[Tony Ristola]

Peter:

Your point may be a bit over my head, but I think I get the gist of it.  My client in China wants me to make a visit now [still pre-construction] to basically hold his hand and help him visualize the finished product ... I told him I can come, but it won't help because I don't really know the answers to his questions until we get a handful of holes roughed in and figure out what we are really going to do.  That's our process and I am sticking to it, even though it makes their banker uncomfortable.

Process is critical. Process determines techniques and allows or doesn't for flexibility, and determines the level of lost opportunity costs.

Golf courses can only be planned on paper to a point because they have limitations of detail and the human mind really isn't that creative; it is hard wired to repeat patterns (I sort of laugh at the term "detailed plans"). Beyond being less than detailed, plans are restrictive and rigid too. Plans have their role, to say they don't would be idiotic. They're necessary for permits, nailing down some engineering problems and setting environmental boundaries, estimating work, materials, time frame and cost.

As Tom's message to his client hints at, the finest golf courses are controlled chaos. The creativity is a combination of seizing on mutation, chance, and randomly mixing these elements as they present themselves. It's a complexity unimaginable in an office, and a complexity that is more likely to produce originality. All this mixing, matching and opportunity mining requires energy, knowledge and vision to direct and shape, and because of this being dynamic rather than static, it is a process, and the process determines. It is not instant soup or a paint-by-numbers kit, as some in the business would have their clients believe.

Dr. M had a good point about hard headed businessmen wanting it all on paper; impossible, and even Tom, with a pretty stellar track record reveals, the "trust me" element of such a process still makes the hard headed businessmen uneasy.

[Jud_T]

Interesting aside that may or may not be relevant.  A close friend bought a fancy house a couple years ago and needed a landscape architect.  They hired a women that my family and I have worked with for years who's probably the best in the area but a very artistic Harvard-educated type who likes to work with the land over a number of years to get to the true potential of the site.  I've seen first-hand what she's capable of with a client who's willing to give her the time and money necessary and deal with her quirky sensibility.  After one very difficult growing season I felt that she'd laid the groundwork for something very cool and appropriate for their property.  Well needless to say, they expected instant gratification from living breathing organisms that don't necessarily work on your timetable, and didn't give her the chance to layer things in for a few years and see what worked best in their little micro-climate and sacked her for some hack who promised instant gratification.  But none of this changes the fact that if you made your virgin visit tonight to a garden party at their house, you'd think the garden was somewhat nondescript and had a jumbled, unfinished feel that lacked a unified vision.

[Andy Troeger]

I think there are two truths here...

1. The process determines the final product...

2. Once you have a final product you can still evaluate it separately from the process. After all, if I come in and play the course and don't have a resource to explain the process to me, then I won't really know (and most golfers won't care) exactly how it came to be. That doesn't mean I can't see what's there now, however.

[Carl Rogers]

Then how should one look at a course like Muirfield Village or Congressional .... courses that continually get all kinds of accolades from some quarters but are nevertheless re-designed constantly to 'improve' them?

What "process' do these courses have?  Is there ever a 'final' product?

I do not think you can blame the ball or the driver or competitive golf.

[Carl Nichols]

I think there are two truths here...

1. The process determines the final product...

2. Once you have a final product you can still evaluate it separately from the process. After all, if I come in and play the course and don't have a resource to explain the process to me, then I won't really know (and most golfers won't care) exactly how it came to be. That doesn't mean I can't see what's there now, however.

Andy, I agree entirely with both of these points.  By way of an example, I haven't read the Confidential Guide, but from everything I've heard about it, it's an evaluation of each golf course as it existed in the ground at the time(s) that Tom D visited it -- not an evaluation of the process that led to each the course.  

I would, however, add a point 3, which is:

3.  One can make, and it's appropriate to make, qualitative judgments about the process and how it resulted in the end product -- such as how much it cost to build the course, the environmental impact, etc.  

[Andy Troeger]

Carl,

Agreed with your third point. That's probably the most important part of the process to me. I think those judgments are a bit separate from the absolute quality of the final product, however. You can theoretically criticize the process but still have a golf course of quality (at some level) and/or love the process but still have a course where it didn't work that well.

[Carl Nichols]

Carl,

Agreed with your third point. That's probably the most important part of the process to me. I think those judgments are a bit separate from the absolute quality of the final product, however. You can theoretically criticize the process but still have a golf course of quality (at some level) and/or love the process but still have a course where it didn't work that well.

Andy:
I agree.  I think that sometimes the two get conflated, which is understandable because of your point 1 (i.e., the process affects the end product).

[Andy Troeger]

Carl,
Actually I'm not sure I like my last point...it depends on definition of the process. But thanks for agreeing! If process encompasses everything from choosing a plot of land forward, then they might be more related than I'm giving it credit for. I'm sure others will let me know if they disagree with the original point!

[Carl Nichols]

Carl,
Actually I'm not sure I like my last point...it depends on definition of the process. But thanks for agreeing! If process encompasses everything from choosing a plot of land forward, then they might be more related than I'm giving it credit for. I'm sure others will let me know if they disagree with the original point!

I am agreeing in the sense that I think one should be able to evaluate the course -- the product -- as it exists when you play it, without regard to process.  That evaluation of the product can include things like whether the course looks natural, whether it fits the land, whether there are long green-tee walks, whether there are too many artificial mounds, etc., all of which are highly dependent on the process.  But IMHO one should be able to make those evaluations without knowing anything at all about the process. 

[Lester George]

Without process there is no product.  I agree with Paul Cowley, they can't be separated.  Whether you end up with a marginal product or and incredible one, there is a process involved with attaining it, at least IMO.

Lester

[Carl Nichols]

Without process there is no product.  I agree with Paul Cowley, they can't be separated.  Whether you end up with a marginal product or and incredible one, there is a process involved with attaining it, at least IMO.

Lester

I agree Lester.  But don't you also think that you can (and often do) evaluate an end product without knowing what the process was?

[Greg Holland]

So, how would you compare NGLA and the Lido -- both were great courses by the same architect, but were built with different processes, no?  Perhaps since CBM was using templates, the design process wasn't so different, just the construction process?

Interesting topic.

[John Kavanaugh]

I just spent a few days at Dismal and was lucky enough to tour the new course at Dismal with Tom Doak and Chris.  I will say that the process is very important to the final products playability.  I like to play my shots off of sideboards and backstops as opposed to shooting straight at the pin.  Because I have seen the course pre-construction and during construction I will know what is natural and what is man made no matter how good the shaping, and it is damn good.  You see, natural gravitational flow does not compare equally to unnatural.  I learned on this trip that friction is indeed arbitrary.  To grasp this concept in relation to shot value you must know the process of construction.

[Peter Pallotta]

Fascinating post, John. I hope you'll get a chance to write more about the concepts you just mentioned in the weeks to come.

Peter

[George Pazin]

George,
I'm not sure I completely understand the question.  But as it pertains to GCA would I be close if I were to say that each style may require a different process.  I have always liked to "find "the course and yet other styles may choose to "place" the course.  These are two totally separate processes and the more expensive, time consuming one is not necessarily the best one IMHO.  Some like to build a course form the center stakes out and others like to build from the outside to the stakes.
The same question could be asked of push up greens vs USGA greens. 
Am I close or way off?

Excellent, most excellent indeed, my friend!

Peter did get it right yesterday as well, I just got tired of typing on my smartphone.

[George Pazin]

I think there are two truths here...

1. The process determines the final product...

2. Once you have a final product you can still evaluate it separately from the process. After all, if I come in and play the course and don't have a resource to explain the process to me, then I won't really know (and most golfers won't care) exactly how it came to be. That doesn't mean I can't see what's there now, however.

Very good post, and a good stepping off point for why I started the thread.

What struck me on the other thread were the questions like, who cares about the process? Why does it matter?

Now I understand that Brad and others were just saying it from the standpoint of evaluating the final product. In that sense, sure, it isn't necessary to see how the sausage is made. But it matters in terms of how the final product actually turns out, and it makes a lot of sense - in fact, I'd argue it is incumbent upon us on a discussion site - to discuss the process.

Process happens to be a personal fascination of mine (or pet peeve, depending on your point of view). I've never been an "ends justify the means" guy; process matters, and in gca, I think it really matters.

Brad, cool news about the new gig, congrats. Are you still in Madison?

[Brad Swanson]

Strictly as a consumer of golf courses, so to speak, why would I care if a course I really like was routed and constructed by the following methods

1.  CAD start-to-finish by some computer geek from MIT that developed an algorithm that was guaranteed to take the topo map and design the perfect golf course to get the highest GolfWeek rating.

2.  By the GCA architect du jour holding a sweat lodge seance to channel the spirit of MacKenzie to guide him to the best routing and optimal number of frilly cape embellishments in each bunker.

Please, tell me why I would care.  This is a separate argument from which process typically would yield a superior product.  I think many here are chiming in from the perspective of the architect/developer relationship.  I am speaking from the course owner/player relationship.

Remember, this discussion was started from another thread where I questioned why the whole "we moved the dirt here with tweezers, but that didn't work the first 3 times, so we brought the bulldozers in" backstory should be held against Erin Hills as far as judging the merits of the current product.

[JC Urbina]

George,

I find the process to be very enjoyable.  I was lucky enough to be involved with creating two diametrically opposite products just years apart, Pacific Dunes and The Rawls Course at Texas Tech Univ.  Each product had different aspects to the process.

On Pacific Dunes we  needed  to create the features and tie into the natural surrounds.

On the Rawls course we had to create the features and then tie into the artificial topography surrounding the hole.

I think people tend to enjoy the golf courses that mask the line of creativity vs the ones that can not hide the total line of creation.

I know that in some cases just fixing the line of creation like we did at the Rawls course was easier. The ability to tie into a natural surround like the 18th at Pacific Dunes  was more difficult but far more rewarding.

I hope that makes sense.

[Mike_Young]

Adulthood has often made it a practice to complicate processes in order for individuals or groups to justify their existence.  This has always been the case with golf course construction and even the game itself.  Does anyone here actually think a tour player can explain why he hits the ball the way he does.  No.  They are taught some processes and when they tinker with those it usually means they go sideways but in most cases the talent that got them there in the first place was inherent to an extent..  
I could care less if a guy uses a bulldozer or a trackhoe to shape a green as long as I get what I wanted.  The issue is that a bulldozer can't create many of the same features as a trackhoe.  

[Peter Pallotta]

Shivas - hmm. That is certainly food for thought!

I'd suggest that the way people answer this question has a lot to do with the way they view/understand causal relationships.

Many would argue, I think, that Ben Hogan's swing/process produced the golf shot/result.  I'm more inclined to think that Hogan's swing was the golf shot, i.e. that the golf shot/result was inherent in the swing/process.  

They can't be separated.

And the fact that another golfer might produce the same result with a different golf swing doesn't seem to invalidate that notion.

Peter

[George Pazin]

Please, tell me why I would care.  This is a separate argument from which process typically would yield a superior product.  I think many here are chiming in from the perspective of the architect/developer relationship.  I am speaking from the course owner/player relationship.

Remember, this discussion was started from another thread where I questioned why the whole "we moved the dirt here with tweezers, but that didn't work the first 3 times, so we brought the bulldozers in" backstory should be held against Erin Hills as far as judging the merits of the current product.

I think we're just arguing different things. If you're just talking as someone rating or evaluating a golf course, there is no real need to consider the process. If you're simply saying we shouldn't judge a course's merits based on the backstory, I don't have a problem with that.

But as a golfer, the process certainly affects the price. As an owner, the process certainly affects the bottom line. Even using your example of EH, it's on its second owner - is that not due at least in part to the process?

Even as a golfer just evaluating the merits - or a person enjoying a sausage - the process has a great impact on the final product, so I think it's somewhat misleading to say the process doesn't matter.

Or maybe I'm just beard pulling...

-----

Nice post, Jim, thanks for sharing that.

[Kalen Braley]

Of course you can separate the process from the final product.  Its why sausage is delicious and sausage making is disgusting. It's also why sex is great but the process required to get any is a pain in the ass.

+100  Couldn't agree more with you Shivas...on both counts...and as it pertains to this thread too. 

I guess where I'm having a hard time following, and I certainly only blame myself for that difficulty, is that when I see a question like that I automatically apply to it everything I can think of, not just golf course building.


But to channel some Tom Huckaby here....the reality is, very few of have ever been on a raw piece of land or project where a course was actually being put in the ground.  So for us to pretend we understand what it takes to go from the very beginning to finished and mature product is a bit of a fallacy.  What i do suspect thou is, there is no one right way or no one wrong way.

[paul cowley]

I think many here are injecting value into the question...as if it had been worded "Can you separate the process from the value of the final product?"...another topic entirely...George?

[Kalen Braley]

I think many here are injecting value into the question...as if it had been worded "Can you separate the process from the value of the final product?"...another topic entirely...George?

Paul,

That could very well be the case.  I'm probably inserting value of the finished product on a sub-conscious level. 

But I still think the final product is seperate/different from the process.  And I will keep my example to golf course building to keep it on topic.

When you see the finished product, aka the golf course...

...you don't see the dirt moving equipment.
...you don't see the dug out green wells
...you don't see the PVC pipe laying everywhere
...you don't see the funky green grass spray.
...you don't see guys all over the place shoveling dirt.
...you don't see the maintaincence pond being dug out.
...you don't see dugout ditches for drainage.

but all of these are present in the process.  And thats the point, none of those things are explicit in the final product...they only manifest themsevles in the process phase and are hidden to the end user.

[George Pazin]

Kalen, at that point, I would argue that you are in fact evaluating the process.

Paul, I agree, nicely said. I hope I can evaluate your process someday soon.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()