[John Kavanaugh]

One of the finest members of this site, who I will not mention out of respect because of his recent passing, hired Art Hills to build his course. You can't judge a man by the architect he keeps.

[John Mayhugh]

My problem is that I've had a ton of guys [and a couple of women] who have worked for me and been trying to pursue a career in golf architecture for 5, 10, or even 25 years, who get less recognition for it than when a PGA Tour player rolls out of bed and says he'd like to be an architect.

I have a lot of respect for this point.

Zac Blair may end up building a fantastic course, but working with people who are professionals in that field will almost certainly help save money and yield a better result.  It would not diminish what he wants to do by recognizing that there is a lot he likely does has to learn about designing and building a golf course.  That doesn't mean he has to work with a Doak or Hanse, but why not improve your chance of success?

One of the problems with a discussion group like this is that we sometimes think we know a lot more than we actually do.  The amount of time that a Doak, or Pont, or Andrew, or Nuzzo or so many other guys have put into this profession deserves more respect than they sometimes get.  Just because we can debate a principle or decision with them, that does not put us in the same league skill wise. No shame in recognizing that.

[Josh Stevens]

How much of the adulation of this hole is to do with the fact that its not a bad hole, and how much is more of an indictment on the quality of the rest of the PGA venues that are thrown up week to week so there is little else worth talking about.

[Lynn_Shackelford]

How much of the adulation of this hole is to do with the fact that its not a bad hole, and how much is more of an indictment on the quality of the rest of the PGA venues that are thrown up week to week so there is little else worth talking about.

Yes, Josh I agree, and too think that the 10th was built on an essentially flat stretch of the course should embarrass the other PGA sites even more.

[Tom_Doak]

How much of the adulation of this hole is to do with the fact that its not a bad hole, and how much is more of an indictment on the quality of the rest of the PGA venues that are thrown up week to week so there is little else worth talking about.

A lot of the adulation comes from the fact that it's on TV and not so many other great holes are.  But it's also an indictment of modern design that few architects ever build a hole as compelling, because the green is too skinny, or the length slows down play, or whatever reason they use to talk themselves into building something less controversial, and less interesting.

[Ronald Montesano]

Here's my question: what's the hole like, on the ground? I'd like to hear from those who


A) have played it once and how they would play it the second time;


B) have played it more than five times, and what their multiple playings tell them;


C) have walked it at the tournament, but not played it, and what they see from the sidelines


If you've only seen it on television, as I have, please offer nothing.

[Thomas Dai]

Would a shorter replica of such an evil/wonderful greensite make a terrific par-3, even if it were played from a very short distance? Has one been attempted?


Atb

[Mike_Young]

I hope most here understand what TD is saying in regard to tour players.

Look at it that way:  A tour player to an architect is no different than the relationship between a caddy and a tour player.  There is a total lack of respect for what golf architects say by most of the golfing world.  All that counts is what the celebrity element of the equation has to say.  Just listen to some golf committee chair who has a chance to eat lunch with a signature pro and discuss his course vs. lunch with an architect. You have no chance with such a jock sniffer.   Don't they realize the architect , in most cases spends as many hours learning his craft as the pro does learning to lay at that level?    The only exception I have seen to this is where some signature firms will put some young guy out there designing without much experience and he gains notoriety without putting in the time and in many cases without the talent. 

[Michael Wolf]

FWIW - I played Bel Air on Monday and LACC on Tuesday with a top 50 PGA TOUR player who's also a GCA nut, and both courses were packed with fellow Tour pro's who were interested in seeing and playing the best that LA has to offer. It's a pretty common occurrence whenever The Tour stops by a golf town like LA, Philly, Monterrey, Chicago etc


MW

[Jason Topp]

Interesting stat tweeted by the No Laying Up website:

[Michael Wolf]

I hope most here understand what TD is saying in regard to tour players.

Look at it that way:  A tour player to an architect is no different than the relationship between a caddy and a tour player.  There is a total lack of respect for what golf architects say by most of the golfing world.  All that counts is what the celebrity element of the equation has to say.  Just listen to some golf committee chair who has a chance to eat lunch with a signature pro and discuss his course vs. lunch with an architect. You have no chance with such a jock sniffer.   Don't they realize the architect , in most cases spends as many hours learning his craft as the pro does learning to lay at that level?    The only exception I have seen to this is where some signature firms will put some young guy out there designing without much experience and he gains notoriety without putting in the time and in many cases without the talent.

I'm not disagreeing with Tom or Mike's points, just making the observation that at least of the Tour Pro's I know and work with, they are far more knowledgeable on GCA topics that the folks on this board would assumed. They also have virtually unlimited access to every great course in the world, and plenty of travel and resource time to support there GCA interests, which I'd think would help mthere learning curves vs many others. Finally, several have told me there post playing goal would be to follow Ben Crenshaw's direction, not Jack Nicklaus'.

[Will MacEwen]

I hope most here understand what TD is saying in regard to tour players.

Look at it that way:  A tour player to an architect is no different than the relationship between a caddy and a tour player.  There is a total lack of respect for what golf architects say by most of the golfing world. 

Who is most of the golfing world? Certainly Tour players are a small minority. I assume you mean greenskeepers, golfers and club pros. I don't really see a total lack of respect for architects from these types. Maybe some ignorance and underappreciation.


There is certainly a lack of respect for what Tour players say on this site, as this thread evidences. I don't see much specificity in the critique of Blair, just "Tour player, lack of respect, no fair".  Not sure why we are discussing and critiquing Tour players in general when this is a thread about a specific individual. Seems irrelevant.


Blair's dad built and operated golf courses. I assume he made a living doing so. I would be curious to know how many and if he has any NLE.

[Mike_Young]

I'm not disagreeing with Tom or Mike's points, just making the observation that at least of the Tour Pro's I know and work with, they are far more knowledgeable on GCA topics that the folks on this board would assumed. They also have virtually unlimited access to every great course in the world, and plenty of travel and resource time to support there GCA interests, which I'd think would help mthere learning curves vs many others. Finally, several have told me there post playing goal would be to follow Ben Crenshaw's direction, not Jack Nicklaus'.

Mike,
If you reverse the roles in the above statement and the architect wanted to be the tour player it wouldn't work.  Here's a question that has never been asked.  If I had to choose either Bill Coore or Ben Crenshaw to design a course who would it be?  I's nothing personal toward either fellow....and it could be both would be good...

[Mike_Young]

I hope most here understand what TD is saying in regard to tour players.

Look at it that way:  A tour player to an architect is no different than the relationship between a caddy and a tour player.  There is a total lack of respect for what golf architects say by most of the golfing world. 

Who is most of the golfing world? Certainly Tour players are a small minority. I assume you mean greenskeepers, golfers and club pros. I don't really see a total lack of respect for architects from these types. Maybe some ignorance and underappreciation.


There is certainly a lack of respect for what Tour players say on this site, as this thread evidences. I don't see much specificity in the critique of Blair, just "Tour player, lack of respect, no fair".  Not sure why we are discussing and critiquing Tour players in general when this is a thread about a specific individual. Seems irrelevant.


Blair's dad built and operated golf courses. I assume he made a living doing so. I would be curious to know how many and if he has any NLE.

Will,
I have much respect for Web.com and PGA Tour tour players....and as you say..."ignorance and underappreciation" is probably better wording than lack of respect..

[BCowan]

“I don’t want to necessarily consider golf course architecture something I do for a living, but I want to build one course and build it right.” - Zac Blair

Zac learned from an early age the fine points of both playing and architecture, as his father builds and operates 9-hole executive courses in Utah.

http://www.friedegg.co/golf-courses/building-the-buck-club-the-idea

Blair also wants to avoid some of the old school rules that other courses are holding onto such as a no cell phone policy or ban on yardage measuring devices   

This is a fields of dreams course.  I'm under the impression that he and close friends are funding this course, so why do folks care?  Plus his old man built courses.   Why isn't anyone up and arms about TIGER WOODS building the Muni course in Chicago taking away from up and coming archie?  Double standard I'd say. 

[Adam Warren]

Maybe it's because Zac isn't one of the "greats."  Tiger, Jack, Player, etc. Nobody has much to say about those guys even though they aren't putting their own capital or taking investors to build a course.  Zac is going out on his own and getting criticized.  What a joke.

[Mike_Young]

Maybe it's because Zac isn't one of the "greats."  Tiger, Jack, Player, etc. Nobody has much to say about those guys even though they aren't putting their own capital or taking investors to build a course.  Zac is going out on his own and getting criticized.  What a joke.

Are you kidding.  People have plenty to say about those guys.  JN is the only one that actually has a working operation that I would not consider a marketing company more than a design company.  And JN has had good guys who can design on their own. 
All of this design stuff goes back to hours in the dirt and as TD said earlier, find the guys who have been in the dirt , with design abilty and passion and you will find guys who can build good courses.  Hanging out in the office of some signature doesnt count in my book.  BUT so much of the signature game is played by their agents and when it gets there it is all marketing and how to increase RE value. 

[Michael Wolf]

I'm not disagreeing with Tom or Mike's points, just making the observation that at least of the Tour Pro's I know and work with, they are far more knowledgeable on GCA topics that the folks on this board would assumed. They also have virtually unlimited access to every great course in the world, and plenty of travel and resource time to support there GCA interests, which I'd think would help mthere learning curves vs many others. Finally, several have told me there post playing goal would be to follow Ben Crenshaw's direction, not Jack Nicklaus'.

Mike,
If you reverse the roles in the above statement and the architect wanted to be the tour player it wouldn't work.  Here's a question that has never been asked.  If I had to choose either Bill Coore or Ben Crenshaw to design a course who would it be?  I's nothing personal toward either fellow....and it could be both would be good...

But Mike, I actually think it does help to think if the roles were reversed. You are talking about young men, with an interest in the subject, with unlimited access to both the worlds greatest courses and experts, with almost unlimited travel and money. That would seem to be a pretty great head start for a 30 year old who wanted to be a successful 50 year old GCA (and obviously define "successful" as you will).


Now whether it happens or not, is up to the players/GCA's hard work, attention span, willingness to listen, etc etc.


But I don't accept at all that being a world class player would be more of an hindrance than help. Not fair to judge todays Tour guys based on the money chasing tactics of some of those 25 years before.

[Mike_Young]

But I don't accept at all that being a world class player would be more of an hindrance than help. Not fair to judge todays Tour guys based on the money chasing tactics of some of those 25 years before.

Come on Mike,
The tour guy today is spoiled compared the guys you describe as "money chasers".  We have a few that play with us some on fridays when they choose to stay in town ( one is to30 ) and they don't have the need to chase the money because the money chasers you describe made it where these guys live off of endorsement, retirement plans and just play half as many tournaments because they would rather spend more time with their kids.  So,back to design, I don't care if the guy is a player or not, just give me a guy who has put in 10,000 hours in the dirt, not the office...it's hard to beat that guy's experience. 

[Michael Wolf]

But I don't accept at all that being a world class player would be more of an hindrance than help. Not fair to judge todays Tour guys based on the money chasing tactics of some of those 25 years before.

Come on Mike,
The tour guy today is spoiled compared the guys you describe as "money chasers".  We have a few that play with us some on fridays when they choose to stay in town ( one is to30 ) and they don't have the need to chase the money because the money chasers you describe made it where these guys live off of endorsement, retirement plans and just play half as many tournaments because they would rather spend more time with their kids.  So,back to design, I don't care if the guy is a player or not, just give me a guy who has put in 10,000 hours in the dirt, not the office...it's hard to beat that guy's experience.

I'm assuming that the combination of more resources and free time are giving them MORE of an opportunity to be potentially good GCA's. You are of course right that they'd need 1,000's of hours in the dirt to make there ideas realized. But that's on them to make it happen, obviously. But more of them would be able to afford to prepare themselves correctly.


Pick your own label for past players who traded their name recognition for money, without giving much GCA value added in return.

[JESII]

Here's a question that has never been asked.  If I had to choose either Bill Coore or Ben Crenshaw to design a course who would it be?  I's nothing personal toward either fellow....and it could be both would be good...

Mike - Rather than choose one or the other, I'd be interested to hear who you think made the better move in partnering with the other...

[Andy Johnson]

Here's a question for everyone on this board, do you want the popularity of golf course architecture to grow? 


If the answer is yes you should be rooting for people like Zac who can be a voice to the mainstream golfer and fan.


If the answer is no then, I understand.


Overall, the growth of golf course architecture is vital to the growth and longevity of the game. The less the game is about score and the more it is about going to play golf to see a course, the better it is for the industry.


And to clear one thing up, I know with 100% certainty that the PGA TOUR approached Zac about writing this article with the goal of educating the normal fan that doesn't know what people on this board know.


I agree that Zac will have a lot to learn from legends like Tom, but Zac and other Tour players that show interest in golf course architecture will only lead to good things for other architects. They can be a platform to advocate renovating courses to make them more playable and thought provoking.


This thread is a microcosm of one of the problems with golf course architecture. Very few that are educated on the subject have the patience or desire to help educate the average fan who doesn't understand the basics.


People can't enjoy if they don't understand and articles like the one that Zac wrote regarding the 10th at Riviera did an excellent job of explaining why the hole is good to the average fan. It wasn't written for you, it was written for the regular golfer.


Hopefully, over time with more articles like this and the regular golfer will understand why certain holes are good and others are bad.

[John Mayhugh]

People can't enjoy if they don't understand and articles like the one that Zac wrote regarding the 10th at Riviera did an excellent job of explaining why the hole is good to the average fan. It wasn't written for you, it was written for the regular golfer.

It would be great if Zac Blair's article increases discussion and appreciation of good golf architecture.  I don't think anyone would disagree with this. 

If you read the thread from the beginning, the original poster noted that the article offered "great insights."  Doak responded asking "What did you learn about the hole that you didn't already know?"  I thought that was a legitimate question GIVEN THAT THIS IS A GOLF COURSE ARCHITECTURE DISCUSSION GROUP.

Blair may end up being one of the greatest minds in GCA and eventually build a world class course.  I hope he does.  I don't see where anyone wants the guy to fail.  But if people truly believe that he's going to be able to do work on the level of the professionals that post on here, then I don't see why on this site that we wouldn't view what he writes with that in mind.

[JESII]

John,


It was the rest of his response that triggered my response. For Tom to whine about exposure and credibility (especially in here) was a little much...

[Terry Lavin]

My problem is that I've had a ton of guys [and a couple of women] who have worked for me and been trying to pursue a career in golf architecture for 5, 10, or even 25 years, who get less recognition for it than when a PGA Tour player rolls out of bed and says he'd like to be an architect.

I have a lot of respect for this point.

One of the problems with a discussion group like this is that we sometimes think we know a lot more than we actually do.  The amount of time that a Doak, or Pont, or Andrew, or Nuzzo or so many other guys have put into this profession deserves more respect than they sometimes get.  Just because we can debate a principle or decision with them, that does not put us in the same league skill wise. No shame in recognizing that.

This kind of discussion is what makes this place special.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()