[David_Tepper]

Peter P. -

Taking your analogies a bit further (and perhaps turning them around by 180 degrees), when Yves St. Laurent sketched out his designs for his fashion collection each season, did he spend a lot of time specifying the details of how each piece would be constructed and assembled? I doubt he did.

He wasn't just making suggestions regarding buttons and stitching. He was designing the very essence of the garment itself. A number of GCA's (including some big-name players & owners) have worked in that way thru the years, designing a golf course without engaging in the technical drawings & civil engineering aspects of building a course.

DT

[Tom_Doak]

"but apart from time spent on site what did he do different from Trump/Keiser and a lot of signatures?"

Niall C. -

Next time you see Gil Hanse, you should ask him that question.

I suspect the input MP had in the design of Castle Stuart was far, far greater than the input that Keiser or Trump have had in any of their courses. I doubt there is really any comparison.

How much "nuts & bolts engineering expertise" did the ODG's provide in the building of the courses they designed?

DT

I was going to build a project with Mark Parsinen in Cabo San Lucas many years ago.  He had already done a routing for it and wanted me to suggest improvements, but we would have been starting from his plan.  And then he wanted the final say on the shaping of every green.  So, yes, that is way more involved than Mike Keiser gets.  Mark essentially wanted to design the course, but wanted someone to help make it better (and take the fall if it didn't turn out great!).

[Tom_Doak]

As Adam says, player-designer input varies, and it often varies for the same player from one job to another.


Jack Nicklaus is indeed "very involved" compared to most, but even so, his time is spread among many projects and other commitments.  When we built Sebonack, I believe he gave it as much attention as any concurrent project, but that equated to six or seven one-day site visits.  And for overseas projects it would only be half of that.


I believe Sebonack worked well because Jack did the same things there he does on his own projects.  He didn't do the routing, I did, but I believe his staff usually did those and he just picked the version he liked best, or edited his favorite.  When he'd come for site visits, he would look at each hole and make suggestions and do sketches, but he wouldn't stand right there with the shaper and watch it get finished as I do, because I'd be there 3-4 days to his one, the same as one of Jack's associates would.


The distinction between players and architects is wrong, I think.  In the busy days ten years ago, most of the big name architects weren't even on site as much as Jack was ... they left the detail work to their associates because they were too busy signing deals and cutting ribbons.  The time each architect spends on a project is inversely proportional to how many jobs he's doing at once.  However, there are some pros who spend exactly as many days as they're being paid for in the contract, and half of those are for the beginning and end when there aren't any design decisions to make.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I hate to generalize, too, so I will just give my specific experiences....


Fred Couples - Never met the man. Owner didn't care if he made site visits or even made the grand opening.  Thought his name was magic.  Memorable line - He did a course with Paul Cowley, and on his site visit, was reported to call Paul's greens "ballsy."


Larry Nelson - Actually took some routings to his house to review, but really only had a few meetings and three site visits, normally more given over to press. In those meetings, I did get a sense of what he wanted out of the feature design.  Memorable line - "I don't putt very well, so put lots of contours in so no one else can either....."  On two projects, he actually had laid out a few routings when I got to his house, but neither was particularly good for reasons too long too type.  After a bit of discussion, he seemed to realize he was better off leaving that to me.


Lanny Wadkins - 3 Site visits, some feature suggestions, general advice to not make it too hard.  Memorable line - (after being warned the site was rocky....) "Never seen so many effin rocks in all my life."


Steve Elkington - Friend of owner, came by twice as favors, and attended grand opening.  No routing input, got a general sense of what he liked in feature design, but no specific ideas, other than approval of this or that, and changing a few things.  Liked our driveable par 4, had us flash the back of the green up to see at least part of the green, which I liked, too.  Too classy to have a memorable line, but did offer to buy my second year Ping putter.  PS- with handicap and a partner, did win $5 off him!


Jim Colbert - Most involved, walked routings for most courses, including Colbert Hills, made a few changes.  Did like "4 points of the compass" on par 3 and 5. Learned more from him on feature design than anyone, like how players liked to use the wind, etc. to shape shots. I did sit with him multiple times on feature design.  Also made several site visits on most courses.  Memorable line - (after seeing a mound in the middle of a green) "Jeff, you must be the best damn golfer in the world!"  Also had a lot of input on his muni remodels and had an eye for making them practical.  I will say from time to time, he and I would see a hole completely differently.


Notah Begay III - Very intelligent and articulate on golf design. Mimicked Colbert on most playability ideas.  Actually, so did Elk and Wadkins but it was harder to get that out of them.  Like Elk, very proper and not one to make bombastic statements, very thoughtful, but still, I had to translate into something after he left. After the project, he said he would have liked the bunkers to be more like CC, and he thought Fazio was a master at contouring greens.  Had a memorable day at Dallas National with he and Trevino listening to a lot of neat architecture theory (not all of which I agreed with)


Tom Watson - I did just a little work with him on a China project.  While he didn't draw any plans, other than some hole sketches, he did show me he had a keen grasp of grading and drainage principles, just no time to do it himself.


All in all, I architected, and they were basically occasional "editors".  None could really route, grade and drain, etc., so I wouldn't consider them architects.  Even when they have features input, it is sometimes a crap shoot from an architects perspective.  And, sometimes, they recall very clearly what they thought they were looking for if I had made a decision to change it.  But, it was fun and a good general learning experience that made me better.

[David Davis]

Thanks everyone for the input. I understand no two cases are alike. In general my impression is that the "celebrity" indeed comes for the photo shoot and ribbon cutting ceremony to "stamp" their signature design. I can completely understand they would want to make sure the man-made water fall or water fountain or perhaps 18th hole island green gets emphasized.


The reason I posed this thread was due to a "quote" I read the other day about Gary Player saying he was going to go down and visit Turnberry to see what work Trump had done there to improve the course. Not sure why exactly but I found it very irritating the way it read and the fact the architect in general discussion and PR etc doesn't even get a mention even when they did spectacular work.


Tom, thanks for sharing the story from Sebonak. Now it's just my opinion but from your designs I've played it's by far my least favorite and it's a wonderful piece of property that I can't help but believe you would of hit a home run on had you had carte blanch. Likely you and many other disagree with me but there is something about the course that I have a really hard time putting my finger on which I just don't like compared to your other stuff. It might be the tie in to the greens and the green shaping which is extreme on a few holes but I'm not certain that's it. I'd have to play it a few more times to figure out and probably should do that as I might learn a lot more but it's not high on my list to revisit. Way rather go back to PD or Ballyneal or Tara Iti or Barnbougle or pretty much anywhere else.


I don't want to pick on Jack Nicklaus design either as it's a hugely successful business but with so many opportunities and great properties that churn out courses that are just not quite satisfying and I've only seen about 20 of his courses it's hard to figure out what's missing. Some times they seem far too penal, some times way too unnatural or really extreme contrived and forced in terms of features but he has a huge team and it's always slightly different. I recently play Kinloch in New Zeland near Taupo. Maybe one of the most extreme courses I've run into in terms of over the top shaping on steroids, it's a beautiful location but if they told you it was basically flat you wouldn't believe it or how that could of even been possible. The shaper must of spent half a lifetime detailing the place. Maybe for this reason alone it's the most interesting course of Jack's I've seen. However, this all leaves me wondering if he should just at least on a couple occasions spend those extra days that Tom pointed out overseeing the last details to get a design completely right or simply just stay away and stamp the final routing map with his ok.


Jeff,


Thanks for all the great examples. Those are/were extremely enjoyable to read. There are so many more signature architects than I realized. I've played relatively little golf in the US outside of "big names venues" that it's easy to forget there are another 30,000 courses to sample and they are likely full of signatures.


Here in NL there is a course called The International and it's officially an Ian Woosnam design. Funny thing is it was 99.99% designed and finished by a Belgian architect named Bruno Steensels. The story goes that there is a bunker on the 18th hole, yes, one bunker they call the Woosnan bunker. The design and course was 99.99% finished he came to stamp his name on this project that was 10 years or longer in the making and he suggested that another bunker could be added there. They did it and it was finished.


Jumping back to Trump, I do think he is involved in his courses and whatever level that in my heart I'm certain that is 100% more than should of been done. The fact that there are no waterfalls or gold plated fountains on the new Turnberry is to the huge credit of Martin Ebert IMO for holding Trump at bay. Again, no idea honestly if this is true but it's just what I imagine to be the case having seen the inside of several of his hotels and of course having seen a few of his courses.

[BCrosby]

Jeff -


Great stories.


Nelson's comment is particularly interesting. I would have thought that a bad putter would want you to build easier, flatter greens. Nelson wanted, to the contrary, harder, more contoured greens.


I'm not sure if Nelson got that right. Wouldn't more contoured greens make for a wider separation between good and bad putters? That is, wouldn't they work to Nelson's disadvantage?


I have always assumed that the 'harder' the green, the more they advantage the better putter. Isn't that the rationale for the greens at ANGC or greens as set up for USO venues?


Bob


 

[Adam Lawrence]

Jeff -

Great stories.

Nelson's comment is particularly interesting. I would have thought that a bad putter would want you to build easier, flatter greens. Nelson wanted, to the contrary, harder, more contoured greens.

I'm not sure if Nelson got that right. Wouldn't more contoured greens make for a wider separation between good and bad putters? That is, wouldn't they work to Nelson's disadvantage?

I have always assumed that the 'harder' the green, the more they advantage the better putter. Isn't that the rationale for the greens at ANGC or greens as set up for USO venues?

Bob
 

Bob -- but recall what Angel Cabrera said after he won the US Open at Oakmont -- along the lines of 'I don't make many putts but neither did anyone else this week on these greens'!

[BCrosby]

Adam -


If I understand Cabrera correctly, he is getting at my question. 


I am trying to say that Nelson's comment makes me wonder about the correctness of my long held assumption that hard greens best separate good from bad putters.


Bob

[Adam Lawrence]

I understood him as saying the difficulty of Oakmont's greens acted as a leveller, because no-one made any putts. Which is what Nelson was saying too, I think...

[BCrosby]

Adam -


We read Cabrera similarly. To paraphrase him, because Oakmont's greens are so hard, they made everyone a mediocre putter, thus minimizing the price I normally pay for my own deficiencies as a putter.


Interesting is that his and Nelson's comments cut against the common assumption as to why greens are set up to be difficult. The counter proposal being that at some level of difficulty, even the best putters are defeated and mediocre putters are at less of a disadvantage.   


I'm still uncertain that's true. But intriguing that two great players think it is.


Bob

[Mike_Young]

Tom Watson - I did just a little work with him on a China project.  While he didn't draw any plans, other than some hole sketches, he did show me he had a keen grasp of grading and drainage principles, just no time to do it himself.

All in all, I architected, and they were basically occasional "editors".  None could really route, grade and drain, etc., so I wouldn't consider them architects.  Even when they have features input, it is sometimes a crap shoot from an architects perspective.  And, sometimes, they recall very clearly what they thought they were looking for if I had made a decision to change it.  But, it was fun and a good general learning experience that made me better.

Since you don't consider Tom Watson an architect, can you get in trouble with ASGCA since he is a member .  I think it says they can do a course on their own...    ( I hate to pick on Tom since he is just one but...you mentioned it...) 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Having been a member so many years, I think I would have to shoot someone important to really get in trouble with ASGCA.


For the pros who get in, we understand that they don't do all the detail plans.  For that matter, neither do many principals and even associates.  If someone filled in an app saying they did 100% of every task, we might be suspicious.


Those pros need to convince us they do understand the design principals.  One pro suggested 4-6% as standard cup slopes.  We gave him a chance to save himself...."you mean on a Tom Doak course or yours?"    Watson impressed the interviewers. I wasn't there but spent a week working with him at his house, and he did understand it, no doubt, even scribbling, but who cares if he could do a final ACAD grading plan?

[Mike_Young]

So he impressed the interviewers huh???

From the ASGCA website:

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Why should I hire an ASGCA member rather than a non-member architect to design or remodel my golf course? Membership in ASGCA signifies that an architect has acquired the training, experience and project mass to be considered an expert in the field of golf course architecture as deemed by his/her peers. ASGCA members must also abide by standards of professional practice and a stringent code of ethics that define the golf course architect’s role in contract negotiations and his or her responsibilities to the client. These strict membership requirements are recognized by private and public agencies throughout the industry as the highest professional standards in golf course design.

Where I become confused is where you state in your post " I wouldn't consider them architects"  ...  I agree.  And from listening to your above comments the main thing is to impress the interviewers no matter what the clients or sponsors say?  I think that pertains to all, not just the pros....   I just saw where a guy who had worked for me for I think 6 years got in.  In the notes it doesn't mention any resume other than two pro firms he worked with.  I guess working for outside firms doesn't count either.  More and more confused.
Cheers


 

[Niall C]

"I very much doubt he produced any technical drawings or dealt in detail with what I'd call the civil engineering aspects to the construction."

Niall -

You may very well be right about that. But then again, I wonder how much of the design (and construction) work at CS was done from "technical drawings." From viewing the video I linked (and the series of construction videos available on youtube), it certainly appears that much of the design and build work at CS was done "in the dirt" and not from technical drawings. Isn't that how many GCA's (such as Pete Dye) have primarily worked over the years?

I did have the chance to visit CS twice while it was being built and tour the property with people involved with the project. My opinions are based on what I saw on those visits and from viewing those videos.

DT

David

You could well be right about construction drawings but they would still have needed technical approvals on different aspects and you wouldn't get that these days by presenting a rough sketch on the back of a fag packet (packet of cigarettes to the non-Brits). Some one also had to make sure the drainage scheme, irrigation etc all worked and I don't think that would be up to the "gifted amateur". Whether guys like Tom D or Jeff B do that themselves, or their associates do, or whether they themselves get specialists in for drainage and irrigation I've no idea.

All I'm saying is that building a golf course is a fair sized civil engineering job and someone needs to know the technical stuff.

As an aside, and reading what Tom said about a prospective job he looked at with Mark Parsinen, I wonder if MP's involvement has increased with each successive job. I played Kingsbarns recently after a good number of years since I last played and that visit just reinforced what I previously thought which is that KB from a landscaping point of view is far better than CS. Could that be down to the diminishing input of the architect from one job to another ?

Niall

[Niall C]

Adam/Bob,

I always thought the same way as Nelson that tricky greens were great equalisers. Look at Bernhard Langer at Augusta and what he achieved there on those treacherous greens. Langer got over the yips but he still wasn't a guy who sank a lot of putts. He did however lag very well. I followed him round at St Andrews in 1984 (?) when Seve won. You look back and think that Open was between Tom Watson and Seve but if Langer had sank even half the 10/12 footers he had in that last round the title would have been his.

Niall

[David_Tepper]

"I played Kingsbarns recently after a good number of years since I last played and that visit just reinforced what I previously thought which is that KB from a landscaping point of view is far better than CS. Could that be down to the diminishing input of the architect from one job to another?"

Niall C. -

As I have never seen Kingsbarns in person and do not know of MP's level of involvement there relative to Castle Stuart, I cannot offer an opinion on the question you raise. Neither can I offer an opinion on the relative merits of the landscaping at the two courses.

The two courses MP has developed in Scotland are widely acknowledged as two of the best, if not the two best, courses built in Britain in the past 25 years. That makes him a very "gifted amateur" by any standard.

DT

[Niall C]

...or it makes him very good at picking his collaborators 

Niall

[Thomas Dai]

...or it makes him very good at picking his collaborators 
Niall

I was pondering this thread from the delegate and supervise point of view....ie, from the "the skill in management is picking good people to work for you and then letting them get on with things without you interferring" perspective.


How much time did some of the chaps allegedly responsible for so many classic era courses actually spend on site?


Visit, do some drawings, seemingly often never return? The role of the overseer nearer the coal face...Harris, Chas MacK', Koontz etc etc.


Okay things are more complex these days with laws and regulations and pipes and wires and smart techie stuff but I'm sure you get my drift.


Atb

[Jon Wiggett]

Niall,


I think the KB versus CS on the landscaping is a personal thing. KB is certainly more severe in the shaping and is well done except for the area around the last green. CS is more spread out in the shaping and so less quirky. However, from a golfing point of view I much prefer CS as it has many good holes and only one that I do not regard so highly where as KB has three that seem quite out of character for the course and one minger of a green complex.


Jon

[Ally Mcintosh]

A lot of the Kingsbarns look was down to Mike McShane, basically a style of shaping that he ramped up further on The Castle Course.


The difference between the above courses (Castle Stuart included) and the classic courses that Dai refers to is down to the natural topography and vegetation.


All three of the above are largely created. The ODG's could afford to do less and still leave primarily "their" mark on a course because the routings tended to define the course much more than the above moderns.

[Adam Lawrence]

Mick McShane fwiw. Mike McShane was/is a comedian 

[Joe Hancock]

Mick McShane fwiw. Mike McShane was/is a comedian 

The line between a shaper and a comedian is blurry at best.....

[Adam Lawrence]

Rofl. Mick's a funny guy too...

[David_Tepper]

"...or it makes him very good at picking his collaborators"

Niall C. -

I suspect MP is very good at both.

Based on what I have seen and the conversations I have had, MP was very involved creating the design and look of Castle Stuart (including the clubhouse!). It is odd you seem so reluctant to acknowledge that.

DT   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()