a golf course right there where Shadow Creek is that looks like where it is and what's all around it that would have worked really great for golf and been good to look at too but as something that seemed like it really belonged in a desert instead of in the foothills of North Carolina or some place like that?

Obviously I'm probably talking about moving about 1/100 of the material that was moved at Shadow Creek. I've seen some really good aerials of Shadow Creek as well as a lot of on course photos and the juxtaposition of what it is compared to where it is is one of the starkest constrasts I've ever seen in golf architecture. I can see that the dead flat desert floor and the unattractive grid roads around it are definitely not good looking, but the mountains not far off are--and the flat vs curved lines that blend the two together overall probably are too!

I'm not criticizing it for that Randy, just asking you if you think it would have been possible to build something there, maybe that looked more like a Nevada Cowboy town or something than the NC foothills that could have worked great for golf. Something probably real low profile, probably with no trees that could have blended out the grid roads and transitioned the desert floor into the mountains somehow in its construction. Maybe even try to use some colors throughout the course that blended better to Nevada's nature.

Forget for a moment that that wasn't what Wynn wanted to do. Just think if he did want to do that. Do you think it could have been done? Do you have some vision of how that might have been created from a shaper's point of view? And lastly do you have a sense that golfers would have accepted it, even the high rolling golfers that probably use Shadow Creek?

It still could have been what Wynn's good at, fantasy--just an entirely different looking fantasy, like maybe the wild desert West that it really is.



« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:04 PM by -1 »

SPDB

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Architectural "shapers" and "detail men" supre
« Reply #28 on: April 05, 2002, 11:18:16 AM »
Tom - (and this may be getting off the pt. somewhat) what I have always found interesting about Shadow Creek is how the architecture actually does tie in, or, in some way is dictated by, its horizon of mountains.

The story as I have heard is that Steve Wynn when organizing SC for himself, and his high rollers, he impressed upon Fazio that the surrounding mountains had to figure strategically into the course. Wynn has a degenerative disorder causing his eysight to diminish on an almost daily basis. He lacks the ability to make out depth, and so each hole was designed to take advantage of a particular form that appeared on the far off mountains. For example, a greensite might appear from the tee to sit right where two mountains in the distance overlap, creating a visual guide in the distance that figures as a strategic guide to the hole.

I always thought this was an interesting visual technique and it does seem to square with Fazio's dramatic aesthetic presentation of his golf holes. CErtainly this is a technique that could be put to equal, or better use on a flat site that also featured the dramatic mountain chain background - as you suggest in your post.  

Take a look at how the mountain range in this picture falls toward the hole, and how the hole seems to mimic the range, as it moves or gently falls from right to left. This may just be another annoying example of "eye candy" but it is striking nevertheless:



Randy - I wonder as a shaper, if this visual objective at all dictated your work. Did it hamstring you? make it more exciting? clearly you had no real existing land structures to consider, so maybe it didn't - but I'm still curious.

Thanks for coming on, we appreciate your input.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Architectural "shapers" and "detail men" supre
« Reply #29 on: April 05, 2002, 12:12:11 PM »
Sean:

That's very interesting about Wynn's ideas of visual references and extremely interesting about his eyes and his eye disorder which I did hear about years ago.

Clearly there is nothing about Shadow Creek that missed a detail, that's for sure--from Wynn, Fazio and now from Randy Trull too. I'm sure there's very little about Wynn that would miss a detail about almost anything--that sure is a big part of his business anyway.

I hope I don't sound critical of Shadow Creek the way it is, I don't mean to be and that is an interesing photo you put up. It does look like an oasis to me though but even oases are very stark contrasts to their surroundings, but they are real and natural I guess.

I'm asking Randy Trull about that entirely different look I mentioned above, again, not to be critical of Shadow Creek, but because I really want to hear what he thinks about the possibility of that from a guy who builds courses.

I certainly do understand what he said about the raw site, 4' of elevation change (that cannot even be detected by the eye, btw, on 400 acres), arrow straight roads on all four sides on a flat sandy rocky desert floor. All that is a real challenge--absolutely a blank canvas on which to actually work, in other words!

But artistically trying something very low profile out there, maybe without trees, maybe could be an interesting challenge too. If you've ever seen an aerial of Shadow Creek it looks like it's probably 4-5 miles from the site to the mountains.

I'm no artist but would it have been possible on 400 acres (that's a big site for a golf course) for Randy & crew to take out visually whatever there was that was unattractive between the course and the mountains with one of the lowest grade basic "berming" effects anyone ever heard of, as an example, that itself would be imperceptible to the eye (the berming) and in that way bring the mountains closer to the course (to the eye) on a low profile golf course?

That just sounds like a cool architectural and artistic challenge too and don't forget Wynn spent a ton of money on Shadow Creek anyway. He doubtlessly could have saved enough if this idea could have been pulled off and if he still wanted fantasy or something, Hell he could have hired the entire Apache Tribe all day every day for the rest of time to look like they were about to attack or something way out on the flanks of the low profile course. He could have even hired Custer and the cavalry for the rest of time with the savings!

It might have been a great course too and site natural to boot, and even the fantasy could be there which I know would make Wynn happy. Can't you just see Gib Papazian out there? For his $500 or $1000 greenfee when he saw those Apaches he'd probably be tearing across the desert in his soft spikes with his 1 iron trying to annihilate those Apaches before Custer could beat him to it!

It coulda been even greater, fantasy and all and site natural too. They mighta even got me to go all the way out there and cough up at least $10 of my Quaker money just to look at it!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

SPDB

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Architectural "shapers" and "detail men" supre
« Reply #30 on: April 05, 2002, 12:40:20 PM »
Tom - I definitely hear what you're saying. I think an  interesting exercise would be to build a course right next door (and I mean right next door ) in the style and manner you propose, which could serve as the "ultimate contrast" to shadow creek. Can you imagine a contiguous presentation that would be basically the two extremes of style.

A fantasy/reality 36 hole complex.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

RTrull

Re: Architectural "shapers" and "detail men" supre
« Reply #31 on: April 05, 2002, 12:51:24 PM »
I must say, I'm impressed by your comments and by the fact you "picked up on" exactly what the design intent was at Shadow Creek. First of all, the answer to the first post is yes, there is no question that SC could have been designed to reflect a different (and some would say, a more appropriate) style of course in that setting. But I think you have to remember, at the time we were building SC, Wynn was also building the Mirage, and the idea there was to create a "mirage" in the desert. There are several desert-style courses created both before, and after, SC but I don't think there's anything that approaches the unique character of SC in Las Vegas. That was the whole concept, to do something that is completely unexpected in that setting. An Arizona-style course would certainly have cost less to build, but that was not the objective. I mentioned to Wynn once during construction, that it seemed that the cost of the course we were building was a bit crazy, and his response was that I was working on what would be the most profitable golf course I would ever work on. How? Simply by virtue of the fact that, for the first 2-3 years after it opened SC was played by "invitation only", and the only way to get that invitation was to stay at the Mirage and place enough money "at risk" in the casino to get Wynn's attention. That meant not gambling with thousands, or tens of thousands, but hundreds of thousands of dollars at the Mirage. It was my understanding that SC averaged less than 10 (not a typo), 10 rounds of play per day for the first 18 months after it was opened, and it was paid off (indirectly) within a year after it opened. That's in excess of $50,000,000 dollars!

Insofar as the horizon lines tying-in to the mountains in the distance, that's an extremely astute observation, and I'm very pleased to say that was our intent. All the shapers on the project were encouraged to take the mountain horizons into account, and try to "shadow" that effect. We often would sit up at the tees in the evening (maybe having a brew or two) and talk about where we needed to lower or raise the horizon lines in order to mirror the mountains in the distance. Of course, much of this was lost, or at least made difficult to percieve now because of the tremendous number of trees planted on the slopes later on. But I'm gratified to hear that someone, who obviously appreciates the nuances of golf design, picked up on that and that we were, at least to some degree, successful in achieving that objective.

Did I find it restrictive or limiting? No, I must say that, as a shaper, the objective is to satisfy the intent of the architect. After all, the architect gets paid big dollars for his vision, and rightly so. But, a shaper puts his stamp on any hole every day, and they know it...The analogy I use is that you can find 3 different artists, say the 3 greatest painters in the world today, describe in detail what you want them to paint...let's say a blonde girl, wearing a red dress, on a swing hanging from a tree limb. No matter how much detail you give them, if you send them into 3 separate rooms, when they come out you'll have 3 completely different paintings. That's the reward for a shaper, you've satisfied the designer's vision, but you've put your stamp on it, and you know it!

The secret to success for a shaper is to do just that, satisfy the architect's vision & intent, satisfy your own artistic hunger, and do it fast enough and efficiently enough to make a profit for the contractor your working for. Working on the same hole over and over again costs time & money, and time is a luxury you don't have in golf construction. Right behind you are 100+ people installing drainage, irrigation systems, detail, finish work and grassing. And if you miss the window for seeding, you're screwed...missing a grassing window pushes your opening back anywhere from 6 months to a year behind schedule, and few projects can absorb that loss of revenue.

Shapers do what they do because they love it, but they also do it for the money. The average equipment operator in the U.S earns about $35-65,000 a year. A good shaper will earn $90-135,000 a year. The way you get to that level is to make a profit for the contractor your working for...the way to make more is to induce the designers to request you on their next project. Make no mistake, the golf business, like any other, is driven by dollars! It's a tough life, moving all over the U.S., or the world for that matter, for 6-10 months at a time. It's tough on marriages, relationships, and the body, doing it year after year. They don't build golf course all in one place, if they did I'd still be shaping...it's by far the most enjoyable job I ever had!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Architectural "shapers" and "detail men" supre
« Reply #32 on: April 05, 2002, 01:50:01 PM »
RandyT:

You're the greatest! Please stick with this site when you can on other topics on construction et al when this topic goes to the back pages which never takes long.

Fascinating stuff about Wynn's overall vision about the high rollers and tying SC to high rolling and the by invitation thing. I did hear that directly right after the place opened! No different really than comping those high rollers with the big sweets, I mean suites, and the g..., whoops.

Personally I really can't stand the gambling towns or their atmosphere but that's neither here nor there. I rolled through Vegas one time on my way home from the West Coast to the East Coast in the car and I'd never been to a gambling town before and I just wanted to see what it looked like. So I rolled into Vegas about 5am and went into one of the big fancy casinos! Oh My God, these zombies transfixed on some game alone with a dealer, people drunk, crying, etc! It was horrible.

I jumped in my 400 Firebird and tore East outta there like the Roadrunner and only checked the rearview mirror after about 10 miles hoping the whole thing really was a mirage that had suddenly vanished!

But Randy, I love that Mirage idea, the hotel, the oasis looking golf course and the mirage fantasy concept. That's one of the best "Only in America" stories yet. It's like Sheik Douglas Fairbanks who thinks he sees the oasis and damn that mirage thing--its gone again.

I think Wynn should cut a deal with his limo drivers during maintenance day at Shadow Creek. He could book those high rollers at SC anyway, get the drivers to take them out to some other part of the desert and tell those high rollers:

"Men, I don't know what to tell you, except that Mr Wynn and his Shadow Creek oasis/mirage concept is just very very good. That 400 acre $50,000,000 golf course was here yesterday but it just isn't here right now. Why don't we just come back tomorrow and maybe it will be here again?"

I'm not that sure about "fantasy" golf courses but I love the possibilities in America that a guy like Wynn can come up with.

Keep posting Randy,

Thanks
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:04 PM by -1 »

Richard_Goodale

Re: Architectural "shapers" and "detail men" supre
« Reply #33 on: April 05, 2002, 02:52:52 PM »
Amen, TEP

Thanks Randy, and thanks PeteG for bringing Randy on the site.

Rich
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Architectural "shapers" and "detail men" supre
« Reply #34 on: April 05, 2002, 02:53:42 PM »
Randy, were you one of the crew present at GCSAA show in 1992 in Vegas when Wynn and Fazio put on the presentation lecture and slide show chronicalling the entire SC project?  Are you the guy that took over the lecture for a while showing the techniques used to give those totally artificially manufactured streams that ancient babbling brook look?  In fact I believe that very section of stream in the piccture above. ;D

TE Paul, I love it when your posting finally comes to a point!  ;)  I laughed MAO at your version of the 'highroller' mirage "bait and switch".  I would have to say about your proposition of a flattish natural site dessert course out there with no trees; No thanks!  I have too little brain matter left to be baking it in that sun!  :(

I can't wait to see Doak's version of this flat site shaping approach, using the fantastic crew he mentions that is working on Lubbock.  I wonder if the berm around the periphery and digging down below original grade for added elevaton variation pioneered at SC is the only logical way to go with this sort of site, or what?  I don't believe Lubbock even has horizon features like the Shadow Mountains to use as tie-ins.  Like R. Perot says, I'm all ears... ::)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
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.

TEPaul

Re: Architectural "shapers" and "detail men" supre
« Reply #35 on: April 05, 2002, 03:47:22 PM »
RJ:

I can't tell you anything specific, about Lubbock, have not been there; Actually, as I vaguely recall, I have been to Lubbock Texas, but it was about 30 years ago. Matter of fact, I believe it was that exact same time I took off out of Vegas like a scalded Roadrunner--and I was going East so fast it was right around Lubbock that I got hungry, slowed down and pulled into a Mexican restuarant outside of Lubbock.

Oh My God, basically even worse experience than Vegas--got sick as a praire dog just after I paid the bill! I mean sick! Couldn't even crawl into the back seat of the Firebird as I had four big wide rear tires back there in case I got strand out in some desert with a flat!

Anyway, I did hear from one of the crew out in Lubbock on the Texas Tech project. Matter of fact, I think he was sitting on a dozer on top of a huge pile of material. He said they were moving a lot of material, a lot, and berming out some pretty unattractive immediate surroundings.

As for the golf course, he said he wasn't sure how to describe it right now but it was looking pretty cool to him. He said it did not seem to be like anything he'd seen before but then said something about this one might give some of these hot-shot college kids a real run for their money!

So maybe this one is Doak's first "difficult golf" effort! Oh, he also mentioned that the crew out there was really awesome and could give "The Boys" or anyone else a real run for their money too. He wasn't joking either, and I really do trust this guy!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

ian

Re: Architectural "shapers" and "detail men" supre
« Reply #36 on: April 05, 2002, 08:34:07 PM »
Tim,

There are 100's of guy (and a few ladies) who are great shapers. I can personally name 10 people I would say are truly great shapers. Not competant, or really good, these people are artists who can deliver anything there asked to when directed or can make it up when encouraged to. People on this badly underestimate the amount of talent out there.

Tom Paul,

Some of you list haven't built anything (?) and you leave off Steve Smyers, Brian Silva, to just name a few. Your list confuses me in that way.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Architectural "shapers" and "detail men" supre
« Reply #37 on: April 06, 2002, 05:31:33 AM »
Ian:

I sure didn't mean to denigrate anyone by not including them on that list I wrote. I certainly didn't intend that list to be any kind of last word on anything, just a few I really do know. Brain Silva and Steve Smyers I've met a few times but I don't know their work well and I didn't know either were actually shapers and "detail men".

It's true a few on my list haven't built anything or very little but they're some that I've spent a lot of time with on classic courses and others and my sense is that they really have an "eye" at least for some real distinctions in what's quality and what isn't, if not proven talent at this point.

I do believe though that some people have a real knack for this stuff even when they're young and unproven. The more I get into architecture and the more I see of it and the more people I meet I realize that there are also some who just never do see some of those distinctions at all. I don't know why that is only that it's so! And as Tom Doak mentioned I really only know 3-4 firms and their people well--I'm not in the business, as you know, just another interested observer.

But I certainly didn't mean to slight anyone by leaving them off my list--not their problem, just mine, cuz I just don't know them.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:04 PM by -1 »

ian

Re: Architectural "shapers" and "detail men" supre
« Reply #38 on: April 06, 2002, 08:02:22 AM »
You really would enjoy Steve's work, it worth the trip. My point, and unfortunately, you got the brunt of it is that there are wonderful work done by others. The site has identified people I greatly admire that don't get enough written coverage. Your list includes some great architects and more importantly to me, some great renovators. The site now needs to identify more good work by people that few know. Its nice to see a talent like Todd recently get more notice, I guess thats what I would like to see.  I want to go play layouts that I would not otherwise here of. Nothing beats the suprise of a great course no one seems to know.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mike O'Neill

Re: Architectural "shapers" and "detail men" supre
« Reply #39 on: April 06, 2002, 08:36:48 AM »
TEPaul,

This is a good thread. Well done. One thing though. You understand that you are not one of the UNKNOWN GCA "shapers" and "detail" men. You would be the MacKenzie of this bunch. Or maybe Donald Ross given all of your "projects" here. Keep up the good work.  ;)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Architectural "shapers" and "detail men" supre
« Reply #40 on: April 06, 2002, 12:05:56 PM »
Mike O'Neil,

I agree with you, citing a list of prefered names only feeds the exclusionary nature of those lists.

I'm sure there are many talented individuals doing the work or in their formative stage.

Lists are good when praising individuals, but all too often they slight the individuals we've simply forgotten to include, or aren't aware of yet.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:04 PM by -1 »

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Architectural "shapers" and "detail men" supre
« Reply #41 on: April 06, 2002, 12:26:59 PM »
Ian Andrew:

Let me echo Tom Paul's comments.  I'm not in the golf business and really have no idea how many "artists" there are.  I simply mentioned the organizations/people I am familiar with.

If there really are hundreds of people with the skills of an "artist", that's great.  We should hear more about their work.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Tim Weiman

Tom Doak

Re: Architectural "shapers" and "detail men" supre
« Reply #42 on: April 06, 2002, 03:47:01 PM »
Ian,

If there are really hundreds of super-talented guys out there, then what have they built we should see?  Or are the architects directing them just not up to snuff?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

ian

Re: Architectural "shapers" and "detail men" supre
« Reply #43 on: April 06, 2002, 07:54:00 PM »
Tom,

I'm not touching the architects question.
I know 7 who I can count on to deliver every time, any failure is mine, not theirs. Here's the list, sorry about the two last names I can't think of at the moment.

Spencer Adams, Contours
Tony Melo, Indepent (usually with Evans)
Darren Hancocks, now usually a supervisor with Gateman Milloy
Donnie Robb, Independent (bunker specialist)
Steve Tate, TDI International
Thomas , JD Landscape Construction (historic renovations)
Albert, Bruce S Evans

With the amount of courses being built all over the world, I don't see that comment being a stretch.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Justin Hanrahan

Re: Architectural "shapers" and "detail men" supre
« Reply #44 on: April 07, 2002, 09:16:49 PM »
Its an interesting discussion about shapers (many of whom don't need anyone else to tell them how good they are - or how good they think they are) but an observation I made when working with a variety of guys was the connection to the architect/designer they were working with.

Like any human, there was a distinct change is quality of work when the shaper agreed with/liked what the design was trying to accomplish. This, I believe, is where the "staff shapers" - those who are working for an architect - can offer some significant benefits. Generally, they like the architect's work and agree with his philosophies and take pride in doing the job well.

It was quite sad to meet a lot of shapers who sat there bagging the design of a course or a hole and then went out and did a less than stunning job. In short, it is not uncommon for a shaper to believe he knows better than the architect...

I am certain these shapers will eventually suffer as a result of their opinions, but it is a shame because it ultimately means projects suffer as a result and the owners, designers and players suffer.

I kid you not when I say I worked with a shaper on a Nicklaus design who simply did not understand (or want to understand) what Jack wanted with the bunker design during a walk through and responded (privately) with "that doesn't make sense anyway" and left it at that.

This from a guy who picked up a golf club once a year and shot 200-odd!!!

Ultimately, the best ones I saw believed in the work of the architect as a whole and were happy to work towards the same objective. Just as you want from a key player in what is a team "sport"...
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Guest

Re: Architectural "shapers" and "detail men" supre
« Reply #45 on: April 07, 2002, 09:49:24 PM »
No one has seen a shaper or a detail man unitl they've seen Dave Axland on a dozer. That guy can create anything out of nothing...just look at the bunkering at Sand Hills and look at Wild Horse in it's entirerty. He's tough to beat!!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tom Doak

Re: Architectural "shapers" and "detail men" supre
« Reply #46 on: April 08, 2002, 09:56:49 AM »
"Guest":  My understanding is that Dave and Dan built pretty much all the bunkers at Sand Hills with a small backhoe, loading the excavated material onto a trailer and losing it back in the fairway somewhere.

I spent a lot of time yesterday while traveling with Jim Urbina [himself my vote for the best shaper out there] discussing this subject.  Jim comes at it from the perspective of a) a shaper who never gets the credit he's due, but also b) a design associate who understands the difference.

What we could agree on, finally, is that a shaper's role SHOULD BE to build what the architect wants.  It's true that every shaper has a slightly different style that an experienced eye can detect, but when shapers are telling you that they "put their own stamp" on a course, then maybe they're not doing what they are supposed to.

Without doubt, several people on each construction job contribute some level of detail to the finished product.  But, it's still up to the architect to empower them to be creative, and then to edit their contributions.

The course we played yesterday was highly regarded, won some awards a couple of years ago, but I agreed with Jim that his input could have made it a lot better.  Yet, would that architect have wanted him to change it more to our own philosophy?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

ed_getka

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Architectural "shapers" and "detail men" supre
« Reply #47 on: August 24, 2002, 05:37:06 PM »
What a great thread. Very interesting information and observations so I just wanted to pull this up so some of our new visitors could see it.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.

Brian Phillips

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Architectural "shapers" and "detail men" supre
« Reply #48 on: August 25, 2002, 09:55:05 AM »
This is a pretty good subject.  

Just think how many good shapers there are in Europe working for architects stuck in the old ages!!

How many of you had heard of a bloke called Mick McShane before he worked on Kingsbarns?  If it wasn't for Kyle Phillips maybe never..

or

his brother Jock McShane who worked for me and Jeremy Turner in Norway?

or

'Bally' another Scotsman who worked for me and Jeremy in Norway.

All brilliant shapers.

I think that Tom knocked the nail on the head that there are many great shapers out there just waiting for an architect who truly is gifted, instead of being used like mushrooms.... 'kept in the dark and fed shit' creating technically sound but boring courses.  How many architects in Europe have their own team of shapers..?  

The great shame here in Europe is the amount of fuddy duddy uniteresting architects that have too large an ego to allow good shapers to shine through.

Brian
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Bunkers, if they be good bunkers, and bunkers of strong character, refuse to be disregarded, and insist on asserting themselves; they do not mind being avoided, but they decline to be ignored - John Low Concerning Golf

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Architectural "shapers" and "detail men" supre
« Reply #49 on: August 25, 2002, 01:58:02 PM »
TEPaul,

Getting back to your original post, I don't think a comparison of the shapers responsible for Merion and Cypress can be made.  The canvases that they worked on are light years apart.  Ray Charles could have done some of the work at Cypress and nobody would notice it due to the incredible beauty of the land and the surroundings.

It's difficult to pick out a red tomato from a basket of red apples.  (HLWITYTFTO)   ;D  

Don't underestimate the value of good shapers (cat operators)
If they don't get it right, all the hand work in the world may not overcome bad work, not to mention the money it would cost to correct the problem.  In addition, they are the ones who take the architects concepts and put them in the ground

A good shaper, who has an almost telepathic connection with the architect, can sometimes fix mistakes, as well as put it in the ground just as the architect visualized.

Their role is not to be minimized or taken for granted, nor do I think it fair to compare work from entirely different sites, with different instructions, conditions, and restrictions.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »