Do Professional Golfers make good architects?

[BK]

I'm sitting here reading about Ross, Fazio, Dye, Jones etc......And the question pops in my mind, Does being a pro golfer such as Nicklaus, Palmer, Weiskopf etc......make one a good designer?  Or do many former pros-turned-designers, lack a connection to the game that the average golfer has?
Are there two distinct categories of designers, those who are purely and completely architects, And those who started out as golf pros and used their name to build courses?
If Nicklaus et. al. , had never been professional golfers, how many people would be lining up to play their courses?
Lots of questions here, pick one.  

[John_Conley]

Some make wonderful architects.  Donald Ross, George Fazio, and Ben Crenshaw come to mind.  Some, like Arnold Palmer, guide an organization and staff underneath them.  Jack Nicklaus learned under/alongside Dye and Ben Crenshaw partnered with Bill Coore.

The name on the scorecard needs to be treated as a brand.

[J_Olsen]

No.

Nicklaus, Player, Palmer....the three greatest players of their generation, and the three worst architects of their generation.  

Professional golfers are no more or less likely to be good designers than anybody else who has training and an affinity for the job. Some pros are good and many are bad, just as is the case with ordinary folks.

How much of the good stuff that Nicklaus did was Dye's early influence on him. How much of the quality of Weiskopf/Morrish's good work is from Morrish? How much of Coore and Crenshaw's greatness is Coore? We will never know from the outside...but what we definitely know is the the non-player architects who partner with pros do it for marketing purposes. There are probably some other benefits as well, but we know the marketing thing is there.

[Andy Hodson]

J Olsen

Why would you say Nicklaus is one of the worst architects of his generation. Which of his courses do you (obviously) hate? Which ones are just OK (since I assume you "like" none of them)?

[Brad Klein]

There is no correlation between playing ability and design skill.


There have been a few great players who were great designers - Old Tom Morris, James Braid, Willie Park, Jr., Donald Ross, Ben Crenshaw. I suppose others could be fitted into that mold as well - Robert Trent Jones Sr., Jack Nicklaus, Tom Weiskopf. But there are a lot of great players who are lousy designers, and there are a lot of great designers who are lousy golfers.

You can certainly forget about a whole new genre of PGA Tour players who think they can become instant designers by working one day a week as consultants.

Too often, good playing leads you astray in terms of diverse shot values and looking at the land. I find at Golfweek that there is no correlation whatsoever, between good players and those who are good raters. In fact, it's probably closer to an inverse correlation, since they tend to look narrowly at how they play the course.

[TEPaul]

No correlation at all!

Certainly Ross was a very good player, probably considered a professional in his day and he may have been the architect who was able to look most accurately across the spectrum of every level of golfer and somehow design what worked well for all in his courses. Ross's entire career theme, with a few intentional exceptions, was what could be called "democratic" golf architecture, in my opinon.

I was also very impressed by Nick Faldo in that regard too and what he said about architecture and various levels of player. Certainly the consummate professional golfer but as aware as could be of the limitations of the various levels of golfer and how architecture needed to accomodate them.

On the other side of the coin, the so-called "amateur" architects of the "Pennsylvania School", particularly Wilson, Crump, Thomas, Fownes, reasonable to good players at best, built and probably even orignated the so-called "Championship Course" style of architecture in America that clearly was  designed for the good player only--Oakmont, Pine Valley, Merion, possibly Riviera.

Not only were none of them professional golfers, not one of them ever took a cent for any golf course they ever did!

[J_McKenzie]

As someone who works in a professional golfer's design company(Love Enterprises and Associates, Inc., Davis Love III), I would answer this question by saying it really depends on the individuals level of commitment to the business and the talent of the designer, or as in our case- design team, that the player works with.

In my opinion, I do believe there is an advantage in being an accomplished player, whether professional or amateur, when designing golf courses.  There is a better understanding of game and the intricacies involved in shotmaking and strategy.  A good player can visualize different ways to play a hole, different shot requirements, that someone who doesn't play the game may not see.  And I'm not talking about just shot requirements for good players.  A professional tour player witnesses how the "average player" plays every Wednesday during Pro-Ams and regularly at various corporate outings.  I believe tour players have a far better appreciation for playability than most people give them credit for.  

Professional golfers also have the advantage of being exposed to many styles of golf courses and depending upon what professional level he or she is playing, exposure to many of the world's "greatest" golf courses.  They have a tremendous opportunity to see first-hand a wide variety of architectural styles in every imaginable setting.

  

[Ben_Hogan_NJ]

I would say most of the time no, with the exception of Nicklaus, Crenshaw and maybe Player (in some cases).

Has anyone heard anything about the course Norman put on the west coast of Ireland called Doonbeg?  I am planning on playing it next year (it opened this summer).  I have heard great things about it.  He said they hardly moved dirt, used all native grasses.  I think his quote was, "We cut a hole and just started mowing."  The pictures look amazing.

[SL_Solow]

Part of the answer depends on how we define architect.  Many players lend their name to a project and confine their input to showing up at the groundbreaking and the grand opening.  I'm told by those working for an architect who used to work with Nick Faldo that this was his m.o. although that may have changed recently.  Others like Ben Crenshaw are much more involved even if most of the heavy technical lifting is done by their partner, e.g. Bill Coore.  How many of Palmer's courses were really the result of significat input from the king?  This is a different issue from our ongoing debate about how much credit a talented subordinate should get when working with an established designer.  Here the question is how much input does the name player contribute.  If however we are talking about which "brands" work I tend to agree with Dave although I am not fond of Player's work.  Crenshaw and some of Weiskopf's work are in a different category.  I can't speak to Davis Love.  On balance, imho, the best work is being done by the non tour players, again with the exception of C&C.

[Derek_Duncan]

I don't know about "professional" golfers, but I think it's safe to say that architects who are advanced players believe it's important to good architecture and those who are lousy players don't think it's important.  

Good players such as Bobby Weed and Steve Smyers definitely think it helps them design better golf courses, especially in relation to making their courses interesting to all levels of players including scratch golfers.  Not "tough" but "interesting."  

[J_Olsen]

Hod,

Nicklaus courses I like...Muirfield Village and Harbour Town, both of which derive a good part of their appeal from the input of others...

Nicklaus courses I do not like...Valhalla, The Bear's Club, The Australian, Ballantrae, Desert Mountain-Cochise, English Turn, La Gorce, Shoal Creek, St. Andrews, NY, GC of Purchase, Loxahatchee...

[Matt Kardash]

J Olsen,
Can you actually call Harbour Town a Nicklaus course? Wasn't he just a player consultant? Does Nicklaus consider HT to actually be one of his designs? If anything, Alice Dye probably should have second billing

[Steven Fairbanks]

David Schmidt
If Player and Trevino design good golf courses than everybody designs good golf courses, talk about dumbing down the field. I can see why you love Medinah. I thought all of Palmer's designs were the work of Seay, is he even golf course architect? And as far as Nicklaus, a blind pig finds.....

[Steven Fairbanks]

David
I don't think I'm missing anything....for David anything better than a dogtrack is good! Who do you think designed those dogtracks? I doubt they were even laid out by architects...maybe some local pro.

Are you sure Palmer, Miller, Trevino and Player actually design golf courses or are considered legit architects.....from what I understand they do not...are not. How much do you know about their design organizations?

Maybe you have different definition of good golf architecture....anything that isn't a dogtrack.

[BK]

I play those dogtracks you talk about all the time.  They are closest to my home and affordable.  Not the best golf but still golf.  Sometimes I play them well and sometimes not but golf all the same.  Do I enjoy playing a well conditioned, "NAME" course, yes but I don't enjoy paying for it just because of the name.  I have played Devlin, Weiskopf, Palmer, Nicklaus, Dye, Ross etc.... many others.....and The enjoyment often comes from how I'm hitting the ball more so than how the course is layed out, etc....although I've played some awsome courses poorly but still had fun, hey its still golf.
Are these the greatest courses in the world, probably not, fun to play, yea.

I guess my point in the question is, do former professional golfers turned architects or designers, make good courses, those that would be enjoyable or fun to play.  Or are their course unrealisticly impossible for the average golfer.
I've never played Murifield Village, I've walked it many times and I must say it looks very challenging.  Would it be fun to play, I'd like to try it and see, I might not play well but my point is, would that be because its not made for the average golfer.  That course was constructed for pro golf.

I think it would still be fun to play though.

[John_Conley]

Shiv:

You are fighting a losing battle on this board if you try to point out that most of the courses (like Pelican Hill) that get railed here are way better than average.

I shared my deciling system and people whose comments were like Kafury's loved the idea.  Others would try to decilie what they would actually play and then said it wasn't necessary because a Doak Scale (which would measure distinctions between the top 10%, top 1%, top .1%, and top .05% or something) works for them.  

That's great if you'd pass on playing an average course.  Just pointing out to you that many on GCA don't think like that.  I concur completely.

[J_Olsen]

As for Jack and Harbour Town, my point was that he takes credit for it, but I would presume that Pete Dye deserves most of the credit. On Nicklaus.com's design section he lists himself as designer and Pete as "co-designer"

[Herb_Flood]

I was always under the impression that "architects" have formal training, a degree from a university, and some sort of credenitals; moreover, PGA Tour pros were not technically architects but "designers."  If I am wrong, someone please enlighten me on Nichlaus', Norman's, Crenshaw's, and Pate's cirriculum vitae (CV) ...other than their playing record. I would welcome some feedback.

drherbflood@msn.com

[Herb_Flood]

Additionally, I challange referring to these gentlemen as "architects" without proper licensure.

[BK]

I agree, I don't think there is much difference in the terms architect and designer.  We all know there is more to laying out a golf course than looking at the land and saying "hey this would make a cool course".  Any of us here could do that, and draw some holes on a piece of paper(I've done this a 100 times), but to have the knowledge to make the course playable, or good or great........Few of us know the intangibles necessary to do that.  What type of grass suits the climate?  Growth rate and placement of certain types of trees?  Drainage?  Etc.......thousands of questions.

How many of these pros do more than say " I want this to be par 72, 6 par 3's, 6 par 4's and 6 par 5's, 7,000 yds from the tips.  Half doglegs left, half doglegs right.  They leave and it's up to someone else to actually create the details that make the course what it is.

[Craig Rokke]

With the talk about Nicklaus, I rarely hear anyone mention Cabo de Sol. I know some publications pencil that course into their top 100-World rankings. The Golden Bear himself contends that his 3 finishers there are the best 3 ocean finishers in the world. Does it merit that kind of status?

[Dave_Miller]

Donald Ross was the Pro at Oakley Country Club in Watertown, Ma. in the early 1900's.  

I have no idea what caliber player he was in those days even though he was a member a my home club Charles River (His cancelled membership certificate hangs over the fireplace in the foyer).

Obviously there was no pro tour at this point so where individuals like Donald Ross a pro simply because they were Club makers and course designers and they worked at a golf course with the title of Club Pro?

Cheers
Dave