ThreadJack: Crenshaw's role in C & C

[Jim Hoak]

I have worked with Coore and Crenshaw on a project (unnamed) for over 10 years, so on this subject I think I am very qualified to give an opinion. 
In sum, they are a great team and neither dominates the decision-making.  Ben is very qualified to give an opinion of how a hole should play, what is fair and proper, and the essence of the golf-aspect of the course and the flow.  He is far more qualified than any other former Tour player than I have ever seen at course architecture, and has knowledge and a love for the history of golf and its courses that is better than anyone I know.  He is thoughtful, reserved, patient and easy to work with.  He is absolutely not a "face." 
Bill Coore--as Mike Keiser has said--is "the smartest man in golf."  He has all of Ben's traits--they could be brothers--plus a technical competence from having been a course superintendent.  Bill and Ben work together and equally on almost all projects.  Bill never makes a significant decision of any sort without talking with Ben.
They work totally together; no decisions except very small ones are made by one person alone.  They are a perfect team in all that that means.  Absolutely neither is the dominant partner.  They are a constant joy to work with!

[John Kavanaugh]

Why couldn't Tom Kite parlay his look into being the smartest man in golf?

[John Kavanaugh]

From tomkitedesign.com

Kite is known as one of the most innovative players on the PGA Tour. His ability to think outside the box in the search of solutions can be detailed in the fact that he was the first professional golfer to employ the three wedge system, now used by practically all tour players. He also was one of the first to include a fitness regime and use of a sports psychologist as part of his practice routine. In a decision that at the time was revolutionary, Kite was the first on the PGA Tour to have LASIK surgery to correct his nearsightedness, a move that went on to improve his golf game. The same creativity, boldness and attention to detail are what one can expect with a Tom Kite Design golf course. Kite chooses only a few projects to get involved with at any one time insuring a hands-on approach that is invaluable to the design process.

[Kalen Braley]

Given that its C&C does it really matter who does what?

Big difference between these guys taking dual attribution and an ex-pro that fronts a design shop, shows up for photo shoots and opening day, while doing little else....but is then the sole name on the design.

Agree with William, nuff said, C&C has a great thing going and no doubt have nothing to prove to anyone...

Sorry Kalen, don't agree. "Nuff said" is an attempt to shut down discussion on a discussion board ffs. If you don't agree with Ron's OP then say why you don't agree but let people discuss. And as Ron himself said, the interview referred to was 21 years ago. When I think of my own career, what I am doing now is very much different to what I was doing 21 years ago and I work in the same profession. It's not unreasonable to think that C&C's working relationship might have moved on in the same timescale.

Niall

Niall,

My first sentence was the reason.  They work as a team, they both take attribution, so beyond that doesn't matter.

But if you want further explanation, please see AG's comment in Reply #24, he detailed it perfectly.

[John Kavanaugh]

Why is it alright to openly question Doak vs Koepka?

[Jeff_Brauer]

For one, they aren't design partners in a company (corporation or otherwise) but just put together, probably under separate contracts to somehow co-design a golf course.  C and C are partners (or whatever their actual biz arrangement is.


I don't know any specifics about their Houston project.  But in the many I have done under similar arrangements, the pros sort of use their endorsement and/or appearance contracts as a base, throw in a bit of language about design reviews, and a lot of language (if they are smart, but not every agent or pro consultant is aware of potential problems) about limiting the pro's liability for design.  For gca's, I would bet most would say, "if you ain't liable, you aren't the designer!"

[John Kavanaugh]

For one, they aren't design partners in a company (corporation or otherwise) but just put together, probably under separate contracts to somehow co-design a golf course.  C and C are partners (or whatever their actual biz arrangement is.


I don't know any specifics about their Houston project.  But in the many I have done under similar arrangements, the pros sort of use their endorsement and/or appearance contracts as a base, throw in a bit of language about design reviews, and a lot of language (if they are smart, but not every agent or pro consultant is aware of potential problems) about limiting the pro's liability for design.  For gca's, I would bet most would say, "if you ain't liable, you aren't the designer!"

Crenshaw is the one pro golfer in the world that is above being questioned on this site. I don't understand why.


I did go and look at multiple Masters winners thinking that perhaps that was the excuse. Didn't fly.


I also have an affection for Crenshaw that I can't explain.

[John Kavanaugh]

My memory could be failing me but didn't Doak give one of Coore's early solo projects a zero?

[Jeff_Brauer]

JK,


Crenshaw has quoted several design books from the Golden Age, so I think most, here and elsewhere give him credit for studying, really studying, gca.  A lot of pros don't get by "editing" designs of others without creating.  And, those "edits" are often very self serving, starting with "What if I hit it here?"

[Mike Bodo]

On the other hand, all the Beatles songs were said to be written by Lennon-McCartney, but 50 years later, there are books, blogs, and even a mathematical algorithm dedicated to figuring out who wrote each song, down to parts thereof.  Curious minds want to know, I guess.

That's kinda where I was coming at from all this. In many respects, Coore and Crenshaw is to the golf world what Lennon - McCartney's was to Rock 'n Roll. It's fair to assume on any Beatles record the songs John sang were mostly written by him and the same for Paul. On every Beatles album I would count the number of songs each had to determine who was more the driving force of the band at the time. In the early years John carried more of the weight. In the latter years Paul did. To transpose this to Coore and Crenshaw, it would be interesting know on any given course that bears the twos name who had more of a hand in the creation of holes and possibly debate whose holes were better. It's an entertaining exercise, if nothing else. However, given the privacy of their relationship I'm guessing we'll never know.


What I do know is that I'm impressed with Ben's knowledge of golf course architecture and his reverence for the past masters of the vocation. He's literally a walking encyclopedia. How that translates to his actual work with Bill Coore I have no idea, but he's very well-spoken and knowledgeable on the subject of golf course design.

[John Kavanaugh]

I've always thought this whole book thing was a bunch of malarky. If you can't be like em read like em.

[Mike Bodo]

Why couldn't Tom Kite parlay his look into being the smartest man in golf?

Because Bryson took that distinguished honor away from him. 

[John Kavanaugh]

Why couldn't Tom Kite parlay his look into being the smartest man in golf?

Because Bryson took that distinguished honor away from him. 

People with fat necks are never embraced in polite society.

[Steve Lang]

   fat neck folk misunderstood


https://youtu.be/fwNJla8WvoY


they're only pawns in game of life

[Jeff_Brauer]

I've always thought this whole book thing was a bunch of malarky. If you can't be like em read like em.

Fair enough, there are plenty of art/music professors who can explain great art to you, but could never create it.  For that matter, plenty of gca critics who couldn't create anything from scratch either.  Hence, I guess, the topic.

[Dan_Callahan]

Wasn't there all sorts of speculation on here about who made what decisions at Sebonack?

There have also been thousands of pages devoted to who gets credit at courses like Pine Valley, Shinnecock, etc.

I think that sort of inquiry is only natural on a message board devoted to golf course architecture.

I will also say, with respect to Coore/Crenshaw, that I have loved almost all of their courses I have played. Having said that, one of their courses that always does very well in the rankings I thought was good but would never crack any of these lists if their name wasn't attached to it.

It's too bad you couldn't do some sort of golf course blind taste test. See what the rankings would look like if the courses were played with zero knowledge of who built them. I feel confident in saying there would be some significant shuffling.

[SL_Solow]

Barney, The wonderful historian Richard Hofstader won a Pulitzer Prize for "Anti-Intellectualism In American Life".  For those of us interested in books, it's an instructive read with particular relevance today.


As far as Coore and Crenshaw go, I have been fortunate enough to spend a little time with both of them. I clearly have less insight than Tom Doak and defer to him.  However, in my experience, it is a real partnership founded on mutual respect.  Ben does not appear to be the type of tour pro who lends his name and a few ideas to a project.  Indeed, when I mentioned courses that I had played, Ben engaged in detailed discussions asking for my impressions and discussing particular features of interest.  He appeared to be as excited as I was to discuss the merits of particular holes and courses.  As noted by others, a very unpretentious, genuinely nice, man.  Bill Coore was equally kind to a GCA enthusiast who offered no chance of future work.

[Peter Pallotta]

Shel -
a topic for *no* other day, as it is would likely lead nowhere (or at least nowhere good/useful) and would instead be fraught with un-founded speculation and amateur pop-psychology and hair-brained architectural analysis (by the likes of me), but:
The picture you paint of Ben and Bill as *people* is so very consistent with everything I've ever read about them (which is remarkable, really) that it brings to mind the question of *character* (ie tastes and temperaments and personalities and personal priorities & values) as it relates to golf course design.
In discussing a particular course or a body of work by a given architect, we focus (rightly) on the clients they work for and the sites they get and the soils they have to work with and the environmental & budgetary restrictions that sometimes hamper them and the talent they have and the time they take and the teams they've built around them.
But we don't often focus (again, probably rightly) on *who they are as people* -- and on how who they are is a primary driver of what they build.
As I say, a topic for no other day -- trying to get 'inside' someone else is not only fruitless but probably unethical.
But I can't shake the thought that, for example, Bill's university degree in philosophy (philosophy!) and the cerebral approach to life that such a degree suggests, seems quite 'aligned' with designing & building the types of courses he & Ben have become famous for.

[Ira Fishman]

My wife and I have had a wonderful marriage for 40 years now.  How we divide the labor shifts constantly, and often puts both of us into "non-traditional" roles.  Who does the laundry, or who cooked dinner last night, or which of us should do ANY task that we face, is less important than that the task get done.  Because of that, it probably isn't possible, except in the most general terms, to define our "roles" in the marriage.  We have different gifts, and we have different deficiencies; the marriage allows us to take advantage of the former and minimize the latter.

The C & C marriage has been lasting, and has produced beautiful, subtle, lasting results.  I would guess that there are as many answers to the question at hand as there have been courses, with Coore's answer to question 18 in the interview bringing general insight into what each brings to the other.  Analyzing their roles beyond that is likely impossible; the answer for one project isn't likely to be the same as it was for the previous project or the next project.

A.G.


Completely concur although after 32 years of marriage, my wife would assert without hesitation that my deficiencies are more numerous and notable than hers.


As it regards Messrs Coore and Crenshaw, the fact that they have given us wonderful courses over such an extended period of time as partners speaks for itself. I doubt that either of them needs the money or acclaim any longer, yet they are still doing about which they are most passionate.


Ira

[Rob Marshall]

It's interesting how when reading between the lines of a post you can be completely off base on what you think someone means or how they actually feel. I think it's the difference between posting on a message board and having a real conversation.


Searching thru old posts to try find where I got my impressions from I found a post from 15 years ago that couldn't be more clear.




Tom_Doak[size=0.85em]YaBB God
[/size][/size]

• [size=0.85em][/font][/size][/size]

[size=0.85em][/size]

• [size=0.85em]Karma: +0/-0[/size]

[size=0.85em][/size]

• [size=0.85em]
  
  
  
  
  [/size]Re:Synecdoche - why does "Bill Coore" stand for "Coore and Crenshaw"?
  « Reply #4 on: January 19, 2005, 11:19:03 AM »
  
  [/size][/color][/size][/color]
  Quote[/size][/color]
  
  
  Rich,I've known them both since 1981, and I will disagree with your reading of the runes.The main difference between them is that Bill is a full-time golf architect, whereas Ben has a wife and three teenagers, and is still trying to play golf competitively and pursue other business interests on top of their design business.  Ben has a lot less time to devote to golf architecture.  I'm pretty sure that if they were working on their own, each of them would be able to produce courses 90% as good as the ones they do together.  It always makes me wonder why they don't build more than they do ... except at hectic times here in the office, when I think they are geniuses.If I couldn't design courses myself, I would as soon give my money to Ben to design one for me as give it to anyone who participates on this board ... with no offense to the other architects who participate here.  Ben is an architect, too.