[archie_struthers]

  

i've been reading the Rees jones threads with some interest and it occurred to me, why would we immediately think he  or any other architect understands shot values and golf.more than the rest of us.  Why wouldn't a great player, or caddy have as good a working knowledge of what makes a great course???    Or how about a superintendent who is also a good player???

[Tom_Doak]

Archie:

Golf architecture is not just about shot values.  That's the common misconception about the profession -- and it is PROMOTED by certain architects who think they are experts on shot values, who may not be such experts on other facets of the profession.

Any golfer can understand shot values.  Of course, every golfer has a different understanding of what makes them important.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Archie,

Routing, combined with hole/feature design seems to be far more of a challenge than understanding shot values.

When Bill Coore was asked how he found the routing and holes at Hidden Creek, he responded that he just kept on walking the wooded property and observing everything until it "felt" like golf.

That takes a special talent and is one of the things that differentiate an architect from an amateur.

[archie_struthers]

 "  


Tom , I realize a myriad of talents are needed as well! However in many instances I see awful stuff that many novices could improve on....eg big swales and collection areas.  However to presuppose any architect must know more because of his vitae doesn't allow for the George Crumps and George Thomas 's of the world.

[Tom_Doak]

Archie:

Crump worked in sand, had several years of trial and error, and had a lot of help and advice from others.  Thomas would have been a professional architect, if he wasn't already too wealthy to bother with it.

But, I wasn't supposing that nobody but a professional architect can "do" architecture.  I was just responding to your post that seemed to suppose that making decisions about shot values is all there is to it.  You, certainly, know there's a lot more to it than that -- and I suspect that, if you are being honest, you would admit that it was some of those other things besides shot values which held back Twisted Dune from the product you dreamed of providing.

[Carl Rogers]

They certainly should.

Something tells me it takes a number of years to read a topo, walk the property and then "see" a course or a few holes or starting points to work from.  It might take much more than just that.

[archie_struthers]

 :DO ;

Tom I played Twisted last week and it really is quite fun and very good.  We had awful soil conditions to overcome, which were unexpected and complicated the construction, but we overcame that and incredible political shenanigans to boot.  Lots of people like it more than higher profile courses right around the corner.  I'd love if you could visit and we could bring Mucci and the boys and have quite a good game!  The ball is rolling like crazy and the greens are pretty fast.   

Sure , I would change the third hole  (green )  and re-locate some tees , but all in all , I'm proud of the job.  If it sucked , I'd say so! Lol

[Mike_Young]

Archie,
After reading the couple of threads out there right now about architects and the site etc....I detect one thing...
The site as a whole doesn't have much respect for the business of golf architecture...they all think they can do it because there was some armchair contest where they "drew" a hole...
Sort of like the fan/coach relationship....
The site looks at guys like Tom in a totally different light than they do those of us that are regional guys....and what is really frustrating is that they think there are guys on here that can jump in and do a better job than any of us except for a few....I learn  something new about the business everyday....I have seen owners that were with you everyday and at the end would tell you they designed it....and I have seen them spend several extra million just to have that feeling......
the barrier to entry is so low in this business that many just decide they are an architect after writing a report on some bunkers somewhere....
So to answer your question....YES they do know more BUT it doesn't mean that anyone on this site can't do the same thing....but there is an iceberg there....
None of the above is meant to sound cocky....and sorry if this sounds like a jerk...but I will bet you on this one...
Oh did I ever mention the time a real ODG expert from this site showed me where an ODG had placed some bunkers that had been sodded...but actually they were where trees had been dynamited years before....a true genius....

[paul cowley]

Archie...how did you find out that I am just a wolf in sheep's clothing? I'm bummed.

[archie_struthers]

 

Paul....very good.   I suspected as much.

Mike, I have great respect for architects and superintendents, and golf professionals, who I believe are slighted terribly by the new era of golf management .I  would love to see your work and imagine it is quite good.  Perhaps soon!

My issue tends to be with superstars who won't allow their opinions on golf and architecture to be questioned. have found more than a few emperors who are quite naked when exposed to real inquiry.  No one on this thread fits the description thank goodness.   Our redo at Greate Bay in the mid 80's was unbelievably bad , both in design and construction methodology.

I spent lot's of time with some real good guys and architects , like any profession some are good , some bad , and some exceptional. it's really enjoyable to find some hidden gems that fly below the radar but are quite good.  An example of this might be the Hideout in Naples, where KBM's work has evolved into a really enjoyable place to play and just hang out! look forward to finding many more

[Mike_Young]

Archie,
As I said,,,not trying to be a jerk and I understand where you are coming from....but there are some on here that fit my description....
You are welcome down here anytime....I will show you some ODG foot prints fossils I have saved from some sites....

[Jim_Kennedy]

I honestly think you're wrong about this Mike, I can only think of one person on this board who may not have had the 'credentials' to call himself an architect, yet seemed to pass himself off as one. You may know a few more, but I don't think that number would exceed a handful.

There are 1,500 + - folks on this site interested in GCA. That's a far site from what you are saying.

[Mike_Young]

I honestly think you're wrong about this Mike, I can only think of one person on this board who may not have had the 'credentials' to call himself an architect, yet seemed to pass himself off as one. You may know a few more, but I don't think that number would exceed a handful.

There are 1,500 + - folks on this site interested in GCA. That's a far site from what you are saying.

Jim,
I think we are talking about two different things....I'm not talking about someone passing himself off as an architect....
I'm talking about knowing enough to be dangerous and overload their rear on here over and over....
There are a lot of architects whose work I don't like....some are nice guys...and there are a couple of pricks whose work I think is really good....but if they have actually directed the design and construction of even one course then in most cases the answer will be YES they do know more....JMO

[Jim_Kennedy]

The architects who post are known, the observations, opinions and conjectures of the non-architects are just that, observations, opinions and conjectures.

Knowing enough to be dangerous and being in a position to do something with it are also two different things.   

[Tom MacWood]

Not all architects are created equal. Some are highly intelligent, educated and well travelled, others are not. Do all teachers know more?

[Mike_Young]

Not all architects are created equal. Some are highly intelligent, educated and well travelled, others are not. Do all teachers know more?

good point....
I guess this entire golf business is like that...writers, pros, supts,archies, and cart girls.....

[paul cowley]

All architects or designers are qualified by their work...good or bad.

[Ivan Lipko]

It is the same as asking whether golf professionals know more about golf swing??

Yes, they do and much more. At least those who are good at what they do.

[Jamie Van Gisbergen]

It is the same as asking whether golf professionals know more about golf swing??

Yes, they do and much more. At least those who are good at what they do.

I think this is a good example to use. A lot of people "know" a lot about the golf swing, some of them might honestly know more about the swing than even the good teachers. The difference is, the good teachers know how to pass that information off to the student and the others may not.

Golf architecture is much the same. Plenty of people, on here and elsewhere, know a lot about what makes architecture good. They know that "this bunker is good and strategic" or "that green has awesome contours." Architects know those same things. I may know as much about what makes a golf course good as Mr. Doak or Mr. Brauer, the concepts. What I don't know, however, and what I should say very few here or anywhere else know, is how to take a blank piece of land and turn it in to a golf course. Those guys have a talent for doing that which I do not have. I would say very few of the critics on here have that talent. We see only the end product, not what it came from. And that is why the professional golf course architects do, in fact, REALLY know more about how to design golf courses.

[Sean_A]

Archie,
After reading the couple of threads out there right now about architects and the site etc....I detect one thing...
The site as a whole doesn't have much respect for the business of golf architecture...they all think they can do it because there was some armchair contest where they "drew" a hole...
Sort of like the fan/coach relationship....
The site looks at guys like Tom in a totally different light than they do those of us that are regional guys....and what is really frustrating is that they think there are guys on here that can jump in and do a better job than any of us except for a few....I learn  something new about the business everyday....I have seen owners that were with you everyday and at the end would tell you they designed it....and I have seen them spend several extra million just to have that feeling......
the barrier to entry is so low in this business that many just decide they are an architect after writing a report on some bunkers somewhere....
So to answer your question....YES they do know more BUT it doesn't mean that anyone on this site can't do the same thing....but there is an iceberg there....
None of the above is meant to sound cocky....and sorry if this sounds like a jerk...but I will bet you on this one...
Oh did I ever mention the time a real ODG expert from this site showed me where an ODG had placed some bunkers that had been sodded...but actually they were where trees had been dynamited years before....a true genius....

Mike

You sound like a teacher and archies share a common trait with teachers; they are not in control of their profession.  So long as this is the case it will always seem archies (and teachers) are not respected to the degree you would presumably like.  Start looking in the mirror and figuring how you can control your profession (which usually means some sort of highly specialized skill/knowledge) and perhaps things will change.

Ciao

[Mike_Young]

Mike

You sound like a teacher and archies share a common trait with teachers; they are not in control of their profession.  So long as this is the case it will always seem archies (and teachers) are not respected to the degree you would presumably like.  Start looking in the mirror and figuring how you can control your profession (which usually means some sort of highly specialized skill/knowledge) and perhaps things will change.

Ciao

Sean,
I don't worry about what degree of respect people give golf designer/architects or whatever people would like to call them.  It would be no different than people trying to control artists....of course there is one trade group that has tried such for years .....other than when I come on here to stir some stuff around....I just worry about how Mike does it....like in any business it comes down to idealism vs. realism....ciao

[Sean_A]

Mike

You will get no argument from me.  As you have said many times, perhaps gca was never meant to be a profession in the sense of an ordinary business where turning a profit is the goal.  I can't see where there is any set formula or go to archie in gca which comes even close to a guarantee of turning a profit.  In fact, I rather suspect that archies only really care about courses turning a profit where it may effect their future client list and own turnover.  I know some have said that the true sign of a successful design is if its still there (in some form or another) in 50 or 100 years.  Of course, to me thats bollocks.  Would we say that about building architecture?  Would we say that about a painting?  Would we say that about a park?  I would hope not.

I tend not give a lot of propers to archies because they are learn on the jobbers like any other profession.  I don't think it takes any particular high level of skill or deep knowledge about gca to build courses; certainly nothing more than can't be learned (and quickly if given the opportunity) on the job.  Unlike some other professions, mistakes can be and are rectified and often it doesn't cost the earth to do so.  An incredible amount of what makes a design a success is not in the hands of the archie unless we consider (and we should) what led to obtaining any particular job.  I would hire an archie for his imagination and experience.  Those are things which would take me too much time and money to learn well, but I am convinced I could learn them. 

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Not all architects are created equal. Some are highly intelligent, educated and well travelled, others are not. Do all teachers know more?

good point....
I guess this entire golf business is like that...writers, pros, supts,archies, and cart girls.....

Pete Dye said the same thing to me once [though it was 25+ years ago, so he did not include cart girls].  He said that in the end, everything in the golf business was a matter of opinion -- the right way to design a golf course, the right way to swing a club, the right way to grow grass, and so forth.  All you can do is try to do your best work and be honest about whether you've really done that.

I was thinking that players are the exception because they get to post a score and scores don't lie, but that only matters to winning tournaments.  In the end, only the player really knows if he did his best.

[Steve Kline]

It is the same as asking whether golf professionals know more about golf swing??

Yes, they do and much more. At least those who are good at what they do.

I think this is a good example to use. A lot of people "know" a lot about the golf swing, some of them might honestly know more about the swing than even the good teachers. The difference is, the good teachers know how to pass that information off to the student and the others may not.

Golf architecture is much the same. Plenty of people, on here and elsewhere, know a lot about what makes architecture good. They know that "this bunker is good and strategic" or "that green has awesome contours." Architects know those same things. I may know as much about what makes a golf course good as Mr. Doak or Mr. Brauer, the concepts. What I don't know, however, and what I should say very few here or anywhere else know, is how to take a blank piece of land and turn it in to a golf course. Those guys have a talent for doing that which I do not have. I would say very few of the critics on here have that talent. We see only the end product, not what it came from. And that is why the professional golf course architects do, in fact, REALLY know more about how to design golf courses.

Taking the raw land and turning it into a golf course is always what amazes me. When I see pictures on the site of what a golf course looked like before and what it became I am always amazed. I have no talent for that at all. And it takes real genius to do it well. We all have of our opinions of the finished work though.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Of course architects really know more. Most on this site and others who enjoy golf architecture focus on the golf shots, the strategy, but have very little understanding of what it takes to create the golf landscape.
Many golfers think they know enough to tell supers how to do their job, but I've met very few who actually understand what it takes to maintain a golf course.
On the flip side, we do sometimes try and make it a lot more complicated than it needs to be. I believe the great architects in our modern age are the ones who have the restraint not to overdo everything. Sometimes it seems architects are so pre occupied with proving that they do indeed know more that they tend to use their technical skills to an excess.
Anymore what impresses me in golf design, construction, or maintenance is when a good product is delivered without design/construction over kill or a hyper-management approach to greenkeeping.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()