The outliers of GCA....

[Mike_Young]

Have any of you read the book "Outliers" by Malcom Gladwell....it is an interesting take on why specific people or groups of people have success in a particular field.  For example it describes an extremely high percentage of professional hockey players having birthdays from January thru March.  The significance being that they were the older thru out their youth leagues etc....  OR  Bill Gates being near a large mainframe with free access and having the ability to write code when not many did....and it goes on and on....

Reading the book has made try to locate the outliers that distinguishes the top signature architects....I played golf a few weeks ago at Yale with John Godley who has just written the book on Yale Golf....of course I bought a few copies and have read it and it opened my eyes even more to the outliers in GCA...
Here are a couple:
1. Yale -.the contacts made there from when golf was young until now have been significant...from Raynor thru the Jones...
2.  Major championship records( including TF uncle)
The ability to attract the proper client is the number one thing in getting the big projects and from my perspective the issue has not been talent in the past as much as being the "most difficult to say no to" of the architects interviewing....
Am I right and what are some of the other outliers for GCA...

[David Harshbarger]

Mr. Doak visiting all those courses with a POV, demystifying the conventional wisdom?

Mr. Young seeing all those courses from the inside as an equipment rep, cutting through the BS?

[Mike_Young]

Mr. Doak visiting all those courses with a POV, demystifying the conventional wisdom?

Mr. Young seeing all those courses from the inside as an equipment rep, cutting through the BS?

David,
I'm not sure what you mention are outliers....

An example of an outlier from my perspective would be the ability to get the ear of Pine Valley members in their local communities nationwide.  Ask yourself where would TF be if he did not have that ability.  Understand I am discussing what makes the top 5 guys the top 5 guys.

[David Harshbarger]

Mike,

My understanding is that Tom Doak has been an outlier, and controversial, by running against the grain, ever since the first Confidential Guide.

My take on you, if I recall what you've written about yourself, is that you too are an outlier as a clear-eyed pragmatist with a Point Of View about high quality, viable golf facilities.  To me, that's compelling, and if the times move towards your POV, could be very successful for you.

Outliers make great conversation in hindsight.  But without that advantage, the future outliers are those with foresight, fortitude, and a deeply held point of view.

Dave

[Mike_Young]

Mike,

My understanding is that Tom Doak has been an outlier, and controversial, by running against the grain, ever since the first Confidential Guide.

My take on you, if I recall what you've written about yourself, is that you too are an outlier as a clear-eyed pragmatist with a Point Of View about high quality, viable golf facilities.  To me, that's compelling, and if the times move towards your POV, could be very successful for you.

Outliers make great conversation in hindsight.  But without that advantage, the future outliers are those with foresight, fortitude, and a deeply held point of view.

Dave

I do think that "The Confidential Guide" was an outlier..a risky one but still an outlier.  While TD may be a name here he is still climbing towards the "RE development boys".  IMHO TD is the exception amongst architects that have gotten some of the bigger jobs.  I am not even sure we would have known Bill Coore if he was not associated with Ben Crenshaw.  He may have never gotten the properties he can demand today.

[John_Conley]

Mike, the book's theme is that there is more at work than just mere talent or potential.  "Outliers" in life are able to do an inordinate amount with talent/potential equal to others because of an opportunity that boils down to happenstance.  Bill Joy and Bill Gates are examples in the book that might be just as bright as scores of others, but they were able to capitalize on a window of opportunity by virtue of luck.  If either of the Bills were 10 years older or younger we wouldn't know their names...or so is the premise of Gladwell's book.

Relating to architecture, I'll say Tom Fazio and Rees Jones absolutely qualify.  They were exposed to so much more than a peer who didn't have a father in the industry.

Nepotism is when someone is given an opportunity because of who their family is.  I'd put NASCAR and Hollywood in the nepotism camp, but I'll classify sportscasting as "Outlier"-type opportunity.  Guys like Jeremy Schaap and Joe Buck are better than they would have been because they had a ridiculously long learning curve compared to an 'average' person.

Golf design is more like sportscasting in my example than it is NASCAR or Hollywood.  Despite incredible opportunity it seems most people aren't noticeably better in those fields than others without the same advantages.

[Mike_Young]

John,
Timing is definitely a critical point in GCA.  Just look at today vs. 20 years ago.  And what you say regarding TF and RJ is true but it isn't the exposure as much as the ability or the network to get the big jobs.  The 1980's concept of RE development golf created an environment searching for designers to promote.  Ability was not the issue as much as star power.  Having the network to link one into the USGA or having an uncle as the Head pro at Pine Valley was critical.  The name JN, AP , GP and lately Ben C was also just as critical.  Even Pete Dye had Jack Nicklaus.  I know of no one that has national or international draw without a Major Championship winner or a Yale Education.  However TD may disprove this in the future.

Hope you have been doing well.
Mike

[John Kavanaugh]

Mike, the book's theme is that there is more at work than just mere talent or potential.  "Outliers" in life are able to do an inordinate amount with talent/potential equal to others because of an opportunity that boils down to happenstance.  Bill Joy and Bill Gates are examples in the book that might be just as bright as scores of others, but they were able to capitalize on a window of opportunity by virtue of luck.  If either of the Bills were 10 years older or younger we wouldn't know their names...or so is the premise of Gladwell's book.

Relating to architecture, I'll say Tom Fazio and Rees Jones absolutely qualify.  They were exposed to so much more than a peer who didn't have a father in the industry.

Nepotism is when someone is given an opportunity because of who their family is.  I'd put NASCAR and Hollywood in the nepotism camp, but I'll classify sportscasting as "Outlier"-type opportunity.  Guys like Jeremy Schaap and Joe Buck are better than they would have been because they had a ridiculously long learning curve compared to an 'average' person.

Golf design is more like sportscasting in my example than it is NASCAR or Hollywood.  Despite incredible opportunity it seems most people aren't noticeably better in those fields than others without the same advantages.

What a load of crap steaming in jealousy.   Nepotism works, get born better if you don't like it.

[John_Conley]

Mike:

I do not think Tom Doak fits the premise of Gladwell's book.  (His works are a commentary about certain topics and not necessarily iron-clad scientific formulas that define every success.)   Doak's place in the industry today is a result of hard work and competence; I don't see an inordinate amount of success due to happenstance.

Maybe you could argue that the evolution of golf course rankings led him to be a credentialed expert as lists became more prominent.  But I still don't think his career fits the premise of the book.

To paraphrase your post, ask yourself WHY Tom Fazio has the ability.  If it is because he's a savvy networker, I don't think it is an outlier as explained by the book.  If it is an enviable list of contacts because of family connections, I do think it's a match.  Are we agreed that later plays a big part?

[John_Conley]

What a load of crap steaming in jealousy.   Nepotism works, get born better if you don't like it.

No idea where jealousy factors in here.

It seems you disagree with the points made in my post.  Explain whether the following are better explained by nepotism or Gladwellian opportunity:

• second-generation Hollywood actors
• legacy drivers in motorsports
• Michael Bradley in the midfield for the USMNT
• sportscasters/journalists like Will McDonagh
• Eli & Peyton Manning
• Pete Weber

I have no issues with nepotism.  Unlike you, apparently, I also know what it is.

[Jordan Caron]

Nice topic.  Just read Malcolm's Tipping Point a month ago and read a bit of Blink.  He probes into what I find are very interesting ideas about why things are.  

I'll be giving this a read.  

My take on you, if I recall what you've written about yourself, is that you too are an outlier as a clear-eyed pragmatist with a Point Of View about high quality, viable golf facilities.  To me, that's compelling, and if the times move towards your POV, could be very successful for you.

And the same would apply for the shift back to minimalist architecture.

[John_Conley]

Nice topic.  Just read Malcolm's Tipping Point a month ago and read a bit of Blink.  He probes into what I find are very interesting ideas about why things are.  

I'll be giving this a read.  

Jordan, you'll like the book.  Very interesting.  Do me a favor and read to the end.  I think the Korean pilot story is the most interesting of all.

[David Kelly]

Guys like Jeremy Schaap and Joe Buck are better than they would have been because they had a ridiculously long learning curve compared to an 'average' person.

My God, if that is true just think of how bad Joe Buck would have been otherwise because he's terrible now.

I think 20-30 years from now people will be amazed that Gladwell's pseudoscience books were ever best sellers.

BTW, rather than waiting for Gladwell's next book you can generate one yourself at this website:
http://www.malcolmgladwellbookgenerator.com/

[John_Conley]

David, that website is really funny.  Very cool.  Thanks for sharing.

While they are pseudoscience, the ones I've seen are interesting.  He has a theory, finds material that supports his theory, and lays it out in an enjoyable format.  This generates discussion.  I guess I'm trying to say I think we'll look back in hindsight and know why they were popular.

[John Kavanaugh]

What a load of crap steaming in jealousy.   Nepotism works, get born better if you don't like it.

No idea where jealousy factors in here.

It seems you disagree with the points made in my post.  Explain whether the following are better explained by nepotism or Gladwellian opportunity:

• second-generation Hollywood actors
• legacy drivers in motorsports
• Michael Bradley in the midfield for the USMNT
• sportscasters/journalists like Will McDonagh
• Eli & Peyton Manning
• Pete Weber

I have no issues with nepotism. Unlike you, apparently, I also know what it is.

It must give you comfort to find a scientific explanation on why you failed as a sportscaster. A guy could get rich giving comfort to everyone who has failed at sportscasting, driving a car fast, acting or playing sports.  

I don't only know nepotism, I, my father, my grandfather and my son make a damn fine living at the hands of it.  Opportunity and cheap financing only get you through the door, the free market takes care of the details.  It is a sweet ride while it lasts, sorry.  Now go tell your dad that it is not his fault and you are sorry for buying into this crap.

One other thing, your Hollywood and sportscaster rants seem to be based in the roots of anti-semitism. Seems like most hatred is justified through science by quasi intelligent failures.

[Mike Sweeney]

I know of no one that has national or international draw without a Major Championship winner or a Yale Education.  However TD may disprove this in the future.

Are you excluding RTJ because he did not do many (any?) housing courses? I thank he was a very good amateur player but no more.

No offense to Tom Doak, but he is no outlier. Having RTJ break ground for him at Cornell probably opened up the minds of the Ag School/professor that let him go to Scotland for a year. Tom left MIT to attend Cornell, if I remember correctly, because at MIT he was an outlier in the golf industry. At Cornell, he got in the inner circle. Those letters to famous clubs probably mentioned RTJ, Cornell and his year in Scotland. Next comes Pete Dye and The Confidential Guide and the rest is history.

Was RTJ an outlier? Not sure how he hooked up with Stanley Thompson.

[Ian Andrew]

I always liked the saying that:
Success = Opportunity + Preparation  (Seneca?)

(What I took from the book specifically)

In studying most artists, the elite are not the ones with the greatest “natural” ability. While they do come from a pool of naturally talented people, they are the ones who are willing to work much harder than anyone else to perfect their craft. The elite are not destined, but rather the combination of talent and determination.

I really like Gladwell’s books for the observations. I don’t agree with everything he says, but he does encourage an out of the box evaluation which is tremendously healthy. For that reason I enjoy his writings.

I personally thought Tom was the perfect choice, but like all good writing, this is clearly open to interpretation.

[Ian Andrew]

Bill Gates are examples in the book that might be just as bright as scores of others, but they were able to capitalize on a window of opportunity by virtue of luck.  If either of the Bills were 10 years older or younger we wouldn't know their names...or so is the premise of Gladwell's book.

Tom (in Kyle's thread) talks about the pool of young talent. They may very well be born at the worst possible time. I believe strongly in cycles and statistics - which unfortunately suggests very little golf design will be done over this decade .... and depending on the cycle, possibly even longer.

The most talented golf architect in history could be among Tom's group - but we may never find this out if the cycle of stagnation plays out beyond a decade.

[John Mayhugh]

BTW, rather than waiting for Gladwell's next book you can generate one yourself at this website:
http://www.malcolmgladwellbookgenerator.com/

Damn. Now I really want to read:
Slurp
What Kittens' Tongues Teach Us About Derivatives

[Tom_Doak]

I love it when people here speculate about my thoughts, background, motives, etc. here, instead of just asking me.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom (in Kyle's thread) talks about the pool of young talent. They may very well be born at the worst possible time. I believe strongly in cycles and statistics - which unfortunately suggests very little golf design will be done over this decade .... and depending on the cycle, possibly even longer.

The most talented golf architect in history could be among Tom's group - but we may never find this out if the cycle of stagnation plays out beyond a decade.

Ian:

This could be true, but also might not be.  When I was in college 1978-82, not many architects would give me any encouragement, because the business was in the deep doldrums then, too, due to the real estate collapse of that era.  [That, and they don't like to encourage future competition for their kids.  ]  Most would have told you then it was a lousy time to start a career in golf architecture, but nobody can predict the future of the economy.

It might just be that the 35- and 40-year-olds are born at the worst possible time ... because they couldn't make a name for themselves before the slump hit, and can't support a family in this market ... while the 20-somethings are the ones who will survive until the rebound, if they are dedicated enough to scrape through the rough spots.  Indeed, that's one of the ways Trent Jones made it; he was in his late 20's at the time of the Depression, and he was one of the few survivors.  But it didn't hurt him to get to know the Rockefellers and all the CEO's of that era, either.

[Mike_Young]

What the book has made me ask is what traits do a specific segment of a group or industry possess that distinguish them from the rest of the group.  That is all I am asking here. 
I know it's hard for this site to do but let's leave TD out of this for a few minutes.  TD fits more into a group of golf architects that decided at a young age they wanted to be golf architects and mapped paths for doing such.  I think he calculated his path correctly and combined it with talent and he was born at the right time.  The other thing he has done as well as BC/BC is to actually turn down sites....and actually only take the sites or projects he feels will work for him...(that is IMHO)

Now back to my original outliers theory.  If one looks at the top golf design firms of the last 30 years and ask what it is that put them there, what is it?  Is it because they were more talented?  Is it because they worked harder?  Just list the specifics they have in common and ask if it makes sense.
1. The ability for the figurehead to market projects via major accomplishments in the golf world-  This is the number one thing tht several of the signatures have in common.  In this discussion I am not arguing talent or lack of talent or style.  I am only arguing their ability to procure the top jobs that allow national or international marketing etc.  And in reality the fees these guys demand are marketing fees more than design fees.  Have we ever seen one of the talented associates from one of these firms go on their own and demand the same fees?  Jock sniffing is an epidemic in America and many a young 35 year old RE Development VP has drooled all over himself in choosing between these firms only to make the decision based on a fishing trip or hunting trip not on design. ( calling a golf icon by first name in a bar and talking about your trips with him carries a lot of weight in bar talk for these guys)  Has TW ever put a golf course on the ground? Yet he has demanded the highest fee ever. 
2.  Education-  many on here would say you need to have an LAR major.  How many of the signature architects have such?  RTJ Sr.?  I don't think LAR matters much at all but after reading the book on Yale Golf, I do think Yale matters and is a common thread in US golf hierarchy over the years.  Read it and see what you think.  Yale has the most NCAA golf championships, Seth Raynor, The Bush connections (Walker Cup , USGA etc), both sons of RTJ Sr, Roger Rulewich.  You might ask what this matters.  Well, it matters greatly.  The network available from there is world wide and if worked correctly it can put one in many doors that would otherwise be closed. 
3. Family-  As JK says in a few of his post above; there is nothing wrong with nepotism.  It works.  But it is still a major factor in distinguishing the top signature designers from the field.  It is obvious with the RTJ Sr situation but go even further and looks at GF as pro at Pine Valley.  As pro at a national club with affluent members going back to their towns and most likely being involved in any type of golf development that might come to their area, one would have an excellent lead in.  And it worked.  But then I ask if this could actually be considered a part of the first item since GF had won a US Open. 

I continue to stand by the above as items that distinguish the top signatures from the rest.  No where am I discussing talent or my like or dislike for their work.  JK may come back and say this is jealousy or sour grapes but that is not the case with me.  As Bobby Jones once said: " they play a game with which I am not familiar".  This applies to these guys vs. the rest of us.  the budgets and layers of consultants and marketing they have in their average project creates a completely different project than most of us deal with. 

[Michael Whitaker]

I love it when people here speculate about my thoughts, background, motives, etc. here, instead of just asking me.

You must not watch TV news or frequent many social networking websites. Speculation is much more interesting and fun than reality!

[michael damico]

2.  Education-  many on here would say you need to have an LAR major.  How many of the signature architects have such?  RTJ Sr.?  I don't think LAR matters much at all

really? could you please elaborate?

[Mike_Young]

2.  Education-  many on here would say you need to have an LAR major.  How many of the signature architects have such?  RTJ Sr.?  I don't think LAR matters much at all

really? could you please elaborate?

I'm saying it holds no weight when it comes to acquiring the top jobs.  It may be the major most closely related to entering the field but after that it doesn't factor in to the equation.