Can you separate the process from the final product?

[Kalen Braley]

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.

George,

I would agree that I'm evaluating the process...but only in hopes of defining it and identifying the intrinsic differences between it and the final product.

[Carl Nichols]

Paul:
It's not my thread, but I thought George meant something like:  "Can you evaluate the final product separately from the process that created it?" 

[George Pazin]

Paul:
It's not my thread, but I thought George meant something like:  "Can you evaluate the final product separately from the process that created it?" 

I can see how you'd think this, but I really meant something more like what Paul said. What bothered me on the other thread wasn't the notion that golfers evaluate a golf course based on the final product, it was the notion that the process doesn't matter. In many ways, this is a semantic argument - which I abhor - but I do think it is important not to diminish the process in the end result, the final product.

Hope that makes some sense...

Thanks everyone for sharing your thoughts.

[Carl Nichols]

Paul:
It's not my thread, but I thought George meant something like:  "Can you evaluate the final product separately from the process that created it?" 

I can see how you'd think this, but I really meant something more like what Paul said. What bothered me on the other thread wasn't the notion that golfers evaluate a golf course based on the final product, it was the notion that the process doesn't matter. In many ways, this is a semantic argument - which I abhor - but I do think it is important not to diminish the process in the end result, the final product.

Hope that makes some sense...

Thanks everyone for sharing your thoughts.

It does, and I agree with you.  On the other hand, I think many on this site often conflate their evaluation of the final product and the process. 

[George Pazin]

...On the other hand, I think many on this site often conflate their evaluation of the final product and the process. 

This is really interesting, gotta think about it overnight.

[JMEvensky]

...On the other hand, I think many on this site often conflate their evaluation of the final product and the process. 

This is really interesting, gotta think about it overnight.

I agree with Carl.

I think if any architect on this site led a field trip to any course,not many of us would have a clue as to what was/wasn't done to the property.

I actually think the real architects would have a blast laughing at the misconceptions of amateur architects.

[Kalen Braley]

...On the other hand, I think many on this site often conflate their evaluation of the final product and the process. 

This is really interesting, gotta think about it overnight.

I agree with Carl.

I think if any architect on this site led a field trip to any course,not many of us would have a clue as to what was/wasn't done to the property.

I actually think the real architects would have a blast laughing at the misconceptions of amateur architects.

Call me an amateur all you like, but I'm pretty damn sure I could do better than this!!   

[JMEvensky]

KB,I'd probably take that bet--and give you any price you like.

I agree that you could conceptualize something better,but do you really think you could build it?

Could you get the irrigation and drainage in the right places?Could you pick out the right grasses?Etc.,etc.

Really think you could get a golf course out of your brain and onto the ground?

[Kalen Braley]

KB,I'd probably take that bet--and give you any price you like.

I agree that you could conceptualize something better,but do you really think you could build it?

Could you get the irrigation and drainage in the right places?Could you pick out the right grasses?Etc.,etc.

Really think you could get a golf course out of your brain and onto the ground?

I don't think the grasses are an issue.  Even the great Dr. Mackenzie back in the day would often not tend to those kinds of details.  He had experts figure out the grasses and otherwise.... its documented pretty well in the book about Cypress Point.

But for that matter, how much does Jack actually build in the courses he's done?  OR any other ex-PGA name player?  (Excluding Crenshaw).  Are all the stories about them showing up for one site visit for a picture junket all wrong?  Yet they are still the "architect" on record.

While yes I suspect I could get a quality golf course down...I have no illusions that it would be a world beater.

[paul cowley]

Although it is not my favored style the previous photo looks radically diferent from a players perspective when on the ground plane.

[JMEvensky]

KB,no offense,but I'm still betting the under.

I won't let you cite JN or other PGA Tour pros--they hire professional architects to do the work.However,when the first Kalen Braley Signature Course opens,my check for the initiation fee will be sent Fed Ex--if you approve my application.

Kidding aside,I think you underestimate,by a ton,the difficulty of turning an open field into a properly designed/built golf course.I think it's a lot harder than most amateurs can imagine.

[Kalen Braley]

KB,no offense,but I'm still betting the under.

I won't let you cite JN or other PGA Tour pros--they hire professional architects to do the work.However,when the first Kalen Braley Signature Course opens,my check for the initiation fee will be sent Fed Ex--if you approve my application.

Kidding aside,I think you underestimate,by a ton,the difficulty of turning an open field into a properly designed/built golf course.I think it's a lot harder than most amateurs can imagine.

JM,

That would be a dream if that day ever came.  However, if it did, I would have to deny your check because it would be a single owned golf course but open to any and all GCAers, on the house! You got there and the golf is free 

[Tony Ristola]

I began thinking about this question in another light, and as the thread is moving towards page 3... figured I'd thread-jack instead of starting a new one.

Do "architects" prefer to separate the process from the final product? Do they prefer the rock not be lifted to expose what actually happens? Why is the press so reluctant to lift the rock and take a good peek under and report the state of affairs, the process of making sausage to the public as good, professional journalists would tend to do? Report to inform the public about what is unseen and perhaps to some unseemly. Will they lose friends? Advertising? Invites to new course openings?

The public has been fed a whole lot of synthetic events, reported as news about the latest and greatest project by some pseudo architect and his "hands-on" effort, coupled with their "giving back to the game". It's not much more than propaganda masquerading as journalism. It poisons, dumbs down, and perverts the architectural record of a vast segment of what should be an industry reflective of the honorable game it is associated with.

If process is so important, as noted in this thread, how can it be separated from architectural credit. Does it really matter? If you look on GCA it does to many, as folks hash out who the real architect was at Bethpage Black, or who was involved at Merion on threads that could double as encyclopedias. Why not have that simple standard for all courses so folks don't have to dig through the smoke and mirrors set up by ersatz architects marketing departments, and condoned by the silence of architect associations to find the truth in say 10, 20 or 50-years of who actually did what?

If the type of recording of golf course design went on scorecards at golf tournaments, there wouldn't be mere DQ's, but participants in the industry banned for life.