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.


Chris Hervochon

A Question for Mr. Shackleford...
« on: March 06, 2002, 09:16:51 AM »
Mr. Shackleford,
    On other threads mentioning Tom Fazio's work, I have noticed less than stellar reviews.  I, myself, like most others on this site am rather indifferent to most of his work and find some of it distasteful.  Albeit, he does have a couple good ones thrown in there.  Out of curiousity, from an architects perspective, how do you feel about his work and why?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Chris Hervochon

Re: A Question for Mr. Shackleford...
« Reply #1 on: March 06, 2002, 09:36:08 AM »
Sorry for the errors...I meant Mr. GEOFF Shackelford.  Also, I certainly apologize for the incorrect spelling.  My humblest apologies.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: A Question for Mr. Shackleford...
« Reply #2 on: March 06, 2002, 09:37:58 AM »
Chris
Which of his courses do you find indifferent and why do you find some of his work distasteful?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Geoff Shackelford

Re: A Question for Mr. Shackleford...
« Reply #3 on: March 06, 2002, 10:19:58 AM »
Chris,
Let's be clear, I only find Mr. Fazio's "restoration" work, the reasons for undertaking projects free of charge and his distain for the old architects to be distasteful. In particular, his recent remarks about MacKenzie on the Golf Channel point to someone with either questionable motives or just a great deal of disrespect. I do not feel that disparaging dead architects is tasteful or productive, particularly when there is so much to be learned from their work to better the art of course design.

I'm indifferent to the Fazio style of design because I don't find the courses I've seen or played to be interesting. Interest comes from options or unusual features that throw you off a bit and ask you to imagine a certain kind of shot. I still remember how bored Brad Klein and I were playing Pelican Hill...that's about all I remember from the course besides the excessive tree planting. Caves Valley is a magnificent place, but are the holes memorable, interesting and worthy of discussion?  I can't say that they are in my view. Certainly, Fazio courses appeal to a large audience of golfers, and I'm glad that people enjoy his work and are willing to pay handsomely to play or live on a Fazio course.

And from an architects perspective, well, working on all aspects of just one design for almost three years now does make me a bit suspicious of architects who declare that they do great work, particularly when they do nearly 9 courses a year on average. First, the self-important declaration of greatness by any architect is pretty embarassing. I may think a hole that Gil and Jim and I worked on is interesting, but the golfers will be the judge of that. Second, I think that if you want to create truly fun, interesting golf, it takes a lot of time in the field pondering things and a memory of classic design ideas to really get the most out of a property. World Woods Pine Barrens is easily the most impressive of Fazio's courses I've seen, and I would guess based on what I've learned, that the attention to detail there and the interesting holes are the result of someone with a great imagination spending a lot of time in the field.

Finally, it's just a matter of different takes on the game and aesthetics. Since it's going to rain tonight, I'm heading out the door now to go out to Rustic Canyon to transplant some yuccas and coastal sage bushes I've had my eye on for the last few weeks, and they'll probably end up in a bunker face or a bunker island. I would guess that Mr. Fazio would probably think that's pretty silly stuff to be spending time on, but again, it's just a matter of different approaches, different tastes.
Regards,
Geoff
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Bill (Guest)

Re: A Question for Mr. Shackleford...
« Reply #4 on: March 06, 2002, 10:37:28 AM »
I didn't know Geoff Shackleford was an architect?  I thought he was an author, or does one course (in progress) make you an Architect?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Kelly_Blake_Moran

Re: A Question for Mr. Shackleford...
« Reply #5 on: March 06, 2002, 11:23:42 AM »
Bill,

AMEN.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

ajf

Re: A Question for Mr. Shackleford...
« Reply #6 on: March 06, 2002, 11:53:43 AM »
geoff,

I didn't hear fazio's comments about Mackenzie, but by looking at fazio's work, one can tell he was never influenced by him.  And there shouldn't be anything wrong with that.  I don't find most of Fazio's work very interesting either, but pelican hill has some pretty good holes.  

I think most architects say they do great work for marketing purposes.  If people hear it enough, they believe it.  And dispite all the efforts to make golf course architecture an honest and noble profession, you still have to convince people your work is worth their investment.  And part of that convincing is being confident and sure of your abilities.  

As far as your comment on the amount of time required to make a course fun and interesting, i couldn't disagree more.  Spending plenty of time looking at a piece of property will never ensure a fun and interesting course.  Just as spending very little time will not make a course no fun and uninteresting.  If you are armed with only a great memory of classic design ideas, you end up repeating the same stuff over and over.  Or you end up regurgitating the same banal ideas over and over, like most of the peole on this site.   And golf course architecture is much more than a few classic ideas from a few classic architects.  Design is an intuitive process.  Some people can look at a piece of land or a topo map and in a couple days come up with an increduble routing.  they visualize things most people can't.  And this doesn't take a lot of time.  A real imagination is the greatest attribute to a designer, and this imagingation allows them to see the whole picture quickly and with detail.  This is not to say site visits are not important.  They are vital to any good design, but again, the time spent is not the key component.

I think we probably have similar tastes on architecture and aesthetics.  We just disagree on how they are achieved.    
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A Question for Mr. Shackleford...
« Reply #7 on: March 06, 2002, 11:58:18 AM »
Where are all the pc police out there when "Bill" performs drive-by criticism?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

John Foley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A Question for Mr. Shackleford...
« Reply #8 on: March 06, 2002, 12:28:10 PM »
Ok Bill,

Step to the plate. Why wouldn't one course make you an architect? The day someone performs a task, gets paid, we should be willing to call him by that profession, especially given his knowledge base.

Or is it that Geoff's opion's are not shared by you so why not kick him. I enjoy & repect Geoff's written body of work and look forward to seeing what he can claim as his at Rustic Canyon.

I'd be interested to see if we consider Ron Whitten or Jeff Migray an architect since they both have had a hand in a design.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Integrity in the moment of choice

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A Question for Mr. Shackleford...
« Reply #9 on: March 06, 2002, 12:46:10 PM »
George Pazin:

I have never been called part of the "pc police" before!

But, if you must know, I do think Bill's comment was a form of "drive by" criticism and, as such, inappropriate.

Obviously, the thread was initiated by someone asking Geoff a question.  In doing so, HE used the word "architect", not Geoff.

So why take a shot at Geoff?

George, I make no apologies for taking a strong stand on how we should conduct our dialogue.  I want to see GCA grow.  We should vigorously exchange ideas, but we should also remain gentlemen while doing so.  

I'd be surprised if you really disagree with that.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Tim Weiman

Chris Hervochon

Re: A Question for Mr. Shackleford...
« Reply #10 on: March 06, 2002, 01:08:35 PM »
I am sorry if my coining Mr. Shackelford as an architect was offensive to some.  However, Mr. Shackelford is working on a golf course right now.  So, does that mean he's not an architect.  I THINK otherwise, in my opinion he is in fact an architect.

Mr. Shackelford, thank you for your reply.

Mr. MacWood-
I liked Fazio's work at Osprey Ridge. Did not like Hartefeld.  Did not like Mahogany Run(St. Thomas) even though it was a collaboration between him and his uncle.  Don't get me started on Pine Hill.  Hudson National was indifferent.  My reasons for not being such a big Fazio fan are 1-his emphasis on aesthetics over everything else, 2- the repetition in his work, 3- his use of man-made features is played out, 4-in reading his book he talks about earthmoving and creating man-made features and whatnot.  Personally, I do not agree with some of the "shot values" that he puts into his courses or the lack of natural features he uses.  However, that is just one man's opinion.  And just one other comment, for those who have played Osprey Ridge and just so happen to own his book as well, look at page 111 and tell me what that reminds you of.  When i saw that picture is when my opinion of Fazio went downhill.  The sad thing is, I can cite other examples.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A Question for Mr. Shackleford...
« Reply #11 on: March 06, 2002, 01:11:08 PM »
You're right, Tim - I was just getting in a little dig - should have included a winking smiley.

Anyway, I think it's best to just ignore these kind of posts - if Ran or John want to delete them, fine, otherwise I'll take my own advice & ignore them.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Tyler Kearns

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A Question for Mr. Shackleford...
« Reply #12 on: March 06, 2002, 01:19:07 PM »
Geoff,
        i too missed Tom Fazio's comments on TGC regarding Dr. Mackenzie, and would be quite interested to hear what was said. could you please post a quote or simply give a brief as to the comments made.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

NAF

Re: A Question for Mr. Shackleford...
« Reply #13 on: March 06, 2002, 01:24:02 PM »
I am somewhat perplexed by this offside remark as well and by the next post as I can't tell if that is a practicing architect insulting Geoff for perceived lack of experience..

While I haven't met Geoff in person I have been inspired by his books and learned a heck of a lot about architecture by reading his prose and understanding his essays on strategy/bunkering.  Without Geoff's books I probably would not have seen the art present in golf design today and in the past.  Besides being a great historian, Geoff seems to have the feel for what a golf course should look like and feel like to play and walk away challenged and refreshed.  Besides, he is working with Gil Hanse one of the best in the biz and given Geoff's intellect I am sure he knows a hell of a lot more than many who claim to be *architects*...
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Kelly_Blake_Moran

Re: A Question for Mr. Shackleford...
« Reply #14 on: March 06, 2002, 01:30:04 PM »

Quote
 Spending plenty of time looking at a piece of property will never ensure a fun and interesting course.  Just as spending very little time will not make a course no fun and uninteresting.  Some people can look at a piece of land or a topo map and in a couple days come up with an increduble routing.  They are vital to any good design, but again, the time spent is not the key component.

Whoever you are I think your point counterpoint presented in the first two lines of your quote are wrong.  The first part is true, you can sit out there all day and if you have no talent, nothing much of value will result.  However the second point about spending little time does not follow logically.  You can not assume because one is true the other is true.  Spending little time will almost guarantee failure.  Furthermore, I do not believe just looking at a topo map will result in an incredible routing. The approach you seem to be willing to accept, which is to paraphrase as follows: if you have  talent your time spent on the task can be reduced, and you do not need to spend as much time on the site, a base map can substitute, seems to be the motto of Fazio.  God bless Geoff for going on site and getting his hands dirty.  I am sure his knowledge of classic design, his hands on approach, and his marquee name will make Rustic Canyon an instant classic.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Allan Long

Re: A Question for Mr. Shackleford...
« Reply #15 on: March 06, 2002, 02:24:43 PM »
John F., you beat me to the punch. Also, unless I am mistaken Rustic Canyon is NOT Geoff's first design. I believe he also did Sinaloa in Sounthern California. Even though it may not be a regulation-sized course, should he not get credit for the architectural effort?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A Question for Mr. Shackleford...
« Reply #16 on: March 06, 2002, 02:49:26 PM »
... "Since it's going to rain tonight, I'm heading out the door now to go out to Rustic Canyon to transplant some yuccas and coastal sage bushes I've had my eye on for the last few weeks, and they'll probably end up in a bunker face or a bunker island."

Geoff,
If my ball comes to rest in that stuff you won't mind if I hack those bushes out of there with my sw, will you?  :) :)
  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

TEPaul

Re: A Question for Mr. Shackleford...
« Reply #17 on: March 06, 2002, 03:30:43 PM »
Is Geoff Shackelford an architect? Who the hell cares if he is or isn't! Does he have talent in architecture? In certain areas of it absolutely unquestionably he does! Conceptually,  aesthetically and analytically he has real talent, in my opinion, probably more in those areas than 95% of the licensed and association member architects in the country! And man oh man does it piss off those professional architects to hear that said and I couldn't give one goddamn if it does piss them off because it's absolutely true, in my opinion!

Geoff Shackelford doesn't pretend to know that much about some aspects of architecture yet, like running machinery, probably some aspects of construction and other obviously important areas of architectural creation but in the areas he's good at like architectural concept, how to scrutinize and analyze natural landforms no matter how miniscule for good golf use, how to visualize really well designed golf holes and courses by that process with interesting options, thoughtful to play, challenging, tempting, and the extremely important area of really great natural aesthetics and how to visualize and blend that to a site etc, in those areas he's really talented. I think he can really draw his visualizations and conceptual creations too!

But he's not technically an architect so I guess that means he automatically has no talent to some people who don't know him or only know a little about him! Those are probably the same people who could spend two days on a site with a guy like Geoff Shackelford and wouldn't even recognize talent if they saw it!

Robert Hunter was technically not an architect either, but somehow he managed to write one of the best books about architecture ever written. I guess he didn't have any architectural talent either to some people. I guess to some people he probably just stood around with Mackenzie on various sites to keep him company.

It would be interesting to be able to ask Alister MacKenzie how much architectural talent Hunter had, just like it would be interesting to ask Gil Hanse (somebody who certainly knows) how much talent and what kind of talent Shackelford has for architecture! There are a ton of professional architects out there who really ought to wish they had some of the same kind of talent for various aspects of architecture that Shackelford has--because they would do a lot better if they had some of the kind of talent he does!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Ken Bakst

Re: A Question for Mr. Shackleford...
« Reply #18 on: March 06, 2002, 03:39:43 PM »
Kelly Blake Moran

Rather than jumping to conclusions, as perhaps I am wrong in my detection of sarcasm in your posts, would you please take a moment to explain your “AMEN” response to Bill’s post “I didn't know Geoff Shackleford was an architect?  I thought he was an author, or does one course (in progress) make you an Architect?” -- as well as the last sentence of your last post -- “God bless Geoff for going on site and getting his hands dirty.  I am sure his knowledge of classic design, his hands on approach, and his marquee name will make Rustic Canyon an instant classic.”

Tom Paul

AMEN!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Don_Mahaffey

Re: A Question for Mr. Shackleford...
« Reply #19 on: March 06, 2002, 04:02:57 PM »
Some times I think we get to hung up on titles. Who cares what you call Geoff, he's obviously someone with a deep passion for the game of golf and he is developing a golf course with a high quality architect. He is doing what a lot of us in golf wish we could do.

I certainly don't claim to be an architect, but someday I hope to team up with a good one and develop a course. And it I get the land and find the money, I'm going to have some input. That input will be tempered with the fact that being a superintendent doesn't make me an architect, but it does make me someone who has a few ideas and is smart enough to know when to stay out of the way.

I look forward to seeing Rustic Canyon, and like all other courses that received input from non-archies, the proof will be in the pudding.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A Question for Mr. Shackleford...
« Reply #20 on: March 06, 2002, 04:20:50 PM »
TEPaul,
I agree almost wholeheartedly with what you said, especially  the talent. None of the old guys had degrees in architecture and that is something that seems to have started with Bruce Matthews and RTJ Sr. On the other hand if I spent the better part of my young life as someone's assistant, wore all the hats, got out in the dirt and on the machines, sat before the planning commissions, put my finances and my reputation on the line and opened my own shop I might feel a bit dismayed at someone who appears to have skipped some steps, like I have heard some people say of Jackie Nicklaus,.although if I were Big Jack I'd have my son with me too.

The main problem I see ahead for Geoff is this: He is now crapping where he eats! Good luck Mr. Shackelford
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

brad_miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A Question for Mr. Shackleford...
« Reply #21 on: March 06, 2002, 04:33:18 PM »
There are always other ways to enter a business, in many ways Geoff has clearly paid his dues as it relates to the comments made by Tom Paul. Sure don't see Geoff deeply involved with more than ONE PROJECT A YEAR. As one that has read almost all of Geoff's work IMO this is great.

Ken, your question to Kelly seems quite appropriate, hope for a clarification as I have enjoyed his input in the past
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: A Question for Mr. Shackleford...
« Reply #22 on: March 06, 2002, 05:24:56 PM »
Jim Kennedy:

On the subject of golf writers getting into designing golf courses there is obviously much differing opinion. And frankly, it always seems hard to tell who might feel which way about it. One person who I respect as much as any in the world of architecture today happens to feel one should not write and design courses at the same time. To each his own opinion, and that person's opinion I happen to roundly disagree with but it does not diminish my respect for him one iota!

To me it makes no difference at all if one writes about golf and architecture and designs courses simultaneously. I see no inherent conflict of interest in it and actually that writer/designer probably just increases the onus on himself to be even more honest in his architectural writing and also how he treats his own designs so as not to be thought of as either a compromised writer or a self-promoting designer!

I hope Geoff Shackelford continues to be involved in designing projects and I hope he continues to both write books on architecture and also to review golf architecture. I think there are a couple of architectural writers out there today who might have a lot to offer architecture, most likely on the conceptual side of the business.

So I have no problem at all with an architectural writer getting into designing courses, just as I wish on the flip side of the coin that more architects would write more about architecture. Where would we be if some of the "Golden Age" greats who built such great courses and also wrote so well on the subject of architecture had to or even decided to forgo one because they wanted to do the other? That would have been a shame and architecture would have been poorer for it! I don't see why it should be any different today.

As for what Geoff Shackelford did at Rustic Canyon, I think I have a very good idea but I'll let him tell it if he feels like it. But I can guarantee that it was a ton more than most on here or elsewhere might think.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A Question for Mr. Shackleford...
« Reply #23 on: March 06, 2002, 05:30:04 PM »
Tom Paul:

When I started reading your post, the first thing I thought about was people like Mackenzie, Thomas, Macdonald, etc.

So, I'm curious which function your contact thinks they shouldn't have done, writing or designing?

Did he say?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Tim Weiman

Jeff Mingay

Re: A Question for Mr. Shackleford...
« Reply #24 on: March 06, 2002, 05:45:36 PM »
Any criticism of Geoff Shackelford being involved with the design and construction of a golf course hints at jealousy.

What is a "golf course architect"? As the esteemed Tom Paul suggests, who cares.

Was Hugh Wilson a "golf course architect"? Geo. Crump? Archie Struthers? Who cares. The bottom line is that all three have given is golfers wonderful courses to play.

(If only more people listened to Tom Paul... the world would be a much better place :))
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »