Does having a highly ranked course.......

[Nigel Islam]

Does having a course ranked highly influence a living golf architect's career? How so? I understand the rankings are so very flawed, but I still assume that it could only help make the phone ring a little more often.

[Tyler Kearns]

Nigel,

I don't see how it could hurt, plus it's cheaper than buying ad space in the major golf publications.

TK

[Patrick_Mucci]

Nigel,

Does an NFL quarterback's rating influence the amount he'll be paid on his contract renewal ?

[Nigel Islam]

Nigel,

Does an NFL quarterback's rating influence the amount he'll be paid on his contract renewal ?

That is actually an excellent analogy. I hate the QB rating stat, but I do pay attention to it. Apparently in the case of the Bears the answer would be no! (Cutler 89.2 & McCown 109)

[Adrian_Stiff]

I would say having a top 100 course you can add a nought!

[Nigel Islam]

I would say having a top 100 course you can add a nought!

That is kind of what I was wondering.

[Tom_Doak]

It only matters to any potential clients who are thinking they want their own course to be ranked ... or that they want to piggyback off the publicity value of your name because you've had a course in the top 100.  The latter category includes pretty much everyone!

Adrian, if it really could make your fee go up by a factor of ten, you're not charging enough now.  It has certainly made a significant difference in what we could charge, and just as importantly in who calls us.  But, I like to remind people that's not all about Pacific Dunes being ranked so highly ... it's that we were the guys who were able to build Pacific Dunes.  Most of our clients who have seen the place have loved it, independently of its place in the rankings.

[JESII]

Tom,

If I'm hiring and architect to build a golf course there are a variety of reasons for making a selection. To dismiss an architects success in the rankings as only being worthwhile for a developer that wants their course in the rankings is unfortunate. The rankings are one method of assessing the quality of the work. I would think an extended view of the rankings, if possible, is exponentially more valuable than a Best New type of appearance.

If you've built 10 courses and none have raised an eyebrow in the ranking circles it will surely not help you regardless of how well you interview. If you've built #22 Modern and Jeff Brauer has #25 Modern I think we can call it a tie as the rankings are certainly not final and absolute.

Just out of curiosity, do you really feel that even after winning the Pacific Dunes job ("being the guys who were able to build it") and your subsequent clients loving it, that you would have won all the same commissions since then if it were never ranked in any Top 100?

[William_G]

Does having a course ranked highly influence a living golf architect's career? How so? I understand the rankings are so very flawed, but I still assume that it could only help make the phone ring a little more often.

yes, no doubt the phone would be ringing more often and for a more sustained period

it's influence would be unique to that person/company

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

If I'm hiring and architect to build a golf course there are a variety of reasons for making a selection. To dismiss an architects success in the rankings as only being worthwhile for a developer that wants their course in the rankings is unfortunate. The rankings are one method of assessing the quality of the work. I would think an extended view of the rankings, if possible, is exponentially more valuable than a Best New type of appearance.

If you've built 10 courses and none have raised an eyebrow in the ranking circles it will surely not help you regardless of how well you interview. If you've built #22 Modern and Jeff Brauer has #25 Modern I think we can call it a tie as the rankings are certainly not final and absolute.

Just out of curiosity, do you really feel that even after winning the Pacific Dunes job ("being the guys who were able to build it") and your subsequent clients loving it, that you would have won all the same commissions since then if it were never ranked in any Top 100?

Jim:

Absolutely, having a course ranked in the top 100 lists on a regular basis is way, way more valuable than winning a Best New award against a limited field.  That said, to me, having a course ranked in the top 100 in the world or U.S. requires

(a)  Having a great piece of land to work with and a great client to work for,
(b)  Making the most of that opportunity, and
(c)  Successfully navigating the politics of the ranking process, to the extent that the architect is involved.

Only (b) is really about your ability as an architect, (a) and (c) are more about salesmanship and who you know.  There are plenty of good architects who have never had the chance at (a), and other good architects who had both (a) and (b) but still missed out because of (c).  So, I think it would be a shame if you weighed having a course in the rankings too heavily, in deciding whether an architect has talent.  If Mike Keiser had done so, both David Kidd and I might have been passed over.  We were all once on the outside, looking in; and Mike gets enormous credit for being one of the only developers to look past that and go with his instinct.

To answer your last question, I'll refer you back to (a) through (c).  The only part I could really control about Pacific Dunes was making the most of the opportunity, which I think we did.  Without that, it isn't ranked so highly, and we're not so busy.  But that part was about what we built; you generally don't get a course ranked that highly unless you've earned it.  The rankings do have a huge impact on who can charge high fees, but in the end that's a product of what you were able to do when you had the opportunity ... to give too much credit to GOLF DIGEST seems a bit misplaced.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom & Jim,

It goes to "consensus" and peer respect.

When a course is deemed "superior" by those who play it and compare it to it's peers, there's a recognition of talent that's bestowed upon the architect, taking into consideration, the site.

Did Fazio not make a huge splash with "Shadow Creek", so much so that Tom Doak gave it a top ten rating.
Did that work not catapult him to loftier heights as an architect, which resulted in higher fees.

In the "creative" field, if your products are ranked amongst the best, you're inherently going to command loftier fees.

Throughout mankind, there's always been a premium on quality.

[JESII]

I think we're on the same page that the rankings are valuable in that they are a proxy for the quality of the work...not to exclude the clients independent opinion of the work...just an added resource.

Tom,

Regarding Mike Keiser selecting David Kidd then you at Bandon; clearly there are always several factors in a decision to hire a golf course architect. I suspect the clients instincts carry the most weight.

There's a disclaimer by money managers..."past results do not guarantee future performance".

[William_G]

Furthermore, Mike Keiser knew it was/is important economically to get the raters/panelists/industry out there to see how cool Bandon was/is.

Retail golf, 

[Patrick_Mucci]

I think we're on the same page that the rankings are valuable in that they are a proxy for the quality of the work...not to exclude the clients independent opinion of the work...just an added resource.

Tom,

Regarding Mike Keiser selecting David Kidd then you at Bandon; clearly there are always several factors in a decision to hire a golf course architect. I suspect the clients instincts carry the most weight.

There's a disclaimer by money managers..."past results do not guarantee future performance".

That's because they can't predict the environment.

Whereas, an architect can view the environment/site and make an informed determination as to whether he'll accept the commission.

[Steve Kline]

It's interesting to me that Keiser picked Kidd and Doak (two relative unknowns at the time) for his first two courses, yet has largely stuck with the household names (Doak and C&C) since then. Anybody have thoughts on that? Cost savings on the first two courses is what comes to my mind but I have no idea what their fees where then versus the competition or now.

[Michael Felton]

Tom,

If I'm hiring and architect to build a golf course there are a variety of reasons for making a selection. To dismiss an architects success in the rankings as only being worthwhile for a developer that wants their course in the rankings is unfortunate. The rankings are one method of assessing the quality of the work. I would think an extended view of the rankings, if possible, is exponentially more valuable than a Best New type of appearance.

If you've built 10 courses and none have raised an eyebrow in the ranking circles it will surely not help you regardless of how well you interview. If you've built #22 Modern and Jeff Brauer has #25 Modern I think we can call it a tie as the rankings are certainly not final and absolute.

Just out of curiosity, do you really feel that even after winning the Pacific Dunes job ("being the guys who were able to build it") and your subsequent clients loving it, that you would have won all the same commissions since then if it were never ranked in any Top 100?

Jim:

Absolutely, having a course ranked in the top 100 lists on a regular basis is way, way more valuable than winning a Best New award against a limited field.  That said, to me, having a course ranked in the top 100 in the world or U.S. requires

(a)  Having a great piece of land to work with and a great client to work for,
(b)  Making the most of that opportunity, and
(c)  Successfully navigating the politics of the ranking process, to the extent that the architect is involved.

Only (b) is really about your ability as an architect, (a) and (c) are more about salesmanship and who you know.  There are plenty of good architects who have never had the chance at (a), and other good architects who had both (a) and (b) but still missed out because of (c).  So, I think it would be a shame if you weighed having a course in the rankings too heavily, in deciding whether an architect has talent.  If Mike Keiser had done so, both David Kidd and I might have been passed over.  We were all once on the outside, looking in; and Mike gets enormous credit for being one of the only developers to look past that and go with his instinct.

To answer your last question, I'll refer you back to (a) through (c).  The only part I could really control about Pacific Dunes was making the most of the opportunity, which I think we did.  Without that, it isn't ranked so highly, and we're not so busy.  But that part was about what we built; you generally don't get a course ranked that highly unless you've earned it.  The rankings do have a huge impact on who can charge high fees, but in the end that's a product of what you were able to do when you had the opportunity ... to give too much credit to GOLF DIGEST seems a bit misplaced.

Tom - do you think that getting all of (a) through (c) has a bigger impact on you because you can charge more as a result of it or because you are more likely to get more of (a) in the future? Do you think without Pacific Dunes that you would have got the opportunity to work on Barnbougle or Ballyneal?

As you say, all three of those are important, but given (b) then I would think (a) is really what it comes down to. From what I hear of the current market, it's hard to turn anything down, but I would think the biggest difference that designing a highly rated course would do is give you the opportunity to pick the plots of land that you're going to work with (within reason).

[Tom_Doak]

It's interesting to me that Keiser picked Kidd and Doak (two relative unknowns at the time) for his first two courses, yet has largely stuck with the household names (Doak and C&C) since then. Anybody have thoughts on that? Cost savings on the first two courses is what comes to my mind but I have no idea what their fees where then versus the competition or now.

Mike knows from experience that the long-term value of a hugely successful project is a lot more than the differences between design fees.  

Also, he has a comfort level working with us; and there is a sense that he is rewarding the guys who helped make the original project(s) successful and has enabled him to do more.

[Tom_Doak]

Absolutely, having a course ranked in the top 100 lists on a regular basis is way, way more valuable than winning a Best New award against a limited field.  That said, to me, having a course ranked in the top 100 in the world or U.S. requires

(a)  Having a great piece of land to work with and a great client to work for,
(b)  Making the most of that opportunity, and
(c)  Successfully navigating the politics of the ranking process, to the extent that the architect is involved.

Tom - do you think that getting all of (a) through (c) has a bigger impact on you because you can charge more as a result of it or because you are more likely to get more of (a) in the future? Do you think without Pacific Dunes that you would have got the opportunity to work on Barnbougle or Ballyneal?

As you say, all three of those are important, but given (b) then I would think (a) is really what it comes down to. From what I hear of the current market, it's hard to turn anything down, but I would think the biggest difference that designing a highly rated course would do is give you the opportunity to pick the plots of land that you're going to work with (within reason).

I did not understand your very first question.

As to the second, I am sure Barnbougle would never have been built if it wasn't for Pacific Dunes.  Greg Ramsay knew of my name beforehand, but if Richard Sattler hadn't found confidence based on the success of Bandon, there's no way he would have gone ahead with building the place.  Ballyneal, I don't know.

As to the last point, I agree.  The value of building one's first truly great project is so high, that in the long term it would be worth it to do the project for free.  You just have to hope that the client is not the sort who wants to take advantage of you to that degree.

[Patrick_Mucci]

It's interesting to me that Keiser picked Kidd and Doak (two relative unknowns at the time) for his first two courses, yet has largely stuck with the household names (Doak and C&C) since then. Anybody have thoughts on that? Cost savings on the first two courses is what comes to my mind but I have no idea what their fees where then versus the competition or now.

Steve,

Leaving the monetary aspect out of it for a minute.

You can date alot of women, but, when a really good one comes along, you tend to stick with her.
That's how marriages come about.

Ditto developers and architects, sometimes the chemistry is right and there's a good marriage forged between the two parties.

[Michael Felton]

Absolutely, having a course ranked in the top 100 lists on a regular basis is way, way more valuable than winning a Best New award against a limited field.  That said, to me, having a course ranked in the top 100 in the world or U.S. requires

(a)  Having a great piece of land to work with and a great client to work for,
(b)  Making the most of that opportunity, and
(c)  Successfully navigating the politics of the ranking process, to the extent that the architect is involved.

Tom - do you think that getting all of (a) through (c) has a bigger impact on you because you can charge more as a result of it or because you are more likely to get more of (a) in the future? Do you think without Pacific Dunes that you would have got the opportunity to work on Barnbougle or Ballyneal?

As you say, all three of those are important, but given (b) then I would think (a) is really what it comes down to. From what I hear of the current market, it's hard to turn anything down, but I would think the biggest difference that designing a highly rated course would do is give you the opportunity to pick the plots of land that you're going to work with (within reason).

I did not understand your very first question.

As to the second, I am sure Barnbougle would never have been built if it wasn't for Pacific Dunes.  Greg Ramsay knew of my name beforehand, but if Richard Sattler hadn't found confidence based on the success of Bandon, there's no way he would have gone ahead with building the place.  Ballyneal, I don't know.

As to the last point, I agree.  The value of building one's first truly great project is so high, that in the long term it would be worth it to do the project for free.  You just have to hope that the client is not the sort who wants to take advantage of you to that degree.

Thanks Tom - interesting. My first question was basically saying do you think that getting that Pacific Dunes opportunity (and indeed making the most of it) had a greater impact on your career by enabling you to charge more for your work or by giving you the opportunity to work on further top end properties (like Barnbougle or Ballyneal)?

[Tom_Doak]

My first question was basically saying do you think that getting that Pacific Dunes opportunity (and indeed making the most of it) had a greater impact on your career by enabling you to charge more for your work or by giving you the opportunity to work on further top end properties (like Barnbougle or Ballyneal)?

Well, it's hard to answer that because I didn't really make any more money for Barnbougle or Ballyneal than for Pacific Dunes, due to mitigating factors.  Building Pacific Dunes got us more great opportunities; building successful courses at Cape Kidnappers and Barnbougle put us on a different plane [including financially] by proving that what we'd done in Bandon was not just a fluke.

[Randy Thompson]

I don´t think it makes a huge differnce but sure its gotta help. To give you an example and correct me if I am wrong becasue I have only taken a quick look at the list. I don´t recall seeing that Gill has any courses in the top 100 and he seems to be highly in demand and the more demand you créate, the more you can afford to raise your prices. Especially, if your desires are to stay a boutique firm and continue to créate qaulity projects that help créate that demand in the first place. In comparrison, I seem to remember that David Kidd has two projects in this new list and if his phone is ringing like crazy, he can´t hear it because he is on a dozer shaping Cabot Cliffs for C&C!

[Tom_Doak]

I seem to remember that David Kidd has two projects in this new list and if his phone is ringing like crazy, he can´t hear it because he is on a dozer shaping Cabot Cliffs for C&C!

Randy:

It would be hard to mistake David Kidd for Rod Whitman if you had met the two of them 

[Randy Thompson]

I seem to remember that David Kidd has two projects in this new list and if his phone is ringing like crazy, he can´t hear it because he is on a dozer shaping Cabot Cliffs for C&C!

Randy:

It would be hard to mistake David Kidd for Rod Whitman if you had met the two of them 

Whoops, open mouth, insert foot! Si there actually two different people! I need to cut down on my posting or at least check facts before posting. Just thought that now there is golf attire avialable for golf cllub atlas that I might get a free shirt when I become a senior member. Ok, then is it Rod who designed Cabot links and is shaping Cabot Cliffs, can I still save face by saying the architect of the 42 best course is currently shaping in this deflated market! Shit I will never get to sleep, now I gotta go back and look! uFF!

[Jim Nugent]

There's a disclaimer by money managers..."past results do not guarantee future performance".

That's because they can't predict the environment.
[/color]

I think it's mostly a legal/liability issue.  

Why does Keiser go back to Doak and C&C?  Because they repeatedly prove they produce the goods, i.e. world-class golf courses that rank top 100 and better on list after list, and are the style that Keiser himself likes.  I'm pretty sure Mike has never hired Jack, e.g., or Fazio for that matter.