DMK Claims Media Seduced Him Into Excessive Design

[Howard Riefs]

Interesting...


http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2016/11/29/architect-kidd-claims-media-seduced-him-into-excessive-desig.html

[PThomas]

 

[Peter Pallotta]

It's so much better to be seduced by the devil you know than the one you don't. It's okay: DMK is firmly back in the fold now, and all is right and proper in his designs. I do wish though that he wouldn't chastice himself so harshly and often about his supposed crime: struggling to break free from your mentor and to boldly go in a different direction is a well established rite of passage, and nothing to be embarrassed about. Plus, with friends like these he doesn't need to be his own enemy...

[Jud_T]

Someone blaming the media as a distraction from his own shortcomings.   Hmmm, where else have I heard that recently? 

[Alex Miller]

This does not make me feel any better about what I've seen for the soon-to-be-opened Rolling Hills CC in so cal.


The only consistent element of DMK's golf design has seemed to be... his accent? Very hard to predict what will come next between the differences in his high profile courses: Bandon Dunes, Gamble Sands, Castle Course. Test me blind and I would have guessed 3 different architects for each.


*Disclaimer*
I felt compelled by the nature of this discussion group to make this comment - if it should turn out to not be well-received please understand the pressure I faced when typing this up.

[Ian Andrew]

In a recent architecture panel at Sunningdale in NY, I openly shared that from 1989 to around 1999 I was a decidedly average architect. To most of you I still am.  The one advantage with getting older is I no longer care what others think, nor do I have any desire to be at the pinnacle of this business. I've watched it up close, it's not as easy as you think.


David wanted to be at the top. He was really ambitious. And you could argue that he made it too. That position comes with a lot of pressure and criticism. In 1989, I was 24 and did not come from a golf course construction background, although I did have of construction experience. By 1999 I was 34 and a year away from the project that changed my trajectory. I built plenty of courses in between and was technically competent, but still had no clue about what I was trying to build when given my own opportunity.


I apprenticed and was fortunately edited. David learnt, made choices and perhaps a few mistakes in front of the golfing world's eyes. He evolved and has a different opinion on what is good. Now he has to weather the past work. The difference is mine are well hidden renovations.    So, I feel for where he's at.


I hope that provides perspective.


But I think his criticism of the media was a horrible mistake in judgement.


Every time I made a compromise, each time I approved a shape or green contour, I always had the choice to do something different. Every decision I ever made is on me. Likewise, each thing he built anything, it's on him. Part of going from good to great is ability, but just as much is recognizing something is either not good enough or poorly conceived. The greatest lesson and final lesson most need is self-restraint. There's always an alternative ... and one of them is to not accept a commission.


I am nobody without the constant help of the media that I have received. I owe them my career and to a certain extend if David sat back and thought about it, that is the case for him too.


I like what I see from the early photos of Sand Hills. I hope David has found the sweet spot in design and life. This is not an easy business. People question your every decision. The competition for work is very intense. And in today's day and age there is not a lot of media opportunities left.


Anyone who makes a living at golf course design is very, very lucky. There is not a single architect who has got to that place without someone else's help. Often it's a key person in the media that thinks you deserve additional opportunities.


Signed,


The still Decidedly Average Architect

[Jason Topp]

While I think it was a poor choice of words I suspect he largely meant that he was driven by a drive for quality (or acclaim) and misread the criteria. 


I suspect most ambitious people follow a similar career path.  Most of us just do not have so much scrutiny of our work.

[Joel_Stewart]

He could pull a Tom Fazio and go back and get paid millions to fix and updates his creations. 

[Tom_Doak]

David is right that most modern courses are too difficult.  Heck, some people even think my courses are too difficult!  [It seems to be the same subset of guys who are still bitter about the anchoring rule. ]


I have seen this all of my life in this business.  There are multiple reasons:


1. architects who are very good players, who must not realize how hard they're making it for everyone else;
2. young architects who are not very good players, trying to show the good players how clever they are;
3. architects of all ages who are desperate to win in the GOLF DIGEST formula and get their courses on magazine covers;
4. sons of famous architects trying to show they can out-do their dads; and
5. clients who tell their architect to make a course tournament-tough even though a tournament is never going to be played there.


I'm sure there are even more categories than this.  I guess David is trying to put himself in category (3) but at the same time trying to change the agency of the statement -- that it was somehow the media's fault, instead of his own fault for trying to please the media.  [If that's really what he said, of course.  The media and the political and business establishment have been giving lessons in changing agency about their own failures for some time now.  "Mistakes were made," without anyone in power ever taking the fall for them.]


One of the things I realized about Pete Dye, in hindsight, was how lucky he was to have Alice Dye there all the time as a sounding board and second opinion, to tell him when he was going overboard.  Every young architect could use someone like that!  But usually they've got the opposite -- friends urging them on to do even more outrageous things.


As a result, I changed my m.o. many years ago, and started letting my associates build the first version of a green without being hands-on myself, so I could become the editor and tone them down as needed.  If I start building wild contours myself, I'm defensive of them, but if they're not "mine" it is easy to feel more detached and make the right call.  The only really severe green at The Loop is the one I went back in and jazzed up in the spring after we'd shaped it the fall before, and I didn't have time to reflect and soften it a little.

[John Kavanaugh]

I doubt that I need to remind anyone of my decade long contention that raters have been bad for design. I'm glad to see a leading architect admit it and look forward to a bevy of owners to soon follow. #stopthecomps

[BCowan]

I doubt that I need to remind anyone of my decade long contention that raters have been bad for design. I'm glad to see a leading architect admit it and look forward to a bevy of owners to soon follow. #stopthecomps

There is going to be push back.   

[Peter Pallotta]

I doubt that I need to remind anyone of my decade long contention that raters have been bad for design. I'm glad to see a leading architect admit it and look forward to a bevy of owners to soon follow. #stopthecomps

I on the other hand probably do need to remind everyone of my long-held contention that the dominance and power and uniformity of today's consensus opinion/conventional wisdom is literally unmatched in the history of golf course architecture as we know it. It is truly an unsettling development, no matter how much good and even great work has been produced by the top flight architects who have themselves shaped that very consensus. It holds such sway now that a good architect who has run afoul of the current conventions feels compelled to publicly flagellate himself for his apparent sin not once but twice -- as he'd already done so in an article a few months ago about Sand Valley, where he 'admitted' his failure and bemoaned the fact that he'd ever veered from the Mike Keiser model. Now, I like and appreciate and value the MK model as much as the next fellow; but when everyone, even on this thread, seems to take absolutely for granted that DMK was indeed mistaken for building a hard golf course, as if there is no longer room in the big world of golf/golf design for even one ambitious attempt at something different....well, something just doesn't seem right.


Peter

[Terry Lavin]

In a recent architecture panel at Sunningdale in NY, I openly shared that from 1989 to around 1999 I was a decidedly average architect. To most of you I still am.  The one advantage with getting older is I no longer care what others think, nor do I have any desire to be at the pinnacle of this business. I've watched it up close, it's not as easy as you think.


David wanted to be at the top. He was really ambitious. And you could argue that he made it too. That position comes with a lot of pressure and criticism. In 1989, I was 24 and did not come from a golf course construction background, although I did have of construction experience. By 1999 I was 34 and a year away from the project that changed my trajectory. I built plenty of courses in between and was technically competent, but still had no clue about what I was trying to build when given my own opportunity.


I apprenticed and was fortunately edited. David learnt, made choices and perhaps a few mistakes in front of the golfing world's eyes. He evolved and has a different opinion on what is good. Now he has to weather the past work. The difference is mine are well hidden renovations.    So, I feel for where he's at.


I hope that provides perspective.


But I think his criticism of the media was a horrible mistake in judgement.


Every time I made a compromise, each time I approved a shape or green contour, I always had the choice to do something different. Every decision I ever made is on me. Likewise, each thing he built anything, it's on him. Part of going from good to great is ability, but just as much is recognizing something is either not good enough or poorly conceived. The greatest lesson and final lesson most need is self-restraint. There's always an alternative ... and one of them is to not accept a commission.


I am nobody without the constant help of the media that I have received. I owe them my career and to a certain extend if David sat back and thought about it, that is the case for him too.


I like what I see from the early photos of Sand Hills. I hope David has found the sweet spot in design and life. This is not an easy business. People question your every decision. The competition for work is very intense. And in today's day and age there is not a lot of media opportunities left.


Anyone who makes a living at golf course design is very, very lucky. There is not a single architect who has got to that place without someone else's help. Often it's a key person in the media that thinks you deserve additional opportunities.


Signed,


The still Decidedly Average Architect

Post of the Year. Honesty, humility and knowledge of subject were points you hit right down the middle of the gca fairway. Even if you're really better than average!

[Tom_Doak]

Now, I like and appreciate and value the MK model as much as the next fellow; but when everyone, even on this thread, seems to take absolutely for granted that DMK was indeed mistaken for building a hard golf course, as if there is no longer room in the big world of golf/golf design for even one ambitious attempt at something different....well, something just doesn't seem right.

Agreed.  Just as it's not good for everyone to build courses that are too hard, or too long, or par-72, it's not good for everyone to build courses that conform to a narrow model of what the retail golfer likes.  But as in any business, there are more followers than leaders.

[John Kavanaugh]

Now, I like and appreciate and value the MK model as much as the next fellow; but when everyone, even on this thread, seems to take absolutely for granted that DMK was indeed mistaken for building a hard golf course, as if there is no longer room in the big world of golf/golf design for even one ambitious attempt at something different....well, something just doesn't seem right.

Agreed.  Just as it's not good for everyone to build courses that are too hard, or too long, or par-72, it's not good for everyone to build courses that conform to a narrow model of what the retail golfer likes.  But as in any business, there are more followers than leaders.

Tom,

Thanks for building courses that retail golfers have little interest in playing until the critics give us permission.

[Greg Gilson]

I don't know if this is the place....but for some reason I feel compelled to say...


...how much pleasure it gives me to have such "access" to the thoughts of posters like Messrs Andrew & Doak (and many others like Jeff Brauer +++). I'm really, really interested in golf & the design/construction of golf courses. But you guys are out there doing it & leaving courses that will hopefully be there for your childrens' children to enjoy. For you to post so frankly as you have here (& elsewhere) makes me feel better about trawling through some of the less uplifting threads we get here. Thank you for taking the time to share.

[Sean_A]

I doubt that I need to remind anyone of my decade long contention that raters have been bad for design. I'm glad to see a leading architect admit it and look forward to a bevy of owners to soon follow. #stopthecomps

I on the other hand probably do need to remind everyone of my long-held contention that the dominance and power and uniformity of today's consensus opinion/conventional wisdom is literally unmatched in the history of golf course architecture as we know it. It is truly an unsettling development, no matter how much good and even great work has been produced by the top flight architects who have themselves shaped that very consensus. It holds such sway now that a good architect who has run afoul of the current conventions feels compelled to publicly flagellate himself for his apparent sin not once but twice -- as he'd already done so in an article a few months ago about Sand Valley, where he 'admitted' his failure and bemoaned the fact that he'd ever veered from the Mike Keiser model. Now, I like and appreciate and value the MK model as much as the next fellow; but when everyone, even on this thread, seems to take absolutely for granted that DMK was indeed mistaken for building a hard golf course, as if there is no longer room in the big world of golf/golf design for even one ambitious attempt at something different....well, something just doesn't seem right.


Peter

Pietro


The public spoke on this matter...what critics say/said doesn't hold much sway.  I have never come across a course where so many people disliked it.  However, many changes have been made which is testament to the fact that DKM got it wrong.  Plus, I take DKM at his word and really do think his admission was in earnest and not a marketing tool. 


Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Was there an initial design brief, ie "we would like you to do it along these lines" or was DMK given carte blanche to do as he wished at the Castle Course? Just curious.
Atb

[Ally Mcintosh]

Was there an initial design brief, ie "we would like you to do it along these lines" or was DMK given carte blanche to do as he wished at the Castle Course? Just curious.
Atb

There was a competition - 7 bidders.

Robin Hiseman was runner up I believe.

The boldness of The Castle Course has as much to do with Paul Kimber and Mick McShane if you ask me. It's disappointing to see DMK not stand up for it at all times because in my opinion, it's a really interesting design. Something pretty bland could have been built there if they'd chosen the wrong architect. (Not by Robin I suspect).
It may be a little overboard GCA on steroids but bold beats bland most of the time.

[Sean_A]

Ally


I agree with you and think the course (when I played it) only needed some tweeking, which it may have had by now.  There was a lot of really good stuff created.  But it always amazed me that drainage was skimped on. To me, this was (is?) the single biggest negative.  If the course was dried out it would be easier to put the ball on the ground for some of the more treacherous shots. Then of course some fronts could be eased to help matters. That said, I don't know if the public will ever get on board given the horrible reputation.  It will take some time, but with care I think the Castle could be a winner. 


I sort of compare Castle to Rosa Sandy Links because both are OTT modern designs, but for different reasons.  The Castle is wide but doesn't play so because of the severe aerial approach greens.  Sandy Links is just plain narrow with the greens not helping at all to relieve the situation.  To me, Castle is a far more interesting design and much closer to Trump Aberdeen in quality than Sandy Links.


Ciao

[Tim Gallant]

I don't know if this is the place....but for some reason I feel compelled to say...


...how much pleasure it gives me to have such "access" to the thoughts of posters like Messrs Andrew & Doak (and many others like Jeff Brauer +++). I'm really, really interested in golf & the design/construction of golf courses. But you guys are out there doing it & leaving courses that will hopefully be there for your childrens' children to enjoy. For you to post so frankly as you have here (& elsewhere) makes me feel better about trawling through some of the less uplifting threads we get here. Thank you for taking the time to share.

Greg,


I have thought about this as well, and frankly, feel honoured to even post on the same threads as most of you guys. Not to get too deep, but to me, this is the 21st century equivalent of sitting in the Eagle & Child and sharing a pint with The Inklings while discussing literature. Although I like the discussions here far more

Echoing the thanks to all those within the industry who take the time to share your well-informed thoughts.

[John Kavanaugh]

I think most of this board is either unaware or forgot the stealth storm of shit that DMK fought through after the opening of Bandon Dunes. Many saw it as the most amateurish design in modern history.

[Tom_Doak]

I think most of this board is either unaware or forgot the stealth storm of shit that DMK fought through after the opening of Bandon Dunes. Many saw it as the most amateurish design in modern history.

You'll need to cite some references for that.  The course was voted the #2 modern course by GOLFWEEK three months before it opened.  I could not have been happier for it, because it didn't give them much chance to ignore my course if I managed to build something better than David's.

[John Kavanaugh]

Tom. You may enjoy this quote from TEPaul: "Both Bandon and Pacific Dunes are really terrific courses but in my mind Pacific Dunes is head and shoulders better for various reasons and a lot of little reasons. I could go into what some of those reasons are but when one totals them all up and weighs why those things happened at Pac Dunes compared to Bandon next door, in my opinion, one would have to say because Doak and his really accomplished crew are better architects than Kidd and his crew. Better all the way from conceiving of and pulling off an unconventional routing to the variety of the holes set in what appears to be Nature's very own canvas. "
From this thread: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,318.msg7010.html#msg7010

[Jeff_Brauer]

......Something pretty bland could have been built there if they'd chosen the wrong architect. (Not by Robin I suspect).
It may be a little overboard GCA on steroids but bold beats bland most of the time.

Well, that is a statement that bears more discussion!


I suspect there was at least some pressure to build in the Spirit of St. Andrews, and also some desire to see different design.  Sometimes, the context of other courses in the area do set design parameters to a degree.


And, while this site has been devoted to minimalism, yes, on a dull (other than views) site, in this visual age, yes, you do feel the need to do "more."


I recall talking with Bill Coore, who said, in essence, that Sand Hills was the perfect fit to their style, musing that on lesser sites it wouldn't work as well.  I tend to agree, even if the general thought on this site is to minimize, minimize, minimize.


Or at the very least, how to draw the line between design more stuff and going overboard.....