[Dick Kirkpatrick]

Perhaps some of these pro golfers should learn how to control their shots with the stiff shafts they are playing.

[Greg Gilson]

I am interested in what the protocol or "law" or "copyright" is when a course is originally designed by Architect A but gets tweaked by Architect B. Obviously there is a point at which "tweaks" become "redesign" becomes "different course". Is there some kind of understanding between archies that B gives A a heads up (assuming A is still alive)? Once the tweaks have been completed, at what point does the course become B's course rather than A's? This is not limited to what's happening at Medallist - apart from anything else, there are lots of examples currently down here in Australia. Several posters have talked around this point here already and i'd love to hear any real world examples from our contributing GCA's. Thanks!

[Jon Wiggett]

Greg,

I think it would be the same as with a house. You need an architect to do the design of a new house but if any alterations or extensions are done at a later date it is not unusual to use another architect. On GCA there is a tendency for us to think (feel) the courses are the property of architect. It therefore depends on the relationship between the owners and architect.

Jon

[Tim Martin]

Tim, Kevin and Archie,

My recollection, and it could be flawed, is that the course was primarily Dye, and that it was intended to be a difficult challenge.

Once built, it was under Norman's care and guidance.
It was a very difficult, narrow test that was one of those course you enjoyed on occassion, but not as a steady diet.
So, it had to be softened, for members, guests and potential members and I think that's when Greg began tinkering

Norman had previously been a member of Old Marsh, another challenging Pete Dye course.
However, Old Marsh had very generous fairways, a luxury not afforded at The Medalist.
I think the fact that Greg was such a spectacular driver of the golf ball may have been an architectural liability in terms of him being able to design a golf course for the broad spectrum of golfers represented by the Medalist membership and their guests.
Administratively, The Medalist was always very well run.  But the golf course had deficiencies or perhaps excessively challenging features.
I happened to like the effort to introduce brick sod faced bunkers.  They were very unique and demanding.

One of the flaws, that I perceived, was the narrowness of the fairways and how it was a major factor on dogleg holes where good drives, hit straight, ran through the fairway and into disastrous lies resulting in high scores.

The 4th hole, a most unusual par 3, a volcano hole, which I liked, probably went through half a dozens iterations with the current hole more like the original.

So, the tinkering continued as Greg tried to "get it right"

The tinkering ceased being tinkering and became major redesign when # 17 and # 18 were totally changed.

When I first saw the revised 18th, I thought they had brought Fazio in to do the work.
It was wildly out of character with the rest of the course..  So the course was beginning to take on multiple personalities in term of design.
The original continuity, irrespective of what you thought of the individual holes, was being lost.

Recently, and I don't know at whose direction, efforts have been made to widen the playing corridors, essentially peeling back the very penal nature of the golf course, making the course far more user friendly for all levels of golfers.

The Medalist is a course that, from it's origins, had the ability to be a good golf course by merely widening the playing corridors, but for some reason, that wasn't the primary focus of the tinkering.  A well thought out Master Plan should improve the golf course.
From an outsider's perspective, if Greg hasn't gotten it right after all these years, then, someone else needs to be retained to improve the golf course.

That's all for now

As to the Great Pete Dye, he's probably a victim of circumstances and a reluctant participant.

Thanks Pat. That certainly ties up some loose ends for me. I like Bobby Weed's work and will be interested as to how the finished product is perceived.

[Tom_Doak]

Is there an really an "accepted professional courtesy" that the original architect be contacted before any changes are made (as Norman claimed in his letter)?  Is there ever language put in contracts addressing future revisions?

Generally, when you learn of revisions at one of your designs, do you feel the desire to contact the club and understand why (whether motivated by pride or a desire to improve your craft if there were legitimate concerns)?

As always, I'm grateful to have any feedback from those in practice.

Kevin:

I believe the "accepted professional courtesy" in the golf architecture societies is generally directed at the business of consulting work at clubs -- it's taboo for an architect to speak to a club about consulting work if there is another architect under contract to that club.  I guess that rule is to prevent architects from "poaching" work, though it has also led some to claim that it is wrong for architects to disagree publicly or offer a second opinion.  

The courtesy is routinely violated the other way round, by clubs who have decided to switch architects and ask around a bit for potential new consultants before informing the previous designer.

If / when a club pursues changes to one of your courses without your involvement, it is usually a sign that the relationship with the client has broken down, and if that's the case there is little you can do to talk them out of it.  It's an awkward position to be in; the club can do what it wants, so often you are in the position of making changes you don't really agree with in order to prevent them from hiring another architect who might make more radical changes.

There are designers (all of them famous Tour pros to my knowledge) who have a clause in their contracts that the club is not entitled to change the course for x number of years without their agreement.  You can only submit such a contract if you have all the power in the relationship and the client is willing to let it slide because they want your name so much.  But, even if the clause exists, when the club believes a change is necessary they are ultimately going to prevail.  It's their course.  They paid for it.

[Bill_Yates]

For what it's worth.

On May 9, 1994, I visited Pete Dye while he was in the process of designing, and along with Jason McCoy, building the Medalist Golf Club.  When we met, I asked him if I could look at his routing or design plan and he pointed me to a hand written piece of paper hanging on the wall in the trailer.  If I recall correctly, it consisted of a list of estimated distances for each hole along with par, and point to point sketch of the routing of the eighteen holes.

I am looking at the notes I made that day and my scribbling says this "total of 400 acres available, 200 acres are marsh, 120 acres of upland brush and 80 acres for golf."  If true, no wonder the fairway corridors were narrow.  Perhaps in later years, more of the marshland was, or now will be reclaimed for golf.

While on the course with Pete, he was in the process of making some last minute adjustments to what I believe is now the 14th hole. He was quite hands-on as he focused on grading the green approach and with bunker shaping.  When he drove me back in, Greg was waiting in the trailer. 

I realize that this was a 2-hour snapshot of a multiple month project, but my impression was that with Greg's busy playing and business schedule, Pete was a large contributor to design of the original product.
 

[Mike_Young]

As Tom says above, the "signature" who was paid an excessive fee because of the perceived marketing of the RE development around the golf course usually could hold the developer's feet to the fire because they felt they needed his name for selling RE.  I don't think it was ever done for design integrity.
For so many of us regional guys you just never know what will happen at your projects.  They get sold or another pro comes in or a new supt is hired and they all have friends who they feel can do a better job and things evolve.  Also, since the architect is rarely seen over the years at his projects and the supt and pro are there everyday, it is fairly common for any issues such as drainage or greens problems etc to be blamed on the architect.  About the only way to prevent such is to do your best to contact your older projects at least once a year and hopefully more.  It's a very delicate subject for many.  If you really want to start a skirmish all you need to do is be asked to do a job that was originally done by a member of one of the societies.  You will quickly become one of the very lowest life forms..

[Tim Martin]

Is there an really an "accepted professional courtesy" that the original architect be contacted before any changes are made (as Norman claimed in his letter)?  Is there ever language put in contracts addressing future revisions?

Generally, when you learn of revisions at one of your designs, do you feel the desire to contact the club and understand why (whether motivated by pride or a desire to improve your craft if there were legitimate concerns)?

As always, I'm grateful to have any feedback from those in practice.

Kevin:

I believe the "accepted professional courtesy" in the golf architecture societies is generally directed at the business of consulting work at clubs -- it's taboo for an architect to speak to a club about consulting work if there is another architect under contract to that club.  I guess that rule is to prevent architects from "poaching" work, though it has also led some to claim that it is wrong for architects to disagree publicly or offer a second opinion.  

The courtesy is routinely violated the other way round, by clubs who have decided to switch architects and ask around a bit for potential new consultants before informing the previous designer.

If / when a club pursues changes to one of your courses without your involvement, it is usually a sign that the relationship with the client has broken down, and if that's the case there is little you can do to talk them out of it.  It's an awkward position to be in; the club can do what it wants, so often you are in the position of making changes you don't really agree with in order to prevent them from hiring another architect who might make more radical changes.

There are designers (all of them famous Tour pros to my knowledge) who have a clause in their contracts that the club is not entitled to change the course for x number of years without their agreement.  You can only submit such a contract if you have all the power in the relationship and the client is willing to let it slide because they want your name so much.  But, even if the clause exists, when the club believes a change is necessary they are ultimately going to prevail.  It's their course.  They paid for it.

Tom- It is obviously far easier from a public relations standpoint when the original archie is an ODG. I know that Renaissance is the consulting architectural firm to a lot of great old classic courses. Do you ever find yourself in a situation where the club seems to be more sympathetic to certain original design features than you are? Additionally you must occasionally win the battle but lose the war on an original design where you incorporate a feature despite objections by the developer/owner only to see it changed down the line.

[Tom_Doak]

 If you really want to start a skirmish all you need to do is be asked to do a job that was originally done by a member of one of the societies.  You will quickly become one of the very lowest life forms..

The oddest call I ever got along those lines came when I was a young architect with maybe 3 or 4 courses under my belt ... it was about a project in Virginia where the committee was having a falling out with the designer and there was a faction that wanted to replace him.

For a while the fellow would not tell me what the course was, but when I insisted on knowing before giving him an answer, he told me that it was the Robert Trent Jones Golf Club!  He was looking for another architect to finish a course named after the original architect!  [And not only that, but if I have my history correctly, the land was actually found and purchased for the club years beforehand by Mr. Jones himself.]

I declined to become involved in that.

[Tom_Doak]

Do you ever find yourself in a situation where the club seems to be more sympathetic to certain original design features than you are?

More often it is the other way around -- I am more sympathetic to the original design [either by wanting to preserve an existing feature or restore an old one] than the membership is.  A lot of our best advice has been to NOT change things.

Additionally you must occasionally win the battle but lose the war on an original design where you incorporate a feature despite objections by the developer/owner only to see it changed down the line.

This has happened once or twice but not often.  There is no point in winning the battle if you know you are going to lose the war.  But there are plenty of times when I have gotten a client to see the light about a particular feature, or at least to trust me that it will all work out, and it has turned out to everyone's satisfaction.  One such is the punchbowl 18th green at Cape Kidnappers, which Mr. Robertson originally disliked because he thought it was too easy, but has refrained from changing because of the general acclaim for the course.

[Tim Martin]

Do you ever find yourself in a situation where the club seems to be more sympathetic to certain original design features than you are?

More often it is the other way around -- I am more sympathetic to the original design [either by wanting to preserve an existing feature or restore an old one] than the membership is.  A lot of our best advice has been to NOT change things.

Additionally you must occasionally win the battle but lose the war on an original design where you incorporate a feature despite objections by the developer/owner only to see it changed down the line.

This has happened once or twice but not often.  There is no point in winning the battle if you know you are going to lose the war.  But there are plenty of times when I have gotten a client to see the light about a particular feature, or at least to trust me that it will all work out, and it has turned out to everyone's satisfaction.  One such is the punchbowl 18th green at Cape Kidnappers, which Mr. Robertson originally disliked because he thought it was too easy, but has refrained from changing because of the general acclaim for the course.

Tom- I was sure that you would usually be more sympathetic to the original features but I found the idea of being on the other side every once in a while interesting. As always I guess it depends somewhat on the subject club's goals going forward.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom- I was sure that you would usually be more sympathetic to the original features but I found the idea of being on the other side every once in a while interesting. As always I guess it depends somewhat on the subject club's goals going forward.

In practice, if I'm not fond of the original design of the course I am probably not going to take the consulting job, unless the membership is already looking to make a significant change [i.e. Medinah #1].  I have taken on most of the consulting work we do in order to help preserve the courses in question.

About the only time I am in favor of destroying an "original" feature that the club wants to keep is in the case of trees [which are not really an original feature, but are an existing feature that raise emotional arguments among some memberships].  Those who have paid attention to me on this site know that I think that trees have a place on some courses, but there are a handful of clubs where you could never convince the women's committee that I am anything but a tree-killer. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

I think you have to look at change/alterations in a qualitative context.

The critical question is, not is it different, which we know it is, but, is it better ?
To make changes that don't improve the course/play would seem to be an indication of a lack of understanding or a lack of talent, or both.

Donald Ross tinkered with # 2 for about 26 years.
CBM tinkered with NGLA up until a year or two before his death.
Ken Bakst has tinkered with Friars Head for about a decade.
Roger Hansen has tinkered with Hidden Creek for ten years.

I think it's safe to say that the tinkering resulted in improvements to those courses/play.
I'm not sure you can say that about the Medalist, save for the recent widening of the playing corridors.

Therefore , one has to ask:  Is 17 years a sufficient amount of time to get it right ?
And, if it hasn't been "gotten right", after 17 years, is it time to bring someone else in who can "get it right" ?

To a degree I think the Medalist suffered from a common American Syndrome......... Difficulty = a great or quality course.
I think they forgot a critical requirement, namely, that the challenge has to remain .....FUN.
Perhaps, because of the quality of Greg's play, that requirement went unheeded.

I always thought that the Medalist could become more user friendly with the simple addition of width on many of the holes.
It's got a nice mix of unique holes.
Repeat play certainly helps.
they maintain the course extremely well, F & F.
So condition isn't the issue

[Bill Brightly]

Wow, this thread sure went round the bend, (worth it to get to read more Gib prose) but now has some REALLY good gca responses.

[archie_struthers]

 

Pat , we both saw the start of Medalist the same way.  It was so hard that few enjoyed it as a regular diet save perhaps Norman and Jim Kaat , who certainly was quite an athlete. 

What is still a little tricky to fathom is who exactly Norman was listening to when he tinkered , if anyone?   Dye's reticence to comment may indicate displeasure with his work being sullied but he also shows great restraint. Respect for Greg, or just not interested in petty squabbles??? We may never know.  .

[Patrick_Mucci]

archie,    I don't think Greg was listening to anyone, I think he was conducting on the job training using the Medalist as his proving ground.  He was a novice looking to make a foray into designing golf courses and what better course to train on  than the one he controlled.  that's my story and I'm sticking to it

[Anthony Butler]

Thankfully this thread has turned back to it's original intent.

During my one visit to the course in '07 both the GM who arranged the game and Norman who made a stop and go visit to the practice tee  (where I attempted to hold a conversation with him while simultaneously not shanking a 7 iron in his presence) mentioned the complaints of the members on the difficulty of the course, especially from the tees.

Part of the issue was that the course mostly forced you to hit one shot from the tee, especially if you were not blessed with the ability to accurately fade or draw the ball on command. It was calm the day I was there (early December, generally a good weather stretch for that area of Florida) but even the members tees would be a challenge when the winds got up in Feb/March. A few of the holes could have used some forward tees so the course could be played at 6,300-6,400 yds.*

The guy I played with was around 65 years old and played to a 7 handicap. He could drive it up a gnats bum from 240 yds and seemed pretty comfortable from the members tees that were playing around 6650. He did mention that some of his fellow members had retreated to their other clubs and were only seen at the Medalist dragging their visiting friend/relatives in for some 'shock therapy'.

After I left the course, I heard talk of ongoing discussions about adding width to the fairways, and changing surroundings to the greens to allow for more recovery shots. The words "Royal Melbourne" were mentioned during these discussions.. that's when I knew something had jumped the Shark...  Let's face it, the Medalist was dredged out of 400 acres of swamp, not laid out on 300 acres of Sandbelt. It took Pete Dye about 10 years and $15 million dollars to make TPC Sawgrass playable for the world's best golfers, so it was hard to see what could be done to make everyone at the Medalist a happy camper. To quote another famous sporting figure, sometimes "It is what it is."

* Part of this problem also has to be assigned to members who think just because a Pro V1 and a 460cc driver allows them to hit their Sunday best 275 yards they should always play from the 7000+ yds tees. Given the amount of emphasis placed on distance through televised golf (in both the telecasts and the ads running in the breaks) distance anxiety has become the second greatest worry amongst male golfers, right behind whatever those Cialis ads are meant to cure.

[JESII]

My understanding of the Cialis commercials is if you find yourself and your significant other in side-by-side bath tubs above an ocean front bluff it'll put a smile on your face...

[Anthony Butler]

My understanding of the Cialis commercials is if you find yourself and your significant other in side-by-side bath tubs above an ocean front bluff it'll put a smile on your face...

And if you take too many Viagra, apparently your vision leads you to believe you're swimming in that ocean... but I defer to Pat and Gibby on that one.

[Gib_Papazian]

I've only played one so-called "Norman Signature Design" and am surprised that the Medalist Club is considered too difficult for the membership. Across the Bay from me - in the shadow of the execrable Poppy Ridge - The Course at Wente Vineyards is the absolute opposite of how The Medalist is described.

Aside from #2, which is a shortish par-4 that corkscrews through trees and bunkers, the rest of the golf course seems quite roomy off the tee. The routing - by necessity - is the tale of two courses, but nowhere have I ever felt intimidated looking at the landing area. The greenside bunkering (aside from #2) on the front nine presents yawning hazards, but in reality, there is a tremendous amount of breathing room to operate.

Even the back nine, which begins with a cartpath switchback to the top of an enormous hill, Norman took pains to provide enough width off the tee for middle handicappers to enjoy themselves. Perhaps it is because Wente is routed in and around a windy corridor, but even with a stiff breeze, you've got to hit the off-the-world shot to lose a ball.

It could be that his marching orders at The Medalist (with Pete) was to give the members a brutal test. The developer of the infamous "Dragon" above Lake Tahoe made the same demand of the late Robin Nelson - who recounted the tale to me one afternoon. After completing the front nine, the NorCal course raters returned a ridiculously high slope rating; the developer was apoplectic because it was not the "hardest in America" and demanded Robin make the back side that much more impossible.

We all know the story of The Dragon's demise; it may be that Norman and Pete were instructed to build a monster like Kiawah and simply built what the client wanted. Again, I've only played one Norman design, but it was good enough to drive Ran's brother (John) over there for a special look. Maybe Wente is an anomaly, but John - who is every bit as sharp as Ran - said the bunkering and strategies on the front side looked airlifted from the Aussie Sandbelt.

By contrast, every Nicklaus Course - public and private, aside from one - has been too damned hard for anybody but low handicappers. I've yet to hear of any membership rebelling against his tape-loop of indulgent, one-dimensional dog crap. I was assigned Old Greenwood, a private club near Truckee, CA. We ended up playing behind a mixed foursome of 60-something members. By the time we reached the 18th, an uphill par-4 steep enough to require pitons to reach the summit, the group in front of us had left a trail of blood running out their knickers.

If that is the relaxing retirement waiting for me, I'd just as soon put a gun in my mouth. Maybe as the membership at The Medalist got a bit older, the overlords had the good sense to stop the self-flagellation and surrender to good sense. We all eventually reach that epochal moment, some sooner than others.

Could be that Norman's antics were just an excuse to stop the madness - although Wente demonstrates that the Shark is perfectly capable of designing something fun and enjoyable to play. We may never know the truth, but hiring Bobby Weed to blunt the teeth of his mentor's chainsaw makes good sense to me. Pete may not have wanted to get into a row with the club or split the sheets with Norman, so why not hand the keys over to his protege? Doak and my departed friend John Harbottle started in the same stable and damn if they didn't make the most of it.

As for Anthony Butler: If those two sophomoronic loogies are the best you can cough up, just get back in the kiddie pool where you belong. You couldn't clean Mucci's toilet.          

        

[Anthony Butler]

Being the world famous winemaker he is, you'd think the Shark would understand better the influence of terroir and climate on any outdoor enterprise.

Never drink Pinot Noir from the Napa and stay away from Washington Cabernets... It's also why a swamp in Florida will never be a Sandbelt.

Curiously, GCA often stands that notion on its head with the number of elderly men who often act like children....

[Bob_Huntley]

As for Anthony Butler: If those two sophomoronic loogies are the best you can cough up, just get back in the kiddie pool where you belong. You couldn't clean Mucci's toilet.         

       

Gib,

Reading that last sentence reminded me of a make believe insult I received from the best guy in the business. I was introduced to Don Rickels on the first tee at Riviera over thirty years ago. He said 'hi" and I responded with "I am pleased to meet you" in a plummy accent. Then, as only Rickels could, asked if I was some sort of English faggot. My response was no but I'll give you a kiss if you want. After that I spent the funniest round of golf ever; like you he was a softy at heart.

Bob

[David_Elvins]

The Course at Wente Vineyards is the absolute opposite of how The Medalist is described.

Could be that Norman's antics were just an excuse to stop the madness - although Wente demonstrates that the Shark is perfectly capable of designing something fun and enjoyable to play. We may never know the truth, but hiring Bobby Weed to blunt the teeth of his mentor's chainsaw makes good sense to me. Pete may not have wanted to get into a row with the club or split the sheets with Norman, so why not hand the keys over to his protege? Doak and my departed friend John Harbottle started in the same stable and damn if they didn't make the most of it.

Gib,

To take this thread off topic again, I believe that Wente Vineyards is quite different than Norman's other American courses because it was designed by Bob Harrison out of Norman's Australian office.  Norman's Australian courses are all very good, and contain the space to play that you talk about. 

Whilst Wente Vineyards is the only Norman course in America that I have played, from looking at photo tours and talking to people it appears there is quite a chasm between what came out of his American office and Australian office from 1995-2009.  The Australian courses are wide, very playable and sparingly bunkered, whilst the American office produced courses that were narrower, harder and more heavily bunkered. 

PS Thanks for the entertaining turn of phrases throughout the thread. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

In my visits to The Medalist over the years I haven't noticed many/any members playing the back tees.

To a degree, I think you have to view the creation of the Medalist as a by-product of Old Marsh, or perhaps Old Marsh on Steroids.
The two courses are clearly related and I think Greg, who was a member of Old Marsh, wanted to make the Medalist more difficult than Old Marsh, and.........Old Marsh was difficult.  But, Old Marsh had width.  Old Marsh also had water fronting or flanking every hole, but the width made it manageable if you played smart.  The Medalist had an advantage in the soil, in that it was further East than Old Marsh, which is West of the Turnpike.  That's a significant difference as much of the off areas at the Medalist enjoyed a Sugar Sand base.  Old Marsh was mostly marsh/swamp.  Hence, I think narrowing the playing corridors and the retention of off area scrub and swamp was the path to creating a difficult golf course at The Medalist.

Initially, it worked.
Golfers were attracted to the "legend" and "the new, difficult, game in town"
But, "difficulty" wears thin quickly.
Had the owner/ developer been anyone else, I think the course would have been softened considerably, quickly.

It will be interesting to see what changes are proposed.

I would guess that # 17 and 18 would be a priority, but as I think about every hole, I can't envision major changes.
Maybe some fine tuning, and if that's the case, then the original design integrity would remain mostly intact, which would cause me to think that recent events at The Medalist have little to do with architecture.

[Gib_Papazian]

David,

If true, that is counter-intuitive to me. I rarely see such wild differences in style in an architectural firm, even one with such far flung projects. Most Fazio and Nicklaus courses - regardless of which associate ran the show - have a visceral similarity in design philosophy. I suppose the same can be said for Tom's group.

Apache Stronghold and Pac Dunes are sewn together with similar tapestries despite the different terrain. Maybe Old Mac is a bit of a departure, but not as much as it looks at first glance. Even their faux-Macdonald reprise has a similar aroma, demonstrating that Tom and Urbina have rubbed off on each other.

And despite the intramural squabbles with the boss over the years, R.T. Jones Jr.'s work has a consistency in terms of arrangements, look and content. He's spawned a lot of spin-off organizations, but whether the pencil belonged to Don Knott, Gary Linn or Kyle Phillips, a sharp eye can see the hand of Bobby's influence.

Neal might sniff that I'm full of shit, but most every Bob Graves course aside from La Purisima (which is a supercharged, ramped up version of his design philosophy) feels quite similar. Perhaps Damian had an epiphany (which could explain Monarch Dunes), but if we are era specific - when Bob Graves was driving the bus - a client who hired Robert Muir Graves got a Robert Muir Graves style golf course. That is not a bad thing as I love his old courses. They are what they are - relaxed, dependable and maybe a bit formulaic in a comfortable way.
    
So how is it that a monstrous ego like Greg Norman allows (or encourages?) two completely different design philosophies between offices? It seems impossible - particularly because he lives there - that the Florida office churns out a completely different product than the Aussie associates. I wonder why Bob Harrison handled Wente. Interesting question . . . . .

Uncle Bob,

With the exception of Wayne Morrison (has he been banished?) and an occasional tiff with Barny, I rarely get into a cosmic snit at anybody in the Treehouse. There is something about his smug nyah nyah nyah attitude that puts this Anthony Butler twit off my tea. He's like one of those toy punching clowns with a red nose that squeaks. I keep expecting him to pop back up with something beyond an inane taunt; I don't know what is more ridiculous, wasting my time on the Treehouse loser or expecting a plastic toy full of hot air to give me a match.    

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()