AT this particular juncture, "mass production of golf courses" is not a problem for 99% of all gca'a.
Tony, do you believe actions speak louder than words? Ross could say anything he wanted, but he did what he did, and got some really good products outside of Pinehurst.
Those photos of your work look nice , but the results shown can be accomplished a lot of different ways.
I don't see why the gca needs to be there for importing sand as topsoil. On a site visit he could lay out the bunker edges, and tweak them if necessary on another. Then, he could leave the construction to people who really know construction. Using inexperienced personell can work fine on a clean, simple job, but for some reason, I don't get too many of those.
Having more experienced construction folk around helps a lot when you encounter some hidden site conditions. And, I know this from experience of being a field guy years ago and not knowing how (for example) to de-water a wet area, etc. I did learn, but only from experienced local earthmovers. I know the "investor" in those projects appreciated those experienced men at that time a lot more than me being on site full time to direct construction!
I think Dan answered this.
Garland - gotcha...
I'd guess that the courses Jack spends time at are very, very good. But Nicklaus design is a big company, and not all of the firm's designers can be as good as, say, Jack.
With firms of that size, I think the customer chooses the involvement of the lead when the sign the contract. "Nicklaus Signature" gets a lot more attention from Jack than a lesser project that could have Mike Nicklaus as the lead, for example.
Moral: Leaders make a difference.
Jeff,
Where I'm working now they tried it with a set of highly detailed plans and the most qualified builder in the country. You want to know the rest? Ready Paul Daley's upcoming book
Hint: 4th on the batting list.
I had one member of your group tell me he was ok with getting it 90% and I'd guess that's the attitude of many. If you have a good builder, fine... you might get there... but there are only so many companies that excel at building golf courses. In Europe you could have a saw accident and probably still have enough fingers to count the excellent companies. Most doing the work don't play golf, haven't studied great architecture and are limited in their scope.
I'd rather shoot beyond 100% and fall a little. Further, one method has a better record than the other because some done the "typical" way, shooting for 90% will fall through the cracks.
I don't know of an architect who made perfect plans. Tons can be improved on, and much information communicated. More time = more communication, enthusiasm, trust, motivation, awareness, monitoring and fun. It's the difference between being an outside regulator and a part of a team.
Then there are all the opportunities that don't show up between "site-visits".
As far as the dig about being there for topsoil. Well, there is a ton of other stuff being done too, as you knew. In the photos, had I topsoiled it according to some plan, I would have missed out on a couple opportunities that improved the hole. Would I have come across them during a brief walk-through? I doubt it. These were pondered for a while and incorporated while on the machine.
Well, we agree on one thing. Locals know the area best. I tend to use locals rather than outsiders. If most builders are unqualified, I'd rather use unqualified locals as it's their community so a good product is in their interest. Those farmers and builders who have worked the land (that's usually what you get in continental Europe) in the region are very giving of information. And great characters. They do know more, but unfortunately not about golf.
As for Ross. Batting Average? I think he thought his batting average could have been better, hence the statement.