Do most golf architects improve with experience?

[Mark_Fine]

In most professions, as you gain more experience you get better at what you do.  Does the same hold for golf architecture?  

[Tony Ristola]

The architects certainly become more knowledgeable but if they take on more projects there is less information transfer...and the work suffers as a result.  I think history has proven this.

[Doug Nickels]

IMHO there is a huge learning curve in golf course design. To get it right requires a lot of experience - not just with books or clubs, although both of these of course help.  That being said there are always exceptions.

[Coral_Ridge]

I would believe that most architects improve with experience but they still need the great site.  I'm sure many players here could come up with great courses on poor sites, but the best courses combine the two.  Have not played Pacific Dunes yet, but it is supposed to be great.  Such a great piece of property.  History will tell if this is the masterpiece of Doak.

[bmogg (Guest)]

As in all professions not all get better with experience-so I dont think that stateement is correct. You might get older and you might become more "experienced" (and less likely to say something stupid) but not necessarily better at your profession. Is a 60 year old architect who has spent his life designing public toilet blocks a better architect than the 20year old hotshot with wildly original ideas?

[TEPaul]

I'm not getting into this one, except to predict that if this thread gets to 15 posts the words "bias" and "bashing" will be found in here somewhere!

[Rich_Goodale]

Tom

They're already there, you sly old dog!

[TEPaul]

Well, then, let's say 17 posts before poor Rees and TomF get  dragged into the thread for failing to use their all their talents despite age, wisdom and unquestionable success!

[David Wigler]

I am not sure that they get better.  I have played many Pete Dye Courses and none I liked better than The Golf Club and the Pete Dye Golf Club.  Both of those are earlier works.  I think that as they get more recognition, they take on more projects and attention to detail can slip.  As well, the architects who are true innovators in their style can repeat that style and start to get criticism for "Mailing it in".  In essence, a startling design feature like Dye's 17th green at TPC Sawgrass looks cool but certainly not stunning at the Wolf Course at Paiute.

[Mike_Young]

IMHO, Yes most do get better with age.  An older architect once told me that the key to this business was to be able to get past your bad projects.  He was right.  I think that most of the "signatures " have all been in their late 40's or early 50's before they were recognized on a national level.  This isn't to say that all get better.  IMHO the apprenticeship period has changed today as compared to years ago.  All art and architecture has advanced thru copying of ideas that were developed by predecessors.  
Question/ how many of the "signatures" of today have actual formal education in a field such as TGM or LAR that would be thought necessary to advance in this field?

[Jeff_Brauer]

My father was an old Campbell soup salesman and district manager.  He came home once and said he had fired an old time employee and friend.  My mom was aghast, asking how he could fire someone with 25 years experience.  Dad replied, "His problem was he had one year of experience 25 times over, not 25 years of experience."  

The same thing applies to golf architects.  Some get better with experience (hopefully, I qualify here) and others simply don't.  Although I won't critique other architects, I will say there are some who do the same thing over and over, and I wonder how they can look at it in comparison to other work out there and still keep doing the same thing.  I wonder if they think its good, or just don't know how to change, or just don't care.

Of course, there are architects out there saying the same thing about me!

[Dan Kelly]

Jeff --

What a great line, from your dad.

Thanks.

[Mark_Fine]

Seems we don’t have a consensus whether architects improve or not with experience!  Common sense tells you that if someone works at something, they should probably get better then someone who doesn’t.  I always thought practice makes perfect (I know practice makes permanent) but maybe that’s not the case in golf architecture!  Do golf architects peak early and then just milk it the rest of the way?  Maybe they get worn out from dealing with all the travel, different owners, agencies, environmental restrictions,etc.   Maybe they lose their creativity after a while and just start building the same things over and over again with slight cosmetic changes, etc?  

Here is the underlying point I am getting at:

If on the other hand they DO improve as they gain experience designing courses, why shouldn’t they be welcomed back to the site of some of their earlier work and given the opportunity to improve/change what they originally screwed up?  In fact why shouldn’t some of these architects who have gained this experience be able to go out and fix up the work of other architects who don’t have the time, the initiative or who just aren’t around anymore?    

Mark

[Mike_Cirba]

Mark,

Persistence and Passion make Perfect.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

I have read (and previously reported on this forum) that creativity has at least two peaks in life--one in the flush of youth, at ages 15-25 and then another at ages 45-60 once the mundane exigencies of life have been largely dealt with.

By this theory, McKenzie had his first creative flush designing camouflage or trepanning, or whatever, and then was reborn by the opportunity to do GCA in his dotage.  Maybe some of our current favorites who are still in the middle of their lives have their best work before them?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark,

If  you read Whitten's History, you will see that architects get into the profession a variety of ways, including by accident and because they had nothing better to do.  Others get in because they percieve the money is easy, and still others (probably the majority) get in as a result of real passion, regardless of whether they can make any money.

The variety of life stories and creative talent make a consensus impossible.  Believe it or not, architects are real people, too!  If you could plot careers all across the board, you would find ascending, descending and wildly gyrating graphs, some for no apparent reason.  

Even in an established architects career, you will find some odd exceptions to their work level - good or bad - which are probably a result of bad sites, clients, or times in their lives, or just possibly times in their careers - ie either not enough work and they take a lesser project, or too much work and they turn out a lesser project.  

I think its also possible for an architect to have a slump, not unlike a professional athlete, on account of the factors above.

[Dan Kelly]

Mike Cirba --

I'd amend your equation to say -- of golf architecture, as well as of so many other creative activities: Passion + Persistence + TALENT (sorry it doesn't start with P) = Perfection (or as close to Perfection as this Earth allows).

I would hazard a guess that golf architecture, while not one of the High Arts (right, Rich? ), is like them in this respect: Many of the practitioners hit the ground running and do their best (or, at least, most creative) work when they're young and energetic.

I'm sure it's true that some writers have one great book in them -- and only one! It may not be the first book they write, but sooner or later (even after 15 years of letting it sit in a drawer someplace) they write it; get it out of their system; and then they've said what they had to say. They may keep writing and publishing books, because it's how they make their living -- but the books that follow the great one don't quite measure up, because the writer has already said the one big thing that he NEEDED to say. (Perhaps, in this sense, they are like Mr. Crump at Pine Valley, or Mr. Jones at Augusta, or ... other examples?)

It's not every creative person who needs to be Picasso, or to try to be -- to keep aiming higher and higher; to be ever more creative, in order to stay alive. Many, I'm sure -- possibly most -- get prosperous and lazy. (Doctor Johnson: No one but a fool ever wrote for aught but money -- which clearly makes me a fool, though a more-or-less contented one.)

We could undoubtedly cite many composers and performers and artists and writers (and golf architects, and engineers, and journalists, and entrepreneurs, and corporate managers, and ... ANYONE whose work demands even a little creativity) who fit this pattern.

It may be "common sense" that people should get better at what they do, the longer they do it. But it's certainly not, in my experience, the way things always are. It takes drive and discipline (or, if you will: passion and persistence) to make it happen that way. And many talented people fall short in those departments.

[Tony Ristola]

Mike Cirba...I agree...100%

Dan Kelly...Andy Warhol thought raw land itself was a high art form (I'm away from my confuser so I don't have the quote at hand)...I agree and put gold course architecture right up there...it's a 1?0 plus large canvas.  Some come preconceived, others require a little more coaxing.

Knowledge plus time on-site transferring info, being a Servant Leader, looking for and educating the crew about the details.  To spend the required time requires sacrifice and only those passionate about the game and the art provide these ingredients.

The choice is there for everyone to make...how they want to operate...and by their chosing so can they be measured.


I had formulated a mathematical equation and posted it on the old forum...

Total Project Time/Qualified (proven) Architect with Authority On-Site=Participation Rate=Predicted Level of Quality.  

Current participation rates by architects runs somewhere about 0 to 6 percent.

  

[Tim Jackson]

I think that the answer to the question is much more complex than at first glance.  I do not believe that the answer lies in the design, but with our perception of the design.

For example; should architects improve with experience - undoubtedly if they study, learn from the past and are cognizant on how to improve, but...

Coore and Crenshaw designed Sand Hills which is to date,and will be percieved as, their best work perhaps.  If their work following Sand Hills does not live up to that gem, does it mean they are not learning?  That they are slacking?  I think not.  Our perception of their work following Sand Hills may say otherwise.  But with Sand Hills there was a tremendous site, natural beauty, and an owner who knew to leave them to their work.  Projects designed since then just lack the natural beauty of that particular part of the country.

Dana Fry and Dr. Hurdzan are designing a project in Massachusets currently, on a spectacular piece of land, but with an owner who has dabbled to the point of running Dr. Hurdzan off the site.  Now the finished project may not live up to The Devil's Pulpit, lets say.  Did Fry and Hurdzan not learn?  I think not.  Unfortunately the owner will determine the outcome of that particular project.  Would we have known this when we deride the design later?  Probably not.

Ocean Trails.  Pete Dye originally routed one of the most spectacular loops for ocean golf.  The California Costal Commision and ownership pressures (development) resulted in mediocrity, certainly not one of Dye's best.  So did Pete not learn from TPC, Kiawa, or Crooked Stick?  I think not.  But for the criticism he takes for the Ocean Trails, did we know what he intended to do?  More than likely not.

My point is this.  As golfers and critics our perception of a newly completed project rarely takes into account all of the pressures, compromises, permitting issues, etc. that define how golf is designed and built today.  The group of individuals that make up this site, intelligent and passionate people I'd say, tend to be so overly critical it dismays me at times.  Now don't get me wrong, some of the criticisms are valid, but how can we respond without having any of the information other than the finished product?  It is in fact the most important aspect, but do we know why it turned out the way it did?  Many times not.  Just a thought.  

[Mark_Fine]

Tim,
Are you implying a lot of things are out of the architect's control    Could that be why every so often you shoot for an 8 and end up with a 5??  Problem is, it's always the architect that gets blamed.  They also get the glory too I guess they have to take the good with the bad!  
Mark

[Mike_Cirba]

Mark,

If the owner is shooting for an 8, and he has a great site with little in the way of restrictions, and brings in the world's best architect, then an 8 he should get!  Wouldn't you think?

What EXACTLY was out of their control??!

[Tim Jackson]

Mark

True, when a project turns out to be a gem, the architect will more than likely get full credit.  In many cases it is valid, in some cases not.  With every project though, not enough credit is given to the men who do the work.  From shapers to laborers, these guys work their butts off and rarely get a nod.

Mike

There are many aspects of design construction which limit architects on a particular job.  The difficulty in permitting a certain section of land (generally the more pristine, the bigger fight you will have money wise), endangered species habitat, nationwide 404 permits, waters of the US permits, historic tree conservation, runoff regulations, etc. are becoming more stringent each year.

It is too simple these days top say, "I have a great piece of land, lets build it."

I remember reading on a thread a while back Pelican Hill in Newport Beach, CA was a thirty year project - 28 years to permit and 2 to build.  Now I am not letting archies of the hook.  These are the realities of the business today and I think the better ones are learning to adapt and cope, but these guys face issues the members of this site no nothing of or at least do not give it the importance it really deserves when commenting.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tim,

I understand what you're saying, and it's often very valid, but Mark is good-naturedly needling me here about our discussion on another thread concerning one course in particular, where none of those restraints existed.

If you're curious to hear more, it's all under the thread "Which modern architects create the best greens".  

Enjoy the donnybrook.

[Tim Jackson]

Ah, the old cross reference to another thread comment.  Thanks for the clarification.

[paul albanese]

Jeff -- that was a great line your father used (I quote my Dad all of the time too)

I think the key to true greatness is the fact that your recognize that you may be falling into a pattern, and you change to respond to this recognitiom through innovation and refound creativity.  

Great examples --- Frank Llyod Wright had a completely different style in his early years than he did in his latter years -- and his works from both of thoses ers are appreciated.  

Pete Dye's style has changed over the years -- and a good friend of mine who works for Pete tells a great story of how Pete told hime once that the stuff he was creating looked very similar to the last project, and Pete said "Damit, we are not making doorknobs here!"

Also, I do know architects that, when something worked on the last project (or the last 10) they keep doing it, because they believe that is what the client hired them to do -- ugh!!!

If you are truly a quality architect, you improve.  But, that does not mean that architects that do not improve will not become incredibly, and unbelievably successful, due to other factors such as marketing, media, and many peoples desire for "sameness".