[JohnVDB]

Those who were on thi site back in the beginning will remember that Mike was contributor here and truly doe enjoy looking at architectural issues.

[Steve Lapper]

Yes, I think Joel Stewart is partly right when insinuating that this new combination will reflect a targeted marketing approach for future USGA tournaments.That said, I doubt this team will oust the Hanse/Wagner or Coore/Crenshaw from their current leadership slots.

No, but when Bill & Ben retire from that work, guys like Nuzzo and Forrest R are now less likely to have a shot at it because of the new guy with the inside track.  And the same goes for new projects.


I do believe that everyone should pursue their dreams, but at the same time, it's sad that the market only has room for a few winners, and it is so skewed in favor of name recognition.  It took me twenty years of work to become an overnight success!


 The real hypocrisy is that most of the guys who look sideways at golf pros-turned-architects all have their own route plotted out, and none of their plans involve actually working for someone else to learn the ropes. It's more like "I will get us work, and you will give me partial credit and have to listen to some of my ideas while I learn."  Which is exactly the same path as the pros who are criticized for doing it.

+1

[PCCraig]

Considering some of the absolute hacks that are getting renovation/restoration work these days at some pretty decent clubs, there seems to be enough work to go around.


The number of clubs that can afford a C&C or Hanse renovation are probably 0.001% of US clubs already, let alone ones that actually have a chance of securing a US Open. That leaves a lot of work below that. If Mike and Tommy are mostly positioning themselves as renovation/restoration folks, I'm sure they'll find some old fart boards to will buy the BS of Mike Davis being on TV sulking around greens at Twilight.


Maybe that takes away work from really good younger architects, but did those young good architects really want to work for the type of board that would hire Fazio II/Davis??

[Forrest Richardson]

Thomas Dai — I am not sure who you were asking, but as to how anyone goes about hiring a "golf course architect", I think the questions are (1) Are they a golf course architect? and (2) Haven't we seen it all...novices, seasoned 100+ portfolio individuals, and one-hit wonders? Clients and clubs hire who they will. I don't see that changing. The scale is wide. From "being the the right place at the right time" to "who you know" to "a great run of great work" to "God knows why".

In Mike's case I read that he will spend time over the next year with Hanse and Coore on projects. Then, join Mr. Fazio II. I am not even certain Mike will "do" the designing. Maybe he'll start out consulting, weighing in and ... then ... transition. I cannot say, and I'm not sure that has been covered, nor could it perhaps at this early date. I just wish him well. Not many people get to have two careers. In Mike's case, it may be closer to three as he had a life before the USGA we rarely hear about. Hats off.

[Garland Bayley]

Would you hire him to design a course for you? Just asking.
atb

Not after seeing what he did to Chambers Bay.

[Michael George]

I do believe that everyone should pursue their dreams, but at the same time, it's sad that the market only has room for a few winners, and it is so skewed in favor of name recognition.  It took me twenty years of work to become an overnight success

Tom - I couldn't agree more.  There are incredibly talented young architects trying to forge a name for themselves who have paid their dues and learned their craft. Meanwhile, you have guys with a last name like Jones, Nicklaus or Fazio and guys like Mike Davis taking opportunities that would have otherwise allowed these young talented guys to really show their abilities.  Also, to think that he will not use his influence with the USGA is foolish.  It is pretty much all that he has to sell, given that he hasn't paid his dues to actually learn the craft.

If Hanse and Coore Crenshaw are going to allow him to spend time on projects, I hope that they require him to get his hands dirty and do some work.  Otherwise, they are doing a disservice to every "guy in the field" that worked hard under them to learn their craft

[Kalen Braley]

I'm not seeing much difference between Mike and a pro with a name teaming up with an architect to become a co-architect themselves.  Like it or not, celebrity in its various forms often wins the day and this isn't the only niche where its so...

[Tim Martin]

It’s hard for me to fathom that there are those that begrudge Mike Davis a career in golf course architecture. His tenure with the USGA exceeds thirty years and I’ll go out on a limb and say he’s made a fair amount of connections in the world of golf. He has always seemed like a genuinely nice man who has handled himself with grace under some tough questioning as it pertains to the USGA. I agree that there are a lot of deserving young guys out there but I’m at least willing to give Mike a shot going forward.

[Terry Lavin]

I got to know Mike Davis while volunteering on a couple USGA championships. He is both smart and educable. He is very well versed in golf course architecture, even if some would scoff at USGA dictated changes on courses hosting USGA events.


This decision strikes me as a move by a man who wants his final professional occupation to help him hone in on his real passion. Pretty solid decision making.

[Paul Jones]

I am happy for Mike and glad he is following his passion.  I am surprised that more people (especially on this board) are not more supportive. I am guessing quite a few people would love to retire after 30+ years and start a new life tagging along with Hanse and/or CC to learn more about golf course architecture.

[Phil McDade]

Would you hire him to design a course for you? Just asking.
atb

Not after seeing what he did to Chambers Bay.

Or Erin Hills

[Tim Martin]

Would you hire him to design a course for you? Just asking.
atb

Not after seeing what he did to Chambers Bay.

Or Erin Hills

You can blame him for the setup but he wasn’t the architect. Being tasked with setting up these courses one specific week a year for the greatest players on earth is no easy feat. Especially when the USGA ethos has been to try to keep the winning score around par.

[Garland Bayley]

Would you hire him to design a course for you? Just asking.
atb

Not after seeing what he did to Chambers Bay.

Or Erin Hills

You can blame him for the setup but he wasn’t the architect. Being tasked with setting up these courses one specific week a year for the greatest players on earth is no easy feat. Especially when the USGA ethos has been to try to keep the winning score around par.

I am not sure what he did at Erin Hills, but he rearchitected holes at Chambers Bay.

[William_G]

so what I am reading here is being the President/CEO of the USGA was not his passion? really?? sounds like it was a great gig to me

[Dan Boerger]

Those making a living as golf course architects obviously know what it takes to succeed.


As someone who only took part in numerous meetings (I was not a decision maker of any sort) with an architect as he and his team restored our course, I observed a lot of tedious discussions, hard work, less than glamorous tasks, weather challenges, etc. that go into that profession.


My guess is that Mike Davis may snag some low hanging fruit (I'm guessing his relationships run far, wide and deep), but I will, of course, wait to see how his long ball game is in the years to come. Always room for good people in any profession, however.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Being critical of Davis's choice of partner is different from being critical of him for following a passion.Golf Club Atlas has been debating architecture for over 20 years.
There have been many discussions about architects and the great work they are creating, many unheard of previously.
Based on the number of discussions of Davis's chosen partner, I would say this crowd sourced forum would have chosen someone else for a partner.
Unless art wasn't the first priority, then the business impacts would need to be further understood.
Which is similar to the USGA caring more about the business of golf than the game.

[Ira Fishman]

I am happy for Mike and glad he is following his passion.  I am surprised that more people (especially on this board) are not more supportive. I am guessing quite a few people would love to retire after 30+ years and start a new life tagging along with Hanse and/or CC to learn more about golf course architecture.

+1. If any architects reading this are interested in me, please PM. Of course you would have to teach me how to read a topo map.

[Phil McDade]

Would you hire him to design a course for you? Just asking.
atb

Not after seeing what he did to Chambers Bay.

Or Erin Hills

You can blame him for the setup but he wasn’t the architect. Being tasked with setting up these courses one specific week a year for the greatest players on earth is no easy feat. Especially when the USGA ethos has been to try to keep the winning score around par.

Tim:


Erin Hills was Davis' personal playpen. All the changes made to its original design and layout -- the lost Dell (which, I didn't think a great version of the type, but nonetheless original to the first design), the neutered blind 17th approach, the advent of all those bunkers -- were done with the intent of hosting a US Open, and Davis ran the USGA (and directed many of the changes) while all that was going on.

[Peter Pallotta]

Only a Scrooge wouldn't be glad to see someone pursuing what he/she loves. I don't know Mike D at all, but I'm happy for him taking this next step in his working life. But this is a discussion board, and there is Mike D the person and then there's "Mike Davis-USGA" -- championship set-up man, promotor of public venues, and organizational guiding light on all things rules & equipment related. And it's *that* Mike Davis it seems appropriate to discuss here, ie what type are architect might he be? given his past professional decisions, what's his vision for the game and its fields of play, and his ethos and ideals re: design in the current environment?

[Terry Lavin]

Would you hire him to design a course for you? Just asking.
atb

Not after seeing what he did to Chambers Bay.

Or Erin Hills

You can blame him for the setup but he wasn’t the architect. Being tasked with setting up these courses one specific week a year for the greatest players on earth is no easy feat. Especially when the USGA ethos has been to try to keep the winning score around par.

Tim:


Erin Hills was Davis' personal playpen. All the changes made to its original design and layout -- the lost Dell (which, I didn't think a great version of the type, but nonetheless original to the first design), the neutered blind 17th approach, the advent of all those bunkers -- were done with the intent of hosting a US Open, and Davis ran the USGA (and directed many of the changes) while all that was going on.

But he didn’t make the course soft. Mother Nature did that. Erin Hills has a lot of defense, but that got neutered a lot by the June weather in Wisconsin, don’t you think?  One might quibble with some setup decisions but the soft turf made the course easy prey.

[Tom_Doak]

Only a Scrooge wouldn't be glad to see someone pursuing what he/she loves. I don't know Mike D at all, but I'm happy for him taking this next step in his working life. But this is a discussion board, and there is Mike D the person and then there's "Mike Davis-USGA" -- championship set-up man, promotor of public venues, and organizational guiding light on all things rules & equipment related. And it's *that* Mike Davis it seems appropriate to discuss here, ie what type are architect might he be? given his past professional decisions, what's his vision for the game and its fields of play, and his ethos and ideals re: design in the current environment?

One observation I've had about the input of Ben Crenshaw in design, and, so far, the impact of Tiger Woods in design, is that neither one cares much about building a "championship" course.  They know better than anyone that most courses are not going to host championships, and that most golfers cannot play to that standard.  And because of who they are, no one ever second-guesses them about it, and tells Tiger he should make the course longer.


I'd guess that Mike Davis knows all of that, too.  But the irony is that telling potential clients to forget about hosting tournaments might be turning away the subset of projects where he'd be most likely to appeal to clients.  So the style of golf he builds must depend on what his business model will be.


It was easier for me to find my own niche.  Nobody wanted to hire me to build a championship course, and my name didn't sell housing, so the only niche I could find was knowing what to do with beautiful property!  Oh, and doing right in the restoration of under-appreciated classic courses.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, Tom.
Yes, not surprising that the amateur observer (ie me) talks of vision and ideals while the busy professional (you) notes too the importance of a business model.
Which makes me wonder if MD will be able (or even want) to choose his business model or if instead that choice will be made for him -- and indeed may already have been made.

[Tom_Doak]

Thanks, Tom.
Yes, not surprising that the amateur observer (ie me) talks of vision and ideals while the busy professional (you) notes too the importance of a business model.
Which makes me wonder if MD will be able (or even want) to choose his business model or if instead that choice will be made for him -- and indeed may already have been made.

If you really want to, you can choose your own niche, but you can't be sure you'll be successful in it.  So 95% of designers are happy to take on any job that comes their way.  It's only once you become successful that your true motivations start to become apparent.


I forgot to write about it in my book, but I actually turned down one or two opportunities to build courses just before I started High Pointe.  One of them seemed like a vanity project and I didn't believe it would still be around in ten or twenty years.  Oddly, I was right about the first part, but it still outlasted High Pointe! 

[Sean_A]

I am happy for Mike and glad he is following his passion.  I am surprised that more people (especially on this board) are not more supportive. I am guessing quite a few people would love to retire after 30+ years and start a new life tagging along with Hanse and/or CC to learn more about golf course architecture.

I have no issues with anybody getting into the architecture business, but I don't feel any need to be supportive. I don't know the man nor do I know what his design philosophy is. Not bothered seems a reasonable way to feel about this career change.

Ciao

[Don Mahaffey]

If Mike Davis ends up doing what he loves (my guess is he has a nice pension) in the golf architecture world then more power to him. If clubs hire him hoping he can lobby the USGA to earn championships, then I'm not a fan.  We will see.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()