New firm - Whitman, Axland and Cutten, GCA

[Mike_Young]

Website looked good to me.  I understand what TD is saying but looking at the site it explains itself quickly.  I love to see design/build guys.  You know they have actually been there doing it.  And you all know these guys are real.

Some of you should take a few hours sometimes and just check the websites of some of these dudes that have gone on their own after working for others.  They  might not have a single course they have done on their own and "consulting" is such a broad term..there are guys who have done master plans of prominent courses without being asked by the course for such and then noted them in publications and on their sites. 

These guys have done good work.  And there are so many others that are such easy targets for the BS that goes on in this business.  Most  anyone can build a Ross bunker or take an old plan and bid out having it copied by a competent shaper..and yet they still get "effed up " all the time. 

It's the routing skill that counts in the end...  just like there are a lot guys that can redo your kitchen after the house has been built but many of those could not build the house...that's the problem across the board in this business and many clients don't understand that...
Congrats on the new company guys...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,


I agree that routing skill should be considered essential to the profession.  As we have discussed, there may be many, many guys in the next gen that don't have the opportunity to route as many courses as we did.


Seems like there are mini-booms in new courses every 10 years, and the big booms come about every 60-70 years, followed by a big dearth as the economy goes boom and bust. (i.e., 1920's-1990's, minus a lost decade or so) so maybe 2050 until the next big new course construction era?  Depending on timing, many won't have a big chance, especially if past patterns of the top 5-10 gca's getting 80% of the big work continues........


You and I are both members of the "lucky timing" club.

[John Mayhugh]

Hard to believe how ugly the backdrop on 7 at Prairie Dunes was.
pd 7 appr 2008 by john mayhugh, on Flickr

So much better.

P1070026 by john mayhugh, on Flickr

[Kalen Braley]

As one whose spent my career in the Software QA business, I've tested Websites, Windows and Linux Applications, Embedded Software, Firmware, Databases, Hardware, etc.

I think all the viewpoints are pretty valid and there is certainly no one right way to build a site. Its really about the message(s) one wants to convey and what is most important. I looked at the sites for RGD, Jeff, and WAC and they all have their strengths as well as items that could be improved.

[Mark_Fine]

Who should get credit has been discussed here many times and will always be a source of debate in golf course architecture.


Mike,
Don’t snub your nose at those guys that come in and do renovations on kitchens, etc.  My wife just completed a complete house renovation down in Hilton Head and the work the contractor did is nothing short of stunning.  It is far better design and craftsmanship than what the original builder did when the home was first built.  If someone sees that house now, the original builder will still "get the credit" but the guy who did our renovation work was the real genius. 


I still poke Tom Doak once in a while about Cherry Hills CC in Denver.  There were a lot of politics involved as Tom knows, but I spent 4 years working with that club and even Eric Iverson acknowledged when I visited during construction that "70% of what I had in my Master Plan was used in the restoration/renovation”.  Tom knows for example it was my idea to move the 8th green 60 yards forward (which I hate to do on restoration projects) but it solved so many problems as it was a claustrophobic part of the golf course.  That design change was a critical piece of the puzzle as it freed up much needed space for a course that prides itself on holding major championships.  Cherry Hills is at elevation and the change allowed for added length for new back tees on #9, #16, and #5.  It also allowed the 8th green to be reoriented properly (the original teeing grounds had changed) as well as for allowing an added 70 plus yards of length to the hole.  15 years later and I am still waiting for the footnote of credit on Tom's website 


I thought the WAC site looks great.  I wish them the best   

[Keith Cutten]

I thought the WAC site looks great.  I wish them the best 

Thank you Mark!

[Tom_Doak]

Belittle?   

Since when did advice on how to properly represent your work amount to belittling?

Thank you Garland.


I've known Dave Axland and Rod Whitman for 30 and 37 years, respectively, and I have a great deal of respect for both of them.  The idea that I was belittling them -- or worrying about how their portrayal of work affected my career -- is ridiculous.  I've been trying to get OUT of the consulting business for some time, although I did recently agree to take on a couple more special projects.


My own web site is at doakgolf.com and you won't find photos of Royal Melbourne or Bel Air mixed in with my own designs.  Likewise, even the renaissancegolf.com web site [which is for my associates] very clearly separates Consulting work from New Projects.  Having recently spent a fair amount of time building a new site, I realize that sometimes the web designers' "pictures first" and SEO machinations come into play, too.


But still, as Jeff B. says, it's a pet peeve of mine and I'd like to see it done right. It certainly wasn't personal toward Dave or Rod, and I am sorry that some thought so.  But that's part of the reason why there is so much exaggeration and bending the credits on many designers' sites -- because people in the business won't call it out.

[Ira Fishman]

Never mind. The contradictions in your post speak for themselves.


Ira

[Rob Marshall]

The only issue is the “all” tab.

[Kevin_Reilly]

The only issue is the “all” tab.

Ha...yes, that was *so* misleading.


Sheesh.

[Rob Marshall]

The only issue is the “all” tab.

Ha...yes, that was *so* misleading.


Sheesh.

Ha, agree. Hit the consulting tab and it’s all there.

[Mike_Young]

Who should get credit has been discussed here many times and will always be a source of debate in golf course architecture.


Mike,
Don’t snub your nose at those guys that come in and do renovations on kitchens, etc.  My wife just completed a complete house renovation down in Hilton Head and the work the contractor dmes and was a cabid is nothing short of stunning.  It is far better design and craftsmanship than what the original builder did when the home was first built.  If someone sees that house now, the original builder will still "get the credit" but the guy who did our renovation work was the real genius. 

Mark,I grew up with a grandfather who built homes and was a cabinetmaker.  I was in the cabinet and millwork business after school until I sold it and got into golf business in my mid 20's.  I wokred under a guy for 3 months in the mid 70's to learn something of Queen Anne furniture making.  I still have all of my tools.  I would never snub my nose a good cabinetmakers.  Now I might at some of the kitchen designers who could not operate the table saw or cut a mortise with a chisel.

[Jeff Schley]

..there are guys who have done master plans of prominent courses without being asked by the course for such and then noted them in publications and on their sites. 

Whoa.... are these people's names we would recognize? That is very misleading at best and outright misrepresentation (fraud) at worst.

I haven't kicked the tires on many GCA's websites.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
i think we are mostly in agreement.  There will always be BS tossed around in every business but that usually gets sorted out over time.  As you know, if you are not doing good work in this space you won't last very long.  Word travels too quickly.  I also agree that routing a golf course is without question a special skill.  But as you also know, there are VERY FEW new courses getting built these days and most of those projects are high end and go to the celebrity architects.  The rest of us are stuck with working on existing courses and believe me, there are many courses out there that would benefit from some proper attention.  Furthermore, there are FAR MORE rounds played on the courses that are rarely if ever discussed on this website (the ones the rest of us work on) and that work should be respected and appreciated as well.  The reason the celebrity architects don't go after that work is most wouldn't care to spend their time on them or have any interest in figuring out how to do something special with little to no budget.  They also don't have interest in working on courses that won't end up in the golf publications or on some top 100 list.  Good for them, but don't discount the work the rest of us are doing as we are (hopefully doing our best) to make courses more fun, more interesting, more enjoyable, more sustainable, ..., for many many golfers.  Credit should be given where credit is due. 


Mark