[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike Nuzzo,

Have I ever ignored you?  There can be and is a lot of informal interaction between members and non members.  When you meet the five course miniumum (including as it stands now a couple complete remodels) you will have plenty of members who know the kind of work you do. 

Mike Young,

Did that super process that beer and pepsi before spraying it on the greens?

[Kyle Harris]

Will the ASGCA ever acknowledge that a contraction of golf courses in the United States is best for the game?

[Jeff_Brauer]

While I occaisionally play Carnac at ASGCA meetings, I don't think I would or could predict that.  You have to recall, BTW, that it wasn't ASGCA pushing a golf course a day 20 years ago, it was NGF.  Our members have always had work loads that ebbed and flowed with the economy.  Nothing we can do can ramp up construction.

Personally, I think it is almost always sad when a golf course closes, but its happened for as long as golf has been played for various reasons.

[Kyle Harris]

While I occaisionally play Carnac at ASGCA meetings, I don't think I would or could predict that.  You have to recall, BTW, that it wasn't ASGCA pushing a golf course a day 20 years ago, it was NGF.  Our members have always had work loads that ebbed and flowed with the economy.  Nothing we can do can ramp up construction.

Personally, I think it is almost always sad when a golf course closes, but its happened for as long as golf has been played for various reasons.

Jeff,

I'm glad you didn't see my question as an attack (I hope my qualifier about being in the US helped).

Wouldn't it be difficult to have new members if few golf courses are being built? Do you feel the membership and outreach aspects of the organization are fluid enough to change or accept new markets?

A generally locally oriented guy like Jim Blaukovitch, who is presently a member that designs affordable and worthwhile golf courses in the Philadelphia area would have difficulty joining in this economy for example.

[Mike_Young]

Mike Young,

Did that super process that beer and pepsi before spraying it on the greens?

Jeff,
He didn't process anything but it is a great story. True and funny.... The owner interviewed for a super after the course was a year old and the first  supt had left....this guy tells him he works at a prominent club in ATL...he just forgets to tell him he was in charge of the flower beds..so the owner thinks he has been on the golf course....owner never checked....the guy would really spray beer and pepsi...I would plead with the owner to get rid of this guy...he would go to supt meetings and tell them we planted 419 on greens and the construction was bad etc....well finally the owner got rid of him and the new supt came in and was having problems so the owner said "ok..let me hear what you have to say... I went out and ask him to show the drains to see if water was coming out..he says that's the problem there are no drains ....I said yes there are...(these were USGA w/choker and 85/15 mix...8 years old....) he says well the last supt said these were push up....I dug up 18 drains where he had capped them over three days....opened the drains....you talk about odor..whew....and in two weeks 8 years of issue was gone....all of this because you have a high net worth absentee owner that gets to hear his supt everyday....I got a really nice apology letter from that owner....I just think if he had used diet pepsi it would have been fine..there was too much sugar for the microbes

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

While 99% of supers are great, there is the occaisonal fraud, but I guess you wouldn't call them supers.

I had one who most (except the Owner, who was a friend of his daddy's) knew was a fraud.  During grow in, he sprayed roundup as weedkiller which put me over the edge.  After many complaints to the county judge (a county owned course) they said come on down and make your charges public.  In a few days, I had to get all his records and he lied about everything on his resume, even inflating his kindergarten year to a private school.  He lied about where he had worked. He said he had wond super of the year twice, which was easy enough to check.  It would be comical if it didn't cost everyone so much money.

Cheers.

[Mike_Young]

You are correct..I should not have called him a super....I apologize to the 99.5 percent of supers out there....but my hero is still Carl Spackler....."Oh Mrs. Crane, you're a little monkey woman. Yeah, you're lean, mean, and I bet you're not too far in between are ya. How'd you like to wrap your spikes around my... " now that's a super to be proud of....

[Ben Sims]

"He's a Cinderella story...tears in his eyes...I guess."

[Tom Yost]

Lot of back and forth in this thread but let's be fair and accurate.  Spackler was an assistant. Sandy was the Super.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Jeff,
Of course you have never ignored me.
No person has.
I've met dozens of ASGCA members - most high quality fellows.
Cheers

[Tony Ristola]

Five courses and three in the last five years.
What about the individual who sets out to design one-at-a-time? A school boy would know scheduling becomes somewhat problematic.
Spends 100 times more time on-site than the hit-and-run architects?
Which is more valuable for the investor, and which is a better school of training? Quality or quantity?

I wonder how an outspoken individual, somewhat critical of the ASGCA, who is independent (no ASGCA apprenticeship) would fare if he applied for membership? Some years ago in a Golf Course News round table with the then ASGCA leadership came out pretty rough on young independents.

I think the ASGCA setup is good for keeping the membership small; if that's what they want... OK. I can understand why... but...

When there is an economic downturn or the golf industry hits the saturation point and new courses aren't being built... what then?
Is the ASGCA ready to see its membership dwindle to the point of near extinction? Or...
Will they change their entry rules, and if they're willing to do so in the future... why not now... to qualify qualified architects as members?

Before I forget... somebody should Call Jim.
 

[Mike_Young]

OKAY..this from the golf news this morning:
http://www.golfbusinesswire.com/story/203481/  read it....

and there is more(maybe I could join thru this     http://www.asgca.org/images/stories/partnership_opportunities.pdf

Now simply from a business standpoint I have purchased at least 3000(for FaTass and Costa rica) Imperial hats in the last two years.  And the courses I have designed have done even more....I just ordered 200 two weeks ago.....no more...

The article starts off...."associated with the leading designers"....

Imperial made a business decision to pay a fee to be a Patron sponsor ....I will be calling my rep this morning....
You can't have your cake and eat it too.....
You will see more and more sponsorships from all organizations....

[Forrest Richardson]

Couple of points ...

— I do not think Jeff intentionally ignored the question about other criteria. (I detest snotty posts suggesting someone purposely ignores a question...can't we all just get along...!?) There is the ASGCA litmus test of having a certain number of courses, but there is also a process to have independent evaluators look at one's work, references and an interview process where one has an opportunity to present his/her design philosophy, discuss their career, answer tough questions about ethics, and explain any questions that have risen about their application or the information presented to the ASGCA. All this is in addition to mostly black and white data such as age, citizenship, etc.

— Unlike the AIA or ASLA where we have thousands upon thousands of peers to review applicants, ASGCA has a very small pool to draw from. I do not think there will ever be a way to once and for all make it appear to anyone here, or elsewhere, that the process is not somehow flawed. Yet, it works very well most of the time. Especially during the past 10+ years when the process was revamped to eliminate — and also add — some steps and details.

— As to the point of ASGCA growing, I do not see that as a goal necessarily. The organization has had tremendous growth during the past 20 years and I foresee a slowing of new applicants due to the economy. There have been discussions about organizing events for associates and others who are in the profession, but are not yet members. Whether this will happen depends on finding someone to champion that cause.

— Regarding the comment that a 12-acre practice course or par-3 does not qualify, this is not true. The membership chair can accept any project with the caveat that it might not count as the equivalent as one, regulation 18-hole project. For example, when I applied for membership two of my 9-hole projects were counted as "one 18." Today, with somewhat flexible interpretations, a partial restoration/renovation may well be accepted along with, for example, the Nuzzo 12-acre example, as "one" qualifying project. The time limit on "recent" projects is also somewhat flexible as the process can recommend waiving certain time limits for a variety of reasons. For example, if an applicant met all of the criteria but had gone abroad to serve in the military, I am guessing this would be a circumstance we would take into account. If an applicant met all of the requirements, but one project opened a few years later than expected, I believe it within the guidelines to "freeze time" on that applicant so his/her projects would still be "recent" in the spirit of the five year term.


All of the details are important, but they are balanced by having the character of the applicant also held high in the process. To some this may appear as a flaw, but to me it makes the process more complete.

[Forrest Richardson]

Will — Phase II is when an applicant appears to meet all of the requirements in the eyes of the membership chair, has all the necessary paperwork, questions and sponsors in place. In essence, it is most everything but the important interview process and anything required once projects are evaluated or other information is submitted. (I may be wrong in parts of this, but I believe it is a close definition.)

Also Will — I am not sure any more objectivity is possible, or needed. If you feel that the process in place is unbalanced towards subjectivity, I really do believe you have the wrong impression. Our membership is made up of a very diverse group — low budget course designers & high profile project designers...wild and crazy designs & mundane designs...minimalist construction & USGA-greens--on-steroids construction...classic appreciators & blow-it-up mentalities...loud & quiet...fat & thin...etc.  The process does not decide who draws pretty or who doesn't. I cannot see any decision being made of a purely subjective nature. For example, I have evaluated a few courses that I would not personally design, or may not enjoy playing a lot. But my role as an evaluator was not to determine those qualities — I was there to make sure the applicant was primarily responsible for the bulk of the work, that the course was a solid representation — e.g., that it was not a plan thrown together and built by others with no involvement of the designer, or that it was planned and constructed so poorly that it could not be played, maintained, etc. (at the time of the evaluation.)

[Mike_Young]

Forrest,
Your last post just digs it a little deeper in my mind ( and I never meant to post the first thing on this topic
Indirectly a sentence such as your last sentence conveys to someone such as myself that my character is not worthy of the ASGCA.  That's the entire problem with this little set -up.  
Take care,
Mike

[Forrest Richardson]

Mike — Once I knew the sponsors you had, your character was no issue for me. My post (and sentence) was not aimed at you. I was just pointing out that the process balances details and submittals with other "steps" such as the interview and all that goes along with that presentation. Maybe "character" is too broad a term...or conversely, too narrow. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Like Forrest, I can tell you that nowhere and at no time has ASGCA ever set a new member quota!  

And, for those who think its going to dwindle, I think that perspective is pretty short term, just like those who think golf is doomed because of this recession. It's not like the ASGCA hasn't seen deep recessions previously, and as I mentioned, maintained a very stable membership. I believe its in part because we do accept members that seem to have been active in the business for a while as an indicator that they will continue in the business.  

Opening it up to relative newcomers who might be able to afford the dues a year and then quit when they can't is simply not our MO.  We like to take in "members for life" and have only lost a few over the years.  That said, this will be a very testing time ane we may lose more now than in our total combined history.

For anyone who thinks that our members routinely try to keep people out, how do we grow by 5-10 new members a year.  More than half the membership has to vote yes for them!  While it is possible that a member would try to stop a certain application for less than honorable reasons, and it has happened, in general, most members welcome new applicants.  If they didn't they would never go to review a course in the first place.

Tony,

Like a few others, I know you have a chip on your shoulder about organizations.  I will simply repeat what I said before - if RTJ or Ross thinks five courses is a good benchmark of experience who am I to question them? Its been in our by laws from the beginning.  As Forrest mentions, there is a rule that says that we can make exceptions. In his military example, if by some chance those home made golf courses on bases in Iraq were designed by an applicant, we might allow those even though no member would be expected to go to a war zone to check it out!  In general, we don't like to make exceptions to our process because it would open us up to even more charges of subjectivity - if one person got a waiver for this, why wouldn't the next one, etc?  Now that really would be subjective on our part, no?

So yeah, we follow rules set up by our founders, tweak them to meet current conditions in their spirit, but as we see fit, and try to hold to them.  While I understand the concerns of those who don't qualify, I won't aplogize for the goals and processes that have been in place a long time, nor do I think ASGCA will change just to satisfy those complaints.  Most young guys should feel like its worth the wait.  If they don't, then I guess they wouldn't be enthusiastic members anyway.

[Tom MacWood]

What does this have to do with golf architecture?

[Mike_Young]

Forrest,
Thanks for the clarification.
Maybe character is all together the wrong term.  Maybe the subjective process of innuendos and opinions from people that have never spent 2 hours with you is not a good idea either....I am amazed at the BS that comes up in some of those so called "vettings" .  The ASGCA would have no problem from me if they stuck to finite issues.  To try to sit as a court and decide if a guy knows what he is doing after he has done what is required physically and has had the independent valuations to support such and has the letters and evaluator interviews with the owners is pure BS.  Looking at any project or anything from the outside never allows one to know what really went on.  All you get is jaded opinions.  To try to sit there and spout hearsay regarding projects without really knowing what goes on is wrong....
If the ASGCA is promoting itself within the industry as the professional group for architects then they have the responsibility to accept objectively as do the PGA and the GCSAA.  Because the ASGCA allows others to perceive them as such.  That's obvious with the Patron Program etc....those guys don't know that many of their customers cannot get in the ASGCA.
What if the GCSAA membership committee had a supt sitting there that had been growing great bentgrass greens for 20 years....and they said well what do you do...and he says" I allow my golden retriever to whizz on them every tuesday for 10 minutes.  Do they tell him he is wrong or he can't be in the GCSAA when his greens have been fine.
I don't mean to argue this but the unspoken Phase 3 is a very subjective process and varies from applicant to applicant....
Take care,
Mike

[Adam Clayman]

Does anyone know who the last amateur architect to be admitted was?

Would it even be possible today to be am Am and get into the association?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom Mac,

Its relevant because ASGCA is considerig a posthumus membership for HH Barker based on Philly train schedules.......

Adam,

Given the state of the industry, I doubt an am architect of the Crump, one masterpiece type would exist, or could get in.  It is a professional society after all.  And, as discussed, we do have the five course minimum!

This BTW is another example of some of the issues ASGCA faces. At one time, there was a clause that the majority of a members income had to come from gca.  Not only would that have affected historical figures like CBM (and that gca model was long dead when the ASGCA was formed) but it would keep modern tour pros out. Also, many members own other businesses and so the original clause was deemed unfair.  And it would require an applicant to disclose his full financials, which no one wants to do.

Mike,

In all my research in support of your application, I recall only one innuendo that originated with an ASGCA members years ago.  Others came elsewhere and ASGCA was merely evaluating them, within our time constraints of getting your application ready for the meeting vote.   I think its clear that when innuendo gets into the process from other sources, then pure "finite objectivity" is by definition, impossible and both subjectivity and some doubt creep in.  I am dissapointed for you that you fell into the "shred of doubt" category and understand your vents, but I can also understand the result in terms of the long term history of ASGCA.  It is a tough situation and you continue to take the high road, which for me is evidence enough of your good character!

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom M. —   I will reply by simply saying that the effort and words in your recent post above has zilch to do with golf course architecture, while at minimum the words and efforts of the other posts before yours have made honest attempts to weigh in, ask questions, give answers, etc.

To answer — A discussion of ASGCA seems very worthwhile, even though I would prefer it to focus on aspects other than the skeptics who view it as a club, a waste of time and the status quo of golf design. Like it or not, the ASGCA is a part of the game and a part of the art of golf course architecture.

While Jeff visualizes GCA-ers in their bathrobes eating Cheeriosฎ, I have always used the cocktail party as a visual. Here we are — talking and discussing new and old topics hovering above the broad game of golf and golf courses — and along comes someone to throw ice cold gin on the conversation...this not only wastes the gin, but quiets the room for long enough that those who were engaged must now regroup. It does little to stimulate the conversation or expand one's mind on the subject.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Forrest,

You put gin on your cheerios?

[Forrest Richardson]

Not lately, considering the price of Cheeriosฎ. But, yes, pre-2009.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Forrest,

We keep this banter up, and maybe we can add the 96 pages necessary to catch the Merion thread!  And the info we generate will be JUST as useful........

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()