The Rubbish of "Pro Golfer Designers"

[Neil_Crafter]

I believe the Monty course at Carton House was designed by Tim Lobb who was then with EGD. Tim is now a partner with Peter Thomson and Ross Perrett's Euro operation in London.

[John_Cullum]

John

"Just who out there is asking that question?"

I believe it was me

Melvyn

That's my point Melvin. We is a very minute minority. I don't think the developers of Emirates Hills are targeting the people like us who appreciate the Tom Doaks of the world. They are looking for an immediate eye catcher, like Colin Montgomery.

[Mike_Young]

Now we just need to convince the guys with the money-the problem is they're usually getting their advice from corporate types who as John said, have never heard of most real golf architects.

Jeff,
For the last 20 years I have seen time after time when one would try to speak with some 35-40 year old VP of marketing at a developer's office and have him look at you like " why would you bother me?"  with my gold bracelet, presidential rolex and guccis with no socks.....these guys thrived on their ability to access the "office" of a signature and sit at the bar and talk of " hunting w Jack" , "swimming in the pool with Arnold" etc....AND al the sales people for the sigs know it and use it.....can't blame them.....but it is fun to watch these clowns drool all over themselves trying to tell people how "tight" they are with the big boys....

[Forrest Richardson]

Kelly — That was my mistake. Sorry. I corrected the reference to reflect that it was Tony's quote, not your's.

Who are the exceptions in the ASGCA? In any group of people you will have a few exceptions — individuals who may not be as "good" as others. Of course, this requires individual opinion.

I thought about your question, and honestly, all of the current ASGCA members (that I know) are pretty decent people. I have favorites and, like any bunch, there are some I prefer over others for conversation, friendship and interaction. I hardly think this is a good venue to begin dissecting the group. Besides, it would amount to just one man's opinion.

[paul cowley]

Most of the Golf Pro/Golf Designer collaborations are symbiotic relationships, and function well as long as there is a healthy symbiosis occuring.

Monty's and Desmonds was obviously more of the non functioning variety....I'm not sure what else needs to be talked about beyond that.

Is funny though, because part this discussion makes me want to list all of my solo golf design efforts....and all of the collaborative golf design efforts I have had with three different Pro golf player/designers.....along with listing all the other design and planning things I have done over my career.
I could even rank or rate the amount of involvement the other parties put into the final design mix....and then just throw that out here for everyone to see and analyze and make comments on.....

 ....but I guess I'm just not all that interested in making the effort.

[Tom_Doak]

I have to say that I find it ironic that this thread is on the same front page as another, where Ian Andrew is being congratulated on his new partnership with Mike Weir.  It just goes to show how people can think one way but act another.

Nothing against Ian ... I am sure he will receive proper credit for what he does in his new endeavour.  But the reality of the business is that he had to partner up with a PGA Tour pro in order to find jobs, and that is the same phenomenon behind all these other projects.

Incidentally, Desmond Muirhead could have declined to work on that project with Colin Montgomerie if he valued principle over money.

[paul cowley]

Tom.....your response makes me curious how you view your collaboration at Sebonak?

[Jeff_Brauer]

I have worked with several pros - Colbert, Wadkins, Litzke, Elkington, Nelson, Couples and now Notah Begay III.  Their "engagement" levels vary considerably, with Notah and Jim Colbert being pretty involved, albeit in subtle ways.  

On my new project with Notah, he has walked (well actually taken what he calls "Mr. Toad's Wild Ride" with me driving.)  While I did alternate paper routings, in the course of those trips, he twice said "we need to use that creek more" and "slide this hole over to save that specimen tree".  Both suggestions (repeated a few times after the tour) were eventually incorporated in the final (for now) routing.

We also discussed overall length, and I got some pretty specific ideas for greens and general ideas for contouring (both dos and don'ts)  Of the three routings, he also gave a general impression of the one he thought was best.

Now, I don't know how a Paul Cowley would add those percentages up.....I do the first 90% and Notah has the option of changing it near the end of each design phase.  Is it 90-10, or does the fact that input comes at key times skew it more in favor of Notah?  The same pattern evolved with Colbert and Colbert Hills, for example.  I will also say that Freddy had input of zero.  The others less than the 10% stated above.  

But, I did learn something from each one of them, so they had some value to me personally.  As Tom D states, I have gone through that mental gymnastics of whether I want the fee vs. my "principles."  The results are what the results are, but that topic is best reserved for another day since I am leaving for my golf stretching right now, i.e., yoga.

[Robert Thompson]

Tom.....your response makes me curious how you view your collaboration at Sebonak?

He didn't say 'no' to working with Nicklaus --- and Jack has been none to kind to Tom's work on the project since. But Sebonack isn't exactly a "pro golfer" project, since Jack isn't exactly viewed in the same way that say Fred Couples is.

Here's a question -- is Crenshaw viewed as a "real" designer?

Paul, what about Davis? I don't think was up here in Toronto until the work on Angus was completed. What does that say, if anything, about his role?

[Tom_Doak]

Paul:

It would be hypocritical of me to have taken the Sebonack job, IF I WERE THE ONE COMPLAINING about how golf pros get more credit as designers than they deserve. 

But, I'm not complaining.  Nor is Ian Andrew, nor you, nor Jeff, nor most designers actually in the business, whether they have worked with pros or not.  We all know what the deal is.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I don't know if has changed for the better... Maybe in the States

I will give you the most glaring example in Europe:

A vast amount of the work that EGD / IMG do... As Designers for The European Tour, they are forever saddled with the Celebrity Designer... (Monty included)

EGD always, always credit themselves and even name actual architect designing the course from their office.  They now use the wording "......golf course in association with Paul Lawrie" or whoever it may be.

EGD do not hide behind the Pro, they actually make sure that people know that it is a joint venture not a lie.  I cannot remember reading anywhere recently where EGD have not made sure their office get the credit they deserve. They may not have been as vocal in the start when they first set themselves up but they are now.

Stan Eby, Gary Johnston, Robin Hiseman and Ross McMurray are all good architects that receive the credit they deserve.

Brian,

This was not meant to be a crack at EGD... and certainly was not meant to question any of their architects...

But in reality, many of their courses still appear to the public as 'Pro-Designed' courses without any mention of the EGD Designer... We in Ireland are very very poor at acknowleding any input from EGD at the many number of courses they've done here... We do however know that we have courses by Colin Montgomerie, Darren Clarke, Mark O'Meara and Bernhard Langer...

Basically, the EGD Designer is lost in translation at the first phase of communication, no matter how hard they try... The public do like their celebrities...

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff - off your last post, a question if you don't mind:

When you've worked with a Colbert or a Couples, for example, have you found that your relationship with the client is different than when you work 'under your own name'?  Does the pro name blunt/lessen some of demands/requests that clients might otherwise make? Or instead, does it feel more like you have two 'clients' instead of one?

Peter  

[Jim_Kennedy]

"____ _______ name is synonymous with golf in the modern era.  His ability as a world-class player keeps his name in the public spotlight. Whether he is sinking a ten-foot ‘money putt’ in the _____ ____ or making an appearance at your site, ____ is one of the most popular figures in golf today.
In addition to site visits during construction and appearances at the grand opening ceremonies, the sheer marketing power of his name, nickname and physical presence will make a phenomenal impact on your project.
                Because of his success as a player, ____ transposes his unchallenged knowledge of golf strategy to golf course design.  ______ exceptional playing ability and success in the game has allowed him to experience the great golf courses of the world.  Through his relationship with renowned designer ____  _____ he can now bring his imaginative design solutions to reality.
____ has made a commitment that if his name is associated with the design and marketing of a course, he will personally apply his design philosophy and strategy throughout the creative process. To ____ ______, a signature course is a blend of design, integrity and reputation.  
____ _______ and ____ _____ are an unbeatable combination of world-class player and accomplished course designer, working together to create a new level of golf course design."

As Pogo said: "We shall meet the enemy, and not only may he be ours, he may be us."

[Ally Mcintosh]

I believe the Monty course at Carton House was designed by Tim Lobb who was then with EGD. Tim is now a partner with Peter Thomson and Ross Perrett's Euro operation in London.

Looking through these posts, I'll follow on my previous comment by answering this one...

The Monty course at Carton House was designed by Stan Eby (EGD)...
The O'Meara course at Carton House was designed by Tim Lobb (then of EGD, now of Thomson, Perrett and Lobb)

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom D. — "Incidentally, Desmond Muirhead could have declined to work on that project with Colin Montgomerie if he valued principle over money."

That is not true, Tom. Desmond explained that early on the client asked about bringing Monty into the project and Desmond laid out two options: One was that Monty would be a the "Club Professional" and would just meet a few times with Desmond, not being intimately involved, etc.  The second option was to make regular visits and actually learn something, hand-in-hand with Desmond, to have a larger title, such as "co-designer." Monty chose the first, but after the project was finished, or nearly so, made the comments cited in the press.

----

This thread is not intended to downcast the real-McCoy — Crenshaw, Paul's diligent work with Davis, or what I foresee as a great partnership between Ian and Weir. There are other examples of professionals turning their love and passion to golf design. However, there are bad examples and the old Muirhead vs. Monty account typifies the bad in my opinion. If what Desmond said was correct — and the press accounts were on target — then it is "a pack of lies" as my old friend described it.

Maybe the outcome here (if that is possible) is to focus on what makes a great partnership — and an honest one.

Or, as Tom D. has alluded — why (and how) have we allowed the art of golf design to migrate to the point where it becomes necessary to partner with a professional in order to land work? Is this wholly good for the game, or is it a sad comment on the nature of branding? Will it make for better golf overall, or will it yield compromise?

[Tom_Doak]

Forrest:

Your last question is an easy one -- it's a sad commentary on the nature of branding, which, of course, goes back to the laziness of the consumer.  But Americans are suckers for branding on a lot bigger scale than golf course architecture!

And, I understand your explanation of Mr. Muirhead's dilemma, but was he really so naive as to not expect his client to change the deal and use Mr. Montgomerie's (highly paid for) name later on?  In this business, it's also "Seller Beware."

[Forrest Richardson]

Good points. In Desmond's case (Dubai) I do not think he ever resented Monty being tied to the project. What he was absolute in was the "pack of lies" about the involvement, especially when he set "ground rules" and assumed they would be followed. It may well have been that the assignment was contingent upon Colin being involved. Desmond did mention to me that he regarded the fellow Englishman and welcomed his involvement — at the beginning.

[Philip Spogard]

I congratulate the architects who establishes a name and brand for themselves coming from a non-golfing background. I also welcome the pro-golfers who actually turn architects - and not just 'signers' of projects.

As a golf course architect I would never enter into a collaboration where I would have to give up my right to claim my responsibility in the design. I think the 'signature' names de-value our profession and give people a wrong impression of the work required to design and build a golf course.

I think a lot of the responsibility lies with - besides IGM and now KPMG - the golf course architects themselves who over the years have allowed their names and profession to be 'sold' to the highest bidder. Let the golfing pros REALLY design their own courses - I am sure not many people would want to play them.

I have always felt - as Desmond Muirhead said - the pros should be involved in the role as Touring Pro/Club Proffessional or as a genuine co-designer who is given credit for his actual share of the work!

[Robert Thompson]

Forrest: Here's a question -- how does a pro golfer who shows up once or twice in a project differ from one of the big brand name architects who only shows up once or twice? In both cases there's a name on the project while someone else did the work. And there are plenty of instances of this within the ASGCA's membership.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff - off your last post, a question if you don't mind:

When you've worked with a Colbert or a Couples, for example, have you found that your relationship with the client is different than when you work 'under your own name'?  Does the pro name blunt/lessen some of demands/requests that clients might otherwise make? Or instead, does it feel more like you have two 'clients' instead of one?

Peter  

Back from yoga.....

To answer your question, it varies.  When Colbert sheparded the Colbert Hills project, and donated a lot of his time, he was sure involved and yes, the design had to please him and a host of other clients, including the PGA Tour who was initially involved and KSU, not to mention the environmental studies group at the University.

In general, I see no difference.  But the funniest example of a pro name helping the cause as it were was at press day for the Avocet course at Wild Wing, which I designed under the Larry Nelson banner, but did get co-credit.  I tried to explain the 14th green, in a response to a question from the press. Its big and has a large ridge running through the middle of it along the line of play, on a short par 4 hole.  The press wasn't buying MY explanation, and Larry stepped to the microphone and said, "When I won the Open at Oakmont, they had a green like that on (I forget the hole now) and my putt went over the ridge and in on my way to victory"  Well, I saw a bunch of heads bobbing up and down, notes being taken, and later saw several references to Nelson's inspiration for the 14th green.

So, go figure.  Even a knowledgable golf press falls for branding every time!  For the record, Nelson never saw that green until opening day, and it never came up in any discussion during design or construction, much less did it come up that Oakmont was the inspiration.  Its all marketing.

[Lloyd_Cole]

Furthermore, Monty's contact would be with the developer and would surely demand that he claimed authorship, no?
Sure, it's a crock, but didn't we know that already here?

[George Pazin]

Who gets credit for this man's speeches?  Did he write all of it, a portion of it, did he give someone else direction concepts?  Who should get credit?  Does it matter?

I just assumed he stole from the many lefties on this site...

 

The problem that originated on this thread started with the very first architect would decided he'd sell his soul for a few extra $$$.

Can't say that I necessarily blame him, I think the larger blame lies with the willing accomplices in ownership and the media, as well as the player, who should be honest about his role. At least the archie is usually working hard for his money. Who knows, maybe Mark McCormack is to blame?

[paul cowley]

Forrest: Here's a question -- how does a pro golfer who shows up once or twice in a project differ from one of the big brand name architects who only shows up once or twice? In both cases there's a name on the project while someone else did the work. And there are plenty of instances of this within the ASGCA's membership.

Robert....that is another very valid point that just further illustrates the myriad of ways these design collaborations exist.....we have just begun to see the junior staffers of major name architects get some co recognition for jobs that they were deeply involved in. Just another form of branding.

If the creative golf organism works better than the sum of its parts as individuals......then why try to dissect the gestalt?

Btw....I had no hand in in the Angus Glen project, but I think you are wrong in your assessment of Davis' involvement.

[Kalen Braley]

Tom is exactly right when it comes to branding and otherwise.

I spent several years as a foot soldier for this man.  http://www.rockymountainvoices.com/blog/2007/12/13/bernard-daines-father-of-gigabit-ethernet/

In technology circles he's widely known as the "father" and inventor of Ethernet in all its various forms. Certainly in the beginning back in the 80s he was hands on but after that he was purely the muscle who brought in investor money and traveled around giving speeches at various conferences and for potential customers.  While he still had the technical understanding of how these things work, he was just the front man for all the rest of us who did all the work in the ditches to making all these various incarnations happen.

Its just the way the world works and wouldn't think any less of an architect teaming up with a big name to help brand a golf course.

[Forrest Richardson]

Apologies, Robert. Until Paul posted his answer I had not realized you had a question for me.

If there is a difference, which I think there is most of the time, it is that the golf course architects who head up large firms take responsibility for designs under the umbrella of a firm. Like most things that get big in any realm of the design world — architecture, fashion, etc. — there is an individual that stands atop the organization and plays a role in defining the style and overall design sense. That is far different from someone who claims to "have designed" a project when the reality is that really had nothing to do with the design at all.

Micheal Graves designs a host of home and kitchen products for Target Stores. I know Michael and have met some of his lead designers. The fact that Target chooses to credit Michael even though he has a large staff of talented people does not make him or Target dishonest. Now, if Target Stores hired XYZ Industrial Design to create products — and then brought Micheal Graves in to lend his name — that is, as Desmond would say, "A pack of lies." The consumer might even deserve a refund. After all, it is clearly not a Michael Graves-designed product.

As for your ASGCA comment, every ASGCA member lists five representative courses — on the ASGCA website these are termed "Select Course Portfolio". You will find that these represent courses that the member claims to have had primary responsibility. Since there are several ASGCA members who work for large firms, it is not uncommon to see courses listed that might be credited to a firm in mainstream listings — Fazio is a good example — but the ASGCA "credit" is rightly directed to the associate (ASGCA member) who had the project responsibility. There will always be grey areas, but the comparison you made with regard of ASGCA members is far from the Monty vs. Desmond situation.