Pushing the "envelope" in architecture

[Tom_Doak]

For those wanting to see photos of the two courses Archie mentions at the beginning of the thread, go here:

http://www80.homepage.villanova.edu/joseph.bausch/images/albums/RunningDeer/index.html

I'm a big fan of Running Deer.  In particular the 3rd hole, a par 4 that just fits my eye.

Joe:


Thanks for the photo tour of Running Deer.  I don't normally sit through an entire slide show but that one kept me tuned in.


Honestly, it looks like four different guys took turns building the holes, as some are guarded by mounds, some pinched by bunkers, some defended by cross hazards, and others by waste areas or trees!  Most designers would feel forced to "pick one," but the opposite viewpoint is that it looks like there's something for every golfer to like.  And it also looks like a set of consistently interesting greens.

[Sean_A]

A potentially big issue inhibiting creativity is health and safety issues. This makes some small, cool sites potentially unviable due not being able to use shared fairways and blind holes. Isn't this one reason 9 holers are now gaining some traction?

I am still waiting for the guy who randomly shapes the land before the holes are designed. I think this idea has great potential for using land not well suited to golf, but after shaping would allow the archie to discover holes as if it were virgin land and go from there.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

To what extent do those in the business consider that outside restrictions, constraints etc will increasingly effect how they do their business?
Will there, for example, be more of a design/construction/re-build/maintenance trend towards working with the environmental and public space/recreation bodies? More Mach' Dunes, less manicured green-is-god? Even urban restricted space golf played with a soft (ie doesn't hurt or cause damage) ball?
atb

[archie_struthers]

 


The reason this topic intrigued me so much is that both Stone Harbor and Running Deer were so "over the top" for most players but were intriguing and fun to play for me personally. But I'm more of a masochist when it comes to golf and not always concerned with my score. But even for me a steady diet of pain isn't much fun!


I think back to when we bought Greate Bay in 1998 and it was pretty obvious some of the reworking by various architects wasn't as good as the Willie Park Jr original design. However, our bottom line wasn't going to go up dramatically by bringing back the past. Just not our target market. It would respond to better pace of play and aesthetics so the work we did there right away addressed some flaws in the new design. I found it easier to use the old pictures of the Park routing and holes when doing this so we got some extra bang for the buck by using this as a guide. For me, one of the signs of an excellent renovation is that no one can figure out the new holes from originals!   I had seen what Seaview did on the Pines course in adding a range and a housing element and it was just awful so was careful not to build something that didn't fit.


"Clashing Rocks" was the inspiration for the 7th hole at Stone Harbor. Being a huge fan of Greek, Roman and Norse Mythology it still would not impact my thoughts when building a golf hole yet the original redo clearly showed this was what Desmond was thinking. Many a good round was killed there as the only guaranteed play was to rifle one over the green, take a drop make four and move on!
Of course Phineus wasn't there to whisper this to the player like he was for Jason and the Argonauts. Don't get me wrong there is some real genius in the design but it was a raspy cacophony of too much.


Eddie Carmen was a really cool guy. The word "cool" and the 60's vernacular fits him. He was a purist and an iconoclast at the same time. Think one of a kind and he comes to mind immediately. Golf pro, inventor, storyteller,  Renaissance man , they all fit him. In many ways he was a modern day Crump and when my friend Jimmy Smith told me I had to see what Ed was building ,that it was the best golf course he had ever seen it wasn't 24 hours later that I found myself walking around the place with him. It was obvious that he was pouring his heart and soul into Running Deer and a few of the holes are incredibly beautiful. In another setting and with a bigger maintenance budget I truly believe what he was trying to accomplice would shine thru.


Which brings me to my experiences at Twisted Dune and this particular query about architects. Sean asked if anyone shaped first and designed later. We kind of employed that process as our goal was to sell as much dirt as humanly possible to the AC tunnel project and the golf course was a by product of the dirt moving activities. But I digress. When we were building the greens which usually came before the fairways Kevin, our most talented shaper kept pushing me to make them more severe or even "crazy". He had done a lot of work at he aforementioned Running Deer for Eddie. Kept telling him that as envisioned it would be ok!


 In looking back I'm guilty of not pushing enough, not being bold enough in spots. However in defense of what we built I envisioned the maintenance meld (for you TEP)  to be unlike any in our area. Given that we weren't anticipating much play and the golf course was theorized as ultra private and a sister to Greate Bay I really was ready to take a chance and let it be harder and faster than anything anyone had ever seen in this area. Truthfully my concerns were that the greens and the surrounds would be perfect and the rest of the place short, neat and really fast. So, without warp speed playing conditions made by the maintenance meld a lot of the angles and issues don't come into play for the expert. Moreover lots of us don't get the run envisioned to fit with some of the distances of the holes.


So, to answer my own question. Yes, something held me back and it wasn't the budget or constraints by site conditions. I will you that I had a blast building it and would love to try and do better!

[Tom_Doak]

A potentially big issue inhibiting creativity is health and safety issues. This makes some small, cool sites potentially unviable due not being able to use shared fairways and blind holes. Isn't this one reason 9 holers are now gaining some traction?

I am still waiting for the guy who randomly shapes the land before the holes are designed. I think this idea has great potential for using land not well suited to golf, but after shaping would allow the archie to discover holes as if it were virgin land and go from there.

Second paragraph first:  I love the idea, but if you were a client, would you pay for that approach?


I think the health & safety issues as an excuse why people are not more creative are just that -- an excuse.  I've built crossovers and tees hitting over greens and other such features, and had no issues with planning -- the only people who have to approve of that are the client's lawyers.

[Tom_Doak]

To what extent do those in the business consider that outside restrictions, constraints etc will increasingly effect how they do their business?

The hard part about "working with" the environmental agencies is that they want to steer the car, but they generally don't understand how golf works and why certain distances are important.  They see nothing wrong with a hole that requires a 180-yard tee shot and a 200-yard second shot over 100 yards of water. 


In such circumstances, all you can do is ask them to delineate the areas they want you to avoid, and try your best to design around those constraints.


Is it getting harder and harder over time?  Hard to say, it still depends on the exact location.  For example, was Coul Links impossibly hard, or easy as pie, if they'd just taken "no" for an answer?


Rumor has it that certain wetlands rules in the USA are about to be relaxed by the Trump administration . . . I am wondering if there are a bunch of people out there just waiting to get certain things approved and locked in while the window is open.  We are in final permitting for our course in California and the new interpretation of the law might make a lot of our headaches go away:  if the little ephemeral stream is no longer regulated federally, then the project is not in their jurisdiction, and rules about other issues also go away.  But no one can tell us for sure!

[Sean_A]

A potentially big issue inhibiting creativity is health and safety issues. This makes some small, cool sites potentially unviable due not being able to use shared fairways and blind holes. Isn't this one reason 9 holers are now gaining some traction?

I am still waiting for the guy who randomly shapes the land before the holes are designed. I think this idea has great potential for using land not well suited to golf, but after shaping would allow the archie to discover holes as if it were virgin land and go from there.

Second paragraph first:  I love the idea, but if you were a client, would you pay for that approach?

I think the health & safety issues as an excuse why people are not more creative are just that -- an excuse.  I've built crossovers and tees hitting over greens and other such features, and had no issues with planning -- the only people who have to approve of that are the client's lawyers.

Tom

A quite superficial response is it depends on the archie. I can't imagine getting in the golf course ownership business to make money. So I assume my would be wealthy self would be looking for something else from the ownership of a course. I have long been intrigued by the idea of explosives "destroying" a property then have a course routed over the land. The tunnel bombs of WWI really showed me how a cool  golf landscape could be created.

I agree H&S is used as an excuse for all sorts of doos and don'ts in architecture. However, I don't believe there is an archie alive today that has the freedom of a course designer from 130 years ago in terms of using space. Mind you, even then most designs were operating under the presumption of 9/18 holes. Which, along with primitive golf equipment, was probably why so much was jammed into such small spaces.

Ciao

[Tim Gavrich]

The most interesting thing about The Mulligan is, it's quite easy because many of the greens are in bowls and a ball might come back to the hole off a slope . . . I played it a couple of years ago in a mixed fivesome and there were a dozen times that it looked like someone might hole a tee shot.  I have never played a round of golf where the players were more excited and yelling after their shots.  The idea that courses have to be hard in order to be interesting is really put to rest there.  But, again, if I did that on a regulation sized course people would moan about how easy it is . . . I think we only got away with it because it's a par-3.

The way-more-often-than-usual opportunities for something exciting to happen to a ball on a green is part of why I love the Creek Club at Reynolds Lake Oconee (Engh). The extreme concavity of those greens makes long-range hole-outs and kick-in birdies a possibility on practically every hole, depending on the setup.


Of course the Creek Club is a regulation-size course. And I have heard it criticized precisely as Tom lays out above. But I think in this case that particular grievance is somewhat misplaced, because the Creek Club is one of half a dozen golf courses to which its members have regular access. If you want a more "traditional" course, you've got plenty of options. But I'm not sure of another private club membership that grants access to a big, audacious funhouse like the Creek Club. It's a great example of envelope-pushing GCA, IMO. It just results in a course where you'll likely play to your handicap or better.


Context is a consistently overlooked factor when assessing golf courses. It's easy to evaluate a course like the Creek Club or Tobacco Road by asking the question, "Would I want to play here every day?" But unlike most golf courses (for which that question is the central criterion of evaluation), CC and TR - and let's add Streamsong Black, another curio of a golf course - seem explicitly built for occasional play. And I think when you evaluate courses of this rarer sort, you should give them considerably more leeway, and possibly have an entirely different set of criteria for them.

[Thomas Dai]

Below is linked a video that folks might like to watch and then ask themselves the question - would you have more fun - and golf is essentially a leisure pastime for those of us not in the golf-business so it ought to as least be fun - playing something like this video shows and taking only in an hour or so to do so or in playing an ultra long, full spec course and taking 4-5 hrs to play it. Just curious.
See - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Zvz6DMQEvGE
Atb

[Ira Fishman]

I have wondered for some time why we tend to embrace pushing the envelope on old courses but not newer courses. Is it just a function of the economics of the golf market or old is better psychology or the interplay between the two? Would a hole like NB 13 be viewed on a new course just as a gimmick?


Ira

[Peter Pallotta]

Clients are no doubt 'conservative' (in the same way & for the same reasons that bankers and Hollywood studio execs are). And some architects are no doubt also conservative (for a variety of reasons), and use clients' wishes as their cover/excuse. But besides all that, what does "pushing the envelope" actually mean? How would it manifest itself? What I mean is: whenever this topic comes up, Desmond Muirhead's name is sure to follow. But, take someone like Tom D: he's built a reversible course, he's building a course that will be less than par 70, he's built 'freedom golf' and 'minimalist golf' and 'template golf' and 'desert/mountain golf' and 'back to back par type golf' etc etc. Where do you go from that/there? What idea/ideal is left to explore? 'Fairways as wide as they are long golf'? 'Greens smaller than tee boxes golf'? 'Completely hazard free golf'? Really, a real question -- besides the fun & marketing of saying we're "pushing the envelope", what does it actually mean and why should we want that?

[Reminds me of the Woody Allen film when our tormented film director asks the wise Aliens how he can best serve the world -- and they answer "Make funnier movies".]   

[Jeff_Brauer]

Peter,


My old bosses used to tout the "golden rule", i.e. he who has the gold rules. I believe that based on experience. And, I think even TD has rued some early attempts of his to design what he wanted, in battle of sorts with the owner.  It happens.



But your post struck me as to just how conservative the gca's are - If par something other than 72 is a major out of box thought for golf, and there is some evidence it is, then we are really, really conservative in our thoughts.


As you note, there are several practical aspects to golf design that sort of standardize things.  I think I posted this here once before, which I gleamed several of my philosophical books on design:


 Design Encompasses Function and Aesthetics – Golfers may notice aesthetics first, but they are often among the last things considered by designers.  Steve Jobs said, “Design is not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works.”  Architect Louis Sullivan coined the phrase, “Form Follows Function,”but later added, “But the building’s identity resides in the ornament.” 

Good design is good business - “People ignore design that ignores people.” (Architect Frank Chimero) Good design draws golfers, increasing revenues. 

Good and bad design are usually apparent, but great design is transparent - Golfers know bad design (they hate bad courses), but can’t pinpoint when great design makes a course “just feels right.”

“Everything is designed, but few things are designed well.”  If it’s worth doing, it’s worth doing right.  The only alternative to good design is bad design, which lasts 20 years, or is rebuilt again in 10.  You – and your architect should fight for good design, even if it drives you bananas.

Design is a collaborative effort between owner, users and architect– Architects don’t “come down the mountain” with perfect proposals.  Frank Lloyd Wright said, “I never design a building before I’ve seen the site and met the people who will be using it.” 

The Design Process is like the Scientific Process - Both are sequential, starting with site analysis and mission statements, followed by multiple “test” concepts.  After client review (which has resulted in, ahem, “spirited debates” (i.e. fisticuffs and food fights)) the final design is prepared.  It is usually a refinement of the best plan, or combination of the best attributes of several plans., which are again reviewed by the client.  It usually takes at least three rounds of planning, and sometimes, the process goes overtime! 

Except when it isn’t - Inspiration can strike at any moment.  Einstein said, “I never came upon my discoveries through the process of rational thinking.”  Architects prefer a sequential design process, but always remain open to new ideas, even if sometimes inconvenient for committees, and later, contractors!  But, really, is there ever a good reason not to make the permanent design better?

Design Is a Balancing Act that would make the Wallenda’s Proud - Design balances between budget/business/ practicality/logic/art/concept/engineering and detail.  While there are few universal design rights and wrongs, there is a best solution – one that solves most problems, without unduly sacrificing lesser concerns.  Sometimes in politics and design, everyone being somewhat unhappy is a sign of a well-balanced solution!

The Architect has many masters - Architects have multiple constituents/obligations beyond the committee, to consider; including legally to regulatory bodies, morally to golfers, financially to banks, practically to superintendents, ethically to the community and the environment, and even golf course critics. 

Constraints are good – If “creativity is the Mother of invention”, problems become opportunities for unique designs.  Don’t lament over your constraints.

Complaints are good – Alister MacKenzie knew good designs cause a few complaints.  If not, he worried something was wrong.

Simplicity Pays  - Einstein also once said, “We should make things as simple as they can be, but not simpler.”  All things being equal, the best design is the simplest one and complicated ones are often a sign of poor concept.

A picture truly is worth a thousand words (and better than plans) when Explaining - If your architect has 3D graphic capabilities, by all means, pay more to use it for your own understanding.

From (Colin Wright) concerning the difference between “pure art” and golf course design - “Art is like masturbation. It is done for you alone. Design is like sex. There is someone else involved, their needs are just as important as your own, and if everything goes right, both parties are happy in the end.”
 

[Peter Flory]

Think how frustrated tennis court architects must get. 

[Tom_Doak]

Think how frustrated tennis court architects must get.

A project that I was working on in 2007-08 [that died when the SHTF] was going to have an Andre Agassi / Steffi Graf designed tennis facility alongside the golf course.      Bummed that they missed all the planning meetings I attended.

[Tom_Doak]

My old bosses used to tout the "golden rule", i.e. he who has the gold rules. I believe that based on experience. And, I think even TD has rued some early attempts of his to design what he wanted, in battle of sorts with the owner.  It happens.

But your post struck me as to just how conservative the gca's are - If par something other than 72 is a major out of box thought for golf, and there is some evidence it is, then we are really, really conservative in our thoughts.

Jeff:


That was a nice bunch of quotes you assembled.  I will think a little about them before responding.


I don't think I've ever said I rued my attempts to design what I wanted.  I just did not have the people skills to deal with the clients better in my early days.  Most of them being 20-30 years older than me was part of the problem, it was like dealing with an authority figure and I've always had problems with that, even today.


In working on my routing book, I've had cause to reflect on all of those early projects, and how they got to be the way they are [or were].  The only two where I had real disagreements with the client were High Pointe [all coming after the golf course was complete] and The Legends [when we started the third course, not the first].  On the latter, I had assumed that because we got on so well for the first course, I'd have more slack to do what I wanted -- but in fact, I had less, because now the client's office was on site instead of 30 minutes away.


In reality, I just didn't ask those clients well enough in the beginning what their idea of success was, so that I could tailor my design ideas [and how I presented them] toward their own wishes.  That's a really important step, because the differences between your clients can also be used as features that differentiate your own courses from one another.


Strangely, I got a lot better at that by interacting with Mike Keiser and understanding what he wanted, so I could do it with my own spin . . . but then Mike sometimes seems to think I should build every course to his ideals, even though the clients for Streamsong and Ballyneal had different input than Mike did.


One of the interesting things about Tara Iti was that I tied a good % of my fee toward achieving the client's goal, because I knew that would appeal to Mr. Kayne.  But, once we'd agreed on that, I realized and noted that meant Ric would have to give me the freedom to achieve the goal as I thought best, which wasn't really what I'd intended.  We would spend some time together whenever I visited so I could get feedback from him as we were building the holes, but there was only one where he said he was disappointed by the outcome, and I wound up agreeing and changing that hole, just after the seed had started to germinate.


P.S.  The one quote I saw that I didn't agree with was the one about the architect having so many "masters".  Thinking about it that way would drive me bananas.  It's much easier to incorporate all of the above by saying that I answer to my own conscience.

[Joe Bausch]

For those wanting to see photos of the two courses Archie mentions at the beginning of the thread, go here:

http://www80.homepage.villanova.edu/joseph.bausch/images/albums/RunningDeer/index.html

I'm a big fan of Running Deer.  In particular the 3rd hole, a par 4 that just fits my eye.

Joe:


Thanks for the photo tour of Running Deer.  I don't normally sit through an entire slide show but that one kept me tuned in.


Honestly, it looks like four different guys took turns building the holes, as some are guarded by mounds, some pinched by bunkers, some defended by cross hazards, and others by waste areas or trees!  Most designers would feel forced to "pick one," but the opposite viewpoint is that it looks like there's something for every golfer to like.  And it also looks like a set of consistently interesting greens.

For those just wanting to see a subset of the Running Deer photos, here is my personal fave of the par 4 3rd hole:



All photos below clickable to a larger size:

[Tim Leahy]

To what extent do those in the business consider that outside restrictions, constraints etc will increasingly effect how they do their business?

The hard part about "working with" the environmental agencies is that they want to steer the car, but they generally don't understand how golf works and why certain distances are important.  They see nothing wrong with a hole that requires a 180-yard tee shot and a 200-yard second shot over 100 yards of water. 


In such circumstances, all you can do is ask them to delineate the areas they want you to avoid, and try your best to design around those constraints.


Is it getting harder and harder over time?  Hard to say, it still depends on the exact location.  For example, was Coul Links impossibly hard, or easy as pie, if they'd just taken "no" for an answer?


Rumor has it that certain wetlands rules in the USA are about to be relaxed by the Trump administration . . . I am wondering if there are a bunch of people out there just waiting to get certain things approved and locked in while the window is open.  We are in final permitting for our course in California and the new interpretation of the law might make a lot of our headaches go away:  if the little ephemeral stream is no longer regulated federally, then the project is not in their jurisdiction, and rules about other issues also go away.  But no one can tell us for sure!

Where is the new course in Cali to be located? Is it the one in Napa Valley?

[archie_struthers]

 




Joe those are some great pictures of Running Deer.


 The 11th is one of my favorite holes there just because the  green sits so well in that little pocket with the water left and front. It's just a little too short IMO and would have been just outstanding if it was 50 yards longer. How do you like that hole?

[Joe Bausch]

Joe those are some great pictures of Running Deer.

The 11th is one of my favorite holes there just because the  green sits so well in that little pocket with the water left and front. It's just a little too short IMO and would have been just outstanding if it was 50 yards longer. How do you like that hole?

Oh yes, the 11th is very good too!

Get this:  I played there in June 2013 and it was hot and not crowded.  I'm playing as a single taking things in.  The first hole is a nice firm handshake.  I'm taking a photo from behind the green, then out of nowhere I'm nearly run over by a running deer at Running Deer!



Here she is a couple of minutes later nursing her little one by the 2nd tee:

[Peter Flory]

All you have to do is leave it below the hole, right? 

[Kalen Braley]

Jeff,

Excellent post, some very sage advice in there.  However, this one I never understood.

Complaints are good – Alister MacKenzie knew good designs cause a few complaints.  If not, he worried something was wrong.

In thinking about the courses I've played that I would categorize as great, I can't think of anything to complain about, even if I may have a couple of small quibbles.  But IMO there is no such thing as a perfect golf course, so this will always be the case.

For example a course like CPC, my only complaint would be #18, but even Dr. MacK would be aghast if he saw how they let the Cypress trees overrun the hole, so I can't hold that against him.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff:


That was a nice bunch of quotes you assembled.  I will think a little about them before responding.


I don't think I've ever said I rued my attempts to design what I wanted.  I just did not have the people skills to deal with the clients better in my early days.  Most of them being 20-30 years older than me was part of the problem, it was like dealing with an authority figure and I've always had problems with that, even today.


In working on my routing book, I've had cause to reflect on all of those early projects, and how they got to be the way they are [or were].  The only two where I had real disagreements with the client were High Pointe [all coming after the golf course was complete] and The Legends [when we started the third course, not the first].  On the latter, I had assumed that because we got on so well for the first course, I'd have more slack to do what I wanted -- but in fact, I had less, because now the client's office was on site instead of 30 minutes away.


In reality, I just didn't ask those clients well enough in the beginning what their idea of success was, so that I could tailor my design ideas [and how I presented them] toward their own wishes.  That's a really important step, because the differences between your clients can also be used as features that differentiate your own courses from one another.


Strangely, I got a lot better at that by interacting with Mike Keiser and understanding what he wanted, so I could do it with my own spin . . . but then Mike sometimes seems to think I should build every course to his ideals, even though the clients for Streamsong and Ballyneal had different input than Mike did.


One of the interesting things about Tara Iti was that I tied a good % of my fee toward achieving the client's goal, because I knew that would appeal to Mr. Kayne.  But, once we'd agreed on that, I realized and noted that meant Ric would have to give me the freedom to achieve the goal as I thought best, which wasn't really what I'd intended.  We would spend some time together whenever I visited so I could get feedback from him as we were building the holes, but there was only one where he said he was disappointed by the outcome, and I wound up agreeing and changing that hole, just after the seed had started to germinate.


P.S.  The one quote I saw that I didn't agree with was the one about the architect having so many "masters".  Thinking about it that way would drive me bananas.  It's much easier to incorporate all of the above by saying that I answer to my own conscience.

Tom,


I was hesitant to bring it up, because as I age, while I have a good memory, I am sort of like the weatherman who once told me he got it right 80% of 80% of the time.  Glad I didn't offend too much (my people skills still aren't all that great.)


Gotta ask what people skills MK taught you?  Something like, "Everything you say should sound like it came from a greeting card?"


As far as those quotes, at some point, either when doing La Costa or later visiting the area, we ran up the coast to one of those little seaside towns and found a book store that had a section on architecture and design, with a bunch of books of quotes among other things.  I really enjoyed the "find."  There are a bunch of them, titled "The designer says....," "The Engineer Says," "Things I learned in design school," and

"Things I learned in Urban Planning School."

[/size]

[/size][/color]

Certainly fun to pull out whenever I start to feel jaded.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff - thanks for your post/reply.
I've changed my mind over the years about gca (and many other arts-crafts), and now have a different perspective than I did 10 (and certainly 20 or 30) years ago:
I don't need golf courses (or gca or art/music) to be *different*, I just want them to be *better*.
And 'better', I think, is a lot harder to pull off than 'different'.   

[Bernie Bell]

Running Deer looks pretty cool.  Is Ron Jaworski pushing the envelope in terms of course ownership and operation?  Is he in the sweet spot for post-Covid US golf? 

[Tom_Doak]

Gotta ask what people skills MK taught you?  Something like, "Everything you say should sound like it came from a greeting card?"

I didn't mean that Mike had taught me people skills, so much as that I learned a lot about how to do things by having a good relationship with Mike -- and with Jeff Shearer, from Lost Dunes, before him.


The one thing Mike did do, that most other clients typically do not, was take time to get to know me.  He visited multiple projects of mine, and invited me on a golf trip to Ireland with some of his friends -- partly so he could pick my brain about links golf, but also partly just to establish a dialogue.  And that was four years before we started work on Pacific Dunes!  Thus, going forward, it was much easier to treat our interactions as "a conversation" rather than "an order from the client".  I realized that on some earlier projects I had tried to avoid confrontation by just ploughing ahead and avoiding any conversation.


Of course, it's hard to make that much time for clients when you are busy, and some clients don't have much time for us, either -- but Mike clearly made the effort, and showing how important the project was to him made me want to include him in the conversation. 


Also, as I mentioned before, it got easier to relate to clients when I was 35 or 40 than when I was 25 -- I just felt less defensive over time.  Nowadays, I am having to adjust again, as some clients are YOUNGER than I am, which is really weird for me; for 40-50 years I was always the youngest guy in the room.