Words from a professional

[Ran Morrissett]

Signs of a mid-life crisis are swirling about!  In search of a more authentic experience, I re-read Henry David Thoreau’s Walden early this year. The thought of being a shoe cobbler gained glancing appeal and at one point, the desire to build a mechanical watch took hold. When on that quest, I came across this passage in George Daniels’ cornerstone book entitled Watchmaking:

It should be the ambition of every professional to make a contribution to his field of study. This can only be achieved by constant striving for improvement. In watchmaking that contribution may be scientific, intellectual, or aesthetic, for watches combine these three aspects to a degree depending upon their maker’s interest. Continuous study and practice are the ingredients for binding them into a successful whole. Much work will be necessary before this success is realized...

I quote it here because of the seeming parallels with golf course architecture. Having re-read that passage ~fifty times, various thoughts keep popping up including:

* Stop reading this paragraph and move on! 
* Would every architect agree with the first sentence? And does that answer change under economic conditions like the one we are in with a paucity of projects in North America (i.e forget the profession, I just want to put bread on the table)?
* Do architects in fact strive to improve? Or more kindly/better put, do golf course architects improve with time? This is a long time debate on GolfClubAtlas.com. After a couple of successes, do architects develop a look and then play it safe by rubber stamping it on a go forward basis, (admittedly in part because the customer wants it)?
* Pondering the strengths and (weaknesses) of architects relative to the three categories of scientific, intellectual, and aesthetics.
* How do architects continually ‘study’ (i.e. learn)? For instance, in a down economy, can they afford to spread their wings and travel as a means of re-invigorating their intellectual curiosity?

As a Master Watchmaker, Mr. Daniels was at the very top of his profession and did many, many things including designing his own escarpments. He passed away October of last year with these letters trailing his name CBE, MBE, DSC (HONS), FSA, FCGI, FBHI, and FAWI  . He earned those based on five plus decades of devotion to the science of watchmaking. Without doubt, he lived up to his own lofty words as quoted above.

What do you think? How relevant are his sentiments to golf course architecture?

Cheers,

[Marty Bonnar]

Think he might have designed escapements, not escarpments which tend to have been the work of geology - or god if you're that way inclined.

F.

[Ronald Montesano]

I believe, from my distant vantage, that architects in this era of "more renos/restos than new builds" need to give their best more than ever. Back in the salad days of the 90s and 00s, projects were more plentiful. Now, with fewer projects, there is no single excuse to be given for less than superior work.

And, beautifully, we will see better original work if the architects entrusted with the restos truly study and learn from the works of the masters.

Imagine a rationing of paint and canvas to such an extent that the only way to earn a living as an artistic painter was to resto the works of the maters. The watchful eye would be focused and the precision of the agent, imperative.

Cannot WAIT to see the Forse resto of CCBuffalo.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ran,

I think you have to differentiate art from science and the role of innate talent.

The more that talent is present, the more likely that creativity will continue to progress, whereas the less that talent is present, the more likely stale or stagnant design will become prevalent.

[Kris Shreiner]

Anything done well is an art. Certainly, those that create quality golf architecture are artists. There are those that did some of their best work early, and some that have evolved over time. Some pursuits require a more singular focus of the individual;  in others, exceptional efforts are the result of joint, or even multiple commitment levels. No one achieves greatness just on their personal talent alone. What I do think elevates some talented folks is their willingness to continually study, or even collaborate, with others.

Few locales provide more evidence of this distillation approach than Philadelphia's courses and their respective, contributing characters. Many of America's (and some foreign as well) golf architecture giants clearly shared insights and added richly to the concentrated caliber of a number of fine courses in the region. Even though many of those involved were "amateurs" from a professional architect standpoint, they were driven and accomplished in other endeavors; those attributes certainly lead to a "professional" mindset when contemplating how they were crafting their ground for golf.

Though the degrees of actual involvement remain somewhat murky, Cobbs Creek seems very representative of this collaborative approach from a public course perspective. On the private side PV, and perhaps to a slightly lesser degree Merion, also provide ample evidence of this. Others will no doubt be able to add more courses to those mentioned.

In recent times, T.D.'s Stonewall, and Gil Hanse's French Creek are solid examples of courses that surely benefitted from both architect's having been abroad and studied some of the great golf architcture in the British Isles.

While the opportunity to achieve greatness in golf architecture often comes down to fortuitous timing(couldn't resist), the ability of the team to deliver a finished product of distinction, based on the architect's(singular or plural) vision, really requires a lot to go right. The complexity and layering of that process are different than a watchmaker's task, which is the job of one person; but if they need to replace just one part, that product is often the result of many hands.

I guess in the end even the most talented rely on others for some facet of their achievement. That is worth noting; for teamwork, and depending on others, is part of almost anything we do in life. That is why humility and a humble constitution are always welcome.

Cheers,
Kris
 

[Rory Connaughton]

The Nicklaus/T. Doak collaboration at Sebonack springs to mind.  I recall reading a number of backhanded compliments from Jack directed to Tom at or around the time of completion but based on what I have read, it seems that he may have adopted some of what he picked up from Tom in subsequent work. Strikes me that this could be exactly the type of thing you are referring to?

[Tom_Doak]

Ran:

Nice post.  At least you can say that one of the symptoms of your mid-life crisis was introspective, and not just reactive.

I think Mr. Daniels' thoughts are relevant to most professions, including golf course architecture, but that only a small fraction of people in each field ever live up to those standards.  Golf course architects probably score a higher percentage than most professions, because there are not many people in the business who don't really love the work.


Rory:

There's no question that both Jack Nicklaus and I learned some new things by working with each other at Sebonack.  However, I don't think you could really credit either of us with taking the job on that basis.  We both just wanted to work on that project and that piece of ground.

[Patrice Boissonnas]

Hi Ran,

As a newcomer in this industry, I’ve already been through these questions many times: how good will I be? Does being good mean bringing something new? What could make my work memorable? If I’m lucky enough to work on several new builds, will my first be my best?

In a way, I am lucky France has so little knowledge about golf architecture: I can at least contribute to grow that knowledge in my country. It’s an immense task but I hope I am that distant little voice that will go louder and louder…

Our world is also facing major new challenges in connection with environment and sustainability. Adjusting golf architecture and golf course construction to these challenges will demand improvement to our industry, most of it relying upon agronomists.

Design wise, I don’t think there is much room for improvement and it’s so subjective anyway. The best courses built in the recent years are not better than the best courses of the past, they’re just different (sometimes not so much). What I mean by that is what great idea could come up now that would make a great hole even greater?

Maybe we can make a parallel with Art History.
For many years, Art has been a succession of Movements reacting to each other (Abstraction, Abstract Expressionism, Minimalism etc.) or inspired by the changes happening in the world (Surrealism, Pop Art…). But the artists living and working today can seldom be identified to a Style or a Movement. They’re just individuals doing what they love in the way they love. It seems only a technology breakthrough (3D modeling for example) could bring something really new in the art industry. Is that a problem? No, you have more money in art now than ever.

I think it’s a bit similar in golf architecture. We no longer have schools of design, architects do it because they love it, some have a very personal style that can be imitated and indeed some marginal progress could come from Science.
I think our mission as golf architects is less about reinventing golf architecture than it is about transmitting our passion for golf, making it fun and accessible for as many players as possible and teaching new professionals for the future.
Our personal and collective sense of ethics will probably be key to our success: that means respecting the game of golf by doing our best whatever we do and respecting the land we’re building on as well as the people living nearby.

Sorry, sounds like a preach. Should my last word be "Amen"?

[Ulrich Mayring]

"We are professionals. We are paid to say no."

That's what Robert C. Martin answered when a colleague of mine asked him what he should do if his customer says he doesn't care about quality.

Ulrich

[paul cowley]

Great Ran...so you're nuts too...eh?

[TEPaul]

Ran:

This whole thread is a most interesting one, but the following question is the most interesting, at least to me.




"* Do architects in fact strive to improve? Or more kindly/better put, do golf course architects improve with time? This is a long time debate on GolfClubAtlas.com. After a couple of successes, do architects develop a look and then play it safe by rubber stamping it on a go forward basis, (admittedly in part because the customer wants it)?"



Probably the best way to answer this question with any golf architect is to simply look at his entire career and career inventory from beginning to end. Doing that should answer the following question of whether any architect strives to improve as his career progresses.

After a success or a couple who played it safe by rubber stamping it on a go forward basis and who created some real diversity throughout their career?

So let's look at some of the significant architects to see how their career inventories answer that question.

1. Macdonald
2. Raynor
3. Ross
4. Tillinghast
5. Travis
6. Emmet
7. Mackenzie
8. Colt
9. Alison
10. Flynn
11. Findlay
12. Maxwell
13. Behr
14. Strong
15. RTJ
16. Dick Wilson
17. Gordon
18. Fazio
19. Pete Dye
20. Rees Jones
21. Coore and Crenshaw
22. Doak
23. Hanse
24. Palmer
25. Player
26. Thomas Jr
27. Willie Park Jr
28. Willie Dunn
29. Willie Campbell
30. Old Tom Morris
31. Etc




Let's take the first two first---eg Macdonald and Raynor. Did they seek to improve over time or did they basically rubber stamp it going forward?


Opinions?

[Robert Emmons]

Ran,

George was so very interesting on many levels. I was lucky to spend many days with him when he was comercially designing his co-axial escapement for a Swiss watch firm. His interests were not only in watches but Auto's too, and once with him you would not forget his graverly voice. A true genius and certified character...RHE

[Steve Howe]

Certainly some stimulating food for thought here.

I think that golf course architecture is an artform and true inspiration and genius in art is a pretty tricky business.
Many great artists have their moments of genius very early in their careers and then steadily decline. Can anyone name a musician who produced their greatest work (even if their technical skills imrpoved ie: their mastery of their instrument) late in their careers? There are some but I could safely say they are in the minority. I think the same could be said of novelists, painters and other artists.
Likewise, scientists who achieve amazing breakthroughs more often than not do so very young, then decline in terms of their greatest achievements. Without getting into a whole other thing about Crump and PV, does anyone think had Crump gone on to build more courses they would be better than PV?

If there is improvement to be made in an artist's career I would say it would be in the craft elements of their work. That is, the functionality of already existing ideas or adapting principals to more challenging circumstances. Certainly just as worthy of admiration, and perhaps this kind of dedication is even more scarce in most of us humans than the moments of brilliance. It's just that we all tend to remember, and celebrate, the brilliance. 

[Chris Shaida]

...
Many great artists have their moments of genius very early in their careers and then steadily decline. Can anyone name a musician who produced their greatest work (even if their technical skills imrpoved ie: their mastery of their instrument) late in their careers? There are some but I could safely say they are in the minority. I think the same could be said of novelists, painters and other artists.
...

Actually there was a fair amount of writing about 'late periods' in the arts over the past twenty years that countered the 'artist burns bright early and then declines...' conventional wisdom.  Beethoven, Matisse, Guston. Rothko, Roth are examples from music, painting, writing where the 'new' conventional wisdom is that they did truly stupendous work 'late'.  So all hope perhaps should not be lost!