Can social media make you a better architect than actual experience?

[Mike_Young]

In the 80's when the RE boom started churning out golf courses, it took huge media budgets and efforts to promote the projects and much of the hype was around the golf architect?tour/player type.  The "Fazio" name also evolved from national connections via Uncle George at PV and it all attracted large budgets which could help in building notable golf projects.  The signature architects were created via RE projects and resorts marketing efforts much moreso than their talent stnding above the regional architects.  That's the way things work in marketing. 
Over the years so called golf writers began to come out of the woodwork  and all the smoke and mirror crap began as work slowed down and people went hunting big renovations/remodels ( and some had the audacity to even call them restorations)..being a golf writer required the same barriers to entry as being a golf architect.  All you needed was a business card and someone to publish you ( or as an architect, someone to let you design their project).And now today:  golf magazines are shrinking, Golf TV is having a tough time and everything has evolved towards blogs and twitter etc.  IMHO the writing on some of these top blogs is some of the best, most honest golf writing to be done in a very long time.  But you also have a large quantity of slapdicks that can do the same and many don't know the difference.  I'm seeing guys doing work in all areas of the country that they don't promote or advertise at all and they are busy.  Then I'm seeing imaginary courses talking of being funded by "go fund me" sites etc.  I'm seeing a single project in some cases being "multiplied" across social media to look as though it were a hundred projects.  I'm seeing projects that will not exist in five years being hyped as the savior of golf. Are we kidding ourselves?
I'm having a problem finding substance with much of what I read on golf design today.

[Ryan Farrow]

I find it hard to disagree with anything you said. I like to compare social media to the people's choice awards but at the same time you can and will be crucified if proven wrong. B.S. will get called out but sometimes those voices are drowned out by the fanboys. It's a numbers game and frankly, a race to the bottom.

[Peter Pallotta]

Mike
It sure seems that, aside from a few highly regulated professions with strong ‘governing bodies’ (eg doctors, engineers, lawyers), the line between amateurs and professionals is becoming ever more blurred. (In today’s world, freelance writers get as many paying gigs as do some gladiators, or typewriter repairmen.) In a way, we may be returning, in gca, to the time of the great amateur architects like Macdonald, Crump and Leeds — so it may be that there is some great work coming in the years ahead. On the other hand, back then men like that could actually afford to be amateurs, and to choose to remain so; whereas today it’s not a choice at all but a most unpleasant necessity — and that likely changes everything.
And maybe just as with writers —  where those with very specific skills & experience, eg with technical manuals, survive but those with only ‘great, cool ideas’ flounder — so too in the golf industry: the experienced & well regarded shapers and associates and irrigation experts will keep working, while the would-be architects with only their ‘great, cool ideas’ will flounder and fill the blogosphere with marketing gambits aimed at getting financing — unless, like CBM, they have very very good contacts on Wall Street.
 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,


I once joked that the old standard for being a golf course architect was having written at least five spec books.  The new standard? Writing five architecture books.  And that was 20 years ago.  Maybe the newest standard of being a qualified gca is having written 5 blogs that have gotten more than a dozen thumbs up?


I don't think nice projects going to inexperienced architects is a new thing, just a bit different this time around.  I think we could both name a dozen projects were have been in contention for going to totally inexperienced guys who somehow sold a less knowing owner a bill of goods.  Yes, every once in a while, that newb turned out to be legit.  In general, the gca world actually has always been against formal licensing and regulations, which allowed the Pete Dye's and Mike Young's of the world to show their stuff.  Just feels a little different now that we are the old hats and some young whippersnappers are the ones benefitting, LOL.


And, as for us old timers in the biz "filling the blogosphere" I agree.  We try, but overall, the power of social media and how to use it is just something foreign to us, and we don't utilize it well.  Most of us seem to be sort of pathetic followers in that regard.


You make some good points.  But in reading your second post it also occurs to me you are just regurgitating your belief that design build led by shapers is the way forward in gca.  It certainly seems like it, although projects are still all over the board, so I can't disagree.  That said, if history proves anything, it will be that this trend won't be a forever one either. 


Something unpredictable will happen that steers the profession back to the direction of plans drawn before building commences. Or maybe some other brand new, new direction.  It's hard for us to know what. Maybe environmental restrictions and the irrigation designers become the project lead.  Maybe some shaper will hit an oil pipeline, and after everyone enjoys the awe of the Pearl Harbor recreation, legislators will require more stringent plans and pre-marking of existing conditions, rather than a simple, "Please call 811."  The imagination runs wild!


BTW, Happy Birthday!

[Joe Hancock]

Every experienced architect was, at one time, inexperienced. Then, they got their break. It’s no different now, it’s just the way the message gets out is different. Back in the day, people talked to each other about how much experience they had, and I bet sometimes those experiences were embellished.....


Nothing new under the sun. Do your best, work hard, quit worrying about how others get their chance. The fools will show themselves soon enough.

[Tom_Doak]

Mike:  it happens everywhere.  Just today I was in a faraway land and met the owner of a prominent new course.  He explained that he had hired a local designer to lay out the course, but then the American shaper (whom I had never heard of) got his ear, and became the one to decide where to put all the extraneous bunkers etc that made the course a bit less than what it should be.


Inexperience rules in many places, and in most countries, the locals will tell you that it's the Americans who muscle in and take more credit than they deserve. But not always (see Le Golf National in France, eg)


Then again, there is no one in the business who participates on GCA who doesn't feel they have more to contribute to golf architecture than their body of work has so far allowed them to.  We have had our fair share of pretenders as regular participants here, too ... and no one ever really called them out.


But all that b.s. combined will never match the levels produced by the Jones family and several other firms from the boom times 😉

[Mike_Young]

Jeff,
I don't begrudge any of the younger guys form promoting themselves and getting projects.  I am all in favor of such.  I was saying that in the past the big advertising was taken on by the developer or the resort because a golf architect could not afford such.  But social media does allow such.  I had a guy tell me the other day of a guy who had designed and built courses all over yet the fact was the guy had a nine hole course to his credit but his social media skills would make you believe otherwise. 

You say" You make some good points.  But in reading your second post it also occurs to me you are just regurgitating your belief that design build led by shapers is the way forward in gca. "   I didn't see where I made a second post and I certainly have never said shapers would lead.  My thought has been that there are some very good architects who happen to build it in the dirt and can shape it themselves and I feel they have an advantage over the young guys who evolve via drafting table etc..
Joe,Agree with you...hope all is well...
TD,Shaper has so many definitions to so many people.  I had one this summer who had worked all the right places but in reality he was a glorified raker...I never checked it out until it was too late..

[V_Halyard]

Mike:  it happens everywhere.  Just today I was in a faraway land and met the owner of a prominent new course.  He explained that he had hired a local designer to lay out the course, but then the American shaper (whom I had never heard of) got his ear, and became the one to decide where to put all the extraneous bunkers etc that made the course a bit less than what it should be.

Inexperience rules in many places, and in most countries, the locals will tell you that it's the Americans who muscle in and take more credit than they deserve. But not always (see Le Golf National in France, eg)

Then again, there is no one in the business who participates on GCA who doesn't feel they have more to contribute to golf architecture than their body of work has so far allowed them to.  We have had our fair share of pretenders as regular participants here, too ... and no one ever really called them out.

But all that b.s. combined will never match the levels produced by the Jones family and several other firms from the boom times 😉

Tom and Mike,
Your comments are valid, especially in this climate where everybody has a global conduit for their opinion. (#GCA) A wannabe with ace and active communication skills can influence less-informed decision makers. Would you say the lack of insight and knowledge of decision makers is as much to blame as the noise makers? Thankfully, it is becoming more evident that the best projects are delivered when architects architect.  In original media, (Film/Music/TV/Jounalism) we went through this aggressive phase to accept what was deemed the future: "Synergy" and "Cross-Platforming".  At a posting inside of an unnamed studio, I was blamed for coining the term "Cross-F**kery"©️ .  So I might as well own it.  For awhile, everybody was a producer...  Golf architecture is now sexy enough to have become infected with this virus. Welcome. "You're Too Sexy for your..."

Is "Cross-f***erism" new to Golf Architecture? Nah. think of all the greens chairs, boards, supers and municipalities that have ad-hoc "Made Courses Better... More resistant to scoring... Better Defended with Bunkering"... "Cheaper to maintain"... etc...   It has been here for decades, social media just puts it on hyper-public display. ('On-Blast' as my kids say, well at least 6 months ago...) For example, filming high in the mountains one day, a subject turns to me and says: "Hey Bro, I have a GoPro camera bro I would like you to use".  I counter, "that's fine, I have a cousin that works at North Face in the mall and I want you to have her make first-summit." That stops a "Cross-f***erist" in their tracks.  If it were a golf project and the architect suggests a certain camera used by this "guy I know", I might counter that I'd like to feature my buddy the residential construction worker as your shaper on a bulldozer from my friend's equipment rental house.  Again, an antidote for invasive "Cross-f***itism".

Today's reality is that everybody is a potential media producer. Because they can, that doesn't mean they should. Many think they sound great singing in their shower, whereas most should not be heard above the volume of a flush. The kid that wins the F1 driving simulator contest should not be trusted behind the wheel of a $200-Million Ferrari. The same can be said of golf architecture. Just because one can recite Raynor's list of courses by rote doesn't necessarily mean they should be rendering $3Million master plans. The moral of the story is that "Cross-f***er-ication" is a common occurrence in sexy industries and as I am reading this, you are saying it has infested golf architecture. Let's be real as well, in some cases, these are big money projects and come with big money expectations of "Cross-F***-ability" .

That is actually a positive indicator as it highlights the value of great golf architecture. Not long ago, much of golf architecture was powered by housing, land and water development decisions. Jobs were awarded to <Non-Architect Famous Name>,  <Develoer Company + Famous Name> etc...  Valid and trained new crews will and should always fight for a shot to kill what they eat. Evidence shows that the best projects are delivered when architects architect. Today's challenge is to tell the story in a way that shows why architect A,B,C is the best choice. This is where Noise + Decision Maker = Good/Bad Result.  In the same way that media storytelling is winning again, I will stress that architects need to be able to educate and tell the story why what they do is the right way to do it.  That keeps the noise from winning.

[John Emerson]

Social media is a blessing and a curse for many.  It has opened many eyes to the amazing beauty of quality golf architecture....Also, it teases people into thinking things are easier to obtain than actually possible.  It shows the masses course photos, project progress, and on site work being performed.  So many look at this and think “hmm I’ve seen so many of these types of pictures, I think I could do this myself!!!”.  Then boom there’s a guy/gal thinking they’re the next Pete Dye without ever lifting a shovel or a rake.  It’s the same as with the club member who has played a lot of golf, and thinks all of a sudden they are a qualified agronomist.  It’s mind boggling that so many people who have never worked on a construction crew or maintenance staff (not to mention a degree, or lack of, in design or agronomy) think they know so much about golf design and/or maintenance. 

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
Last I checked, you can’t get a degree in golf architecture!  Can you 😉

I am sure there are stereotypical paths most take to become a successful golf course architect.  But at end of the day, I don’t think it matters as it all comes down to what a person delivers.  For me personally, few people gave me much chance of success.  That was 18 years ago and almost 100 paid projects later, I’m still having fun with it and hopefully making a positive difference.

It is a competitive world out there.  We all have to learn to compete with whatever comes our way.  Those that can’t won't last too long. 

Mark

[Mike_Young]

Mike,
Last I checked, you can’t get a degree in golf architecture!  Can you 😉

I am sure there are stereotypical paths most take to become a successful golf course architect.  But at end of the day, I don’t think it matters as it all comes down to what a person delivers.  For me personally, few people gave me much chance of success.  That was 18 years ago and almost 100 paid projects later, I’m still having fun with it and hopefully making a positive difference.

It is a competitive world out there.  We all have to learn to compete with whatever comes our way.  Those that can’t won't last too long. 

Mark

Mark,I'm not worried about the "competitive world".  I'm glad to compete with anyone. 
I'm speaking of the the unfiltered bullshit that can go unchecked on social media.  Hell there are even Go Fund Me pages from young tour players to fund golf courses on land that hasn't even purchased yet.  I'm all for the underdog but that never happened in the golf media world before one could write their own BS.  Go look at the websites out there of guys who will list five or six golf course designs and when you dig into it they were done for another architect they were working for over the past years. ( ASGCA associates are all over the place with that stuff once they go on their own) My personal opinion is that if you didn't sell it, route it, design it and direct the building of it then it is not you design.  And that is a totally different animal than restoring or reworking an existing project.  i In many of those cases social media makes it look as though these guys are much more experienced than others.  All social media has done is make the weeds you have to wade thru that much higher....IMHO

[V_Halyard]

Mike,
Last I checked, you can’t get a degree in golf architecture!  Can you 😉

I am sure there are stereotypical paths most take to become a successful golf course architect.  But at end of the day, I don’t think it matters as it all comes down to what a person delivers.  For me personally, few people gave me much chance of success.  That was 18 years ago and almost 100 paid projects later, I’m still having fun with it and hopefully making a positive difference.

It is a competitive world out there.  We all have to learn to compete with whatever comes our way.  Those that can’t won't last too long. 

Mark

Mark,I'm not worried about the "competitive world".  I'm glad to compete with anyone. 
I'm speaking of the the unfiltered bullshit that can go unchecked on social media.  Hell there are even Go Fund Me pages from young tour players to fund golf courses on land that hasn't even purchased yet.  I'm all for the underdog but that never happened in the golf media world before one could write their own BS.  Go look at the websites out there of guys who will list five or six golf course designs and when you dig into it they were done for another architect they were working for over the past years. ( ASGCA associates are all over the place with that stuff once they go on their own) My personal opinion is that if you didn't sell it, route it, design it and direct the building of it then it is not you design.  And that is a totally different animal than restoring or reworking an existing project.  i In many of those cases social media makes it look as though these guys are much more experienced than others.  All social media has done is make the weeds you have to wade thru that much higher....IMHO

Mike, the content that bothers you is no different than bull%#!t golf programming camouflaging desert and Florida real estate developments. The only difference is that social media has removed distribution barriers to entry. It's easier for anybody to publish good and bad.

[Mike_Young]

Mike,
Last I checked, you can’t get a degree in golf architecture!  Can you 😉

I am sure there are stereotypical paths most take to become a successful golf course architect.  But at end of the day, I don’t think it matters as it all comes down to what a person delivers.  For me personally, few people gave me much chance of success.  That was 18 years ago and almost 100 paid projects later, I’m still having fun with it and hopefully making a positive difference.

It is a competitive world out there.  We all have to learn to compete with whatever comes our way.  Those that can’t won't last too long. 

Mark

Mark,I'm not worried about the "competitive world".  I'm glad to compete with anyone. 
I'm speaking of the the unfiltered bullshit that can go unchecked on social media.  Hell there are even Go Fund Me pages from young tour players to fund golf courses on land that hasn't even purchased yet.  I'm all for the underdog but that never happened in the golf media world before one could write their own BS.  Go look at the websites out there of guys who will list five or six golf course designs and when you dig into it they were done for another architect they were working for over the past years. ( ASGCA associates are all over the place with that stuff once they go on their own) My personal opinion is that if you didn't sell it, route it, design it and direct the building of it then it is not you design.  And that is a totally different animal than restoring or reworking an existing project.  i In many of those cases social media makes it look as though these guys are much more experienced than others.  All social media has done is make the weeds you have to wade thru that much higher....IMHO

Mike, the content that bothers you is no different than bull%#!t golf programming camouflaging desert and Florida real estate developments. The only difference is that social media has removed distribution barriers to entry. It's easier for anybody to publish good and bad.

I agree....