Is design keeping pace with improvements in construction?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Scott,

You know, I think I have always done that anyway. I recall Tom Doak saying he was surprised at how little dirt my mentors K and N moved at Kemper Lakes, for instance.  

I have never been one to strip all the topsoil and just go after it shaping wise.  I have never seen a shaper not get repetitive over 160 acres anyway, so I prefer to leave as much untouched as I can for variety.

I agree its not just numbers of bunkers, but that one foot ridge could be there naturally and have been bulldozed away by some in the name of bunkers rather than used.  But if the natural designs are better, I tend to think its because we have enough well bunkered greens in the world, whereas if you use a small feature, its a unique green.

But, I haven't "come to Jesus" on this after 9/11!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Don,
I definitely think the contractors building courses today are as good as there has ever een in the industry.  Some are so good and efficient with what they do that som eof the signature firms can almost "call in" much of the design having used the same guys b4 on different projects.  
I think construction might be so good that it has endangered segments of the design business.  For example, a professional golfer's agent could find him a "design" and all he would really need is a good contractor.  I have also seen some mediocre architects move up a few notches because they aligned with a good contractor.
IMHO the architect of the future will be more of a design build type guy than an office/plans/bid/contractor......notto say those jobs will not be there.  I think the entire time I have been in business i have only used a general contractor once......and I did not like it....
Plus once the contractors find that you do your own work they comment differently than if they think you may be sending work their way.....
I think that much of the work this website likes has been done by architects that are on site/ own guys/own shaper types.....
I don't know.

Mike

Mike, I can agree with a lot of your thoughts above, esp. that using a good contractor can elevate a not so sound gca to a better product.  

I don't know if I see a trend towards gca as builder, but rather I see multiple trends for that, design-build collaborations, design-bid all being strong in the right areas.

As to shapers, here's a thought.......

I think shapers are as or more prone to getting stale as architects.  If you have a shaper working for you only (whether self employed, or assigned by the contractor repeatedly) will he grow as much as one who has seen the concepts of a wide variety of gca's? Or more likely to fall into "this is the way we've always done it?"

I hate to generalize either way, but I can see benefits of working with different shapers, contractors, etc. If construction is in a golden age, I think its in part because of the transfer of knowledge as contractors and gca's mix and match more and more.  On the other hand, there is probably more homogenization than you would have had when Ross had his crews, Tillie had his, etc.

[Tony Ristola]

Mike,

I agree with your post, and would only add that no architect will create perfect plans, will miss opportunities, and all the construction improvements in the world won't make up for these loses.

Missed opportunities are loses that don't show up, aren't found in standard accounting practices, except to note that the project could have-should have been that bit or miles better. It's these missed opportunities that don't permit designs to keep pace with construction improvements, and it's my bet it will always be so.

A paint-by-number-kit in the hands of a competent painter using the finest paints and brushes will produce a nice paint-by-numbers-kit painting, but not much more.

[Sean_A]

I have never been one to strip all the topsoil and just go after it shaping wise.  I have never seen a shaper not get repetitive over 160 acres anyway, so I prefer to leave as much untouched as I can for variety.

I agree its not just numbers of bunkers, but that one foot ridge could be there naturally and have been bulldozed away by some in the name of bunkers rather than used.  But if the natural designs are better, I tend to think its because we have enough well bunkered greens in the world, whereas if you use a small feature, its a unique green.

Jeff

Jeepers!  Where have you been all my life?  I don't know why I ask because I know you are "down there" supportin the Stars of all teams.  

Tell me honestly, how often do you reckon neat little features are eliminated for a re-shape/bunker job?  Also, do you think the average golfer doesn't appreciate the little things in design which help create uniqueness?  

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,

Truthfully, I think thousands of one foot high knobs have given their last full measure of devotion to the cause of building golf holes.....It varies by gca of course.

I don't disagree with the notion that some big guys clear and strip topsoil and build without a lot of regard to subtle - or even major - features.

Most of us use the major land forms to shape holes, but often in broad terms - "There's and up slope we can build a bunker into.  In that style, even when saving the topo we wouldn't consider a one foot knob in front of a green to be signifigant enough to build around.  

A few have gotten famous for using one foot knobs as features and then publicizing the hell out of it!

As to whether golfers appreciate it?  For things like Redans or other slopes that deflect balls somewhere, I think most golfers notice when their ball is deflected away from a pin, but not when it deflects towards the pin.  A high percentage think it ought to be changed, and even more keep playing the same shot even if that little knob deflects their ball away from the hole time after time, not ever thinking to play a different type of shot.

As a Stars fan, its obvious my judgement is clouded!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tony,

I don't disagree with what you are saying.  No plan is any good without field refinement, or at least most.  That said, I have seen some misses - both in terms of opportunity and technical competence (like underestimating drain flows) when design is done purely in the field.

Even forgetting some the tech issues best solved on plans, I see dozer guys and architects standing on a green making decisions, when they should really take a walk back down the fw, and maybe to some other vantage points to make sure their design proposals really work.

If someone is going to miss an op, whether through lack of talent, laziness, or bad enchiladas at lunch, he could do it via any number of design methods!

[Mike_Young]

Don,
I definitely think the contractors building courses today are as good as there has ever een in the industry.  Some are so good and efficient with what they do that som eof the signature firms can almost "call in" much of the design having used the same guys b4 on different projects.  
I think construction might be so good that it has endangered segments of the design business.  For example, a professional golfer's agent could find him a "design" and all he would really need is a good contractor.  I have also seen some mediocre architects move up a few notches because they aligned with a good contractor.
IMHO the architect of the future will be more of a design build type guy than an office/plans/bid/contractor......notto say those jobs will not be there.  I think the entire time I have been in business i have only used a general contractor once......and I did not like it....
Plus once the contractors find that you do your own work they comment differently than if they think you may be sending work their way.....
I think that much of the work this website likes has been done by architects that are on site/ own guys/own shaper types.....
I don't know.

Mike

Mike, I can agree with a lot of your thoughts above, esp. that using a good contractor can elevate a not so sound gca to a better product.  

I don't know if I see a trend towards gca as builder, but rather I see multiple trends for that, design-build collaborations, design-bid all being strong in the right areas.

As to shapers, here's a thought.......

I think shapers are as or more prone to getting stale as architects.  If you have a shaper working for you only (whether self employed, or assigned by the contractor repeatedly) will he grow as much as one who has seen the concepts of a wide variety of gca's? Or more likely to fall into "this is the way we've always done it?"

I hate to generalize either way, but I can see benefits of working with different shapers, contractors, etc. If construction is in a golden age, I think its in part because of the transfer of knowledge as contractors and gca's mix and match more and more.  On the other hand, there is probably more homogenization than you would have had when Ross had his crews, Tillie had his, etc.

Jeff,
We are saying about the same thing.
Mike

[TEPaul]

Listen to all you architects talking all this trash.

Not a single one of you is fooling me.

The whole lot of you just love the idea of pushing dirt all over the place. Movin' dirt, pushin' dirt, strippin' topsoil and pushin' more dirt.

dirt, Dirt DIRT. I think the whole bloomin' lot of you architects had some kind of stunted or problematic upbringings during your sandbox training phase.

It's this dirt pushin' craziness that is ruinin' golf architecture.

Nobody sits there on a shooting stick with a flask anymore and contemplates how to use what's just naturally there staring you in the face.

You're all a bunch of big grown-up babies who have a sand-box complex. I don't even blame you. I think it was your mothers who are responsible for the ruination of American architecture.

No, forget that, it was probably your grandmothers who are responsible for the ruination of golf architecture.

Tell me the truth, they didn't allow you to have a pail and shovel and they didn't put you in the sand box and let you go hog wild, did they?

I knew it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

......Nobody sits there on a shooting stick with a flask anymore and contemplates how to use what's just naturally there staring you in the face.............


.......Tell me the truth, they didn't allow you to have a pail and shovel and they didn't put you in the sand box and let you go hog wild, did they?

TePaul,

I took my then youngsters to a playground that had sort of a toy backhoe apparatus. I got on to show my son the basics of how to operate it and stayed on it, I was having so much fun.  There is something soul satisfying about running machines, pushing dirt, etc.  That was at age 33 or so!

At age 15 or so, I built a sand box specifically to shove sand around for golf design. I tried clay models but they dried out too quickly and I changed mediums.  Easy to work, not easy to save in sand.

As to the flask, I strongly suspect both you and Paul Cowley have contemplated at least golfclubatlas posts in the company of a flask......perhaps even that last post.  I think you are being a bad influence on him.....

[TEPaul]

"I think you are being a bad influence on him....."

No way.

I admit, I gave him a flask but it was just supposed to be symbolic.

First time at a site he brought it with him and he even had some juice in it that could've set Janice Joplin's hair on fire.

He took a swig outta it and he wanted me to take a big swig out of it too. But I'm way too pure for that, particularly at 6:47 in the morning.

Frankly, I was just horrified and I just wanted to go find a sandbox somewhere and sit in the side of it quietly and contemplate what in the hell has happened to my life to end up like this.

But I didn't do that and instead Paul and I just went over to the 2nd hole and told the shaper how to push a bunch of dirt around and everything was cool again.

I'm sorry, Jeff, let's get serious here. OK?