[Ben Sims]

This is an 18-lesson series designed to promote discussion amongst golf architecture fans.  The use of Gen (ret.) Colin Powell's Leadership Primer is used only for this discussion and not profit or personal gain.

Like the new T-Mobile spokeswoman in the pink dress, the hotness of these threads are being ignored for no good reason.  I think our resident architects will have good and bad to add on Gen Powell's sixth lesson.

Lesson SIX

You don’t know what you can get away with until you try.

There is a certain truth to asking for forgiveness later. I believe that there is success in taking the next step and not to be overwhelmed with the uncertainties. If you have an idea that moves your organization forward, why not try to take it into action? Beware of over-thinking everything which leads to inaction!

[John Kirk]

Hi Ben,

I'm paying attention, but only to the extent that I'm devoting to architecture these days.

My favorite courses and architects are daring and bold.

[Colin Macqueen]

Ben,
I'm still bookmarking them!

Paralysis by analysis would be no good at all. Having to rely on the milk of human kindness after the fact is scary! I guess if you have your rationale and good supporting evidence as to why you had pushed the envelope then you might win the day. Nothing ventured nothing gained.

Cheers Colin

[Jim Colton]

Is this the DMK chapter?

[Scott Warren]

Jim,

Either that or the The News of the world chapter!

[Tom_Doak]

Five years ago, every young architect's web site talked boldly about "breaking the rules of design".  As if there really were any! 

The few who are really bold in their designs do not have to promote it; such work stands out clearly against the boring and safe designs of the majority.  Of course, used unwisely, bold action can also get you killed ... there needs to be someone in the group who knows when to say when.  Being bold to show that you're bold rarely works out well [Mike Strantz being the exception].  In our business, you ought to have a good GOLF reason for every bold thing you do.

Likewise, to get really good work out of your associates and shapers you have to empower them to try something different and possibly fail.  But, that goes hand in hand with watching them like a hawk ... and with finding guys who won't pout, when they do fail and you decide to erase it.

[Peter Pallotta]

While there may be a certain truth in asking for forgiveness in one's personal life ("I'm sorry I went to Bandon for a month, honey -- but I promise you: next month we'll spend it all at Saks on Fifth Avenue!"), that approach doesn't really seem to work in the world/business of golf course architecture, and especially not around here.  Has everyone already forgotten the abuse and attacks JN's group got for going back to DR to tweak some holes just a short time after the course opened?  (As a counterpoint, I started a thread back then supporting the 'process' , suggesting that it wasn't a failure or a sin if someone tried something and then realized it didn't work -- but it didn't have much traction.  I guess folks weren't in a forgiving mood.)  The unfortunate result, however, is that architects all feel compelled to hit the home run the first time out...and nothing is given a chance to evolve.

Peter

[Tom_Doak]

Peter:

We all let our designs evolve.  But, we try to complete the process in the dirt.  By the time we decide to install the irrigation and plant the grass on them, our clients [the actual course owners] hope that the evolution by construction is done for a while, because it's vastly more disruptive (and expensive) after the fact.

A lot of the criticism for architects and courses that go back and change stuff after the first year or two, is simply that it's an indicator that maybe the lead architect wasn't there enough, or wasn't paying close enough attention at the time, and only figured it out after the fact when there was a clamor to solve some problems.  Sure, there are sometimes playability issues that you didn't foresee ... but it's the job of the architect to try and foresee them, and we have to accept the criticism when we didn't.

There are certainly parts of a golf course that can evolve after the fact.  Grassing lines can be changed, and the density of rough can be revisited.  A new tee can be added here or there, relatively inexpensively.  Bunkers can be added or taken away without much trouble.  But, rebuilding greens is not a normal evolution.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom -  the first two sentences of your post in particular are just excellent, and very telling/informative. I was going to ask which great courses from the 1890s-1920s HADN'T evolved significantly, but I think maybe you meant to address that question in the rest of your post.
Peter

[Kalen Braley]

Ben,

In the spirit of frank talk....I think the reason these threads aren't getting a lot of play is because these 18 talking points are like any other seminar/workshop/guidance/career training exercise, in that the advice is:

1)  Often cliche riddled mumbo jumbo with little applicibilty to every day stuff.
2)  Often too high level to really mean much to anyone.
3)  Is stuff that people don't usually pay for with thier own money, but will only consider when work pays for it on a out of town junket.
4)  Rarely provides helpful specific examples that people can actually learn from and put into play.
5)  And results in half the crowd falling into a camotose state 1 hour in to the presentation.

I get that corporate america eats this stuff up, but lets face it...there's just not much day to day relevant info for most people.

Just my two cents!

P.S.  I've had my fair share of chances to attend these seminars ranging from half day to multi-day sessions and I've turned them down every time.  I'd much rather waste my time surfing GCA.com!! 

[John_Cullum]

Well done Kalen

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()