[Don Mahaffey]

There are many final products that can skin a cat, and getting stuck on just one with some obvious flaws still doesn't seem like good design to me.

Cheers.

Jeff, please explain this parting shot.

[Tom_Doak]

As to your other examples, of the gca taking the lead to parcel out the budget, rather than have the irrigation designer try to sell the most expensive system, the bunker liner guy trying to sell the most bunker liner, etc., they yes, I agree that is the architects job as the first among equals. There, I would like input from others, but feel like I should control the final.

One of the things I've noticed in the last 10 years is that the salesmen sometimes try to go right to the owner and sell him on this irrigation system or that grass being "the best", because they know the architect might shoot down their windfall.  That has been the death of "free reign" on a couple of my projects.  Few owners seem to understand that LESS input can lead to BETTER playing conditions.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Don,

Gladly, although it is in no way a shot at anyone.

As an example, whenever I gave a new associate a chance to route a course, I always instructed to do at least 3 routings in the first hour and as many as possible before lunch. It just seems to be the nature of the beast to get stuck on one "great" idea that any of us have.  Usually, they aren't as good as those associates thought.  (frankly, few of mine are pure genius either)

The best routing results, in my experience is to have had everyone in the office take the many, quick shot approach to see how many different ideas come out. Brainstorming, if you will.  You never know where a good idea may come from or how it might combine with other lesser ideas to be better than it was originally.  That seems to be the nature of creativity to me, not coming up with one idea and never considering other alternatives.

The same can be said of any particular feature design, whether greens, tees, or bunkers. Even strategic concepts.  As applied to your real world examples, and hinted at in my answer, one biggie in the discussion with the super is always bunker style.  I prefer the Mac style cape and bay, but most supers are split between the problems of steep grass bank mowing, and shoveling steep sand banks.  (and I have seen those who argue for one, bemoan getting them, but maybe the problems you don't have always seem more manageable than the ones you do).

Short version is, if a super wants flat bunkers, I try to give them to them.  What I won't do, is flat bunkers with soft mowable slopes all the way around, because in 30 years, I have never found a way to make those look particularly good.  So, we work to some kind of compromise and I look forward to it, as I think it makes each of my courses look a bit different.

My fear is that if I was given total free reign over my last ten courses, each might have come out the same, as I have, using my own criteria, settled on cape and bay years ago.  We all get into habits (good and bad) and I don't mind others challenging me to get out of the bad ones, at least! I think we all settle into patterns and need to break them.  I think we all have preconceived notions and need them challenged.

And hence, my response.  Like I say, I love final control, but also love a lot of input, at least in a general goal setting way. I agree that an owner who takes control of details can be a bit vexing.

[Jeff_Brauer]

One of the things I've noticed in the last 10 years is that the salesmen sometimes try to go right to the owner and sell him on this irrigation system or that grass being "the best", because they know the architect might shoot down their windfall.  That has been the death of "free reign" on a couple of my projects.  Few owners seem to understand that LESS input can lead to BETTER playing conditions.

I have had the same experience in both seed and irrigation, particularly in projects up north, where it seems the salesmen have all winter to get the superintendents ear and change his mind.  I gave an example of such recently, where we had extensive discussion on one of my early MN projects, the super and agronomist agreed on grasses, and by spring, the super had salesman and internet forums available to change his mind.  Only problem is, the contractor has probably ordered all of both while he was changing his mind, and isn't able to send it back without some cost to owner.

Irrigation is particularly hard.  I have seen the bigs bypass the bid completely and go straight to city council to sell their stuff.  It is frustrating and one reason I use irrigation consultants to act as a buffer.

[Ally Mcintosh]

And once you say that the lead architect has final say, you immediately negate the notion of a collaborative team.

Consensus and collaboration are not the same thing Patrick.  It is possible, even preferable, for a leader of a creative project like a GCA to be collaborative and incorporate the ideas of others, without being concerned about arriving at a consensus.

This is exactly what I mean, Jason.

[Patrick_Mucci]

And once you say that the lead architect has final say, you immediately negate the notion of a collaborative team.

Consensus and collaboration are not the same thing Patrick.  It is possible, even preferable, for a leader of a creative project like a GCA to be collaborative and incorporate the ideas of others, without being concerned about arriving at a consensus.

Jason,

Would you cite five (5) examples where a modern day (1960+) golf course was designed, from the outset, vis a vis "Collaboration, versus a joint venture or a design team, like Coore & Crenshaw.

Old Macdonald was a replica concept course, not a course of purely original architecture/design.

Just five !

[Tom_Doak]

Jason,

Would you cite five (5) examples where a modern day (1960+) golf course was designed, from the outset, vis a vis "Collaboration, versus a joint venture or a design team, like Coore & Crenshaw.

Old Macdonald was a replica concept course, not a course of purely original architecture/design.

Just five ![/color]

Jason:

I've done 35 courses so far, and you can use every single one of them to illustrate a collaborative approach.  There were only a couple where I didn't have the final say.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

So why don't those 35 courses assign design credit to your fellow collaborators ?

[Jason Way]

Jason:

I've done 35 courses so far, and you can use every single one of them to illustrate a collaborative approach.  There were only a couple where I didn't have the final say.

Thanks for saving me the time Tom. 

Having now read and watched quite a few interviews with Tom and other GCAs, I hear and see the word "we" quite often.  Perhaps even more often than the word "I".  That tells me that, regardless of whose name is ultimately on a course, there is plenty of credit being appropriately spread around.  After all, a leader who doesn't know well enough to give credit to others where it's due, isn't going to have those others around long to help get the job done.

[archie_struthers]

YES. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Archie had free reign at Twisted Dune, and produced a course that's interesting, challenging and fun.



YES. 

[Brett_Morrissy]

The one caveat to my earlier reply is that while neither the O'Neals nor Mr. Sattler had much to say about the golf, they didn't have any spare cash to throw around, either.  It was understood from the beginning that we needed to build those courses as cost-effectively as possible.  I don't remember any decisions at Ballyneal being compromised over that.  However, Barnbougle is a bit narrower than it might have been, because we didn't have the $ for a bigger irrigation system.

Tom,

Would you mind expanding on your comment about the budget for irrigation and the width at Barnbougle please, and how they interact to perhaps deliver a different result?

If appropriate for you to also comment on where that width may have been utilised.

Cheers
Brett

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()