Credit [again]

[Mike_Young]

If I were to take an antique Stickley Table and replace the top with the same wood as orginal and modernize the underneath hardware for better support etc and then place a modern more durable finish on the table where it is a new table then it is still a Stickley table.  However, if I turn it upside down and place a new top I designed on the  of the legs and modernize the hardware and place a more durable but similar finish on it then it is not a Stickley Table.  Golf courses are the same way.  Finding where  bunkers used to be and then having them copied from photographs to be as similar as possible to what was there is not design. That is repair.  It cost a lot less to use an old dead name than a modern signature so that game is a lot of smoke and mirrors. 
TD,I think the best place to figure out the "credit for course" thing is the ASGCA "5 course representation" pages.  There are a lot of golf design websites out there right now that list 18 hole courses they have designed and yet if you dig in you will see they have another archies name on them. 
BUT at the end of the day for 95 percent of the golfers what really matters is good putting surfaces...sad but true...

[Jim Franklin]

Brett,

But the problem is, as a going concern, its easy to say who is the current coach of a team or who the players are for that year.

There is no equivalent to "I updated 3 bunkers" in your example or the fact that almost any team bears little to no resemblance to what they were just 10 years ago, much less several decades like a golf course.

P.S.  I think its far more equivalent to a house.  Sure it has several upgrades over the years, but the structure for most homes stays intact...

And almost NO home owner knows the name of the original architect of their house. We dont and ours was built in 1908.
However, they do know the name of the contractor who did the "gut rehab" job on it 7 years ago...


Someone said this above and it's a sad truth: Most golfers (private and retail) do not know who designed or built the course they are playing or even belong to.

Tillinghast designed my home course and EVERY member knows this.

[Rick Shefchik]

It's kinda like music.
You have the lyricist and the composer a la Bernie Taupin/Elton John or Robert Hunter and the Grateful Dead. Most of the time it's really the last SINGER who gets the credit when he/she does the latest contemporary version. Unless, of course, it's a "hit" - or a "Top 100" song...;-)

Heck, Sheryl Crow did a version of the "First Cut is the Deepest" and put it on an album. Lots of people think she wrote it.
Yet everyone knows it's a Rod Stewart song, right...?...

Except it's not. Cat Stevens wrote it, but no one cares about that anymore...;-)

Or, how many Stones and Zeppelin (especially) songs were written by Delta bluesmen in the 20's - the "Golden Age"...p-)..?

Perhaps that's the way the public looks at song credit, but the music industry is much more strict than the golf industry when it comes to listing songwriters. That's because songwriting (and publishing) is where the money is. There have been any number of lawsuits and extended trials over who actually wrote a popular song, or how much of it was borrowed from another source (see "Why Do Fools Fall in Love" or "My Sweet Lord.")

Songwriting has actually led the way when it comes to giving a credit to everyone from the singer, producer and arranger to the guy who suggests a tempo increase or a key change or a one-word lyric change. Cole Porter and Irving Berlin wrote by themselves; Beyoncé will list up to eight co-writers on her hits.

Perhaps a better analogy is journalism. When I worked at the St. Paul Pioneer Press, sportswriter George Dohrmann discovered that a tutor was writing papers for the University of Minnesota men's basketball team. His scoop was a sensation, ultimately stripping the Gophers of their 1997 Final Four appearance and costing coach Clem Haskins his job. I co-wrote a profile of Haskins that was part of the coverage package that was submitted for consideration for the Pulitzer Prize, which the paper ultimately won. While I was proud to have participated in the coverage, there was no doubt who won that year's Pulitzer Prize: George Dohrmann. Without his initial reporting, there was no story, and no prize.

Seems that ought to be the standard for golf course credit, too: no architect, no golf course. Everything else is ancillary.   

[Anthony Butler]

[quote author=Rick Shefchik l
Perhaps that's the way the public looks at song credit, but the music industry is much more strict than the golf industry when it comes to listing songwriters. That's because songwriting (and publishing) is where the money is. There have been any number of lawsuits and extended trials over who actually wrote a popular song, or how much of it was borrowed from another source (see "Why Do Fools Fall in Love" or "My Sweet Lord.")



I still find it amazing that George Harrison got nicked for "My Sweet Lord" by the writers of "He's So Fine" while Paul Weller and Lou Reed got away scot-free for nicking the start of "Taxman" and Marvin Gaye's "Hitchhike" respectively.


I guess the lead dog always gets bit in the ass.. 

[thomaslaffont]

The Writers Guild of America (WGA) carefully monitors the credit process in film screenplays through an arbitration process. There is the notion of an Expert Reader:


"An expert reader is used to analyze literary material and give an opinion on an issue based on his/her reading of the material. Expert readers are drawn from a pool of writers who are very experienced in Guild rules and procedures. Generally, an expert reader has served as an arbiter on numerous arbitrations and may also be a member of the Screen or Television Credits Committee. An expert reader will not be asked to serve in any other capacity in the determination of credits for the same project."
[/size][/color]
[/size]Expert readers go through multiple drafts, analyzing the contributions of various writers and render an opinion. An arbitration board makes the final decision on allocating credits. This is a very serious process.[/color]
[/size][/color]
[/size]Perhaps golf could benefit from the same process.[/color]
[/size][/color]

[Tom_Doak]

Unlike the music or film business, golf course design work doesn't normally get paid out in the form of royalties, so there is no mechanism to pay for the review of proper credits.



If you just followed the money, you'd get the normal credits for the course -- all credit to the firm and its principal, nothing for the associates -- and then you'd have to decide at what level of payment a consultant deserved design credit.  Note, however, that I have sometimes paid more to put somebody else's design back in place, than I was to build some of my own designs.  And, of course, this method would only encourage the most invasive type of renovations.

[Kalen Braley]

I also think that unlike literature or films, when you edit a golf course you can't go back and experience it how it was.  Sure you can look at pictures or watch old footage, but that original version is gone....unlike a book or film.

[Mark_Fine]

This will always be a never ending challenge to figure out.  I believe very few things are ever accomplished by one lone individual.  There is almost always a team of some kind that helped lead to that accomplishment.  How the "credit" gets divided is very subjective.

There is an old saying, "It is amazing what can be accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit!"  Egos usually get in the way (look at our political system ),  but embracing that phrase more often can go a long way. 

[Kalen Braley]

Mark,

In the spirit of your last post, perhaps the easiest solution is...don't list any names.

Anyone who cares, or is interested in finding out otherwise can always just contact the club or look it up on Google. I've seen many movies ranking lists that don't list the director or producers...

[Mark_Fine]

Karen,
People like to get credit.  Human nature.  Problem is some like it way too much and at the expense of others  [size=78%] GD is just trying to acknowledge other’s contributions.  The problem is they don’t cover everyone or say who did what and that rubs some people the wrong way.  One thing I can all but guarantee, there will never be consensus around architectural credit.  Some will say if you route the course, then you are the architect.  Ross did that for about a third of the courses he is credited for and he never even set foot on the property.  They were what some call “topo” courses.  Someone else did everything else yet they get no credit?  Who is the architect.  Bendalow did hundreds of stick routings?  Is that enough to get credit as the architect?[/size]


I just played The Dunes Course at Monterrey Pennsulia CC.  Raynor routed it but never even built one bunker.  Hunter did all the work, then Rees redid it followed by a complete makeover (and a very good one) by Fazio (really Fazio’s team).  Who should get credit? 


The debate about design credit will never end.  My personal goal particularly when working on an old historic design is when finished, to make it look like I was never there.  Whether I or my team gets “credit” for that I will leave up to others to decide and debate. 

[Tommy Naccarato]

Without having to read this entire thread due to time, patience and vertigo this is what I would term the best way to go about these things:


• Designer(s) (original)
• Current and Former Restorers/Renovators


Credit for being on any crew or team that had a hand in it or assisted is the knowledge of those that did so—that person should be selfless and without needed credit.  You served the greater good of doing what you did and got paid for it. That’s your reward! That’s your credit! 


No shaper, construction person, historical reference and certainly a person doing a rendering of what a golf hole could look like should ever take any credit.  Did you ever see Captain George C. Thomas Jr. take credit at Pine Valley?  No!  Tillinghast?  No!  Even though these great men contributed, they know it was George Crump’s place!


You younger people in the business who use social media to give yourself needed credit when there is an architect/designer(s) name(s) in front of you need to learn this:  Get with reality and get over yourself!  Your being paid to work while getting the benefit of learning classical architecture while doing so!


It would be ludicrous for me to take any credit for any job I’ve been involved with, including back in my days doing electrical construction which has served me well with experience of how I exist in Golf Architecture today and the various hats I can wear.  To consider me a deserving credit at LACC, when in fact, the stars of that show we’re Gil Hanse, Geoff Shackelford & Jim Wagner would be an outright fabrication by a fool/troublemaker Hell-Bent on troll-dom.

[John Kavanaugh]

Tommy,


Don't sell yourself short. I'm really proud of how far you have made it since we met what must have been close to 20 years ago. For anyone who doesn't know Tommy or hasn't been with a project from day one you should listen to this podcast. It's full of examples of how love can elevate all of our lives.


https://www.turfnet.com/podcasts/renovation/naccarato/

[Roman Schwarz]

I also think that unlike literature or films, when you edit a golf course you can't go back and experience it how it was.  Sure you can look at pictures or watch old footage, but that original version is gone....unlike a book or film.

So true.  We get to listen to Hendrix's Watchtower, but when Madonna takes on American Pie, we still have Don McLean.  Golf courses aren't so lucky.

[Mike_Young]

I think some young guys come into the business or seek the business thinking the notoriety is the goal in order to be successful.  The truth is the only reason most credit is listed as it it is in many cases is to promote the project itself.  Otherwise it really doesn't matter and not many gain fame in this business.  You just got to like doing it.  JMO

[Jeff_Brauer]

Most young guys need to promote themselves for the second and third jobs, etc.  Like it or not, a longer resume reads better than a shorter one in most cases.  Thus, for a few years, most young guys will list courses they worked on for their mentors, hopefully (but not always) noting they were apprentices.


Most heads of firms prefer the official credit to go just to them.  And, in reality, while an staffer may routed the course, another do the field work, others do the final plans, the head guy makes it possible, sets the tone and style (I was always amazed, despite having some talented associates with a few years experience at how much they missed and needed some critique and change by me).  Of course, when things go wrong, or reviews are negative, the boss man has to take those, too, not the associates.


Now, like TD, most of us are glad to acknowledge at least the lead associate architect on a project.  In truth, guys at the end of their career, if they haven't done it yet, ought to write a small narrative on each project just for posterity sake, including who the main associate was, owner's rep., first super, etc.  There are different reasons for giving credit - marketing for owner (who doesn't want to say "designed by the newest associate of famous architect X", for getting into ASGCA, for getting started on your own, etc.   I doubt those sometimes conflicting needs will ever be fully rectified with some all encompassing system, although many will propose such systems, because maybe they don't have enough to do?

[Kalen Braley]

It still seems the specific answer to this specific problem is:

Rating Mags should simply not include names.

Or looking at it from a different angle...is there anyone looking at those lists, who would be in the position of hiring someone who didn't already know or have different means to find out who worked on what course?  I understand those new to the biz need exposure, but don't industry insiders know already?