Serving the Client's Wishes

[Peter Pallotta]

I read the interview with Mr. Nicklaus again; and earlier today I watched some of the PGA from Mr. Dye's course. About the changes he made at Dismal, Mr. Nicklaus says: "The new owner wanted to change the golf course, because he thought it was too tough. That's fine. It's not my golf course; my job was and always is to do that the owner wants [my bold]". And then later, in reference to occasionally moving very little dirt (as at Dismal) and occasionally moving a lot, he says: "Your objective is not to make sure that you don't move any dirt; the objective is to produce a good golf course for your client [my bold]. Sometimes you can find it and sometimes you have to create it, or a combination thereof".

Both Mr. Nicklaus and Mr. Dye have designed and built a lot of golf courses; both have focused on "serving their client's wishes"; both have been asked many times by clients to build "championship" golf courses -- e.g. Valhalla by Mr N and Whistling Straits by Mr Dye, amongst many others; and to this end, both have sometimes moved very little dirt, and sometimes moved a heck of a lot of it.

So, for those who will know much better than I, two questions: 1) Besides having had different clients, what else separates and differentiates these two architects? 2) Has golf and golf course architecture been better served or less-well served by the focus both of these busy and important architects have had on serving the client's wishes?

Peter

[Tom_Doak]

Of course, in interviews, it's good business for golf architects to stress their clients' wishes.  Even I do it nowadays, and I'm not in the same league as Mr. Nicklaus or Mr. Fazio or Mr. Dye when it comes to business savvy and salesmanship.


However, your previous work tends to sort out the clients for you.  Mr. Nicklaus has probably not received many calls about building a fun, 6,500-yard golf course [nor has Mr. Dye].  The people who tend to call them have often decided they want a tough, tournament-ready course; if they didn't, they might be more likely to call somebody else.  Likewise, Mr. Fazio probably doesn't get too many calls from "dreamers" with a great piece of land but little financial backing.  Unfortunately, it works at the other end of the scale, too ... architects used to working on a budget generally don't get calls from big-money developers. 




It is surely important to understand your client's wants and needs.  However, the two are not always the same, and not many architects will say so at the risk of losing a commission.  Some of these big-money developers who built their high-end courses ten years ago might see now that they didn't really need what they asked for.

[Phil Young]

The architects of today are doing what architects have always done when it comes to "adjusting" their designs to fit the "desires" of the owner of the course. Two examples of this come to mind from Tilly on opposite sides of the coin of designing to the owner’s desires and wants.

In designing and building Winged Foot, Tilly would later write, “I well recall that the only order I ever received from these gentlemen. It was briefly and easily understood: ‘Give us a Man’s sized course.” There is no question that he did.

BCC 5 Farms originally was a 36-hole design. With the East course construction well underway, Tilly was quite surprised to hear from the Board that his design for the West course would have to be drastically changed. He reacted to this news with a letter dated 8/25/1924 in which he wrote:

“After being informed that the development of the golf course has been retarded, by the requests of the tennis players of the club, who desired enough ground for forty courts, I find myself at a stand-still… I cannot conceive of the necessity for the unusual number of courts which the tennis players desire, but this is a matter entirely for your club to determine for itself.”

Yet after this seeming capitulation, Tilly wrote, “My reputation as a golf course architects is at stake on the excellences of the courses which I am planning for you and I not only consider the holes which I have planned an extremely fine collection when developed, but those which may be numbered among the best to be found anywhere in the country. This is not conjecture but my candid opinion. Certainly the elimination from the courses of the area desired by the tennis players would detract so seriously from the value of both courses as to render development of exceeding mediocrity.”

After a special November meeting to consider Tilly’s objections the board informed Tilly of its decision which included three “resolutions” which included this: “Resolved, that Mr. A.W. Tillinghast Golf Architect, be requested to lay out tentatively the second golf course at ‘Five Farms’ taking into account the tentative location of the Tennis Field, Athletic Field and parking spaces.”

Tilly capitulated and did as his client desired…