A Question for Mr. Shackleford...

[Patrick_Mucci]

I can't believe it.

I go in for some surgery, and look at what I missed in the last two days.  I've got to get a lap top.

This thread got me thinking.

Do I want a surgeon that can perform complicated surgery with his eyes closed, in his mind, with his hands, in an incredibly efficient manner ........ or..........
Do I want a surgeon to labor over me for hours, open me up a few times, until he thinks he got it right ?

In my feeble mind, I want the most talented surgeon working on me, not just for the routine procedure but for the potential complications that might arise.

Now what does this have to do with golf course architecture ?

I think certain people have more talent than others.....
even in the same profession.  Musicians, artists, athletes, golf course architects/designers, it's all the same.
Some people just have extra-ordinary vision, an ability to see things light years or eons before others.

While hard work and long hours are admirable, they can't override inate special talent.
 
Donald Ross never seems to get knocked for being so proficient, why.... because he was very talented and able to produce in a relatively short span enormous quantities that few of us could produce in a lifetime.

I don't know what the magic formula is.
For some it may be time and their abilities,
for others, their unique talent may allow them to produce masterpieces in short order.

I think,
The QUALITY of the PRODUCT, not the PROCESS that brought it about should be the SOLE determiner of its worth.

But, that's just my opinion.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

I hope all went well with your surgery.  

It seems you've had quite the change of heart, however.

Tom Paul and I have been debating this issue for some time, with you contending that almost any architect will do, and with both of us contending that some architects are simply not as talented as you might think and will not be able to create or "restore" a course to the degree of quality that one would expect no matter what the wishes or dictates of the club or developer.  

Glad to see that you've come around to see our point.    Or, is this just the anasthesia talking??  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

KBM,
If you want to see whacky, I'll lend you my straight jacket anytime. You got the Big Boy part right, you could fit three or four of you in it.

Actually the point was that ALL of us have gotten our starts in our chosen professions somewhere and somehow, mor then likely by some amazing people who saw promise in us, and saw to it to make us all grow. That is the beauty of learning, and the methods which have been passed over and over.

Call it up-bringing if you will.

Jim Kennedy,
My disappointment is more with the tone of this entire topic.

Here we have an erudite group of architecture enthusiasts (Both professional and amateur) attacking someone that has done more then his share of preserving the game and its traditions, at the stake of his reputation as both an author and a designer. Some of you are attacking one of our own, and it is all the result of people that want to turn the blind eye to truth, no matter how much it hurts the delicate egos with-in.

Bring up the names Merion,Augusta and Riviera and one is guaranteed a fight. Why? What do some of us purists/historians have to profit from all of this?  

Then bring up the name of an individual that has paid a price, spent hours upon hours researching, studying, etc. and then is attacked for his lack of landscape architecture degree.

I brought up the classic names, (throw Devereux Emmet in there also.) of people that seemed to build these GREAT courses all over the place, that didn't require ultra-green seeetings or waterscapes to be good. these people didn't have a LA degree when they built these places and in all truth an honesty, back in the day, if you studied and amassed a degree of intelligence on the subject--not unlike many of the people that particpate in this discussion group, the chances of designing a course were quite good. (Not many people got into it like they did, and we do!)

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

You left out an important part of my thesis......
That a man of vision, with a vision, can use any number of architects, to create or restore a wonderful golf course.

Pine Valley is just a nearby example.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

You're not getting this thing about architects not really being interchangeable--you keep insisting they are! No way!

And you keep citing Pine Valley's short course as an example. Yes, Tom Fazio was the architect of record down there and he had Ernie Ransome as the man of that short course's vision but do you know who did the construction, dirt and detail work down there. And I'm not saying they all didn't do a great job there, they did!

But a lot of this point has to do with restoration anyway like Fazio at Merion and Riviera and Rees at Bethpage etc. The point isn't so much the architect anyway in these restoration cases, a lot of it's the contractor that seems to come along on every project.

Do you really think that Fazio and Rees's tag-team bunker contractor MacDonald & Co. would or could restore bunkers anything like Doak, Hanse and Coore & Crenshaw would restore them?

Come on Pat, open your eyes, you know this stuff somewhat and I think you've seen the differences here and there and it's by no mean inconsequential or unobvious.

There's no way that MacDonald's bunkers look anything like Doak's boys, Jeff Bradley or Rodney Hines and Bill Kittleman build and restore bunkers--not even close!

Vision can go a long way but vision doesn't hire any architect and contractor to do really good restoration work and vision alone doesn't build really great bunkers, those guys do! All vision does is hire them, not anyone!

[TEPaul]

Poor guy, if at all possible take pity on him, put a forefinger and a thumb at the base of his neck and just steer him to the other side of the street and your good deed for the day will be done!

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

Tom Paul is correct.  These guys (Macdonald & Co) seem to be quick, efficient, and economical.  They deal in craft...not art.

Every bunker they create on every course looks almost identical, save the one dimensional shaping dealing with how a bunker would appear cookie-cutter like from an aerial

Their tools of the trade are the latest in high-tech efficiencies.  Hand work?  Is that in the budget?  How would one even begin to do that anyway??

In artistic terms, they are hacks.  In engineering terms, they are adept.  

I contend that Merion needed artists, not tradesmen.  Ditto for Riviera and even Bethpage Black.  

The shame is, no one in charge at the club was willing to wait for the artists to complete their work.  They wanted instant results and project completion dealing with efficiency of time, cost, and labor.  In their minds, the clock was ticking on the 2005 Amateur, which the club was hoping would be the springboard to hosting another US Open.

So, they brought in the efficiency experts, and the results are that the famed White Faces of Merion now look exactly like the new bunkers at Riviera and more like the new bunkers at Hartefeld National than like their predecessors.

All of that being said, I'm hoping the club proceeds with their other stated intentions of widening fairways to their original 1930 lines, as well as enlarging greens (although I am seriously perplexed by the comments in Joe Logan's Golfweek column that suggests the greens have shrunk considerably over time...WHICH ONES???) and continuing the fine tree management program.

[Gil Hanse]

Time for my annual post.  It was brought to my attention that Geoff's involvement at Rustic Canyon had come under some consideration on this site.  When I pulled up the thread, I think it was understated how much discussion had gone on about the topic.  Let me try to make this as simple as I can, I consider Rustic Canyon to be designed by Jim Wagner, Geoff and myself, and if it is referred to in that order that is fine by me.  Tom Paul stated things very clearly in one of his posts although he may have slightly understated Geoff's role in the routing.  Geoff was the primary force behind the final layout. We all took shots at laying out the course, and in the final analysis, Geoff's ability to study the site over numerous visits, and to experience the changing elements led to the final design.  It was a great lesson to all of us on how exhaustive study of the site can lead to the best results.
      Through our combination of routings we came up with a design that has yielded many interesting holes, and a look and feel that captured the surrounding landscape.  It has also allowed us build a course where only 17,000 cubic yards of earth were moved to build the holes.  Which was good since not being a real architect Geoff doesn't know how to do grading plans!  
       I have always contended that on site involvement is crucial to the success of any design.  However, having people on site who can capitalize on opportunities that present themselves is the key component to any on site involvement.  At Rustic Canyon, the combination of Geoff and Jim being on site every day and me being there two weeks out of the month, allowed us to capitalize on the opportunities that were originally uncovered in Geoff's thorough exploration of the golf course.  Hope this helps.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

It is my understanding that the in house Green crew at Pine Valley did the work for Fazio.  Now if guys that inexperienced at golf course construction can build those bunkers, under the direction and supervision of Fazio and Ransome, I think that advances my theory.

With respect to Merion, they weren't breaking new ground, from a design perspective, they were to restore their bunkers to their look and configuration, circa 1930.  So, they had a clear target, A target that was defined to every person involved, a target that they had photographic and documented evidence of.

Armed with the above, how hard could it be to RESTORE those bunkers.  If Fazio was capable of, and successful at duplicating the bunkers at eight ( holes at Pine Valley,
why couldn't he be successful at duplicating the 1930 bunkers at Merion ?

SOMETHING ELSE HAD TO GO WRONG.

And... therein lies my curiosity.

Who was supervising this project for the club ?

I have said for some time, when architects leave a project, the green superintendent remains to maintain what has been done, and the members remain to play what has been done, and therein lies the ultimate responsibility, with the owners of the club, in this case, the members.

Who was supervising this project for the club ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

We have differing opinions.

Do I think some architects and some construction people do a better job than others, especially when designing a new golf course, YES.

But this wasn't a project that designed and built a new golf course.  It was a project to reconfigure and reconstruct existing bunkers to a fixed period in time, 1930.

Artistry and creativity have no merit, no room to exist in this situation.  Plagerism, copycating. duplicating bunkers from 1930 is the sole focus of the project, with no room for deviation, and I maintain that if Fazio could do the duplication work at Pine Valley, AT ANOTHER SITE, then he is capable of doing the work at Merion, AT THE SAME SITE.

SOMETHING ELSE WENT WRONG.

To lay the blame on the contractor is to miss the mark.
If a contractor is building what you don't want, then the architect, and the club tell them to STOP.....START OVER.
Get it right this time, or you'll be told to STOP...START OVER, AGAIN.

Pretend for a second that you are the club's project overseer.
Pretend you're puting in cart paths.  You have an aerial photo of the course.  You've mylared the cart paths onto the aerial.  You've layed out the cart paths on each hole with spray paint, matching the mylar overlay.  You've done your homework from a bidding point of view, and have selected a qualified contractor.  Let's say that the project will follow the sequential order of holes, # 1 through # 18.  You meet with the contractor and go over the details of the cart path project.  They start.  You come back from vacation, go to the site to review the work to date and in progress, and you notice that the cart paths aren't in their intended location.
WHAT HAPPENS ?  You say, STOP.....RIP IT UP..... START OVER.... GET IT RIGHT.

WHY IS THE BUNKER PROJECT AT MERION ANY DIFFERENT ?

Who was supervising this project for the club ?

[brad_miller]

thanks Gil for posting, hope you feel there's benifit to posting more than just once a year. Look forward to catching up in the near future.

[ed_getka]

Geoff offered a lot of input into details of the holes according to my conversation with Jim Wagner (Gil's associate). I don't remember anything being said about Geoff being involved in the routing, so I can't comment on that. The contour in and around the green is the focal point of the course in my opinion and I think will be the most remarked on aspect of the course. A good short game will be imperative to scoring well at Rustic, at least for a 10 handicap like me who tends to miss greens. I haven't had a chance to hook up with Geoff at the course yet, but having Jim Wagner draw holes in the dirt to show me strategic concepts of some of the holes has been one of the highlights of my ongoing architectural education. I can't wait for the GCA gathering that will be had there at some point.

  I guess I should pay attention to the fact that there are 3 pages of replies and not jump in at the end of page 1.

[TEPaul]

Ed:

I really don't think anybody needs to speculate much anymore about what Geoff Shackelford did or didn't do at Rustic Canyon and for that we can thank Gil for coming on here with his post above. That should pretty much clear everything up for any of us--and thanks for posting it Gil--it's something that's just wonderful to get--the input from the architect of what happened.

Beyond what Gil said in his post about the way things worked out with those involved I really don't think we need to know much more. I'm real happy, however, to see Gil say that the extremely detailed and extensive site time Geoff Shackelford put in out there pre-construction (pre everything really--except all that he was trying to identify) was of real importance to the architects when the time came to finalize things and begin the work. Go back and read again what Gil Hanse said about that--how important and even educational (probably even as a process) it was to all of them!

That's a big point a lot of us have been trying to make on here about what results in quality architecture.

As for the routing itself, that's a tough one, maybe even a touchy one. I think if I were Geoff Shackelford (I sure know for me) that if I'd put in the time out there that he did before anything started I would be probably quite proprietary about the routing I'd done.

I really don't know anything much about that but I did spend about two days out there with Geoff and one with Geoff and Jim Wagner and Geoff did have a very detailed booklet he'd done of what appeared to be not only a full routing but fairly developed hole drawings.

I don't know at that point if what he had was his alone or after they'd all collaborated and finalized the routing. I just can't remember anymore. I think I can remember that long before that Geoff might have faxed me a few hole concept drawings but that kind of thing is hard for me to even comment on when I had no idea whatsoever what the site looked like!

When I finally got out there the site actually looked much different than I'd visulized even with some photos Geoff sent my way. I was not ready for the effect of the "Canyon" itself and how it sort of triangles out to the open-end and the mountains way out beyond the open-end! When you're out at that open-end and look back down to the narrower end, it's just beautiful how it sort of turns to the left!

Anyway the two days there were really great. The first day with Geoff was probably a bit unusual because the hole corridors were getting mowed when we were there and I could tell for the first time the routing and the holes were beginning to spring to life for him after all the time he'd spent on the raw land. I'm sure if some of you try to visualize you might start to imagine how exciting that might have been for him.

And the next day Jim Wagner was there and we looked over a few holes and really started to get into refining concept, strategic concept and how some of the features were going to dictate and define that with the natural features identified!  That was a great day because all of us were discussing concept but Jim was filling us in on the actual construction ramifications, the can do, can't do, can do easily, can't do easily, etc, etc!

It was also a great day because everyone seemed to be having fun but concentrating and Jim Wagner is very funny too, his whole approach to it was just a lot of fun and plenty of laughs--some even on Gil since it seemed like a thing or two we were trying to figure out how to outflank him but about what I can't even remember now. It might have been #13 and I don't know who got his way but I've seen some really good photos of that hole and it's going to be great! A gutsy, low key offering actually!

But the routing. My understanding is some routings were done independently and since I'm so interested in that phase I did ask Geoff Shackelford about that and what he said was; "Remarkably similar."

So I'll just leave it at that! But it's going to be a wonderful course and the collaboration on creating it sounds great!

[ed_getka]

Tom Paul,
  I missed the subsequent posts after page 1 as I noted. I was not trying to imply anything, but was just adding some information from what I had read up to the end of page 1 where people were asking some questions. I think the course is going to be great and I'm thrilled my in-laws have a house just down the street. #13 the par 5 is an awesome looking hole with so much strategy dictated by four bunkers for the entire hole.

[Gil Hanse]

Tom Paul,
     Re; the Thirteenth Hole, I always get my way!!

[TEPaul]

Gil:

I know you do! But what we were trying to do was to figure out a way to get our way and make you think you got your way!! At least I think that's what Jim Wagner said and is one of the reasons we had a good time and a lot of laughs that day!

I knew Jim Wagner was a piece of work anyway when I called you out there on the phone, got him, asked him for you, and he said; "What do you want to speak to that idiot for?", and then handed you the phone because you were standing right next to him!

Does this post of yours mean you're at home and I can come over there and bother you?