Jim Kennedy,
In baseball terms, "nice catch".
You show that the phrasing is really, really unimportant. We design golf courses. We don't architect them, except in the fractured syntax of my departed grandmother......
The term golf course architect was used in the society name because it was founded in 1946, and that was what Ross, McDonald et al called themselves. The legal distinction between designer and architect came about in the landscape and interior design professions, when some of those started lobbying states to licence those professions "in the name of health, safety, and welfare" of their citizens, as if a falling curtain rod might hurt someone, and this should be an essential function of government!
Of course, there are some safety issues in engineering and even landscape architecture, but many view those as attempts to close off the profession and keep fees high.
I hate to get on the ASGCA bandwagon on this site again, so for those of you who can't stomach it, please avert your gaze!
For the record, ASGCA has always fought licencing of golf design, often expending both members personal and group funds to do so. Is this Brian's "elitist group" trying to close the door on new practicitioners? (sorry, brian)
Responding here to Mike Young's questions about GolfCourse1 on another thread, is it so bad to pool member's funds to distribute information about building practical, affordable golf courses? Or to sponsor a paper on how technolgy is affecting the game? Or to provide other services to those who happen to attain membership that makes them even more productive in their pursuit of the profession?
I respect Mike, and although I haven't played any of his courses, have taken web tours of his projects, and feel he has designed some impressive work. I also understand his personal dissapointment with ASGCA. But, if ASGCA advertises the resources put into golf 1, we are going to tout our members, and don't feel any responsibility to tout non members, any more than Wendy's needs to say, "Oh, yeah, those McDonald's hamburgers are okay, too." in their ads.
We do not (generally, but I'll bet there are exceptions) speak ill of non members. Last month, while representing ASGCA officially at remodel university, a participant expressed great concern about having hired Ron Forse, a non ASGCA member. I assured the man that Ron was good, experienced in such work, and that his non membership was either a personal choice, or a result of him not being technically qualified to be a member becausse of his emphasis on renovations, and our membership emphasis on new course design. I understand how some on this site would disagree with that, but that is our (well reasoned, I might add) perspective.
ASGCA fdoesn't favor any type of working method over another. Our definition of architect has changed over time with the profession. There was a time, probably concurrent with the evolution of golf course contractors like Wadsworth, when the ability to draw and specify a project was very important, and this was reflected in membership criteria. At that time, the process was still simple enough that the golf course architect could know everything and affect absolutely every aspect of the project.
You plans versus field guys can argue the fine points of this, but the common sense argument that we are a "big tent for different working methods" comes from the fact that we let the "big Kahuna" of the no plans method - Pete Dye - into the group decades ago! Once he's in, that ship has sailed! Our current membership app says the person should be the one most responsible for the final form of the golf course. Period.
Oddly, as the profession evolves to even more specialization - with irrigation desigers, environmental permitting specialists, etc. etc. the golf architect is no longer expected to know it all. In a way, these trends opened the doors for the Ron Whittens, Jeff Mingays, and Geoff Shack elford entree into golf design just a bit wider than it may have been earlier.
But, assisting in "conceptualizing", as most tour pros do - is a far cry from instituting all the details that go into a successful final golf hole. The style debate we engage in here is just 10% - or less - of what goes into a hole to make it work. When any person can go out and get good results a few times in a row (well, five, if you use the ASGCA definition), he or she will be considered a real architect. By good results, I mean good playability, look, drainage, turf, etc. as a result of the decisions made by the GCA. Tour pros, golf writers, and do it yourself course builders, etc. are just "playing in the sandbox" until they are fully responsible for the final product - and can deliver without partnering with someone else.
With all due repect to Jeff, Geoff, and Ron, I'll bet most practicioners don't consider you real architects - at least not yet. I am sure their talents contributed to their respective projects immensely. I am sure those projects can be a springboard to a potential new career for all of them, and if it does, I wish them each luck.
But, just as much as "working method" doesn't matter if you get good final results, neither does caring lots about it - if you don't have the talent, training and vision to do the work, and don't get good results!
While each of them can probably tell a story of how hard it is to be accepted in the business, or as legitimate architects, I have to say - Join the club, boys! And while each of them may feel the profession is elitist and difficult to enter - join the club again! To most of us, your status as well known writers probably made it easier to get in any aspect of the business than most of us.
Every one of us have also fought and scratched for every penny of fee and pound of respect we get as architects.
IMHO, Mike Young's initial post captures what most full time, professional architects feel is what it takes to be a "Real Architect". Certainly, we can all quibble with a few of his anecdotes - or add some - but a real architect is a professional architect.
Sorry if I offend, as it is not my intent to offend, just inform. Nor do I intend to downgrade the efforts of the gentleman listed above. I am happy for anyone fortuneate enough to taste this profession, however breifly.