How Hanse won the Olympic Course Bid (Golf Digest)

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

Agree on all points, but for most of us, the presentation, if not an actual competition, is a big part of getting business,
BS or not.  I try to be good at proposal writing and interviewing.....not sure where I stand, but like you, as I age, I shy away from them.  Always wanted to go in and ask, "Well, how do you like me so far?" LOL 

Some public agencies ask for a voluminous written proposal, and have half a dozen on the committee rate them with some kind of point system.  Then the interview sometimes requires a design proposal, and also gets points.  That said, usually, a pre-conception, hard pre proposal marketing by one firm, etc. usually outweigh the strict point system.  They like you or don't, and find ways to make the points match, regardless of any unique qualifications you might have.

[Ulrich Mayring]

There's a local company (non-golf) here, who clearly state: "We do no upfront work for free".

That means they don't participate in pitches or contests, even though that is the standard way to acquire business in their field. Their way of introducing themselves is by being invited to a one day workshop with the prospective customer, where they discuss his needs and propose their solution. The customer has to pay for the day, but he is free to take the advice he got and let another contractor implement it.

Big corporations often have a huge problem with this policy. When they think about starting a project, they have no budget yet and thus rely on beauty contests and pitches that don't cost them a penny. Once they decide the project gets the green light, they have a budget and can then pay the winning contractor. Unfortunately the local company I mentioned will never be a part of this, because they insist on getting paid even if the project doesn't go ahead.

Their answer to big corporations is basically: "If you desperately want to work with us, you'll find the money somewhere in your organisation to pay for the initial workshop."

But now comes the clincher: this local company says that the money they saved by doing no upfront work for free is put back in the customer's purse, because their rates are lower than those of their competition. In fact, their competitors factor the cost of the upfront work into their rates to begin with, so whoever hires that competitor has to pay for the many pitches where they failed.

So I would fully expect C&C (and in the future Tom Doak) to have lower rates than the other participants, because they are saving huge amounts of money by not doing any upfront work for free ;-)

Ulrich

[Tommy Naccarato]

Jeff,


Great to hear from you!

As far as the "Pro Gil" part, I feel that I'm able to speak on the subject because I was a full part of the effort.  I assembled the presentation, created a rendering and helped Gil with the presented plan. (If that counts)  After we won the job, I used my electrical estimating experience to do material takeoffs from sod to sand and more.  I also handled all of the press and public relations duties.  The requests came from all over the world and some of them un-translatable!

Regarding Ron Whitten, Where did I say much off the story was inaccurate? I said there were retractions needed because he got key facts wrong; the main ones being that the competition was fixed and that Gil had any knowledge of the choice up until the official phone call. (There are more, like saying that Gil and Tom both knew guys on the selection committee.  You mean to tell me that Jack, Gary, Greg, Annika, and BOBBY and his South American golf legend didn't know any of these people?!?!?!?) Smoke and mirrors journalism; shoddy at best.  I know you defend Ron because he is a friend and has given your courses good reviews, but if they are going to suggest something is fixed, they better have hard stone cold facts to prove it.

Regarding the Olympics, It should be a glorious time in the hosting city's history.  Sadly, the rumblings leading up this event are sad.  Its set a tone of negativity that we read about every day.

The Brazilians are a proud people that already successfully hosted the most recent World Cup, yet these Olympics will spell disaster because _______________________.  (Fill in the blank as many times as you want. Everyone else has!)  Ron's article has just as much of the negative vibe about Golf in the Olympics, I find it not nearly as off-topic as you think, because Ron's titled was one igniting another controversy to throw on the so called fire; that it was, in his own words, "FIXED."  To even suggest that without hard, cold facts is simply deplorable. 

Put the shoe on the other foot and see if you would like it.

[Tommy Naccarato]

.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tommy,

Congrats are in order for your contributions to the team effort.

As to the article, I maintain Ron didn't write some of what you read into it.  Just saying Gil and Tom knew some guys doesn't mean others didn't, he didn't say Gil knew before hand, etc. etc. etc.  Phrases like "More fodder for conspiracy theorists" suggest he is writing not his opinion, but what other gca's thought.

That said, I can understand your concern that some readers might see only the headline and that might be their erroneous takeaway.  My personal takeaway was it was a legend/mythmaking article.  In a hundred years, folks will only recall that Gil nearly missed the career opportunity because he had misplaced his passport. 

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff - I've said it before, but I don't know how folks like you and Tom (and Gil and Jack) do it: if in my line of work I had even a tenth of your success and bodies of work, I'd tell anyone who asked me to 'audition' to go f--k themselves. An unhealthy response, perhaps, and probably cutting off my nose to spite my face,  but I wouldn't be able to make myself believe either that my past work didn't speak for itself or that the panel judging me had the ability to pick out the 'best' proposal even if it got up off the table and bit them in the ass.

[Sean_A]

As to the article, I maintain Ron didn't write some of what you read into it.
[/size][/color]

Jeff

I find this to be a common problem for those who know much more about a subject than is being discussed in the article/report etc.  It constantly pops up in my work where I continually have to remind folks to read what is on the page, not what is in your head.

Ciao

[Pat Burke]

Jeff - I've said it before, but I don't know how folks like you and Tom (and Gil and Jack) do it: if in my line of work I had even a tenth of your success and bodies of work, I'd tell anyone who asked me to 'audition' to go f--k themselves. An unhealthy response, perhaps, and probably cutting off my nose to spite my face,  but I wouldn't be able to make myself believe either that my past work didn't speak for itself or that the panel judging me had the ability to pick out the 'best' proposal even if it got up off the table and bit them in the ass.

Interesting, I have to audition every week for my job!

[Mike_Young]

Even though I don't have the notoriety of a TD or GH, I learned a long time ago that if I don't have the project locked before a competition then I don't spend the time and money doing it because someone in there does have it locked.    And good for them because that's the name of the game.   Gil seems to be very good at that which when combined with ability to produce a good product works.   So often the signature pros are only as good as the agent or sales person they have working for them at the time.  I always felt TD or Gil had it in the bag because Dawson was involved and the USGA had input  ( as shown lately) they don't care for pro golfers.  And, from the outside, I figured if Gil had the putting green at USGA headquarters then he had some strong pull or that putting green would have been a RJ green.

Tommy ( how ya'll doin?)
I have a good friend who was involved with the LA Olympics ( via the LA Times) and later the ATL OLympics.  The IOC is corrupt.  Fortunately in the USA we can absorb an Olympics and find a use for the aftermath so we really don't know if it helped a city or not.  Other places are not as fortunate.  Eventually the Olympics ill go the way of the Worlds Fair.  Remember the guy who was in charge of the Olympics for ATL is the same guy who has been trying to make a carnival one of one of the top golf tournaments in the world.  His ego ignited Olympic Golf....I think that fire is out.

But, the fact is, whomever they chose had no bearing on Golf in the Olympics.  I worked in Brazil in the early 1990's.  One could send the most detailed set of plans they wished and then have no idea if they would do as you say or how it would be done.  It is what we call a 10% country.  Kickbacks are the norm.  you see the workers stopping to pay the guy who got them the meager labor job a percentage each week.  And it goes all the way through their system.  All this experiment will prove is that we can't force golf through out the world. 

[MClutterbuck]

Mike,


There is corruption, yes. There are a tons of problems, yes. Golf can not be force fed on people, yes. Programs such as in the US are probably not the answer either.


But a good course, in a large city, with tourists and a strong middle income population, the development of a good caddy program and public access can be huge in developing golf in Brazil and provide a ton of benefits to the city. Golf and a caddy program is probably the best education some people can get.


Golf has developed very nicely in Argentina for the last 119 years and has been a superb sport for its participants and created a ton of jobs and success stories. There is not much difference between Brazil and Argentina.  Golf should be good in the long run there and the Hanse course should be one of the best things the Olympic Games will leave there. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

As to the article, I maintain Ron didn't write some of what you read into it.
[/size][/color]

Jeff

I find this to be a common problem for those who know much more about a subject than is being discussed in the article/report etc.  It constantly pops up in my work where I continually have to remind folks to read what is on the page, not what is in your head.

Ciao

Sean,

I was going to post that Tommy has been known to be passionate and emotional about things he cares about.  IMHO, it showed in his post....which isn't a bad thing.  Agree with you that most don't read with a totally clear head or without a preconceived view.  Whenever reporters ask questions of me, I am always amazed at what gets written based on my quote.  One time, I explained progress (not perfection) in the chemical industry and the reporters main takeaway was "golf courses poison the earth", which had to be her attitude going in, I think.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff - I've said it before, but I don't know how folks like you and Tom (and Gil and Jack) do it: if in my line of work I had even a tenth of your success and bodies of work, I'd tell anyone who asked me to 'audition' to go f--k themselves. An unhealthy response, perhaps, and probably cutting off my nose to spite my face,  but I wouldn't be able to make myself believe either that my past work didn't speak for itself or that the panel judging me had the ability to pick out the 'best' proposal even if it got up off the table and bit them in the ass.

Peter,

Even as someone who probably has done more of those interviews than most, looking back, probably 80% of my work has come via referral and no competition, or an informal interview with the owner, who probably has interviewed one or two other competitors.  But, 80% of our sales time goes to getting that last 20% of work we need to keep the office open.......not great, but as mentioned, you just can't always avoid it.

My "pleasure" reading usually tilts towards things like Ted Speeches and theories of presentations, sales, etc., because like most architects, I am not naturally inclined to do it.  Those sales theories usually tell you that your book of work may get you in the door, but the Owner listens to radio station WII-FM (What's In It For Me) during an interview.  Waxing eloquent about your award winning projects just doesn't sell.

My best recent example was interviewing for La Costa five years back.  We knew water conservation was an issue.  We had slides, etc., but the most persuasive thing was laying trash paper over a 5 hole portion their existing irrigation plans, plotting a preliminary turf reduction line, and x'ing out all heads we could remove.  We counted the heads, calculated a percentage (about 24% as I recall) and answered their main question.  We learned later that other competitors refused to do so until hired, talked of their reputation, etc., so that turned out to be the best hour I ever spent working on a presentation the night before in a hotel room.

[Randy Thompson]

Some general comments;
1. I agree with Peter it doesn´t make sence participating in a contest where the judges have no idea but at least in the olympics contest there was some level of knowledge within the group and the others without, kind of just followed the experienced individuals.
2. I have designed and constructed about 20 courses in the Southern cone of South America and from my point of view, what Gill went through getting this course turned into a reality was nothing more or less than Par for course. Many of us have long stories in which Gill nighmarish stories look like sweet dreams.
3. Mike, like everything else in the world, a lot has changed since the 90´s when you were working here and I was arriving. The corruption in golf related items is less and the payback almost non-existent or at least similar to other parts of the world including the good ole USA.
4. The only way the course could possibly not have a positive effect on golf is if some crooked stuff happens and it closes to be converted to Real Estate and i don´t see that happening for twenty years. Rio is one of the top International destinations in the world and to have only two private courses and no public course creates a formula for almost sure economic positive results, something imposible for the rest of south America without the additional association with Real Estate.
5. Marcus, sure there are similarities between Brazil and Argentina but there are also worlds of difference. Brazil is much, much more difficult as a result of individual charácter and personalities of Brasilians in general. I remember three years ago getting various calls from investors that were trying to forecast Brazil as a potential hot spot and a valid upcoming market. I responded to all, I understand where your coming from, everything on papers says your correct but first go there and develope some relations and I am sure you will not be so sure! Now three years later, it obvious they already screwed things up and will take a while to get back on track. Also in general, there way behind in golf development in comparrison to Argentina. You (Argentina) still have more courses and tradition, then the rest of South America put together. All they have is a tremendous population of great football players and now they seem to be screwing that up!

[Tommy Naccarato]

As to the article, I maintain Ron didn't write some of what you read into it.


Jeff

I find this to be a common problem for those who know much more about a subject than is being discussed in the article/report etc.  It constantly pops up in my work where I continually have to remind folks to read what is on the page, not what is in your head.

Ciao

• Subtitle of article: "Was Gil Hanse's selection as the Olympic Course architect fair?"  (right off the bat, the reader YOU is being told that possibility the selection wasn't fair.)

•Contradictory--He calls into question again if, then closes out that both opinions are wrong. 

"Or was it? There are those among the organizations of the seven other golf-design firms that competed for the Olympic commission who believe that Hanse was secretly the four-judge panel’s choice from the outset, and had he not made his appointed time, he would have been allowed an interview at a later date, just to maintain the appearance of an objective competition.But there are also those who are certain that Hanse was the darkest of dark horses and was a compromise pick after the panel had deadlocked over support of two other candidates. Both opinions, we will find, are wrong."

Arbs, There is more to the article that isn't accurate, but I'm not going to go into it. It's over and its been published  But the fact is that in need of a hook to his story, he resulted to creating controversy, or the very least, opened the door to it.  This has been the case in all complaints about Rio. Most of them viable as Randy has pointed out, but in most cases, "Blame it on Rio!"

Jeff,
I am completely guilty of passion for the subject of architecture and its strategy and its history; its courses.  There is no doubt about that!  I just hope others can be just as passionate to get it right in the future.

Mike, How ya'll doin'?
Yes, remember that friend well and yes, he is an authority that would know.  I have no doubts about that!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tommy,

So a magazine writes a provocative headline, maybe to stir some controversy to get readers to read?  This bothers you?  I am shocked.....SHOCKED, I tell you! (would insert smiley face....but since the new gca.com was introduced, they don't work for me.....)

The phrase, "Both opinions, we will find, are wrong" seems about the journalistic equivalent of the 5PM news concluding "Time will Tell." I was expecting the phrase "Golf ain't fair" to pop up somewhere as a hackneyed analogy. His old phrase Architorture could have been woven in as well, as in "How do you select an architect?"  Architorture, that's how!

Like I said, maybe it's my perspective of hearing more whining after losses than you probably have heard, but he clearly states that some people in some of the other firms felt that way.......in the second sentence, when presumably he still has the readers attention.  While I have no way of knowing what small details are wrong, it all sounds like a pretty reasonable account. 

To me, the good news is that he brings some of the high drama, usually resulting from on course play, to the world of architecture.  Always a good thing, right?  Did they misspell Gil's name or something?

Side bar - I was told many years ago you have to get attention in 17 seconds, or they tune you out the rest of the way.  I now read the average American can't concentrate more than 8 seconds......

Have a good one!

[Tom_Doak]

Interesting, I have to audition every week for my job!

Pat:


Would you be as willing to audition every week for your job if your score was only one factor in the final judgment of whether you got paid, and there were judges that didn't care to find out about your scoring history, and made their picks based on how they liked the look of your swing?

[Don Mahaffey]

But Tom don't you have to admit it works both ways?
At least in the sport a complete nobody can play their way onto the big stage. I'd say there was zero chance a little known golf architect gets invited to a completion like Rio.
Even being a part of that lends credibility and I believe there are many golf architects who had no chance based simply on lack of name recognition.

[Tom_Doak]

Ron's article has just as much of the negative vibe about Golf in the Olympics, I find it not nearly as off-topic as you think, because Ron's titled was one igniting another controversy to throw on the so called fire; that it was, in his own words, "FIXED."  To even suggest that without hard, cold facts is simply deplorable. 

Put the shoe on the other foot and see if you would like it.

Tommy:


Take your own advice, there. 


What if YOU read after the fact that when decision time came, only three of the eight candidates were seriously discussed, if your guy wasn't one of the three?  And that only one of the actual designs was discussed -- and that in the negative?  Wouldn't you be ticked off after doing so much work on the thing?  To me, that's the important takeaway from this story, yet virtually everyone here has missed it. 


I don't have any idea how Ron reported everything he did, since everyone is still under a Non-Disclosure Agreement, and since the selection was done in a closed-door meeting.  Even if he had a source inside that room, there's no guarantee he'd get the true story.  Nearly everyone is prone to spin things for their own purposes.  But would it surprise me if Ron had most of those details right?  Not at all, because that's how these things are usually done.

[NOTE:  I had to edit this post because the middle paragraph showed up in 2-point type the first time around.  Didn't change anything else.]

[Sean_A]

As to the article, I maintain Ron didn't write some of what you read into it.


Jeff

I find this to be a common problem for those who know much more about a subject than is being discussed in the article/report etc.  It constantly pops up in my work where I continually have to remind folks to read what is on the page, not what is in your head.

Ciao

• Subtitle of article: "Was Gil Hanse's selection as the Olympic Course architect fair?"  (right off the bat, the reader YOU is being told that possibility the selection wasn't fair.)

•Contradictory--He calls into question again if, then closes out that both opinions are wrong. 

"Or was it? There are those among the organizations of the seven other golf-design firms that competed for the Olympic commission who believe that Hanse was secretly the four-judge panel’s choice from the outset, and had he not made his appointed time, he would have been allowed an interview at a later date, just to maintain the appearance of an objective competition.But there are also those who are certain that Hanse was the darkest of dark horses and was a compromise pick after the panel had deadlocked over support of two other candidates. Both opinions, we will find, are wrong."

Arbs, There is more to the article that isn't accurate, but I'm not going to go into it. It's over and its been published  But the fact is that in need of a hook to his story, he resulted to creating controversy, or the very least, opened the door to it.  This has been the case in all complaints about Rio. Most of them viable as Randy has pointed out, but in most cases, "Blame it on Rio!"

Jeff,
I am completely guilty of passion for the subject of architecture and its strategy and its history; its courses.  There is no doubt about that!  I just hope others can be just as passionate to get it right in the future.

Mike, How ya'll doin'?
Yes, remember that friend well and yes, he is an authority that would know.  I have no doubts about that!

Naccers


I didn't read anything into the article cuz I didn't read it     No need in my life for more fake drama. I thought this was going to be joker thread.


Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

But Tom don't you have to admit it works both ways?
At least in the sport a complete nobody can play their way onto the big stage. I'd say there was zero chance a little known golf architect gets invited to a completion like Rio.
Even being a part of that lends credibility and I believe there are many golf architects who had no chance based simply on lack of name recognition.

Don:


The Olympic competition was open to everyone - I think there were 70 applications initially - but they narrowed it to 8 firms for the design part, and you're right, little-known architects had no chance to get on the short list.


However the idea that "being a part of that lends credibility" is misguided, to me.  You're assuming that the competition was based on the designs submitted, and that's a huge leap of faith.  And anyway, these are just paper designs.  Architects should be judged by what they've built, not by what they've doodled around with.

[JC Jones]

That's when I made up my mind for good that I would follow Bill and Ben's lead, and never participate in a competition again.  The primary purpose of these competitions is to make it look like they considered everyone fairly, but I have never been in one [win or lose] that I thought was really a level playing field. And at the end of the day, I know my real value comes down to what we can do in the field ... so judging a competition based on a conceptual design is always going to overlook the part where we shine brightest.

Wasn't Sand Valley a competition? 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Put the shoe on the other foot and see if you would like it.[/size]

Tommy:


Take your own advice, there. 


What if YOU read after the fact that when decision time came, only three of the eight candidates were seriously discussed, if your guy wasn't one of the three?  And that only one of the actual designs was discussed -- and that in the negative?  Wouldn't you be ticked off after doing so much work on the thing?  To me, that's the important takeaway from this story, yet virtually everyone here has missed it. 


I don't have any idea how Ron reported everything he did, since everyone is still under a Non-Disclosure Agreement, and since the selection was done in a closed-door meeting.  Even if he had a source inside that room, there's no guarantee he'd get the true story.  Nearly everyone is prone to spin things for their own purposes.  But would it surprise me if Ron had most of those details right?  Not at all, because that's how these things are usually done.

[NOTE:  I had to edit this post because the middle paragraph showed up in 2-point type the first time around.  Didn't change anything else.]
[/quote]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would agree that nearly all losers in any design interview (even those get to be like a competition) are usually more pissed than disappointed, when disappointed is all they have the right to be.

Of course, every evaluator has their favorite going in, who has some advantage. 

Of course, every committee has members who carry more weight than others.......

Of course, after 70 applicants, and 8 finalists, any of those 8 would have designed a fine golf course........and 7 wonder just what it is they thought the other guy did better, because they are usually pretty smitten with the plan or proposals they came up with. 

What's worse is 3-4 firms is usually a sign of a more open competition.  At 6 plus, you get the impression they are fishing for ideas, too, and give your plan to the winner, asking them to incorporate some of your best - and free - ideas if they can.  Of course, that happens.......

In most interviews, most firms do something to turn off the committee.  Of course.  It may not be really justified, but if you have ever hired someone, think back and you probably eliminated folks by small flaw than selected on big merit.  Human nature, of course!

No doubt, its a tough deal.  But, we all do it, and live to tell the tale....after our non competes expire, of course.

[JJShanley]

Those watching the Golf Channel show on this subject can play the game "How Hanse course logos will Gil wear during the broadcast?"  I've spotted Boston and Tallgrass so far.

[John Kavanaugh]

Those watching the Golf Channel show on this subject can play the game "How Hanse course logos will Gil wear during the broadcast?"  I've spotted Boston and Tallgrass so far.

I can only hope he gives our very own Tommy Naccarato his due. I'm so proud of the role my good friend played in this epic achievement. Congrats Tommy and good sailing in this and all your future endeavors.

[Pat Burke]

Interesting, I have to audition every week for my job!

Pat:


Would you be as willing to audition every week for your job if your score was only one factor in the final judgment of whether you got paid, and there were judges that didn't care to find out about your scoring history, and made their picks based on how they liked the look of your swing?

Tom,
Well, now that I'm trying the Champions tour, it may be closer to that than scores are!
The opposite of "what have you done for me lately", the Champions is what did you used to do😃