Warren Buffett on Golf Architecture?

[thomaslaffont]

Warren Buffett is famous for saying that an idiot nephew could run a high quality business but that when a management with a reputation for brilliance gets involved with a bad business, it is the reputation of the business that remains intact.
Applying this question to architecture as a fun exercise: who would build the better course? An average architect on an incredible site or an incredible architect on average site?

Which would you choose to play?

[Joe Hancock]

The difference between an average site and an incredible site would be far greater than the difference between an average architect and an incredible architect......so I’ll take the incredible site.

[Tom_Doak]

I don't know who is the "average architect" but I'd take the incredible site every time.


Luckily, clients with incredible sites are not so likely to hire average architects!

[Peter Pallotta]

I thought Joe and Tom were going to say something else. I thought they were going to say that an incredible site isn't incredible *for golf* until a top flight architect makes it so. In lesser hands, it could be merely a great site/scenery, spoiled.

[Ronald Montesano]

Agreed. Folks will telepath "sooooo much more could have been done with that site" when the AA mucks it up. No one would intimate "girlfriend, that boring-arse piece of ground might have improved mildly in the hands of a master."


The great architect will elevate the average property, but the average architect (as long as average is meant to be a derogatory term) will not find the potential of the incredible site.

[JESII]

I don't know who is the "average architect" but I'd take the incredible site every time.

Tom,


You’re looking at 2 properties to build a course on, and you are legally bound to not design it yourself. One property is a 9 as far as site selection goes and the other is a 5. Bill Coore will only work at the lesser location for some reason and the only architect that can work at the prime location is one whose work has never impressed you at all.


Which property do you buy?

[Mike Nuzzo]

I think the word average makes it a little more difficult to answer.


I'd rather play a good architects course on a bad site than a bad architects course on a good site.
The awkward part is that a good architect transforms the bad site to a good one with either a good routing or earthwork - so in the end was it really a bad site?


cheers

[John Kavanaugh]

Only a "great" architect would have the balls to screw up an incredible site. It has all become too obvious what gets the modern critics panties in a bunch.

[Peter Pallotta]

Yeah, imagine: a rocky, wind-swept seaside site, and along the rugged coast-line a natural bay with the waves crashing in, and off in the distance 190 yards away a rugged promontory edged and flowing down to a natural bowl-like flattish area of about 6000 square feet.
Wouldn't every single architect who has ever lived make out of that the course's signature Par 3, and have it as the 17th hole? And would all of those architects be great? Or would instead that choice be just par for the course/average?
Maybe the great architect would be the only one who thought to find another/different tee, a hundred+ yards futher back and a little inland and so made of that site a 290 yard *Par 4*, and had it play as the 14th hole.
He'd either be the truly great one, or the biggest loser - I'm not sure which.

[jeffwarne]

I'm going to go the other way.


An incredible sight might get the most wows, but as we've seen before there are plenty of average or even poor courses on so called great sites.
For one time play most might take the best site...


 but for repeat play and maybe even a membership......


I'm going for the average site -great architect
Example-East Hampton, Southampton

[Ally Mcintosh]

Really does depend on whether you mean average or bad.


If you take the average practicing architect, he should at least give you a routing that works. Maybe not the best but one that works with - given the incredible site - a good variety in holes, a bunch of interesting shots and some amazing views. You might not like his detail in the greens and you may think his strategies are a bit vanilla but it'll still be an excellent course. Just not great.


Maybe we're talking Old Head. (I use that because it was an amalgam of architects)


As for the great architect on a poor to average site, maybe we're talking Crail Craighead.

[Mike_Young]

All this does for me is emphasize how much emphasis is put on the architect when it comes to the course.  The right developer using the right marketing and ad budget will make a bad archie into a great archie on a good piece of land or a bad piece of land.  In the last few years I've come to the realization that the architects themselves and a few followers(like on this site) care much more about all of the little things than most developers and especially most golfers and club members . We have a different perspective of where architecture sits than the rest of the world.  For sure there is really no money in it for what one could make with the same effort in other areas ( except for a very very few).  If you are working for a signature it never passes down to anyone but family and then often the family ( example AP) have no clue if it has value or what to do with it.   We don't realize most developers look at architects very differently than architects and followers see architects.  Hell the Real Estate sales person makes more money on most courses thearchitect designs than the architect does and the developer surely does.  AND SO, my theory is get the best site....then one just needs to get the ball rolling and in most cases somehow it will work.  It may not be the routing one of us would like or the design one of us would like but the public is there to determine not a few archie freaks.  As much as I like this business...you learn to not take it too seriously because the rest of the golf world doesn't. 

[Tom_Doak]

I don't know who is the "average architect" but I'd take the incredible site every time.

Tom,

You’re looking at 2 properties to build a course on, and you are legally bound to not design it yourself. One property is a 9 as far as site selection goes and the other is a 5. Bill Coore will only work at the lesser location for some reason and the only architect that can work at the prime location is one whose work has never impressed you at all.

Which property do you buy?

Jim:


I just look at this question a different way than you guys do.


Mike was talking about popular opinion, and I don't give a damn about that.  You're talking about business, and I ignored that part of the question ... I wasn't thinking of which course I'd rather OWN, but which I'd rather PLAY.


I've seen the majority of Bill Coore's work, including on a bunch of great sites.  So I won't lose sleep if I see another example of it on a less interesting site.  I'm not saying it won't turn out to be really good; I just don't know if it will turn out to be something different.  Sometimes it does - Talking Stick North, for example, did a lot with not much, and has a couple of holes I'll never forget.  But it's not a 9 on the Doak scale, either.


As to the other side, if they're a bad architect, then forget what I said, but if "average" means they have some talent, I would be interested to see what they did with a great site.  It might not turn out as well as it should have, but you never know.  As Mike alludes, a lot of your idea of whether someone is "great" or not is really based on the sites they've had to work with.

[Sean_A]

An average archie is going to get something good out of an exceptional site for sure...maybe even a home run....who is to say.  That said, what is an average site?  If the good parkland courses in the UK are the measuring stick of average sites, I am convinced an exceptional archie could produce a compelling course.  I could go either way, but would probably lean more toward the site because there may be a better chance of seeing a few out of the box cool holes.

Ciao   

[Peter Pallotta]

Doesn't it sometimes seem as if many of the golden age classics were/are judged in terms of 'great architecture' whereas many of today's award-winners are judged in terms of 'great courses'?
Are the terms synonymous? Are they necessarily so?

[JESII]

Tom, I wasn't talking about the business side intentionally. I was just trying to isolate out the architect side of you.


Your answer is fair, but still maybe holding on to the desire to be in charge of an incredible site.


I just always think back to Winged Foot. There are two courses on perfectly mundane ground that are still as good as any course could want to be. The reality is the biggest problem with WF now is the reputation of Winged Foot as a beast and the effort to live up to it...


Hidden Creek is the best modern example for me of an average site producing a really great golf course.

[Kalen Braley]

Two pines come to mind....


Torrey and Sand! 

[Garland Bayley]

Is Ballybunion Cashen on what would be considered a great site?
If so, does the course there live anywhere near up to the potential of the site?