[Mike_Young]

  It's a sixth sense " I see dead people but they don't know they are dead"
One has to be able to visualize earth forms and how to continue those same forms as micros within a macro.  He has to be able to visualize such with or without tree cover.   And he has to be able to put together a Rubix Cube of 54 stakes (18 hole , par 72) on the given property that flows and looks like it was always there.  IMHO it can't be on paper because for me it changes with every hour I am there (within the routing).AND AS I HAVE SAID ON HERE A THOUSAND TIMES....architectural routing is the talent and the features should be instinct.  Taking the drawings of an ODG and reworking said course or moving even a couple of holes is just not the same thing.  I just don't give credit for that...sort of like hitting range balls but not playing golf...

[Mark_Fine]

I think Mike makes a great point about getting credit which is probably why architects should go in and blow up and reroute existing courses vs just touching them up.  That way they can get design credit 


Why for example is “routing” talent necessary to do detailed research and then carefully restore/renovate an existing Tillinghast course? 

[archie_struthers]

 


Hey Mark, maybe you rework that last response. I don't know Mike Young real well but I've talked more than a few hours with him. Don't think he has any interest in getting credit, it's all about results for Mr Young!

[Tom_Doak]

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.

That's a great example.  There ARE a lot of potential golf holes in the Sand Hills, but a lot of the ones people "see" turn out to be 300 yards instead of 400, or there's a hidden valley so it's 700 yards with a blind third shot.  It takes some practice [and the ability to think in 3-D] to start stringing holes together that don't have blind shots, and it helps a lot if you have played around with them on a map for a bit to know how far it is to that next cool green site.  [Rangefinders are the next best thing.]

[Ally Mcintosh]

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.

That's a great example.  There ARE a lot of potential golf holes in the Sand Hills, but a lot of the ones people "see" turn out to be 300 yards instead of 400, or there's a hidden valley so it's 700 yards with a blind third shot.  It takes some practice [and the ability to think in 3-D] to start stringing holes together that don't have blind shots, and it helps a lot if you have played around with them on a map for a bit to know how far it is to that next cool green site.  [Rangefinders are the next best thing.]

Then constrain that on 120 acres and you make it twice as difficult again.


What Tom says is very true though. I grew up on some great land outside Aberdeen and as a young boy, designed a bunch of holes by eye. The topography is superb, full of feature, and these holes were really exciting. Crucially, I never played them (long grass) and I never put together a full routing (although I knew I would need more land, adjacent). We had no survey or map.


As I was going through my GCA education, I went back to the family home with the firm idea of starting to put a proper plan in place. Aside from some power lines and a couple of areas of bad soil, I thought I could design one of the best inland courses in Scotland using those cool holes, full of feature and with perfect vegetation and green sites. Of course, my eye had matured and was now more trained so I suspected straight off that the 15 year old me had the scale all wrong... Sure enough, my 420 yard long (in my head) par-4 was only 295 yards with a 200 sqm green. And so it went on. All the natural golf holes I had seen didn’t work with their real scale, not to mention that there was no logical way to string them together.


Now if we ever scale back the distance the ball goes by 33%, I’ll be on to a winner.

[John Crowley]

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

True that, but art and science must both be present. The essential talent may be the ability to marry the two.

[Mark_Fine]

Archie,
My post was mostly in jest.  Mike’s was not.  How many architects start out by building brand new courses?  And why is there no architectural talent required for those who focus on something different than that like doing restoration and renovation work?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ill guess one litmus test to see if someone would be a good router would be to see how they do on jigsaw puzzles.  Its similar challenge, LOL.

[Tom_Doak]

Sure enough, my 420 yard long (in my head) par-4 was only 295 yards with a 200 sqm green. And so it went on. All the natural golf holes I had seen didn’t work with their real scale, not to mention that there was no logical way to string them together.

Greg Ramsay's "perfect" finishing hole at Barnbougle must have been exactly like the one in your head.


I always scratch my head when a client shows me a cool green site and I am looking and thinking, "Where is the other 5000 square feet of it going to go?" 


Or when I am standing on a green that's just laying there perfectly and they ask me what I'm going to do with it!  Their eye is just not tuned in to the scale of what we do.

[Mike_Young]

Archie,
My post was mostly in jest.  Mike’s was not.  How many architects start out by building brand new courses?  And why is there no architectural talent required for those who focus on something different than that like doing restoration and renovation work?

I was serious.  Most begin with small jobs of bunkers or green renovations etc and evolve to new courses.  So, no not many start out building new courses.  BUT when they do the bones of the course are in the routing and if it doesn't work then it doesn't last.  Any classic worthy of a restoration had a very good routing or it would not still be around.  I could care less if people choose to do restorations and hype the history in many cases to boards and committees etc.  All I'm saying is don't let that exercise of restoring 18 greens and bunkers etc be mistaken as having the ability to design a golf course. That is..UNLESS one has a body of their own work to show.  That body of work shows his ability to design a course not the renovations/restorations he does.  For a guy who has a body of his own work, I would hope he could go into a place and restore greens and bunkers without much hassle.  And so I don't credit that type of work the same.  I have watched for years and been impressed with how a mediocre archie would align with a GC and his work changes completely and have also watched a few ODG restorers be at the total mercy of some shaper who has been doing Fazio work for years and lose control.  ....NOTE: the guys that have put in the time to design /build courses from the seat of the dozer and then go do the restorations are completely different animals than the dudes who charcoal little sketches at their desk and BS some committee guy about restoration.....for the average course and committee it is a BS business...
you mention :"Why for example is “routing” talent necessary to do detailed research and then carefully restore/renovate an existing Tillinghast course? "   I happen to be restoring an existing Tillinghast right now and have done the research and the construction will be carefully done..I don't call that golf design instead it's just a refinishing process. It's sort of like refinishing a nice piece of furniture.  Some good furniture refinishers out there but they might not design and build a good piece of furniture and no one will ever know if they don't have a catalogue of their original pieces. 

[Ally Mcintosh]

Mike,


You’re always banging that drum and whilst I think you are correct, you also seem too black and white to me:


- Like with all design, the front-end conceptual part of the process is where you need a certain skill. In most design, this is for the people who earn the big bucks. In GCA, routing is the most important part of early design.


- But by saying what you do, you are belittling everything that comes after. The skill in the strategy, the detail and the feel of the course.... Last week, I was looking back at those old Sand Valley, Poland threads where Lassi Tilander had done a routing and Tony Ristola did everything after. Tony and others clearly felt that Tilander deserved NO credit.


- Just because someone doesn’t have a bunch of new 18 hole courses to their name (I guess only a handful of rising architects in the last 10 years do) doesn’t mean that they aren’t the equal or better at routings than many more well known names. I’ve routed a large number of courses. Most of them have been theoretical on real project sites. Other architects and students also routed those sites. I know what they provided and I know what I did. I’ve seen what is built. I know routing is one of my strengths. I’ve never had a full 18 holes completed in the ground.


- I know very well respected architects (with many courses to their names) who knock routings out quickly and don’t consider it the most important part of the process. I disagree with them. Some of their routings are very good. Some are very poor.


- Likewise I know architects who would get slated on this forum who are excellent at routing but their detail design is uninspired and doesn’t meet the aesthetics that this group like. Their routing skills could be better than anyone’s for all I know


- In fact, that last point is important. After site and soil, detail is the differentiator to many an eye. They can’t tell a good routing from a nearly good one. At least they can’t quantify it although it holds the course back from what it could have been.


- My point: Just because someone has been lucky enough to practice in the 90’s and has 20 new courses to his name does not make him a master router. Just because someone has been unlucky enough to practice in the 2010’s with no new courses to his name does not make him less of a GCA.


- Of Course, if you are purely talking about “restoration”, maybe your point holds more water, maybe not. I wouldn’t know. But what restoration architect hasn’t done a bunch of renovation / redesign / original design work as well?


- Anyway, I agree that routing is the beating heart of every course. But can you tell me, who are the best routers in the business from the last 60 years? I honestly wouldn’t know. I can tell you that TD and Bill Coore and Gil Hanse are magnificent at the detail and the build. I can tell you that they find great natural golf holes. But I couldn’t tell you if they are better at routing than others (disclaimer: if I had seen more of their courses, maybe I could).

[Clyde Johnson]

- Anyway, I agree that routing is the beating heart of every course. But can you tell me, who are the best routers in the business from the last 60 years? I honestly wouldn’t know. I can tell you that TD and Bill Coore and Gil Hanse are magnificent at the detail and the build. I can tell you that they find great natural golf holes. But I couldn’t tell you if they are better at routing than others (disclaimer: if I had seen more of their courses, maybe I could).

I'd suggest that a significant part of the reason that they are so good at the detail and the build is exactly because they are so good at the routing...!

[Ally Mcintosh]

- Anyway, I agree that routing is the beating heart of every course. But can you tell me, who are the best routers in the business from the last 60 years? I honestly wouldn’t know. I can tell you that TD and Bill Coore and Gil Hanse are magnificent at the detail and the build. I can tell you that they find great natural golf holes. But I couldn’t tell you if they are better at routing than others (disclaimer: if I had seen more of their courses, maybe I could).

I'd suggest that a significant part of the reason that they are so good at the detail and the build is exactly because they are so good at the routing...!

Clyde, common sense certainly says that on a good, natural site with lots of choices, good routing = good detail because the natural features are maximised. When interest has to be found on a 120 acre site of gently rolling farmland with no feature, routing a course is a slightly different skill set. That’s not to say that those who are best at the former are not just as good at the latter. And there’s always a huge advantage to understanding how easily something can be built in informing any routing.


But I don’t think any of us really know. They are completely different puzzles.


Even on natural sites, there are still questions. For instance, at The European or Ballyliffin, would Bill Coore have routed a better set of holes than Pat Ruddy? I’ve no doubt he would have used micro-features more and incorporated them in to the detail and therefore for many, the enjoyment of the course. Would he have put together a better skeleton? Who knows.... Would he have found slightly better green sites in almost the same locations? Perhaps... Depends if you count that as routing or detail.

[Mark_Fine]

Great posts Ally!!

Mike,
You must have a big chip (more like a boulder) on your should for some reason as you have NEVER given any respect to anyone (regardless of the quality of the work they have done) who has never designed and built a new course from scratch.  I have no idea why you can’t show a little respect for those who weren’t as fortunate as you to land a few jobs for brand new construction.  There are a lot of good people out there that are pretty talented that haven’t been as lucky and who are doing good work.  And if you think their work is crap, you are always free to come in later and clean up after them. This business is sooo darn competitive, most of those who are not doing good work don’t last too long anyway.If one has to build a brand new 18 hole course to be called "a golf architect” or to be qualified to enter this profession, GCA would indeed truly be a dying profession as there are soooo few new courses being built and the competition for those few is insane.  I have been doing this for a long time and have been lucky enough to have designed and routed a have dozen or so courses (I did design and route and build a three hole short course - does that count?) but sadly none of my 18 or 9 hole designs have yet made it into construction. It is just not easy but thankfully I have been very successful with my real focus which is helping courses with restoration and renovation work.   You may call that BS, well I don’t and if you ask ANY of my clients they won’t call it BS either.  I’m sorry one of my 18 hole designs wasn’t built so I could be considered “a real” architect but then again I have never been hung up on titles so it doesn’t really matter.  But I and as you heard from others like Ally, would like some respect.  We all can't be you or Tom Doak.  I have found in my career, if you don’t have a big ego or care what title you have and are willing to collaborate and not care who gets the credit it is amazing what one can accomplish. 


We have some 35,000+ golf courses around the world.  Some golf architects out there designed and routed the ones that are on the bottom of that barrel.  Are those architects not really architects either or are they just not very good at what they do?  Would you prefer to have one of those architects who designed one or two or ten of the worst golf courses in the world (he or she has proven design and routing skills so by your definition they are not refinishers, they are true architects) come in and do restoration/renovation work on an existing design?  You can call people what you want Mike but show a little respect especially if what they have actually done or tried to do deserves it.  Until there is a degree in golf course architecture or some test like passing the bar examination, there will be many ways to enter the GCA profession.  I actually know how to use a back hoe and drive a bulldozer.  Who cares when I know I can work with others who are a zillion times better at it than me.  There weren't bulldozers back in his time, but I don’t recall ever seeing George Thomas driving a team of horses or mules building a green.  He was too busy working on his rose gardens 

[Tom_Doak]

Ally:


What difference does it make to be a "good router" if you're going to dump a bunch of fill at your green sites and eff them up?


I think there's a huge difference between finding features on a cool piece of land, and creating them on flat land by moving dirt -- those are two different skill sets.  But routing is routing; whether you're on 120 acres or 1200, it's about making the best of what's there.  The same guys are going to be good at either one. 


Also, The Sheep Ranch is no more than 120 acres, so I think Bill Coore proved himself for you there.

[Tom_Doak]

Mike,
You must have a big chip (more like a boulder) on your should[er] for some reason

Correction:  you are the one with the chip on your shoulder.  Mike is the one who keeps knocking it off. 

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ally:


What difference does it make to be a "good router" if you're going to dump a bunch of fill at your green sites and eff them up?


I think there's a huge difference between finding features on a cool piece of land, and creating them on flat land by moving dirt -- those are two different skill sets.  But routing is routing; whether you're on 120 acres or 1200, it's about making the best of what's there.  The same guys are going to be good at either one. 


Also, The Sheep Ranch is no more than 120 acres, so I think Bill Coore proved himself for you there.

Tom,


To your first paragraph, I agree with what I think you are saying: Good routing (for me) is about finding the best sequence of holes on a site using the minimal earth movement, regardless of site size.


I also don’t deny that those who route well on 1,200 acres are likely to be good at doing same on 120 acres. But I do think there is a difference: The first kind of site is usually about weeding out hundreds of potential holes to find the best features in an 18 that join together. The smaller site is about making a course fit with the least number of compromises. It’s far easier to see really weak routing on the second kind of site.


Bill Coore could be the “best” router in the world on all kind of sites. I’ve no idea. Do you?


Everything is connected of course. Everything works back to routing. But it’s really quite hard to compare how well architects shape up against each other at pure “routing”. And it is blinkered of Mike to write off anyone who doesn’t have multiple 18 hole courses in the ground. That includes most of the people that have worked for you over the last 20 years.


All that said, you’ve no doubt seen a whole lot more projects and concepts from different architects at early stage than I have. So you’ll be in a much better position to compare and contrast.


Ally

[Mike_Young]

Mike,


You’re always banging that drum and whilst I think you are correct, you also seem too black and white to me:


- Like with all design, the front-end conceptual part of the process is where you need a certain skill. In most design, this is for the people who earn the big bucks. In GCA, routing is the most important part of early design.


- But by saying what you do, you are belittling everything that comes after. The skill in the strategy, the detail and the feel of the course.... Last week, I was looking back at those old Sand Valley, Poland threads where Lassi Tilander had done a routing and Tony Ristola did everything after. Tony and others clearly felt that Tilander deserved NO credit.


- Just because someone doesn’t have a bunch of new 18 hole courses to their name (I guess only a handful of rising architects in the last 10 years do) doesn’t mean that they aren’t the equal or better at routings than many more well known names. I’ve routed a large number of courses. Most of them have been theoretical on real project sites. Other architects and students also routed those sites. I know what they provided and I know what I did. I’ve seen what is built. I know routing is one of my strengths. I’ve never had a full 18 holes completed in the ground.


- I know very well respected architects (with many courses to their names) who knock routings out quickly and don’t consider it the most important part of the process. I disagree with them. Some of their routings are very good. Some are very poor.


- Likewise I know architects who would get slated on this forum who are excellent at routing but their detail design is uninspired and doesn’t meet the aesthetics that this group like. Their routing skills could be better than anyone’s for all I know


- In fact, that last point is important. After site and soil, detail is the differentiator to many an eye. They can’t tell a good routing from a nearly good one. At least they can’t quantify it although it holds the course back from what it could have been.


- My point: Just because someone has been lucky enough to practice in the 90’s and has 20 new courses to his name does not make him a master router. Just because someone has been unlucky enough to practice in the 2010’s with no new courses to his name does not make him less of a GCA.


- Of Course, if you are purely talking about “restoration”, maybe your point holds more water, maybe not. I wouldn’t know. But what restoration architect hasn’t done a bunch of renovation / redesign / original design work as well?


- Anyway, I agree that routing is the beating heart of every course. But can you tell me, who are the best routers in the business from the last 60 years? I honestly wouldn’t know. I can tell you that TD and Bill Coore and Gil Hanse are magnificent at the detail and the build. I can tell you that they find great natural golf holes. But I couldn’t tell you if they are better at routing than others (disclaimer: if I had seen more of their courses, maybe I could).

Ally,I knew writing what I did would get people stirred.  And maybe I am a little harsh with it but it's not a chip on my shoulder as much as just cutting thru a lot of the smoke that is so often around. 

I don't disagree with what you say above and I will be the first to say that being born at the right time has so much to do with this business above and beyond talent.  EXCEPT, I don't think detail really matters if the routing is not a good one.  The skeleton has to be there. 

This business had a dark age after the golden age where guys came thru to tell everyone they knew how to do it better and mucho stuff was messed up.  People have now figured that out.  But there is a lot of sales hype out there where dudes profess to be experts on these guys when there is just not that much to be expert on.  That's not to say that there are not some "restoration guys" who have made careers of specializing in restoration and do a good job even if I may not like their style but there is more BS than truth out there. 
I see raw golf design as a palette of the unknown.  One has a piece of land and that's it.  I see design of an existing course as a palette of the known.  You can look at the ODG strategies, routing, green complexes before you ever set foot on the place.  And you can transpose his greens etc onto any plan you do.  It is two completely different things.  You and I can both fly a 757 plane today.  We just might not can handle the situation should a problem arise.  You don't see a lot of interior decorators building the house and it doesn't mean they don't enhance the product.  And to take it a step further with detail...the best hairdresser, make up artist in the world can't make Rosanne Barr into Jennifer Anniston. 
So, I can appreciate good work whether one has routed or not but I can't tolerate BS and after I read a certain amount I comment.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
If it was just me, someone like Ally wouldn’t have said what he said.  Comment on that. 


I’m not the one being disrespectful.  This has gone on forever on this site but I am still around doing what I think is a service to this business. Judge my work and not my path into the field.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Mike,


You’re always banging that drum and whilst I think you are correct, you also seem too black and white to me:


- Like with all design, the front-end conceptual part of the process is where you need a certain skill. In most design, this is for the people who earn the big bucks. In GCA, routing is the most important part of early design.


- But by saying what you do, you are belittling everything that comes after. The skill in the strategy, the detail and the feel of the course.... Last week, I was looking back at those old Sand Valley, Poland threads where Lassi Tilander had done a routing and Tony Ristola did everything after. Tony and others clearly felt that Tilander deserved NO credit.


- Just because someone doesn’t have a bunch of new 18 hole courses to their name (I guess only a handful of rising architects in the last 10 years do) doesn’t mean that they aren’t the equal or better at routings than many more well known names. I’ve routed a large number of courses. Most of them have been theoretical on real project sites. Other architects and students also routed those sites. I know what they provided and I know what I did. I’ve seen what is built. I know routing is one of my strengths. I’ve never had a full 18 holes completed in the ground.


- I know very well respected architects (with many courses to their names) who knock routings out quickly and don’t consider it the most important part of the process. I disagree with them. Some of their routings are very good. Some are very poor.


- Likewise I know architects who would get slated on this forum who are excellent at routing but their detail design is uninspired and doesn’t meet the aesthetics that this group like. Their routing skills could be better than anyone’s for all I know


- In fact, that last point is important. After site and soil, detail is the differentiator to many an eye. They can’t tell a good routing from a nearly good one. At least they can’t quantify it although it holds the course back from what it could have been.


- My point: Just because someone has been lucky enough to practice in the 90’s and has 20 new courses to his name does not make him a master router. Just because someone has been unlucky enough to practice in the 2010’s with no new courses to his name does not make him less of a GCA.


- Of Course, if you are purely talking about “restoration”, maybe your point holds more water, maybe not. I wouldn’t know. But what restoration architect hasn’t done a bunch of renovation / redesign / original design work as well?


- Anyway, I agree that routing is the beating heart of every course. But can you tell me, who are the best routers in the business from the last 60 years? I honestly wouldn’t know. I can tell you that TD and Bill Coore and Gil Hanse are magnificent at the detail and the build. I can tell you that they find great natural golf holes. But I couldn’t tell you if they are better at routing than others (disclaimer: if I had seen more of their courses, maybe I could).

Ally,I knew writing what I did would get people stirred.  And maybe I am a little harsh with it but it's not a chip on my shoulder as much as just cutting thru a lot of the smoke that is so often around. 

I don't disagree with what you say above and I will be the first to say that being born at the right time has so much to do with this business above and beyond talent.  EXCEPT, I don't think detail really matters if the routing is not a good one.  The skeleton has to be there. 

This business had a dark age after the golden age where guys came thru to tell everyone they knew how to do it better and mucho stuff was messed up.  People have now figured that out.  But there is a lot of sales hype out there where dudes profess to be experts on these guys when there is just not that much to be expert on.  That's not to say that there are not some "restoration guys" who have made careers of specializing in restoration and do a good job even if I may not like their style but there is more BS than truth out there. 
I see raw golf design as a palette of the unknown.  One has a piece of land and that's it.  I see design of an existing course as a palette of the known.  You can look at the ODG strategies, routing, green complexes before you ever set foot on the place.  And you can transpose his greens etc onto any plan you do.  It is two completely different things.  You and I can both fly a 757 plane today.  We just might not can handle the situation should a problem arise.  You don't see a lot of interior decorators building the house and it doesn't mean they don't enhance the product.  And to take it a step further with detail...the best hairdresser, make up artist in the world can't make Rosanne Barr into Jennifer Anniston. 
So, I can appreciate good work whether one has routed or not but I can't tolerate BS and after I read a certain amount I comment.

Agreeing with everything here, Mike. Only thing I’d add to is that most “restoration experts” (which I’ve never really understood as a tag either - there is a lot of BS indeed) have done a fair amount of other work as well, whether that be re-design, new or renovation.


The restoration market isn’t really a thing on my side of the world though. Sometimes I wish it was: Often not enough respect is shown to great old courses, including their routings.

[Mike_Young]

Great posts Ally!!

Mike,
You must have a big chip (more like a boulder) on your should for some reason as you have NEVER given any respect to anyone (regardless of the quality of the work they have done) who has never designed and built a new course from scratch.  I have no idea why you can’t show a little respect for those who weren’t as fortunate as you to land a few jobs for brand new construction.  There are a lot of good people out there that are pretty talented that haven’t been as lucky and who are doing good work.  And if you think their work is crap, you are always free to come in later and clean up after them. This business is sooo darn competitive, most of those who are not doing good work don’t last too long anyway.If one has to build a brand new 18 hole course to be called "a golf architect” or to be qualified to enter this profession, GCA would indeed truly be a dying profession as there are soooo few new courses being built and the competition for those few is insane.  I have been doing this for a long time and have been lucky enough to have designed and routed a have dozen or so courses (I did design and route and build a three hole short course - does that count?) but sadly none of my 18 or 9 hole designs have yet made it into construction. It is just not easy but thankfully I have been very successful with my real focus which is helping courses with restoration and renovation work.   You may call that BS, well I don’t and if you ask ANY of my clients they won’t call it BS either.  I’m sorry one of my 18 hole designs wasn’t built so I could be considered “a real” architect but then again I have never been hung up on titles so it doesn’t really matter.  But I and as you heard from others like Ally, would like some respect.  We all can't be you or Tom Doak.  I have found in my career, if you don’t have a big ego or care what title you have and are willing to collaborate and not care who gets the credit it is amazing what one can accomplish. 


We have some 35,000+ golf courses around the world.  Some golf architects out there designed and routed the ones that are on the bottom of that barrel.  Are those architects not really architects either or are they just not very good at what they do?  Would you prefer to have one of those architects who designed one or two or ten of the worst golf courses in the world (he or she has proven design and routing skills so by your definition they are not refinishers, they are true architects) come in and do restoration/renovation work on an existing design?  You can call people what you want Mike but show a little respect especially if what they have actually done or tried to do deserves it.  Until there is a degree in golf course architecture or some test like passing the bar examination, there will be many ways to enter the GCA profession.  I actually know how to use a back hoe and drive a bulldozer.  Who cares when I know I can work with others who are a zillion times better at it than me.  There weren't bulldozers back in his time, but I don’t recall ever seeing George Thomas driving a team of horses or mules building a green.  He was too busy working on his rose gardens 

Mark,
A few comments:No chip here.
The only thing I have disrespected on this site is BS and hype.  I don't disrespect the work of others on here, there just may be some work  I don't like and I'm sure there is plenty of mine that someone doesn't like.  I appreciate the work of most.  Disrespect is just not a good word for a smoke and mirrors business.  I was fortunate to be born when I was because it let me design/build new courses.  That is not to be confused with disrespect for others because they haven't. 

Golf Course Architect is another word that should not exist.  It's a craft and has really never been a profession.  And there will be an argument there but I can sub all the "professionals" I need on a golf course project.  That word "professional" is used to try and place the craft in the same group as lawyers, doctors etc.   Why not just use designer or builder?  True disrespect for others in this business is when one feels they need "alphabet" after as though it were a degree program such as MD, JD etc. 

You mention that GCA is a dying business,  That's been going on for years.  In fact I'm not sure it was ever more than a part time business for most who were trustafarians or had family money and liked golf.  Perhaps a guy like Ross did his best to make a large part of his business.  Today people confuse golf design with marketing fees but when RE stopped using golf courses as an amenity that was obvious.  There is no security in the golf design business.  But, the barrier to entry is low.  A guy can print a handful of business cards, do a blog or website or something and work it into free golf across the country...
I actually prefer to consider my business as a vertical, holistic golf business.  We will own, design, build, manage and anything else.  I'm not concerned what they call me.  Cheers.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
Thanks for that post.  It is appreciated.  I am sure if we ever got together post Covid we would have a great discussion and lots of interesting GCA stories to share.  Maybe one day that will happen at one of your or my projects. 

Ally,
I can't speak for everyone but as far as I am concerned, when I talk about restoration, I am talking about a person who at least cares about what was there in the past.  Take the project Forrest and I did at Mira Vista.  It would have been a lot easier to blow up the course without doing months and months of research and just build something new and better than what was there now.  To use Mike Young's analogy, to try to take Rosanne Barr and make her look like Jennifer Anniston.  Most "restoration specialists" or call them what you want, I hope don't try to do that (at least I don't).  I would hope they try their best to understand and respect what was once there and present that information and vision to the club. It is then up to the ownership as to what path forward they want to go down.  If that is BS then I am guilty. 

[Ally Mcintosh]

Mark,


I fully believe in restoration as a concept. I just happen to think a “restoration expert” is a term that tries to indicate that there are GCA’s who wouldn’t be skilled enough to major in restoration (if they so wanted to).

[Tom_Doak]

Bill Coore could be the “best” router in the world on all kind of sites. I’ve no idea. Do you?


Everything is connected of course. Everything works back to routing. But it’s really quite hard to compare how well architects shape up against each other at pure “routing”. And it is blinkered of Mike to write off anyone who doesn’t have multiple 18 hole courses in the ground. That includes most of the people that have worked for you over the last 20 years.

All that said, you’ve no doubt seen a whole lot more projects and concepts from different architects at early stage than I have. So you’ll be in a much better position to compare and contrast.

No doubt, if you're more practiced at doing routings on small ground, you'll be quicker at those and vice versa, but it's still the same skill I think; it just matters on some sites more than others.


To be honest, I think these comparisons are pointless.  Bill Coore has built some of the best golf courses in the world, so he must be pretty good at routings, and that's what matters.  If somebody else thinks they're as good as him, they should build some golf courses to prove it.  I recognize that there are a lot of people who don't get the chance -- I was there once, too -- but it's silly to compare unbuilt doodles to finished golf courses.

[Mike_Young]

Agreeing with everything here, Mike. Only thing I’d add to is that most “restoration experts” (which I’ve never really understood as a tag either - there is a lot of BS indeed) have done a fair amount of other work as well, whether that be re-design, new or renovation.


The restoration market isn’t really a thing on my side of the world though. Sometimes I wish it was: Often not enough respect is shown to great old courses, including their routings.

Agreeing with everything here, Mike. Only thing I’d add to is that most “restoration experts” (which I’ve never really understood as a tag either - there is a lot of BS indeed) have done a fair amount of other work as well, whether that be re-design, new or renovation.


The restoration market isn’t really a thing on my side of the world though. Sometimes I wish it was: Often not enough respect is shown to great old courses, including their routings.

Ally,
Don't mean to continue beating the drum.

I understand what you say and it's not an issue I have with the individuals themselves. ( actually I don't think about it enough to consider it a problem ). The issue (better word than "problem") is when clients don't understand due to how the various writers have hyped that segment of the business.  We have clubs thinking groups like the DRS are some legitimate group representing the courses of DR.  I actually saw a club newsletter at a club stating congratulations for a green committee member being accepted into the prestigious DRS.  Those are the things I call BS and the writers created it.  ( golf writers is a subject for another time )

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()