Sandy Tatum speech to the ASGCA

[Joel_Stewart]

He never told me he spoke to the ASGCA but I found this in a write up in Golf Digest.
"In 1976, two years before he became president of the USGA., Tatum addressed a meeting of the American Society of Golf Course Architects. It was something of a stern lecture. His object wasn’t to humiliate the best golf course architects in America, but to motivate them.
“Artists since the beginning of time have had to cope with the lack of funds, imbecilic patrons and bureaucratic biases,” he said. “The ones whose works have survived are those who have had the wit and guts to get it right regardless. None of you can be satisfied with anything less.
“Golf course architecture is failing the game. . . The overemphasis on length persists. . . What [golfers] need are courses that will make them think, that will challenge without panicking them, and will leave them with a sense of real accomplishment when they succeed in doing what the architect has challenged them to do.
“The advent of the bulldozer has been as perverse an influence on the game as the automatic sprinkling system. . . There are too many aquatic architects. . . Too much water on too many courses in this country. In many cases, it strikes me as another copout by the architect. He uses water rather than his wit to provide a suitable challenge.
“I am also distressed by what I call the arboretum syndrome. While I can accept the fact that only God can make a tree, I cannot accept the premise that every fairway in this country should be lined with them.
“I am also saddened by what seems to me to be the passing of the sand bunker from the American golf scene. We appear to be substituting in its place something we call a sand trap. They have the general appearance of a child’s sandbox and are about as forbidding. I think that sand bunkers should be designed to be penal.
“I also mourn the passing of the element of chance from golf courses in this country.”"
Agree or disagree?

[Peter Pallotta]

At a fundamental level, I can certainly agree that most of us, in whatever profession, lack the wits and guts to overcome (and to stop blaming) imbecile clients, insufficient funds, and bureaucratic bungling. Like golf course architects, we lawyers and writers and priests and home builders try to compensate for our failings with banal/conventional choices (water) and safe/people pleasing brands (shallow, manicured bunkers). The irony, of course, is that Mr Tatum was speaking to ASGCA members -- ie by definition, working and thus successful professionals. Which is to say: those safe choices and people pleasing brands do in fact serve their intended purpose, and have done so for decades. They provide people with careers and with income - nothing to shake a stick at. But as for producing art - well, not so much. The question then for each professional is always the same: how much do you care about art? How much should anyone care about art? Is art important at all?

[BCrosby]

" Which is to say: those safe choices and people pleasing brands do in fact serve their intended purpose, and have done so for decades. They provide people with careers and with income - nothing to shake a stick at. But as for producing art - well, not so much. The question then for each professional is always the same: how much do you care about art? How much should anyone care about art? Is art important at all?"

Really good, Peter.

I wonder how Tatum's comments to the ASGA were received at the time by the group?  RTJ would have been in the audience. I also couldn't help but wonder if  Tatum might have found something of a home at GCA. Or would we have chased him off?

Bob 

[Joe Hancock]

As far as bulddozers and irrigation goes, it is not the machines or systems themselves that have perversed the game, it is in the hands of those operating them. It is the same cleverness and wit he wished upon the architects to be used by the ones who utilized the systems and machines.


And like all other factes of life, there will be few who are excellent at their chosen craft.

[Ronald Montesano]

Bob, et al.


If people are chased off on this discussion board, I suspect they are thinner-skinned than the survivors. We have at our disposal the personal message, for off-the-record exchanges. I've used the PM to salvage relationships with folks I have yet to meet in person.


That said, I wonder if Sandy Tatum would have found us to be a large-enough audience. Actually, I mean a big-enough stage. I'm not suggesting hubris on his part, but that his efforts seemed to be directed at, and dedicated to, the world's golf associations.


If the Zac Blair sighting is verified, perhaps this will serve as a litmus test of sorts.


AMB...ron m.

[Tom_Doak]

If the Zac Blair sighting is verified, perhaps this will serve as a litmus test of sorts.

Did you really just compare Zac Blair with Sandy Tatum?


I guess there were about 12-13 years there at the end where Zac could have beaten Mr. Tatum at golf.  Especially once Sandy stopped playing altogether.  He had always said he would play until he could no longer stand up, and one day on the range at SFGC, he took a swing and fell down.  I'm told that was his last swing.




P.S.  "Chasing someone off the board" is a bit of a misnomer, IMO.  There have certainly been some people who decided the people on the board weren't hearing to what they had to say, and eventually they gave up.  Mr. Tatum might indeed have fallen into that category.  He was in the 99th percentile of smart, and the 99th percentile of golf experience.  How does anyone here compare with that?

[Adam Clayman]

Finally, I'm in the 1%

[RJ_Daley]

I'm surprised we didn't hear from Dan King on this tread.  Back in the early days of GCA.com, Mr. Tatum was kind enough to engage with me on personal messages on various topics we were discussing on the forum.  I missed an opportunity to meet him in person a few times... wish I could have a "do-over"

[Matthew Mollica]

Peter, am I reading you correctly that the assumption is a gainfully employed architect is thereby successful? I would argue against that, if it indeed were your notion.


And, again I find myself delighting in a quote from Mr Tatum. I bought his book last week, and can't wait to get into it.


Matthew

[Jason Topp]

He does have a two part interview on here.  This is part 1:


http://golfclubatlas.com/feature-interview/interviewtatum1/

[Jeff_Brauer]

Neat thread. This talk preceded my membership by 8 years, so I didn't hear it in person. I am sure there was some nodding heads and also grumbling from different parts of the room.


The real discussion should be whether Tatum was correct in calling design "art". Design is usually about function, with art included separating it from mundane to great.


I was especially struck by his comments on irrigation.  It brings to mind one of Pete Dye's best stories (his story collection actually includes just seven stories.....each of which I have heard ten times) Upon meeting his semi-idol, Bill Diddel, in the beginning of his career, Pete told Bill he was going to emulate him by only using single row irrigation to keep courses dry and firm.  Diddel responded with, "Pete, you'll go broke."


Obviously, his complaints still echo around here decades later, but he seems to have lost most battles.  And, I have to wonder how seriously he believed he would affect things?  Its easy to be an armchair architect.


Add chance? Nicklaus stopped that by saying he wanted to reduce it to near zero as possible.
Too many trees?  Architects have bought in (maybe always did) but greens committees haven't.
Too many lakes? Well, outside forces do dictate them in many ways, and other regulations, seeking to limit evaporation are reducing the lakes.  You do need them for irrigation storage and on flat sites, for drainage. Other than those, how many courses outside Florida and Myrtle Beach are over laked?  I think he mistakenly stereotyped that one a bit.
Bunkers not penal?  Well, that is a mixed bag, but in general, that kept going the other direction.
Emphasis on Length? Seems to be ebbing, but he was speaking at the near peak of length seeking.  Yeah, 4 major championships a year are excessive, but for most courses, its got so out of hand, we no longer recommend they seek championship, over 7000 yard back tees as a matter of fact.

[Jim Hoak]

One of the great joys of my life is that I knew Sandy Tatum, played golf with him--and discussed golf, golf courses and golf course design.  I don't think there is anyone in golf over the past 100 years--other than maybe a few of the top designers--with more influence on our game. 
I agree 100% with his comments--and I can hear him saying those exact words.  He loved our game--and he wanted to challenge all in it to rise above the pedestrian.

[Forrest Richardson]

I have never heard/read Mr. Tatum's speech. The ASGCA Executive Offices in WI has done a great job of organizing the archive there. I am going to ask if we can get the whole speech.


My only one-on-one time with Sandy was during the early days of the great San Francisco golf debacle (wait...it's still going on!) in which I had the pleasure of meeting with him in a small office at the SF City Hall. The occasion was a meeting with a few City Council members in order to get the process going of, one by one, saving the City's great collection of courses...Sharp, Harding, Lincoln, Golden Gate and Gleneagles. I was brought on to work with the NGF to put forth a weighty report. Sandy had "ordered" the report through his political powers and contacts. The NGF was the author and purveyor.


Before going in to the first meeting Mr. Tatum spoke eloquently and passionately about public golf and how SF had all but killed its golf courses and their appeal to young players and local golfers. Harding had already undergone its rebuilding, but there was still work to be done. He loved the idea of Golden Gate's short par-3s being preserved in the heart of the City, saying it was "So important, and perhaps even more important than all the longer courses..." and that "Sharp Park and its condition was among one of the worst cases of neglect he had ever seen in golf..." 


I cannot recall exactly how he phrased it, but he outlined the primary message that he felt needed to be passed on in the report about to authored, which I recall including the general idea to "Let the City know how valuable its golf courses are, not just to golfers, but to the whole community and the people who come to visit..."


I called Mr. Tatum last year during one of my regular trips to Palo Alto, hoping to meet up with him for coffee or lunch. He was kind to answer, but suggested it be another time as he was adjusting to a new room in the assisted living home where he had moved recently. Sadly, I guessed it might be a sign that he was winding down. It was good to hear his voice, and he seemed so sharp as always.

[Charlie_Bell]

If knitted into a whole, those excerpts could almost be regarded as the Gettysburg Address of golf course architecture.  Sandy might have wanted to polish a few phrases and expand a few points, but the essence is there, eloquent in its brevity.