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.


Peter Pallotta

Re:Time and Talent
« Reply #50 on: November 30, 2007, 10:27:42 AM »
"Crump clearly was going to take as long as necessary to come up with his final vision for Pine Valley."

Wayne - thanks for that, and for the rest of your helpful post. And thanks to all for bringing/keeping this discussion 'back to earth' - I usually like and need that grounding in the facts.

But not right at the moment :)

Are there many ways to dance around this apparent fact, i.e. that the course someone spent years of his life perfecting (and seeking his final 'vision' for) is also a perennial contender for #1 golf course in the world?

Peter


Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Time and Talent
« Reply #51 on: November 30, 2007, 10:30:46 AM »
Did Crump declare his masterpiece "finished" before he died, or would have kept tinkering as long as he lived?

Joe
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re:Time and Talent
« Reply #52 on: November 30, 2007, 10:36:35 AM »
Bill:

Some architects are famous for their temper on construction sites; I won't name names there.  But I don't think you'll find too many people who have witnessed me blowing my stack and especially not at the shapers.

Generally when I don't like something I get really quiet because I am starting to figure out what to do to fix it.  But I am not exactly a master of controlling my body language, so everybody knows I'm not happy with whatever it is.  My m.o. these days is not to make any decisions my first day on site unless it's imperative for not holding up the construction process, so I will stew on the green I didn't like for a while, and then get out and fix it.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re:Time and Talent
« Reply #53 on: November 30, 2007, 10:37:10 AM »
Joe:

Since Crump only had 14 holes built at his death, I don't think he would have called it finished.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Time and Talent
« Reply #54 on: November 30, 2007, 10:37:21 AM »
Joe,

It was not finished when he died...

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Time and Talent
« Reply #55 on: November 30, 2007, 10:39:51 AM »
My question was stupidly worded.... ;D (no surprise there!)

I meant was his vision complete before he died, in the context of Peter's question.

Sorry to interrupt....
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Time and Talent
« Reply #56 on: November 30, 2007, 10:55:10 AM »

......Generally when I don't like something I get really quiet because I am starting to figure out what to do to fix it.  But I am not exactly a master of controlling my body language, so everybody knows I'm not happy with whatever it is. ....

Ah, the soon to be famous "Doak twitch!" ;)

Former associates who have gone on to work for JN say that he starts slapping the scale in his hand when he is unhappy with something, and of course, there is that famous stare, too.  I have spent years on perfecting my "hat slam" to convey my displeasure with initial shaping. ;D

BTW, I would be interested in an all time survey of the screamers in the gca field.  There are two conflicting items here - the design personality does tend towards tempermental (its not a myth, check out the DISC scores on personality types - mostly its because we are more action oriented than people oriented and want things our way)  On the other hand, very successful people like JN couldn't reach that level without learning to control their emotions.

Here is the deal on greens from my experience, for what its worth.  

Generally, I think I know what I want to do, and have drawn something on plan, and often, quickly hand drawn a revised sketch after seeing the trees cleared or whatever other field conditions has changed my mind.  Depending on the ground and project importance, and what I may have seen lately to change my thoughts and improve a particular green, I might end up redrawing 50% of the greens.  (BTW, technology intervenes - it used to be pencil and paper but I am experimenting with tablet lap tops.....)

I see the green site, and I am often present to see the staking which gives me an idea of how its going to fit in.  A typical situation is that the plan for a sloping green site may have ridges of too similar heights on both sides and when I see a stake that says "Fill 11 feet" I realize my paper verion needs some mods.....

I see rough shaping.  Its either minor tweaks, usually to add the little six inch rises and falls that are hard to draw.  Sometimes, shapers take liberties or truly don't understand.  Or worse, get into an ego struggle to get it built their way.  Here is where learned people skills come in handy!

Like Tom, my first thoughts aren't personal, they are what do I really think needs to be done.  And conveying it that way usually helps with the tension inherent in that situation.  Usually my problems with free lance shaping are that the dozer guy hasn't thought at all of what other greens are doing, what I am trying to accomplish (like making a green harder to hit from one side of the fw, as per Tom's example) or what size the green needs to be to stay in budget or provide a balanced test of golf (ie - the shaper builds a long skinny green when I know that there will be one three holes later....)

I also hate the implied pressure to come up with something brilliant on the spot just so the dozer guys can go back to work......And, if by chance, the dozer guy has done something brilliant, if different than imagined, I have always found it helpful to both include it in the design and thank him for making the green better than I planned it.  Of course, I have to draw the line between making him feel he is a vital part of the team (which he is) and not having him feel he can freelance up and down the rest of the golf course!
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Peter Pallotta

Re:Time and Talent
« Reply #57 on: November 30, 2007, 11:17:48 AM »
Joe
I knew he'd only 'finished' 14 holes. But I have no reason to believe that Mr. Crump would've treated the last 4 holes, or the 14 that had already been 'completed', or even the entire course taken as a whole, any differently if he had lived longer, i.e. I imagine that he would've kept tinkering in search of his perfect vision.

I know there are very practical issues involved; courses need to be built and completed and people need to move on.  

I'm just trying to ask about what happens (potentially) to a vision of Quality -- and the part Time plays in that -- when those practical realities DON'T have to be contended with.

Peter

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re:Time and Talent
« Reply #58 on: November 30, 2007, 11:31:00 AM »
Peter:

I think the answer to your question depends on the person.  Some will continue to improve upon their vision of perfection.  However, I suspect more would fall backwards by overthinking things or by adding too many elements.  There is a certain elegant simplicity to great design, and one of the problems of modern courses is that all the accoutrements are so complicated that they undermine the part that's supposed to be simple.

When I worked for the Dyes I spent a couple of weeks in Clarksburg, WV at what is now the Pete Dye Golf Club.  Its owner/developer (a non-golfer) had become obsessed with Pine Valley and decided he would take even longer to build his course!  It did turn out quite well, but I'm not sure it was better in the end than if they would have finished it five years earlier ... for sure they had a bunch of "adventures" that added to the time and cost of the project.

JC Urbina

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Time and Talent
« Reply #59 on: November 30, 2007, 12:23:20 PM »
Peter
I am sitting in the Portland Airport burning TIME.   Since I have been  involved with creating golf courses for the last 25 years, my whole life has been consumed by TIME.  TIME spent waiting for projects to start and  TIME spent figuring out how much TIME we have to build create the course.  We spend TIME waiting to see how the product turns out and evantually I spend endless TIME watching the golf course evolve wandering how the it could have been done differently.

While finishing up the Golf course at Arizona State University( many years ago) after the grass had grow in and we had played it a few times one of the Sun Angel members came up to me on the 18th tee and asked why I was looking out towards the green.  I had been sitting there for about 20 minutes looking around and I replied to him.  Oh, I was just thinking to myself if we had spent enought TIME creating this hole.  He asked if I would do anything different and my reply was I Don't know.  I needed more TIME to think about it.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Time and Talent
« Reply #60 on: November 30, 2007, 12:56:47 PM »
Jim,

That assessment always goes on.  Its impossible to look at a green you've built with the passage of time (and moving on to new ideas, phases, etc.) and not wonder what you would have done differently if building that green today.....or tomorrow.

The good news is, sometimes, its like taking a test - the first answer you come up with is usually right.  As Tom D says, added time in the final shaping adds do dads and what not.  To a point, I find those to be improvements, but after a while, its just trading one little nuance for another.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Matt_Ward

Re:Time and Talent
« Reply #61 on: November 30, 2007, 02:50:06 PM »
Jeff B / Tom D, et al:

Related question -- no doubt second guesses are at work and you'll rely on your gut to determine what needs to be done.

Just have to ask if you do make a switch before completion --is that determination often pushed by a client who INSISTS upon such a change and do you then comply with it?

I also have to wonder how many times you opt for a "draw a line in the sand" approach if you feel such a recommended "solution" is really not helpful or needed.

In sum -- time and talent do matter -- so does the famous two-word phrase ... "who pays?"

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Time and Talent
« Reply #62 on: November 30, 2007, 03:28:41 PM »
Matt,

Usually my changes are self induced, not client driven.  Every once in a while it happens, but its usually earlier in the planning process, with a general statement like "I want an island green."  

Sometimes, minor changes happen when the superintendent is on board (as we recommend) Those comments are usually something like "Jeez, are you trying to get someone killed on the mower?! ;)

When those things happen, the "rules of civil discussion" apply just as if we were talking to the contractor or associate architect.

My stance with implementing owner directed changes is generally positive and cooperative, as long as its reasonable.  It will be interesting to see if that stance changes once my youngest is out of college.......... ;D
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re:Time and Talent
« Reply #63 on: November 30, 2007, 05:56:20 PM »
Matt:

I can't remember the last time I had a client who really insisted that we make a particular change in the course during construction.  Of course, I pick my clients very carefully and if I think they're going to be like that, they'd better have a hell of a site.  :)

Seriously, the last few clients I've had were the type to ask us to take a second look at something they were uneasy about, and be sure we were comfortable with it.  That's the way to do it.

As Jeff says, the time when you get tough questions is usually much earlier in the process.  Right now I've got a client insisting I change a preliminary routing to get his course up to 7200 yards; I might have to remind him that he chose to hire me, and not Tom Fazio.  

Oh, and we are working on one course where there has been an ownership change and we had to move four holes that were already shaped so they could build a marina!  If that one weren't mostly done already, I'd probably have asked out, but it seemed like a waste to quit after we'd gotten so far.  In the future all my contracts will be based on an agreed-upon routing so those kinds of changes cannot be forced upon me (unless they want to double our fee).
« Last Edit: November 30, 2007, 05:56:40 PM by Tom_Doak »

Bill Brightly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Time and Talent
« Reply #64 on: November 30, 2007, 07:41:49 PM »
You know, with threads like this and the "before and after photos" thread.... I may be able to stop bumping old posts! :D

Who knew you guys still had it in you? :o :o

TEPaul

Re:Time and Talent
« Reply #65 on: December 01, 2007, 10:34:16 AM »
In the initial post PeterP said:

"......and a limited talent is best bolstered by taking more time, as much time as it needs.

In golf course architecture, about the only example of this that I'm familiar with is Mr. Crump at Pine Valley; but I'm sure you gents have more examples.

My question is: What exactly is it that time gives to a golf course architect? How does time work to bolster his talent, i.e. the quality of the finished product/work/art?"



Peter:

As I mentioned earlier, George Crump may be one of the best examples to use to answer some of your questions about time and talent, as Crump was a first time architect---eg he'd never done anything in architecture previous to PV but he did manage to put into place a process that produced a golf course that would rather quickly become considered perhaps the greatest in the world.

So how did that happen? How did he do that?

Well, remarkably, if we look at Crump's modus operandi from the very beginning of routing and construction on until the sudden end of his life I think we can see that he actually broke most of the rules on architectural and agronomic efficiencies and still managed to pull it off wonderfully well in the end.


What doesn't seem to be particularly well known is if the idea to create Pine Valley was mostly his idea in the beginning or an idea that began to gestate amongst a number of friends, including Crump. It seems the latter may've been the way the idea first began.

We do know at first the idea was simply to provide a better place to play winter golf as that part of New Jersey is typically about 10 degrees warmer in the winters than Philadelphia. Crump and his friends were in the habit of taking the train regularly to the New Jersey shore in the winters, generally playing golf at Atlantic City CC.

In any case, Crump was the one amongst them who did the searching for the land and site for the course. It is known that he looked at a number of sites on his own and rejected them for reasons such as too many mosquitoes etc. And it is known he found the site of Pine Valley on his own----his rather famous recorded remark to his friends, "I think I've landed on something pretty fine" sort of proves that.

What is not well known is how long and how much he analyzed that site before making that remark and then basically buying the place himself with his own money.

I suspect Crump may've looked at that site and perhaps very carefully for up to nine months before making that statement and then buying the place in the fall of 1912.

It also seems apparent that after buying it he essentially spent most all his there trying to figure out how to build the course. At that point it appears a lot of his friends were there looking the place over with him.

It also appears that right around the turn of the year (1913) he began having various areas of the site cleared of trees so he could look at the landforms better for golf.

At that point I do not believe Crump had a survey or topo map of the place so at that point he was just spending his time eyeballing raw land for a course and it also just might be that he had a good deal of latitude to pick and choose and buy a good deal more than he initially did buy as well as perhaps other parcels around PV----eg the seller Sumner Ireland had a good deal more land surrounding PV than Crump initially bought. I believe Ireland may've told him he could buy whatever he wanted from perhaps app. 800 acres.

We do know that in March 1913 Crump got his first topo map and began to route the course on that topo map. It seems likely around that point Crump's vision of the course had become more than just a place to play winter golf and that his renewed vision was as an immensely difficult course that would basically serve as a regional training ground to produce better champions amongst the region's golfers.

But the first mistake he made in architectural efficiency is he began to rough shape and build holes before he'd even come close to finalizing a routing he'd be content with.

We do know that when Crump finally got England's Harry Colt (considered to be one of the finest professional architects in the world at that time) down there in the end of May and the beginning of June 1913 he already had at least four holes (#1-#4) basically roughed in and set.

And it seems pretty apparent that at that time he'd become pretty confused as to how to finalize some of the remainder of his own routing to his satisfaction.

At that point, and probably with his week or two consulatations with Colt he came up with basically a variety and balance plan for the course about not just what kind of holes he wanted on the course but also almost precisely where he wanted them in the sequence of the routing----but he still continued to build without completely finalizing his routing!!

The reason I'm mentioning all this is because there is little doubt that Crump was constructing himself right into a box or painting himself right into a corner, as it were, and this problem alone, or perhaps among others, was costing him a whole lot of time.

Doing it this way can most likely in retrospect be considered a real amateur mistake but nevertheless he soldiered on day after day, apparently willing to talk to almost anyone who was willing to offer suggestions but in the end playing the part of the kind and considerate editor and doing things his own way in the final analysis.

And when he died suddenly in Jan 1918 perhaps almost six years after he began the course was still not of 18 holes or close to the finished product some of his closest friends say he wanted.

It's an interesting and different way to go about building a golf course but it was his way and he'd never done a course before.

There is no question at all if he'd wanted to he could've simply taken the relatively comprehensive plans that Colt had left him with and given it to a foreman and a construction crew and probably finished the course and opened it for play in a year or two, but for whatever his reasons he didn't seem to want to do it that way and he didn't do it that way.

More later on the way he went about it and how it was anything but time efficient!  ;)

Nevertheless, and despite that, Crump was spending a ton of time on site to develop and create this course and it's certainly my distinct impression that all that time and effort on site combined with a willingness to seek and consider anyone's opinions was beginning to develop and release in Crump a very special talent for golf course architecture.



« Last Edit: December 02, 2007, 01:23:43 AM by TEPaul »

Peter Pallotta

Re:Time and Talent
« Reply #66 on: December 01, 2007, 12:52:12 PM »
TE - thanks for that; just great.

For no other reason than because it's one of the first things to pop into my head, I'd say:

One of the attributes of a great golf course seems to be that it reveals itself (or reveals new facets of itself) over time; its nuances and subtleties and strengths and options aren't all there in front of you, or there for the first time player (or even the hundredth time player) to see or understand fully. I wonder if it's not in some ways similar for the architect, i.e. only time and study reveal to him what he actually has created there, especially if some of the course's nuance and subtlety has come about accidentally or not consciously or as an unintended (but welcomed) consequence of some other aspect of his design.

Of course, as Tom D notes, how that will play out (i.e. what he will do with those new discoveries) depends in large part on the person involved: some will be able to continually perfect their vision, while others might lose the forest for the trees.

Peter  

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re:Time and Talent
« Reply #67 on: December 01, 2007, 01:27:32 PM »
Peter:

You make a good point.  What Ross did at Pinehurst or Leeds at Myopia, which Crump never had the chance to do, was to play-test their courses over time and see if the ground received the shots as intended, and make adjustments if necessary.  [Coore and Crenshaw have spent a lot of time on that at Sand Hills, too, although quite a bit of it there is just figuring out how to roll with the punches of wind erosion.]

All of us design things making educated guesses about how hard it will be to hold a green hitting an approach shot over a bunker.  If it doesn't work out as we intended, we usually chalk it up to a less-than-ideal maintenance meld.  But, we could also change the slope, or the distance between the bunker and green to make it play more as we intended.  We'd have to take it out of play for a while, so that's not the preferred approach, but it could be done by an architect in search of perfection.

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Time and Talent
« Reply #68 on: December 01, 2007, 10:16:50 PM »

I am beginning to find that course sites that have little to offer....are the ones that require the least thought.
While the best sites require more attention, even if they have much more to offer.

 
« Last Edit: December 01, 2007, 10:28:15 PM by paul cowley »
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Time and Talent
« Reply #69 on: December 01, 2007, 10:43:39 PM »
gouf  is a  talent  that  lives  in  a  yellow  wood.  think  about  it. its its  like a  poem.  how  would  you  think  about  that. its  on  grass. its  cool  goufing  its  like a imege.  its  like  time  passing   bye.  keep  more  peractis. youll  get  it.



     from  cierra  elizabeth  cowley

Note: this is the first post from my six year old daughter who felt a need to contribute.

Ran, could you consider her for inclusion in this DG so that she might not have to post through me?
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

Peter Pallotta

Re:Time and Talent
« Reply #70 on: December 01, 2007, 10:58:38 PM »
Thank you Cierra, and Paul.

I think your dad was saying that you have to try to slow time down when you're working on a great site; on a poor one, you can just tell it what it's going to be, and that doesn't take any time at all.

But please check that with your dad, Cierra. I might be wrong, and he's smarter than me.

Thanks again
Peter

Oh, I almost forgot, sorry. What you said about golf was so smart! I never thought of it that way before, but golf IS like a poem. I think that's why I like it so much.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2007, 11:19:04 PM by Peter Pallotta »

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Time and Talent
« Reply #71 on: December 01, 2007, 11:12:38 PM »
hi  again  i  just  wanted  to  thank  my  daddy  for   sending  my  post.  and  i  want  to  tell  about  my  daddys  goufing  coreis.  he   has  one  in  mexico  he  has  some  on  st,  simons  GA  too.  he  built  gouf  coreis  everywhere.




    from,   his  loveing  dugther Cierra


note  i  miss  him  when  hes  billting   gouf  coris
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Time and Talent
« Reply #72 on: December 01, 2007, 11:24:32 PM »


  thanks,  peter  for  saying  that  nice  note  and  i  really   like my  post  too.  
   

    oh,  i  allmost  forgot  thanks  for  saying  my  dad  was  samart.


  i  think  your  samart  too!  bye
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

Ray Richard

Re:Time and Talent
« Reply #73 on: December 02, 2007, 09:02:53 AM »
I asked an artist friend, “is your creativity learned or does it flow out of you naturally,”and he answered,  “if you have artistic talent, it will flow out naturally.” He uses the following procedures; thought,sketch,ponder,completion. When he puts his name on the painting, it’s done.

In golf architecture,if you have the vision, and surround yourself with creative people, a concise drawing and limited verbiage you can produce some great work. If you can’t do it quick, find some different support staff. Time is money.

Bob Dylan produced some great music with only a few takes. He would write the lyrics, lay out the chords and feed it to his session musicians who were the best in the business. After playing the song a few times, they got the feel and the song was recorded. Dylan hated over production which brings up a point-are some new golf courses overproduced, by being endlessly raked and tweaked during construction? Does quick shaping ( I’m talking about shaping 2-3 green and bunker complexes in one day) with its random forms produce better golf course features?
« Last Edit: December 02, 2007, 09:50:22 AM by Ray Richard »

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re:Time and Talent
« Reply #74 on: December 02, 2007, 09:29:39 AM »
Ray Richard:

It's a good counterpoint, and one we've thought about a lot in three years, since Mr. Morrissett himself mentioned that he thought both my team and Bill Coore's team were making our courses "too perfect".  I kind of agree with him on that.  And I was just floored when Mr. Nicklaus got excited about our finish work at Sebonack and said that the work on his courses had gotten "too perfect" and he liked the little rough contours we had around our greens.

A lot of the problem goes back to green speeds.  When 3% is the maximum tilt you can use, you are more likely to have to go back to an interesting green and tweak it around so the hole locations can all be used.  I didn't have to do that nearly so much when I was starting out and using 4% as my maximum slope for pinnable locations.

Your point is certainly true of the finishing of fairways by modern contractors ... left to their own devices, they take out much of the wrinkly stuff because they are trying to show how perfect their work is.  That's one reason we try to avoid golf course contractors a lot of the time; we've found it nearly impossible to get them to leave the wrinkles in, no matter how hard we try.  They are all dry cleaners at heart.