[Peter Pallotta]

An excellent golf course is the product of Time + Talent: the talent an architect possesses, and the time he takes utilizing that talent on a given project.

But what characterizes/describes/defines  this 'talent'?

I'm not asking how talent *manifests itself*, eg in the ability to route a course or to shape a green etc.

I'm asking what talent actually *is*, when it comes to golf course architecture.

Two (likely) apocryphal stories, from two other disciplines where talent matters:
- They say that Ted Williams couldn't go to the movies because his eyes were so good and he processed visual data so quickly that he could actually see the 'frames' of the film as it ran through the projector, 35 bits a second.
- They say that Charlie Parker's ear and sense of pitch was so good that if a coin
clinked on a counter-top he could instantly identify the sound, ie an 'A' or a 'G-sharp'

Any ideas/guesses about where a golf architect's essential talents lie?

[Garland Bayley]

Excellent courses are built by artists. Average courses by engineers.

[Peter Pallotta]

Excellent courses are built by artists. Average courses by engineers.

That might be true, Garland, I don't know -- but I'd be surprised if any of the architects who participate here would define themselves as artists any more than they would engineers. And even if they did, the question remains: what is artistic 'talent' when it comes to gca?

[Sean_A]

Terrain, talent, execution, sometimes soil and time.

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

At the lower end of golf course architecture it is a combination of what is good for golf and good for turf.


Lower end golf courses are for 40000 rounds, other higher end is say 15000 rounds, those things are not often discussed on here because most people are just into the fairytale stuff. Building to a low budget, design that can be maintained to a low budget with limited machinery is a whole different game to plastering a dozen bunkers down the side of a 60 yard wide fairway.


Probably two different job skills, but for me the engineering of a golf course is at a much higher skill set than popping 18 stakes in the ground like the good old days and then using a template green complex over a 300 acre site.


Let's see what somebody can do given 105 acres, many will just say 9 holes!

[Thomas Dai]

Peter,
Take a look at this thread from a little while ago -
https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,67141.msg1611769.html#msg1611769
atb

[Carl Rogers]

Interpreting and imagining the game over a piece of ground.

[Tim Martin]

Let's see what somebody can do given 105 acres, many will just say 9 holes!

Ross made it work on one hundred acres when those were the marching orders. Go no farther than East Providence, RI and take a walk around Wannamoisett or Metacomet(better get there quick!) to see how good he was. Regardless of whatever adjective you want to attach be it artist, engineer or something else he was beyond skillful at his craft.

[archie_struthers]

 


To see a hole and then have the talent to engineer same!

[JMEvensky]

To see a hole and then have the talent to engineer same!

I'd guess the same. Plenty of people can visualize a course in their head but only a few could make it turn out that way on the actual ground.

[Steve Lang]

    C'mon Peter, a product is multiplication... you're expressing an additive sum in time + talent... might as well add in $ and the other usual suspect physical variables ...  nothing new there


how about imagination?  synoptics akin to Ludwig Van B composing a symphony when deaf... now that's talent

[Mark_Fine]

Almost anything we say here understates all the things a golf architect has to understand and be reasonably proficient at to do great work. 

In a recent Mike Clayton article, he quoted Mackenzie as once saying: “It is strange that a committee consisting of doctors, lawyers, architects and engineers who no doubt recognize the importance of mental training and experience in their own profession attach so little importance to it in golf course architecture.”

[Michael Wolf]

The ability to communicate well both up and down the food chain is an underrated talent in almost every profession. By communicate I mean:


1) Ability to express quickly and effectively what you want or expect from your employees and customers.
2) Ability to really listen to your employees and customers.
3) Develop tools and habits that ensure a consistent, effective exchange of ideas and information.


The tricky part is one, all or any of the 3 can vary from relationship to relationship.



Michael

[JESII]

Come on Mark...anything we say could only understate what an architect does?


The explanation for that Mackenzie statement is simply that these lawyers, doctors etc weigh in on golf course design ideas is simply that they are owners of the course being discussed. This clearly references club members making suggestions. While an architect views them as clients and the doctors regular clients do not make treatment recommendations, this apples and oranges.




To the question; Sean, Carl and Archie seem to have the nail hit squarely on the head.

[Ally Mcintosh]

The reason I like Adrian’s posts so much is he tries to ground everyone’s understanding of what being a GCA is for the majority of architects.


Artistry can be applied in all circumstances (of course) but it’s important to note that routing a course on 100 acres is a completely different puzzle to routing one on 1,000 acres. Both have their challenges and cross-over skill sets but the 100 acre version is going to have a much wider dispersion of great to terrible solutions. Armchair architect competitions should always be on the 100 acre version. It’s about fitting the best combination of holes on the land rather than finding the perfect green site. It will come with many compromises.


Likewise, designing on a low budget for 40,000 rounds will also require different skills to big budget for 15,000 rounds.


In addition, the low budget architect often needs to have a wider knowledge because he won’t have a huge team of agronomists, engineers, irrigation consultants and project managers to work alongside.


None of above means to belittle the art and creativity that can and should be brought to all situations. I’m sure Adrian believes this also. He’s just playing devils advocate to the constant stream of fantasy projects.

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
All I was saying is that golf architects tend to be under appreciated with what they know.  You or I wouldn't tell a surgeon how to preform an operation yet sometimes that same surgeon won't hesitate to tell a golf architect why a pond is needed or a bunker should be removed,.. 


I remember going to a Flynn course one time with Wayne Morrison and we ran into an older gentleman who claimed he knew William Flynn.  He was a grouchy old guy and he said, "who cares about Flynn, he was just a grass cutter"!  No respect at all. 


That was my only point.


A lot of good attributes for architects have been mentioned above!!

[Jeff_Brauer]

To Mark's point, I copy and past chapter 7 of my (shameless plug) new book, "Designs on a Better Golf Course."  It pretty well sums up all the things a gca needs to know to be good.




 [size=78%] [/size]
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

What do Do Golf Course Architects know That I Don’t?

The ASGCA defines a golf course architect as the person most responsible for the final form, look, and character of a golf course via routing, construction documents, field design changes, and even bulldozing.  Golf course architects possess a unique combination of knowledge, skills, training and experience required to take a course from concept through construction, including:
Golf, Golfers and Golf History - Most golf course architects study historic golf courses to learn the game’s strategy, shot values and subtleties.  They know how golf is played by the very best – and the rest!  Their understanding of player and equipment capabilities and limitations, together with public or club politics helps them conceive and guide all aspects of a project.
Landscape Architecture - Not all golf course architects are formally trained in landscape architecture, but they understand basic design principles and have an artistic flare.  It’s hard to put a dollar value on “artistic flare” but it’s a necessary part of great golf course design that most people just don’t possess.
Design also includes creating a technically sound golf course with properly built greens, tees, bunkers, which require good irrigation, soils, and drainage to function well.  They’re better with appropriate safety buffers and good circulation, and literally dozens of other items that golfers don’t even realize are important, but which must be seamlessly incorporated into the design.
In addition to basic design skills, the golf course architect requires substantial knowledge in these areas:
Environmental Science - Well designed courses enhance nature, minimize environmental impact, and meet, or exceed, environmental codes and regulations by using best practices.
 
 
Civil Engineering - Translating design ideas into reality requires knowledge of surveying, land planning, site design, regulations, aerial photography, topographic maps, irrigation hydraulics, pumps, and piping systems.  The old axiom of “drainage, drainage, drainage” applies to golf courses, especially where returning to play quickly increases revenues.  Even laying out cart paths - so distracting and yet integral to modern golf – requires experience and thought about aesthetics and convenience. (See “How Do We Route Cart Paths?”
Agronomy - The golf course architect must understand agronomy to provide the superintendent with the right tools, in terms of irrigation, drainage, sunlight and soils, in order for them to deliver optimum conditions.  Increasingly, water quality is an issue. 
Cost Estimating - Sooner or later, it always comes down to money!  Using knowledge gained from past projects, and specific plans and specifications for your project, golf course architects present realistic construction cost necessary to plan budgets and obtain financing.
Contracts, Plans, Specifications - Multi-million dollar construction projects – including golf courses – require proper contracts.  Golf course architects create detailed plans and specifications and contracts to protect your financial interests.  They assist you in negotiating the best possible terms and price with Contractors who have more experience in these contracts than the typical club.  Some even assist in construction (See “Design Bid vs. Design Build?”)
Project Management and Construction - Proper design also means “buildable,” cost effective projects and regular construction monitoring for quality and schedule control, essential to meet grassing windows and timely project completion.  Experienced architects keep pie well below the sky.
While golfers, superintendents, club managers, historians, committee members, contractors, suppliers and others can make design contributions, all have limited perspectives, and none has the total skillset required for successful design and construction of even smaller projects. 
 
In many cases, facilities retain golf course architects only after a first attempt at self-design and construction.  “Saving money” on golf course architecture fees is “false savings” in the long term.  Golf course architects earn their fees by avoiding mistakes or unsatisfactory designs that quickly require rebuilding.  Dad was right.  It’s cheaper to do it right the first time, including design fees.
   

[Jeff_Brauer]

However, and I believe I answered this in the other thread long ago, the real talent of a good gca is having an artists or creative personality, which only a few possess.  Then, its having the discipline to learn (or at least farm out) the other parts of engineering you need to know.


I could always tell within about 6 weeks (or less) if a new hire had what it took to be a gca, just by his plans, attitude, etc.  And, I was lucky to attract a few of them, including Trey Kemp's old boss, John Colligan, Jeff Blume, Chet Williams, and a few others.


Back when I farmed out my payroll to Administaff, they offered other benefits, one of which was business personality testing.  Contrary to some opinion, here, yes, I had one......I forget the name of the system, but it broke out 4 personality areas, like creativity, steady, caring, and?  to give you a score in each, like 6149, which would mean you were dominant in the last, weak in the second, for example.  I don't recall my exact number.  But they analyze it to show strengths and weaknesses.


Anyway, the guy comes back in the room and says I have one of the highest "creativity-developer" rankings he had ever seen and asked what I did.  When told, he suggested I stay right where I am in life.


I am convinced that a creative personality is one that can churn nearly endless combinations of various facts, examples, and ideas, and eventually come up with a new way to combine them.  Most personalities are geared toward straight line thinking.  That said, I didn't stay at the Holiday Inn Express, nor am I a psychologist, or have played one on TV.  So, as usual, I could be wrong.


As Mike Wolfe mentioned, there are other requirements, including the skills he listed, but also the entrepreneur mentality, where you are likely to move forward with all the information you have on hand, without obsessing endlessly over it into a state of paralysis by analysis.

[Tom_Doak]

As Mike Wolf mentioned, there are other requirements, including the skills he listed, but also the entrepreneur mentality, where you are likely to move forward with all the information you have on hand, without obsessing endlessly over it into a state of paralysis by analysis.

The majority of my clients have been entrepreneurial guys, instead of the more corporate type, and I think that sharing that same mentality is what appealed to them.  [The common thread between Mike Keiser, Julian Robertson, and Lew Thompson is that they all started their own businesses.]  They understand the idea that the design is supposed to get better as you go. 


I struggled more with the corporate side of Mosaic, or the mindset of the PGA TOUR, who see creativity as rebelliousness.  It's hard to work for clients who don't like surprises!


I think the most important talent for the business is the ability to think in 3-D, instead of "straight line thinking" as Jeff put it.  You need to be able to read a topo map and visualize the surface, and then have the sort of personality that likes to play around and solve puzzles.


I understand what Garland was trying to say about "engineering" . . . there are lots of engineers who just solve things for efficiency and redundancy and don't really care what they look like, function trumps all else.  But understanding how to do all of that AND make it look good is pretty much impossible if you don't understand enough of the engineering to play around with it.  The Rawls Course is two separate drainage basins but no one ever notices where the break between them is.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,


Your last pp, which you have mentioned before, is spot on and a good summary.  I have always known that my best projects are those where I develop a synergistic relationship with the Owner or project rep.  Hadn't considered applying the personality test to them, though.


My mentors always thought Pete Dye's original style - flat bunkers and tabletop greens in many cases (they were thinking about Harbor Town, not sure they had seen any more of his courses) arose in part because he didn't initially think well in 3D, but who knows.


One funny reoccurrence in the office was that I would put my head down on the table to look at the plans in a sort of worm's eye view.  It helped to see what sight lines were being blocked by trees, contouring, or something else, if nothing else.  They knew it, but every time, they would tell me to stop sleeping on the job, LOL.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Personally, I always thought the routing, concept design and front end stuff was something you either had or you didn’t. Sure, you learn and pick up tricks as you go along but it’s a little bit of a sixth sense.... I’ve seen people start out who have an aptitude straight off (usually those who have a good sense of scale, golfing awareness and can see in 3D) and those who don’t... It never seems to come naturally to the latter group and  they never seem to reach the heights of the former group (huge generalisation alert!).


The engineering, drainage, irrigation, contract and specs part is a profession - it needs hours and can be learnt.


For those who provide detailed design drawings, the contouring is part art. It can be learnt but needs a natural aptitude.


For those that build and shape, this again is an art that some people pick up immediately, some people learn with practice and some people can never quite get the hang of (even if they have become good at drawing detailed greens etc...). By that I mean the eye, not the physical act of operating a machine.

[Tom_Doak]

My mentors always thought Pete Dye's original style - flat bunkers and tabletop greens in many cases (they were thinking about Harbor Town, not sure they had seen any more of his courses) arose in part because he didn't initially think well in 3D, but who knows.

I re-told a story recently to Ran that when Mr. Dye was telling me what he wanted to build for the Stadium course at PGA West, he started out by drawing a little cross-section through two holes:  lots up, then a big excavation for waste bunker / pond / etc, fairway about at grade in the middle, up for spectator mounds, and then a mirror image on the other side for the outgoing holes.


The genius part was that I realized right away it pretty much balanced across any section of the course:  if you wanted the mounds bigger for the 18th hole, you made a wider or deeper lake.  So we didn't really need a computer to figure out the earthwork quantities.


He also gave me a quick tour of Crooked Stick once, to show me how much earth he had moved on the back nine.  It was a pretty flat cornfield to start.  He created the sense of undulation by digging a deep pit in between the 11th and 12th holes, and building it up into sort of a volcano so that the holes sloped away from it and you don't notice what he did.


So, I can assure you that Pete thought very well in 3-D.  I just think he built a hell of a lot of courses on fairly flat ground, where building things up very much was possible, but expensive and hard to tie in; so he built long flat features with small, sharp transitions instead.

[Peter Pallotta]

My son's grandfathers were involved in mechanical engineering and building construction, and he's 'taken' from both of them. The talent to visualize & think & work in 3-D definitely skipped a generation: I'm a great help to Ben with his English and Social Studies, but when it comes to math-geometry-science I can only sit back and marvel: he flys through his assignments with cubes and pyramids and formulas in the time it takes me just to *see* a cube!

[Mike Nuzzo]

 
I think the most important talent for the business is the ability to think in 3-D, instead of "straight line thinking" as Jeff put it.  You need to be able to read a topo map and visualize the surface, and then have the sort of personality that likes to play around and solve puzzles.


I understand what Garland was trying to say about "engineering" . . . there are lots of engineers who just solve things for efficiency and redundancy and don't really care what they look like, function trumps all else.  But understanding how to do all of that AND make it look good is pretty much impossible if you don't understand enough of the engineering to play around with it.  The Rawls Course is two separate drainage basins but no one ever notices where the break between them is.

We watched the moment Tom found the last puzzle piece at Memorial. It was a very difficult and tortuous path to get to the solution, a huge leap actually. There were several (many over the course of weeks) other options that we were considering one afternoon between walks. Tom's solution seems to have come, in part, from an initial instinct or preference from an earlier visit - something he wanted to try. Eventually, his eyes opened wide and he grabbed the ruler to measure the distance from the eventual new 3rd tee to the green. The perfect distance. That was the last piece and it was an enormously valuable & impactful one.


Yes I agree with Tom about 3-d visualizations and puzzle solving, and I want to add that they are very, very difficult, long duration and expensive puzzles. Most routing problems are never "solved", with an eloquent and beautiful solution.


Cheers

[Mark Smolens]

Driving from Omaha to Dismal through the sand hills, chop hills, or whatever you want to call them for my only attendance at a 5th Major (thanks again Eric for a great event), my partner and I were struck by how the terrain seemed filled with potential golf holes. One of the perks of the trip was the chance to walk both 9s with Mr. Doak, as he explained the reasons for the routing and some inside baseball on the course. i was struck by the vision, the ability to look at the land and come up with the course. i was struck by a story told by Rupert Neal on my trip to Ballyneal -- how Jim Urbina had been on property walking around for 5 minutes, when Neal overhead a tx call to Tom, saying "you gotta get out here  and see this. . ."


When my buddy's hs golf team were invited to play an event at Ballyneal, one of his kids drove several teammates in his own car. When they arrived at where the gps told them was Ballyneal, there was no course to be found. He called Jay, and said "coach, we're here, but there's no here here."


It's the vision to take that kind of property and turn it into a place like Dismal Red or Ballyneal from which an architect's talent is generated imo. . .

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()