Do architects really know more ??????

[Kirk Gill]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that someone who has made a career out of the designing and building of golf courses knows more than I do about the subject.

That's not to say that the ideas expressed by non-architects on this site and elsewhere are to be summarily discarded. As I suggested on one of the other threads about this subject, there is a knowledge that a player gleans about a course over multiple plays that has some value in GCA, in my opinion. Won't a club member end up spending substantially more time with their home course than the architect who designed it? I won't completely devalue that experience and knowledge. It doesn't mean that the member should then go out and rebuild the course to their own design based on that knowledge (although as John Lennon said "I'm certain that it happens all the time). A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. But I feel like I've learned a lot about GCA on this site, and not all from the architects who graciously participate.

[George Pazin]

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

This is no different than anything else in life. Everyone thinks they can outcoach Bellichick, out-direct Scorsese, run Exxon Mobil, fix healthcare and fix the economy.

Only the folks in DC are foolish enough to try.

Do architects know more? Of course they do. Anyone who actually practices a profession rather than just observing it will know more. That doesn't mean all architects are great and above criticism, and it doesn't mean an amateur can't design and build a masterpiece. It's just pretty unlikely, as the record shows.

Mike, look at it this way: What were you thinking when you started Fa-tass clothing? There are thousands of people out there trying to make it in t shirts. It sure isn't easy, and it sure isn't simple. It's not even profitable for most. Yet every year, thousands more try.

It's part of what makes out country great.

[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

This is no different than anything else in life. Everyone thinks they can outcoach Bellichick, out-direct Scorsese, run Exxon Mobil, fix healthcare and fix the economy.

Only the folks in DC are foolish enough to try.

Do architects know more? Of course they do. Anyone who actually practices a profession rather than just observing it will know more. That doesn't mean all architects are great and above criticism, and it doesn't mean an amateur can't design and build a masterpiece. It's just pretty unlikely, as the record shows.

Mike, look at it this way: What were you thinking when you started Fa-tass clothing? There are thousands of people out there trying to make it in t shirts. It sure isn't easy, and it sure isn't simple. It's not even profitable for most. Yet every year, thousands more try.

It's part of what makes out country great.

George,
Agree....
Of course everyone on here thinks they could have made David Tom's putt yesterday...

[Andy Hodson]

Mike,

We all could have made the putt Toms missed. It just wouldn't have been our 279th stroke on our 73rd hole.

Same goes for the bunker we rightly feel is misplaced. We may be correct about it, but we don't know enough to do what it takes to misplace that bunker in the first place.

Make sense?

[Mike_Young]

Mike,

We all could have made the putt Toms missed. It just wouldn't have been our 279th stroke on our 73rd hole.

Same goes for the bunker we rightly feel is misplaced. We may be correct about it, but we don't know enough to do what it takes to misplace that bunker in the first place.

Make sense?

That's my point...thx...

[Andy Hodson]

Not to hijack...but it burns my buns everytime I hear someone say that if only they could practice as much as the pros get to practice ("see I have this thing called a job that is limiting my time on the range"), they would be able to play for a living too.

What they fail to realize is: the pros get to practice that much BECAUSE IT IS THEIR JOB!

Every profession has critics, I guess, but don't think you can do it better than those that actually do it.

Except I know, just know, I could build better par 5s than Devlin/Von Hagge!

[Randy Thompson]

Not to hijack...but it burns my buns everytime I hear someone say that if only they could practice as much as the pros get to practice ("see I have this thing called a job that is limiting my time on the range"), they would be able to play for a living too.

What they fail to realize is: the pros get to practice that much BECAUSE IT IS THEIR JOB!

Every profession has critics, I guess, but don't think you can do it better than those that actually do it.

Except I know, just know, I could build better par 5s than Devlin/Von Hagge!

One par five better than one or two of the 1000 von hagge has done or you could build 1,000 better than his 1,000?

[Dan Herrmann]

I know that I don't have 1% of the skill do do golf course architecture.  For example, I don't know anything about:
1.  How water flow rates affect green design and construction
2.  The types of grasses that would be appropriate for a site
3.  The artistic ability to see a golf course where today there exists only a wooded field, grassland, or dunesland
4.  The ability to create a routing that takes prevailing wind into account
5.  The ability to communicate my design ideas to shapers
6.  The ability to build proper drainage
7.  The ability to build a sand bunker, to select the sand, and prevent frequent washouts
8.  The ability to be patient with your client
9.  The ability to price my services correctly
10. The ability to create a landscape architecture that's pleasing to the eye but challenging to the golfer.
11-100.  Just keep going.

In other words, I (along with most laypersons) don't know squat.  Hell yes architects know more!

[Andy Hodson]

Randy,

Haven't played all 1,000, but I could do better than most he/they have done here in the Houston area.

[Steve Goodwin]

I'll just say here what I said on a similar thread -- architects know a lot more than the rest of us, but sometimes they know too much for their own good.   As a group, architects are notoriously controlling, and I think the fault of a lot of modern golf course architecture is over-design (a nest of bunkers where one would suffice, greens that are too clever by half, etc etc).   It might be a good thing for architects to recognize their limits, and to realize -- just for starters -- that weather can have more to do with a golfer's strategy than anything they have contrived.   And that when courses feel artificial, not natural, the game changes from a cross country sport to a sort of glorified pinball.

[Dan Herrmann]

Steve,
Can you name a great artist (in the painting/sculpture/building architecture world) that wasn't controlling of his own work?

[Mike_Young]

Golf design is a lot like the music business....
In GCA...Some guy will take all the formal education he can find on the subject...work most of his career for a design firm and then jump out and not be able to sell his own work...

In music some guy get a few degrees in voice, theory and maybe classical music....can't even make a decent living in the field and then a guy like Jimmy Hendrix comes along playing a guitat upside down and left-handed and makes a fortune...

it is really all about selling...

[George Pazin]

Again, you're describing most businesses. Some people bust their butts forever and don't get anywhere, others stumble into overnight success. Most do neither.

And everyone else knows how to do it better, faster and make a lot more money. Smart people especially think mastery of one task means mastery of all.

Would that life were so simple...

Steve,
Can you name a great artist (in the painting/sculpture/building architecture world) that wasn't controlling of his own work?

I don't think that's what Steve meant by control. Someone can do very little and still maintain control. I think he meant something more along the lines of forcing their own ideas when a simpler - though perhaps more thoughtful - approach might work better.

[Tim Martin]

Golf design is a lot like the music business....
In GCA...Some guy will take all the formal education he can find on the subject...work most of his career for a design firm and then jump out and not be able to sell his own work...

In music some guy get a few degrees in voice, theory and maybe classical music....can't even make a decent living in the field and then a guy like Jimmy Hendrix comes along playing a guitat upside down and left-handed and makes a fortune...

it is really all about selling...

Mike-I don`t know if I agree with the analogy. I think someone who is truly talented in music whether it be performing or writing if persistent will find some level of success. I don`t know if this is true for a solo architect. It`s a bit of a Catch-22 in that he has no stand alone body of work to promote himself. Additionally you make it sound like Jimi Hendrix got lucky but he was a helluva guitar player and performer.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Mike
Are you saying the guy with all the schooling worked harder than Hendrix?
I doubt it.

Pete Dye sounds like Hendrix in your analogy.
There are a whole bunch that could fit the other guy.

Are you saying that Pete shouldn't be where he is?
The other guy should?
They had plenty of chances.

Cheers

[David Harshbarger]

I recently posted that I was going to build a small par 3 at my farm.  One architect on the site contacted me to offer his services.

That is what gets you from Jimmy James and the Flames to the Jimi Hendrix Experience.  Jimi hustled his way into our conscience by going overseas, getting a couple of white guys to go 'fro, and of course, changing what we call music.

Key to that was hustle, and that architect is hustling.  And he will break through.

Dave

[Mike_Young]

Tim and Mike,
Hell no I am not slamming Hendrix...
I was trying to say that the other guy would be pissed off....would start saying why Hendrx should not be there....etc...
You see it all the time in golf design....

[Jeff_Brauer]

OMG I hope so.

If we don't know more, its because we forgot a lot of stuff we once knew!

Seriously, we know more. 

I also believe that many of the participants here would frazzle themselves if ever offered a chance to design a golf course.  Narrowing an infinite number of options to just one is a trick in itself!

[A.G._Crockett]

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....

Mike,
I applaud you and all the other pros who post here; I'm sure it gets frustrating to read some of what is posted here about your profession.  I lurk a lot on GCA these days, but rarely post anymore because the negativity level seems so high to me.  I'm not sure how you stand it.  After 37 yrs. as a high school coach, I can only sit in the top row if I'm a spectator because I just cannot bear to listen to the fans.

Many years ago after a very tough loss on the road to a very good team, a fan walked up to me after the game and said, "You should have gone to a zone earlier."  I just looked at him, and then to explain/qualify himself he said, "I was a student at Belmont Abbey College when Al McGuire was there." 

[Mike_Young]

A.G.,
I think coaches have it much worse....each team has a DRS type fan club....
I don't think any architect here is claiming some divine insight of the craft over any other person here that wants to spend the same amount of time learning it and making the mistakes that come with learning anything....
It's just entertainment...similar to watching the Irkle show....

[David Harshbarger]

I also believe that many of the participants here would frazzle themselves if ever offered a chance to design a golf course.  Narrowing an infinite number of options to just one is a trick in itself!

Jeff, how does being involved in site selection change the equation as the architect? 

Dave

[Jeff_Brauer]

Dave,

Not sure I understand the question, but out of 50 golf courses designed, I think I was involved in the site selection process only a few times.  And, I recall them going against my recommendations in each case!  In other words, there are usually a lot of factors that affect an owner's site selection over pure golf design factors, like land price (or already owning the land!), utilities, ability to own over lease (was a factor at Tangleridge in Grand Prairie, TX) or environmental needs (which the client picked at the Quarry in MN to ease permitting restrictions)

If you were asking in relation to my comment about this group being frazzled about design choices, even if we get to select the site, there are still many, many routing choices.  Once settled (or nearly so) then there are feature design choices, then green contouring choices, etc.

When I used to have young associates in the office when first given the chance to design something, they had about 18,000 neat ideas to cram into 18 holes, which usually proved daunting to them in making choices.  And, there was the tendency to put the 18 toughest holes they could imagine, rather than 18 good, balanced ones.

Short version:  Experience does count for something in golf design, and a few on this board seem to discount that, thinking they could easily envision a golf course if only someone was there to help them out with the technical aspects.

A few could, but most could not!  I have seen many amateur routing plans and only a few look decent.  Others are so horrible as to...well I don't know, but I know they wouldn't work in reality.

[Mac Plumart]

Building golf holes seems to have a strange fascination for many golfers. While they would not think of taking over the job of their architect, or their physician or their lawyer, or their plumber, yet they would not hesitate to take over the duties of a golf architect, with full confidence in their ability to build quite the finest course that had ever been conceived. CHARLES BANKS

I saw this on Geoff Shack's site and thought of you guys.  And, perhaps, this quote highlights the issue.  Maybe someone could build A good golf hole.  But could the design a golf course?  Build a golf course?  Route a golf course?  Maybe, but it would be a lot harder than just designing one hole.

Frankly, this whole argument reminds me a bit of my business.  Over the last 15 years or so, I can't tell you how many time clients have said I should have bought stock X or sold stock Y and been correct.  But when you look at the results of the entire portfolio, they've been excellent.  So, are they right on their one isolated stock call...yep.  Could they manage the entire portfolio?  Maybe, but it would be a lot harder than just designing one hole picking one stock.  But dealing with that is just part of the deal and it comes with the territory.  No big deal.  

[David Harshbarger]

Jeff,

I was thinking about sculpters, actually.  If you were going to sculpt a statue, I'm sure you'd prefer to be involved in selecting the stone.  Likewise, if your client wants a course to do XYZ, is it easier for you, the architect, to make that a reality if you are involved in selecting the site?

Seems from your answer that question is moot.  From reading about the ODG, I recall the news articles often included a line about so and so reviewing multiple sites on behalf of whomever.  I think NGLA benefitted from that, as I understand it.

Dave

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

I will forgive you for not following the NGLA thread, but as I have said before, NGLA was a special, special case in how things got done, get done, whatever.

Besides not selecting sites, there are only a very few gca's who would reject a site outright because they thought it unsuitable for their designs.  CC come to mind, as they rarely take a site that doesn't fit their mold of minimalist designs.  For a guy like Tom Fazio, who is going to rescuplt anyway, that point if moot.  For the rest of us, who don't mind correcting a site, but don't get unlimited budgets to do so, we have a few more problems but need to work.  And sometimes, that results in mediocre golf courses. 

Some sites that get selected (hell, most sites) just don't have the potential to yield a great course.  However, that isn't even the goal for most courses, like muni's, resorts, etc.  Most people just want a decent place to play close to home and we can make a course that fits that profile quite nicely on a variety of sites that are good, but not great for golf.