Training under a Signature player architect......???

[Mike_Young]

A friend of mine who is on one of the rating panels played golf lately with another architect at one of his courses...he mentioned to him that one of my projects reminded him of his project....this architect had trained under a signature/player....I like his work....
This person informed him that I was at quite a disadvantage because I had not been trained under a player/architect and that was definitely a negative for me....hell..could be...I don't know....sounded a little pompous to me....probably let's you see some places and get some budgets others would not have...probably get to hear thoughts from the player as to why this and that...you would meet and connect with a completley different client base....you would not have to worry about starting with low budget jobs and getting trapped......

but it also could have downsides....like..how long would you stay before getting out and if you stay too long and get out can you establish.....?   Can you adjust downward...or can you consider alternatives....

What do you say?

[RJ_Daley]

Define "training" under a player architect.  Define "player architect".   Does the player/archie have training somewhere in the actual sciences of engineering, soils, and turf, and training in the use and techiques of earth moving/shaping equipment, that allows him to train a newly minted from LA or other program that prepares one to be a GCA?  It seems a little assbackwards to me that a player/archie would train an actual archie. 

I suppose that an actual archie working with or in a big player names subsidiary GC design firm, would have a marketing hurdle if striking out after a player/archie relationship.  But in reality, I don't see a practical rationale that a working and trained archie should have technical shortcomings if leaving the name player relationship.  Just marketing...

[Adrian_Stiff]

Mike I think training under a player/architect might even be a distraction. They often work with crazy budgets not suited to the real world. I think a better background is to go and train at a golf course, mowing and cutting, learn how to maintain the things you want to build, then learn how to design the things you want to buid. It does not make any difference if you can hit a 2 iron straight 240 yards, but you do need to be abe to draw a 240 line to scale.
If you can get some sort of field work working on a nice project, but a bit more hands on and working with real budgets that would be stage 2 in my book.

[Brett Hochstein]

For the most part, I would prefer hands-on work with a lesser known architect whose principles I believe in more, but how much help is needed with those types of guys, especially at times like these?  Many architects I would prefer to work for are DIY types and very helpful to the younger entry crowd, which are both good qualities.  But they are clashing qualities.  They want to help but usually cannot unless there is an overload of work. 

My question is how much "training" is out there right now?  Is it only at the big name places currently active like Nicklaus and Norman, who I have heard, distantly mind you, are laying off people too?

[Scott Macpherson]

It seems to me that you can learn almost all of the 'skills' required to build a golf course, i.e. golfing strategy,  agronomy, drainage, turf, irrigation/hydrology, draughtmanship,business,etc, but perhaps what separates the best architects/designers is what can't be taught. By this I am thinking about the art/sculpturing.

To put it another way, Designers in the industry have come in from many different directions with vastly different backgrounds. I don't see any as being better than another, but those who excel seems to have a higher level of creativity and a more innate feel for the natural forms.

(NB: I don't underestimate the ability to understand the importance of business too. i.e You might be a great designer, but it's hard to work if you can't keep in business)

scott