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.


Kyle Harris

Jeff,

How does the ASGCA define "routing skill?"

We know it when we see it.

Wow. And you wonder why people make conclusions about the ASGCA without so-called knowledge?

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Jeff,

How does the ASGCA define "routing skill?"

We know it when we see it.

Wow. And you wonder why people make conclusions about the ASGCA without so-called knowledge?

Not sure where you are heading with that but my answer was as true as it was flippant. 

We have never written a "routing skill statement" defining what that is. Even Forrest didn't write that in his lengthy routing book, I don't think.  As far as reviewing an applicant, we send at least four members out there to assess the applicants courses and trust that they know enough to judge the work.  Who else would be more qualified to judge than other qualified gca's?

Since we are always trying to improve, please let me know just how you think the process should be improved, and I will pass it on to the higher ups.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Kyle Harris

It is simply our policy to require some new course work as part of the portfolio of an applicant.  If those gents haven't done two new courses among their work then they don't meet our qualification standards.  Its not unreasonable to expect some demonstration of routing skill for an applicant to a professional golf course architects society, is it?


That is the statement from which I drew my question.

Now, is it really routing skill or the ability of a person to sell a plan twice?

Tim Gerrish

  • Karma: +0/-0
Golf course architecture is not black and white, there are few if any true rules.  What one person sees as destroying another might see an improvement.  How do you critic that? 

If a course closes, isn't that a sign of some project failure?  Architect? Product? Failure to maintain market share? 

How do other professions handle this? 

Doesn't come down to just plain old capitalism? 

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
It is simply our policy to require some new course work as part of the portfolio of an applicant.  If those gents haven't done two new courses among their work then they don't meet our qualification standards.  Its not unreasonable to expect some demonstration of routing skill for an applicant to a professional golf course architects society, is it?


That is the statement from which I drew my question.

Now, is it really routing skill or the ability of a person to sell a plan twice?

Our reviewers review the quality of the course on the ground. Obviously, any gca (or other professional) has to sell his/her abilities to complete golf course.  I can think of one applicant I spoke hard against because I knew his routing plans to be very unsafe, for example. 
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Kyle Harris

It is simply our policy to require some new course work as part of the portfolio of an applicant.  If those gents haven't done two new courses among their work then they don't meet our qualification standards.  Its not unreasonable to expect some demonstration of routing skill for an applicant to a professional golf course architects society, is it?


That is the statement from which I drew my question.

Now, is it really routing skill or the ability of a person to sell a plan twice?

Our reviewers review the quality of the course on the ground. Obviously, any gca (or other professional) has to sell his/her abilities to complete golf course.  I can think of one applicant I spoke hard against because I knew his routing plans to be very unsafe, for example. 

This is the type of thing for which I am reaching. So there is a review process and you do actually critique and self-police each others designs? Or does the critique fall upon the applicants and once they're in no criticism happens?

Does the ASGCA review its members?

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Kyle,

There is a two step process to full membership - you must be an associate for a minimum of two years and complete a minimum number of projects to attain full membership status.  Once a full member, no there is not a review unless there is an ethics case brought up. It is hard to imagine, perhaps short of onset of dementia, that a once qualified gca would "forget" what he/she knows about golf course design, isn't it? 

Over the years there has been some off and on discussion about more periodic reviews but it certainly wouldn't foster fellowship among the members.  That is one instance where you have to remember its  a professional society and not some sort of governing body.  We do not feel the need to self police another members designs.  I find that after spending energy to beat out those guys (and others) for the design work and then actually do the design work, that I have no real energy to worry about the design work I don't secure!

We do provide continuing education so that all members have the opportunity to be abreast of the latest laws, trends, technologies, etc. plus gathering with other members and having informal discussions is always quite educational, not unlike coming here, but in general, the opinions are more expert......
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Joel_Stewart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Once a full member, no there is not a review unless there is an ethics case brought up.

Jeff:
Can you discuss ethics?   It relates more to this thread and the "architects who destroy golf courses".  Who brings up ethic charges and who is the jury.


Lester George

  • Karma: +0/-0
Joel,

So you are saying that being Jack frigin Nicklaus the greatest player in the world isn't subject to the owners requirements and demands for HIS golf course?

You are proving Jeff's point for him.

Lester

Michael Dugger

  • Karma: +0/-0
This thread is kinda hard to swallow.

If I buy a Frank Lloyd Wright and remodel it into the 2nd coming of the Winchester Mansion, it's my right.  After all, it's my money.

Golf course architects are not unlike any other professional.  They do the job that earns them a paycheck.

If the owners of Le Cumbre want an island green and room for more housing, that's their prerogative. 

Can't blame the gca for taking the work, and surely you cannot "blackball" them for attempting to earn a living.
What does it matter if the poor player can putt all the way from tee to green, provided that he has to zigzag so frequently that he takes six or seven putts to reach it?     --Alistair Mackenzie--

Joel_Stewart

  • Karma: +0/-0
So you are saying that being Jack frigin Nicklaus the greatest player in the world isn't subject to the owners requirements and demands for HIS golf course?

To a degree, Yes.  Why else would you hire Jack Nicklaus?

You're paying 3x or maybe 4x what a regular architect charges, why would the owner then impose "demands" that would muck up his design?  Requirements are different.

Joel_Stewart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Can't blame the gca for taking the work, and surely you cannot "blackball" them for attempting to earn a living.


After reading Jeffs post about the ASGCA architects being a society rather than a governing body you have a point.   I do think it's an ethical point, why any architect would screw with a golf course classic just for the money.  Sure somebody else is going to do it, why not me?   Would it be bad if Fazio would have said no to Augusta.  Rees would have taken the job in a second and the outcome would be the same.

Ed Oden

  • Karma: +0/-0
For those interested, here is a somewhat related thread from last year:

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,34500.0.html

Lester George

  • Karma: +0/-0
Joel,

No matter the fee you are paying and no matter who the architect (and I won't spend time getting detailed) YOU WILL listen to the owner or you won't be a professional golf course architect.  It's that simple!!!

Lester

Tim Nugent

  • Karma: +0/-0
Where is it written that just because an architect lived 80 yrs ago, everything they ever did is and forever will be much superior than what any practicing architect could ever come up with of refine?  In 50 yrs, will there be a chorus of GCAers who will decry someone for do redesign work on a Fazio or Nichlaus course?  What about the Jim Spear work I just shredded?  Perhaps you would have adored the round 2% greens with  the shallow round/oval greenside bunkers and the Fairway that occupied 90% of the fairway right where the seniors and women land but the rest just blew over?

Just because something worked 80 yrs ago and was maintained differently and played with different equipment, should it be sententenced to forever remain that way?  What if the OWNERS (you know the ones who have a financial stake) feel it no longer suits THEIR goals or needs?  Who are you as someone who doesn't have a hores in the race to expound on what should or shouldn't be.  If you feel that strongly about, get out of your ivory tower or off your high horse by the damn course yourself and do what you want.  That's how you get a vote in the matter - you buy it. 

As for the ASGCA - who are you to paint us all as whores?  There have been times when we have passed on projects that we didn't think were prudent.  Dick resigned as Brairwood's architect when he didn't sgree with what a new president wanted to do.  So they just hired Bob Lohmann to do it.  Then, Cornish, Sliva, Mangrum to redo that. Go figure.  Dick also told Double J Ranch where there land planner wanted to site their golf course would be better suited for other passive activites and left in it's natural wooded state and they should put the course in a big meadow/field instead.  Art Hills didn't have a problem with the land planners ideas.  There are other times when we were able to talk a club/owner out of a stupid idea other times - not.

As far as our little group goes, we tend not to be very public.  However, we do ask one another "what were you thinking?" or "did you ever thaink about...?" when we get together.  We also ask each other for advice and information.  But we are not the USGA.  Think of the ASGCA more as you would a fraternity (with some female members).  You have to get in, but once you're in, you're pretty much left alone - unless you do something that violates the by-laws.
Coasting is a downhill process

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Once a full member, no there is not a review unless there is an ethics case brought up.

Jeff:
Can you discuss ethics?   It relates more to this thread and the "architects who destroy golf courses".  Who brings up ethic charges and who is the jury.



Ethics charges are pretty rare in ASGCA.  In all the cases I have seen it relates to trying to secure a job that is already under contract, and in some cases, former employees stealing office documents, or improperly taking credit for their previous employers designs and that type of thing.

As Tim says, we were never intended as a group to police someone's ideas of what good architecture is.  And we are probably the last folks you would want deciding whether a gca "did the right thing" on a restoration or other project would be the 161 guys he beat out for the job!  It would be hard to be totally professional and critique in a fair way for some.  Most just don't want to be involved.  So, the market speaks, with magazines, web sites, historic societies, etc. all doing a pretty good job of helping clubs figure out who to hire.

I understand the history of renovations and restorations and how the Ross and Tillie society came about.  But, I see lots of designs in other fields changed or adapted to modern uses as well.  The Historic Register was set up when people realized we were losing our buildings at too fast a rate to "progress."  But, even the HR doesn't save a big percentage of sites in pristine condition.

To shorten Tim's point, most members like a renewed course (albeit often with sympathetic design) and after all, they do pay their dues to play in 2009 and beyond, and its understandable that they want a course primarily designed and set up and maintained for their enjoyment.  It could well be that members of those Fazio and Nicklaus redos are more than happy with the changes and its just a small band of Doakinistas that think the work should have been done by someone else and that it would have been so much better.  Its all opinion.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

JMEvensky

  • Karma: +0/-0
Is there such a thing as a Historical Landmark designation for golf courses?Would it make sense for the ASGCA to have some designation for courses deemed architecturally significant?

As I typed the question I realized that it's a political fire fight that they probably wouldn't want to touch.

TEPaul

DOAKINISTAS!?!    ::)


WOW!


If Doak belonged to the ASGCA would you still say that Mr. Jeffrey, Sir? 


I have some pretty good good information that if any ASGCA architects even show up at a Doak project course they will be run to ground like rabid dogs and repeatedly stabbed by scores of members with tees with two lines on them and then asked questions next, and ultimately be made to clean up their own blood on the golf course.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2009, 03:46:55 PM by TEPaul »

Tim Nugent

  • Karma: +0/-0
JME, got that right!  I would be like an episode of This Old House where a group of townsfolk (probably with not AIA'sin the bunch) telling you what you can and can't do to your house.  The one you payed for and pay the taxes on - not them.

Besides, why would we want to curtail anyones right to do with their property as they see fit?  If you want to live in a socialist country - move to France.
Coasting is a downhill process

TEPaul

"If you want to live in a socialist country - move to France."


Or you could stay in this country where the "New" Democrats are treating the Capitalist Pigs like socialist wards-of-the-state, and the Capitalist Pigs' former allies, the conservative Republicans, are now treating their former fellow travelers, the Capitalist Pigs, like pariahs that must be banished to Bank-rup-city.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Mr. Paul, good sir,

I probably would as I am not referring to the good Mr. Doak per se, but those on this web site who feel only he (and to be fair, Gil Hanse and a few others) should be entrusted to work on certain clubs.

As to your mention of Dems and Republicans, I sometimes feel like this place is ultra liberal and generally believes that only a few gca intelligentsia (typically long time member of gca.com) know what is best and men and women who have made millions know absolutely nothing and should be "controlled or stopped."  They can feel that way all they want, but I suspect that they have had most of the impact they are going to have and that men of means will continue to believe that they are capable of choosing a gca for their clubs. 

Its not that I don't share that frustration - An ASGCA member emailed me recently complaining that a city had hired a landscape architect with no courses to his credit to design a nine hole expansion and practice area.  Not only did they pass up a half dozen qualified ASGCA members to hire this person, they apparently are paying him about double what most of the members submitting proposals would have been willing to charge. How this gent managed to convince them to hire him, we will never know.

As to JMEV's question, I believe only the USGA has the clout and funding to lobby for Historic Register status, and I believe that our own Mr. Paul is on some sort of joint committee for that type of historic research and preservation.  Perhaps the good Mr. Paul would be so kind as to apprise us of the work he is doing?
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Tim Nugent

  • Karma: +0/-0
Tom P, of course! What was I thinking!  We are already there.  God knows the unelected b'crats have been making laws for decades.  Too bad the Dems didn't get their supermajority - then we could watch them self-distruct on their own just like here in Illinois where Rep. is an endangered species.

"Doakanistia's"  Now there's the word I've been searching for. 
Jeff B. last time I looked, isn't Gil one of the ASGCA guys? And Bill Coore?
Coasting is a downhill process

JMEvensky

  • Karma: +0/-0
JME, got that right!  I would be like an episode of This Old House where a group of townsfolk (probably with not AIA'sin the bunch) telling you what you can and can't do to your house.  The one you payed for and pay the taxes on - not them.

Besides, why would we want to curtail anyones right to do with their property as they see fit?  If you want to live in a socialist country - move to France.

I think that some courses are more architecturally significant than others.I imagine the ASGCA shares this opinion.Perhaps their imprimatur would cause a club to investigate whether a course should be re-anythinged or not.

The designation doesn't have to be anymore than just the ASGCA's opinion that a particular course has a history worth venerating.If the club's members feel that opinion is worthless,that's their business.However,it might stop the mis-guided/omnipotent Green Chairman from going off on his own.

TEPaul

"I probably would as I am not referring to the good Mr. Doak per se, but those on this web site who feel only he (and to be fair, Gil Hanse and a few others) should be entrusted to work on certain clubs."


But Mr. Brauer, everyone knows that's true and I'm assuming even your good self understands that's true. It has been said on this august website for many years now so how on earth could anyone think it was not true?

These Doakinistas, as you call them, are some very willful and opinionated people and therefore we must all assume they are correct in what they say.

So correct in fact that if Doak or Hanse did something on one of those old classic courses and it turned out to be exactly the same thing completely that was done by any other architect of course we would have to assume that Doak and Hanse did it right and every other architect did it wrong.

I can't see how it could be any other way, can you?

Phil_the_Author

Tim,

You raised a most important point when you said, "Where is it written that just because an architect lived 80 yrs ago, everything they ever did is and forever will be much superior than what any practicing architect could ever come up with of refine?... Just because something worked 80 yrs ago and was maintained differently and played with different equipment, should it be sententenced to forever remain that way?"

You are right. Tilly, Ross, Mackenzie, Flynn and the others all designed some crappy courses. Then again, so has every other architect since the dawn of time. If they hadn't their great works would never have come to pass.

Balance is needed. What is often forgotten is that among the architects who redesigned and/or renovated many, many courses were Tilly, Ross, Mackenzie, Flynn and all the others.

It isn't that they disliked or disrespected the work done by their contemporaries as that they were simply trying to make a living. That architects today work in the same manner is neither wrong or disrespectful.

What is, and this is where I am very critical, is when someone misrepresents the work that they are recommending. Let me give you an example.

A little over a year ago an architect seeking the job of renovating an lesser-known Tilly creation told the green committee chairman something very interesting. He had informed them that he was a "Tillinghast Expert" and the members of the committee were most impressed with how he kept poitning out features where "Tillinghast definitely would have put a bunker here, mounds there" etc... and that by putting these features back in they would be "restoring the golf course to its proper Tillinghast heritage."

Of course the fact that Tilly NEVER put those features there in either the original design or consequent visits never seemed to enter into the conversation.

It is this type of misrepresentation that is wrong and that happens far too often.

Every club owner or membership has the inherent right to recreate the golf course that is in their care. Hopefully it will be done in a manner where either they or the membership are pleased and can spend many hours of enjoyment.

Just last night I saw a clip of Arnold Palmer speaking of what is most important to him in designing a golf course and what he hopes he will be rememberred for. He said that above all else he wants his courses to be remembered as being "fun."

There's a word that doesn't often get said when golf course architecture and design is being discussed...


Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back