New talent?

[Forrest Richardson]

And —- ASGCA’s membership requirements have never been static. Founding member J. B. McGovern worked for Ross and had little to his own name in 1947. We’ve always adapted, and that will not likely stop as golf changes.

[Forrest Richardson]

I think requirements for just about everything changes with the times.

[Kalen Braley]

Mike Young,

I am curious what your specific issue is with the ASGCA.  I'm guessing they would have you if you submitted an application, or you could start a new org up yourself.  I would think nearly every established profession has organizations like this? 

P.S.  After all, it was important enough to have the right to assemble, that they included it in the 1st Amendment. 

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
Having that second income does help many pursue passions that don’t always pay well.  My best advice to aspiring GCAs is don’t pursue it for the money.  As Jim Engh told me, have fun with it and see if you can get that big break (or a bunch of little ones). 

I still think we do need to encourage new talent as hard as it may be but help set expectations so they know what to expect.  Obviously those that make it will do so because they are driven to succeed regardless of what others say expectations should be.  I guess one question is should there be proactive efforts to seek out new talent or just let it happen on its own?  That was in part why I mentioned an organization like the ASGCA.  Some industries need to be proactive to recruit talent from going elsewhere.  From what Forrest just said, sounds like they are trying to do that.  Under his watch I am not surprised. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ally,


I'd actually challenge the creative part. It seems to me that those that are talented are mainly disciples of the big names, and for the most part, are mimicking their principles. Even King Collins at Landmand - it looks pretty wild until you realise there are template features utilised throughout the property (at least from photos, but reserving judgement). It's a surrealist version of Raynor. It's worth saying that I think there are some incredible courses being built right now, but I just wonder how creative they are on the spectrum.


It feels like we're at the back end of an era, and I think the industry needs more 'talent' from unconventional backgrounds who have never heard of C&C, Hanse, to truly unlock undiscovered creativity.


All that said, I'll be a bit of a hypocrite by saying that I think Blake Conant and Brian Schneider are doing some pretty creative things by taking inspiration from old quarries, victorian mounding, etc.

Tim,


Well, this brings up a whole other discussion on the nature of creativity.  After 500 years, I sincerely doubt there are any really new ideas and creativity is borrowing, combining, redefining old stuff with some new stuff (by necessity, like water conservation, as one example) to create something that really is new, as in your Conant/Schneider example, and maybe King Collins.


I mean, Pete Dye seemed to do something new, but he took old ideas from Scotland and sort of just did those the way he did without being subconscious about the result looking like the old stuff.  The Golden Age guys took the basic principles from Scotland, too, but by the time they adapted them to US conditions, they came up with a whole new style, not a copy.


I have always been interested in the concept of "sincerity" in design, i.e., the result comes from form follows function, not some intent to copy or mimic something else.  Which is one reason I never hopped on the restoration bandwagon.  In most other professions, like building architecture, copying previous eras (art deco, neo-classical, etc.) is seen as a weaker, down period phase of the profession, not a stronger one.


But, as I said, that sounds like the premise of an entirely different thread.

[Mike_Young]

Jaeger, “a bunch” is not very technical in terms of a quantity. Get back to me next year and we’ll see if the 15 Associate participants in ASGCA’s new program has expanded to 20, 25, etc.

Mike, I’ve always been remorse that ASGCA “pissed you off” and, of course, those three words do not quite tell any sort of story or give any explanation. My feeling is that you have a lot to give and share, so it’s always been a downer to me that we did not find a way to get you on board. From my standpoint, it’s a shame.

Forrest,I appreciate your comments above.  Lots of good guys in there and my gripe has always been with a few individuals.  I just comment here mainly to mess with JB.  I will see ASGCA as turning the corner when they allow one in based on their qualifications and not by a vote or a "blackball".  In other words when they become objective and not subjective. 

AND I will always see routing as the critical element for GCA.  There can be other elements but routing cannot be replaced.  A person can design and house and build it and then another can rework the kitchen or the bath or the deck and can even move them around but that does not make him a homebuilder.  JMO

[Mike_Young]

Mike Young,

I am curious what your specific issue is with the ASGCA.  I'm guessing they would have you if you submitted an application, or you could start a new org up yourself.  I would think nearly every established profession has organizations like this? 

P.S.  After all, it was important enough to have the right to assemble, that they included it in the 1st Amendment. 

KB,If I got into that it would be a thread with JB of several pages..     My main gripe is to not let personalities be a large part of the process.  Needs to be like the PGA or GCSAA associations.   If you meet the requirements then great.

[Mike_Young]

Mark,


Yeah, I think most of us at least had the benefit of a working wife to stabilize income, and a few had a nice trust fund.....Yes, there are barriers, but on the other hand, entry cost is low, i.e. working out of house, cost of drafting table, etc. (now we need some computers, too, and for CAD, pretty high end ones, but that is still just a few thousand $$$.
See that's my problem and why I describe the business to young guys the way I do.  Do lawyers and doctors entering their profession have a concern for their wives working or having a trust fund or other funds etc?   Reality is shown right there.  The free enterprise system works and it forces things to evolve.  We are seeing it in this business.  I'm not negative or grumpy.  I love doing what I do but I realized a long time ago that I had to have other streams and was fortunate to combine them.  And as you know, many architects used to deny having a construction arm.


Ben and Bill C gave a neat acceptance speech at the Ross Dinner the other night.  The last line was that both were idealists and romantics, and a businessman told them that individually they were bad but to put them together and they would be a disaster!  Just goes to show what "conventional wisdom" knows. 


BTW, I also strongly disagree with Mike on the "smoke and mirrors."  When I broke in with Killian and Nugent, Larry Packard got most of the business around Chicago.  Like many, I tended to think he was doing something unseemly to get those projects.  Then I met him outside a presentation (where he beat us again, as it turned out) and he was the nicest guy on earth.  That is when I realized what it takes to sell yourself as a gca, and that most in the profession are really quite good, honest, and humble people.  I think clients can smell BS a mile away.....or more.

Jeff,I have always agreed with your comments above.  But I'm still telling you and you know it, that selling in this business is smoke and mirrors.  I know who I can sell to and that is who I focus on.  Do you think a TW dog and pony show is not smoke and mirrors?  Do you think a guy coming to a club and pointing out old bunker locations that were actually where trees were dynamited is not smoke and mirrors.  As someone pointed out earlier, there are a lot of these young guys out there who could do a much better job than some of what is being done but they can't get in the door and yet a Patrick Cantley could get in the door today. 
As for new creativity, the danger is in excess...strategy has to remain compatible with the game at a specific time and if things just get kinky and strategy is missing then it will not last.  The yellow leisure suit business was big..for a year...gray and blue blazers are still around...

[Thomas Dai]

Allegedly once upon a time, a long, long time ago, famous players would arrive at a potential golf course site in the morning walk around the site placing sticks in various positions, have lunch, then walk around a bit longer placing a few more sticks. Then they’d go away and never return leaving the locals to sort out the details. Allegedly.
Has anyone involved in modern course design ever operated this way, even just once?
Eddie Hackett maybe??
No slight to anyone in the business intended, just genuinely curious to know.
Atb


PS - and by famous player site visit I don’t mean a modern day ‘big name’ showing up, having his photo taken holding a large sheet of paper and then not appearing on site again for months/years, say until an opening day ceremony takes place.
Atb

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
If routing is a key criteria, very very very few will ever quality to be a "golf course architect".  Last I checked Mike (for the last 15 years at least), only a handful of new courses are being built each year.  Maybe there should be an organization called the ASGCR - American Society of Golf Course Remodelers    Would that make you happy    Then again, maybe we should push these "remodelers" to change more golf courses on purpose whether they need to change or not and re-route holes so they can check that box and graduate to "architect" status 


Note: One of the courses I worked on a few years ago was designed and built by a road construction company.  Does that now make them architects?  I guess so. The course is crap.  Just because you can build a house doesn't mean you can design a great kitchen or a beautiful sunroom or ...

[Jeff_Brauer]

I have always agreed with your comments above.  But I'm still telling you and you know it, that selling in this business is smoke and mirrors.  I know who I can sell to and that is who I focus on.  Do you think a TW dog and pony show is not smoke and mirrors?  Do you think a guy coming to a club and pointing out old bunker locations that were actually where trees were dynamited is not smoke and mirrors.  As someone pointed out earlier, there are a lot of these young guys out there who could do a much better job than some of what is being done but they can't get in the door and yet a Patrick Cantley could get in the door today. As for new creativity, the danger is in excess...strategy has to remain compatible with the game at a specific time and if things just get kinky and strategy is missing then it will not last.  The yellow leisure suit business was big..for a year...gray and blue blazers are still around...

Mike,  yes, most of the time we agree on more than we disagree on.  I think we have a different view on the role of sales in design, and the negative aspect of it was ingrained in many professional societies decades ago, i.e., bans on advertising, self promotion, etc., which most adhered to and a few (RTJ) realized that they couldn't or shouldn't.


But, you can't have clients without selling, and frankly, facts don't sell as well as stories, logic doesn't sell as well as appealing to emotion.  Getting in the door is hard for any business, and it's always been a who you know vs what you know world.  We can bitch about it, or retrain ourselves to think like the world does.


I like the leisure suit analogy.  My brother used to joke that "At those prices, they won't last!" and some of our relatives who went for that fad didn't get the double entendre.  That said, it's always a mix of keeping the classics vs. the pop culture of trying/wanting something new, like "New and Improved Tide cleans better!."  It's just that 80% of new businesses fail, and perhaps 80% of "new" ideas are just plain crap.

[Tom_Doak]

I guess I disagree with the OP as I believe there is a ton of new talent out there.  I have had more than a dozen guys (and a couple of young women) work for me who would be excellent designers in their own right; Gil Hanse and Mike DeVries were not necessarily the two best, they were just first in and first out, when there was a better chance they would attract new work on their own.  But it took both a long time to establish their names, just like it took me twenty years to be an overnight success, and the others haven’t gotten there yet.


Will one of them be the one to take things in a new direction?  I certainly don’t think that working for me precludes that, since my style is pretty different than Pete Dye’s.

[Forrest Richardson]

That’s funny Tom. I always think of your work being exactly like Pete’s, only different.

[Mike_Young]

Mike,
If routing is a key criteria, very very very few will ever quality to be a "golf course architect".  Last I checked Mike (for the last 15 years at least), only a handful of new courses are being built each year.  Maybe there should be an organization called the ASGCR - American Society of Golf Course Remodelers    Would that make you happy    Then again, maybe we should push these "remodelers" to change more golf courses on purpose whether they need to change or not and re-route holes so they can check that box and graduate to "architect" status 

Mark,I'm happy already so there is no society that affects my happiness.....maybe there should be no organization if no one qualifies.  That would be the only fair solution to those of the past.  And if some one wants a remodeling association then go for it...OR perhaps a group like ASGCA should provide a space for all from shapers, to finishers, to associates, to remodelers to guys who had done their own....other than my bitching on here I really don't care anymore...I just do my thing...

[Tom_Doak]

Allegedly once upon a time, a long, long time ago, famous players would arrive at a potential golf course site in the morning walk around the site placing sticks in various positions, have lunch, then walk around a bit longer placing a few more sticks. Then they’d go away and never return leaving the locals to sort out the details. Allegedly.
Has anyone involved in modern course design ever operated this way, even just once?
Eddie Hackett maybe??
No slight to anyone in the business intended, just genuinely curious to know.
Atb


PS - and by famous player site visit I don’t mean a modern day ‘big name’ showing up, having his photo taken holding a large sheet of paper and then not appearing on site again for months/years, say until an opening day ceremony takes place.
Atb

For my redesign of The National in Australia, I asked the club to pay me for three days to try and figure out a new plan, and on the third day I stuck flags in the ground for nine new green sites and toured the board through the proposed routing.  That and St Patrick’s are really the only courses where I did nearly all of the routing work on the ground and not on a map.  It’s much easier when all of the ground is open so you can see from a tee location to the next green site, wherever it looks most appealing.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Yeah but Tom, it was your team along with yourself that managed all of the detail.


I think Hackett is the closest in the modern era to that “eighteen stakes on a Sunday afternoon” approach that Dai refers to. He routed (mostly from walking sites rather than topo’s) and then would usually make only limited return visits. He effectively jumped straight from high-level routing to occasional on-site construction visits with no detail design in between and no micro-management of the build.


It was a budgetary decision first and foremost but I don’t see any evidence that Hackett would have been a good detailer (or strategist for that matter).


It’s all the more amazing that some of MacKenzie’s work in Australia or Ross’s work ended up as good as it did. Were they just superb at getting their ideas across or were they lucky at times with their on-site partners?

[Kyle Harris]

One of the reasons I never pursued that side of things is that there is so much talent out there.


And those talented people are my friends.


And they need someone to make them look good.


Not sure how anyone could objectively look at all the current projects going on and conclude there is a lack of talent out there.

[Mark_Fine]

Kyle,
“All the current projects”?  Last I looked, 95% (probably much higher) are all remodel projects and they don’t count 

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle,
“All the current projects”?  Last I looked, 95% (probably much higher) are all remodel projects and they don’t count 

Stands to reason that the talent would be in that 5% then, eh?

[Mark_Fine]

Kyle,
It clearly is in that 5% - I think 

[Kalen Braley]

Mark,

Based on your posts in the last couple years, I always figured you were ahead of the curve in realizing where 95% of the work is actually going to come from for the foreseeable future.  I know some may poo-poo it, but there is no doubt plenty of renovation and restoration work that will likely continue.  And if the beef is title inflation, well that happens everywhere else too! 

[Tim Gallant]

Ally,


I'd actually challenge the creative part. It seems to me that those that are talented are mainly disciples of the big names, and for the most part, are mimicking their principles. Even King Collins at Landmand - it looks pretty wild until you realise there are template features utilised throughout the property (at least from photos, but reserving judgement). It's a surrealist version of Raynor. It's worth saying that I think there are some incredible courses being built right now, but I just wonder how creative they are on the spectrum.


It feels like we're at the back end of an era, and I think the industry needs more 'talent' from unconventional backgrounds who have never heard of C&C, Hanse, to truly unlock undiscovered creativity.


All that said, I'll be a bit of a hypocrite by saying that I think Blake Conant and Brian Schneider are doing some pretty creative things by taking inspiration from old quarries, victorian mounding, etc.

Tim,


Well, this brings up a whole other discussion on the nature of creativity.  After 500 years, I sincerely doubt there are any really new ideas and creativity is borrowing, combining, redefining old stuff with some new stuff (by necessity, like water conservation, as one example) to create something that really is new, as in your Conant/Schneider example, and maybe King Collins.


I mean, Pete Dye seemed to do something new, but he took old ideas from Scotland and sort of just did those the way he did without being subconscious about the result looking like the old stuff.  The Golden Age guys took the basic principles from Scotland, too, but by the time they adapted them to US conditions, they came up with a whole new style, not a copy.


I have always been interested in the concept of "sincerity" in design, i.e., the result comes from form follows function, not some intent to copy or mimic something else.  Which is one reason I never hopped on the restoration bandwagon.  In most other professions, like building architecture, copying previous eras (art deco, neo-classical, etc.) is seen as a weaker, down period phase of the profession, not a stronger one.


But, as I said, that sounds like the premise of an entirely different thread.

Jeff,


I agree with what you're saying - fundamentally, there probably aren't many new ideas out there. That said, I still think GCA is mainly in one area of the creative box - mainly the strategic one, where stylistically and how the courses play tends to be quite similar. It may be the consensus 'best type' of golf courses now, but can someone take a penal style of architecture and do something interesting with it? Or heroic? Mike mentions that a course should fundamentally be strategic, and I'm not sure I agree with that. Why should it?


I think I've mentioned this before, but someone once mentioned to me the idea of a golf course where you could change hole locations on the tee. That seemed pretty out there to me! Also, we've always accepted sand and water as traditional hazards as that is what is found on links courses. But is there a modernist's interpretation of these elements that could be incorporated into a new course?

[Ben Malach]

Honestly, this thread is so full of BS it smells like a feed lot on a hot summer day.


Mark,


Maybe you would know some of us younger guys if you didn't try to get into the business from the top floor. A lot of younger guys even the bigger names mentioned on this thread still will take work with other older GCA's to keep the lights on and build our skill sets. I can name 10 guys around the age of 30 or younger working in some form or other in GCA. Which is pretty cool to say that. I know none of them are members of the association for different reasons.


Honestly, the biggest problem for me with the with the association is not it's history or membership practice (which are problematic). And has been a topic of conversation between me and a few members is what does it provide us over joining the national associations for superintendents or course managers. As those organizations provide us the chance to meet clients and grow our skill sets. I say this in all kindness but until the program at an ASGCA meeting doesn't look like a watered down version of the other organizations I mentioned I don't think it has much real value. Even as a credential the ASGCA membership is worse than a turf management one as the turf one helps more for work visas and opening doors.


Et al,


restoration and renovation is honestly truly golf architecture and is a skill in its self. Obviously it's stupid to talk about this broad topic as one or two words as the scope and scale of the project are so varied to the point that a renovation could mean a new golf course like Memorial Park or something small like a couple greens expansions and bunkers. There is a lot of skill to make this work and I definitely think that it can test your routing muscles if your rerouting an existing course via a couple new tees and greens. Same could be said about changing a golf course to accommodate the club swapping land requiring new holes to fit into an existing design. Restoration is the same in a lot of ways as renovation it just requires you to have historical context. That doesn't mean all the same things as above. Due to the constant evolution of golf course. It's understanding and massaging that evolution into the next phase that takes true skill. Anyways what does this thread matter in the scheme of things me and my friends will be out there tomorrow working on the future of golf regardless of acknowledgment from the people in this thread or not. It's just a shame for people to have such a near sighted view of golf that they can't see us standing in front of them. Even as we are trying to work and improve so when we get our big shot we can make it work without having to call in a big name older brother (or sister).


much love,


Ben

[Mark_Fine]

Ben,
Well written thread.  I actually think there were some good nuggets, as my Marketing Professor used to say, mixed in with all the BS in this thread.  You just have to look for them.

Ben I think I started in this business when you were still in kindergarden. And I by no means started at the top floor.  I had to earn every project and needed a lot of help from other architects like Forrest and Gil and Ron Forse and the list goes on who provided support and encouragement.  Yet still after 20+ years I still have never designed (and built) a brand new 18 hole golf course.  I have done six or seven that are totally redesigned except for most of the routing but still not quite the same as brand new on a blank canvas. 

I hope guys like you get your big break and stick it out as it is a tough business.  The industry needs fresh talent (at least I think so) as I would like to see more break through novel designs and those will likely come from new talent that finds its way into this business.  My philosophy has always been, “If it’s not broke, you didn’t look hard enough.  Fix it anyway!”  That is how innovation happens.  If you are mostly doing restoration it is a little harder to follow that philosophy.  But you still have to convince members that their design might be broke and the original one might be much better.  You just can’t let your innovation talents shine.  Good luck 

[Ben Malach]

Mark,


"My philosophy has always been, “If it’s not broke, you didn’t look hard enough.  Fix it anyway!”


This is a very troubling idea to me as I have been working with a few clubs and the best results come from fixing the real problems on the ground. A lot of times they call you for one thing and you end up learning and knowing your client to find what they really need. I did a consultation visit to a well regarded course in the GCA world and they wanted to do some work that does need to happen but it didn't make sense to do it before they fixed a few issues including their business model. If I took your approach there this club would have hit receivership.


 My comments about starting at the top are more in regards to your obvious lack of understanding of construction and maintenance which has been a keen insight from reading your book and threads. As they have little connection to the day to day work that happens on the ground. You might have been doing this for a long time but have you been doing the right things. The best advice I got on my first job was learn how to do everything that why when it comes time for you to do it you can help and advise from a place of true knowledge and experience. That's why I have spent summers and years where I could be chasing glory and big projects work on drainage and irrigation crews. It's why I stuck around on my first project for a grow in year to understand the problems I created. Those relationships that I built coming back helped build so many bridges in my career that I can't think of where I would be now without that experience.


Now there is no one track to become a GCA but I think a lot of the younger guys have followed this path for a reason. It's so when we want to break rules or do something different we know how to handle it. You can't just ride in with an attitude of I know more because you call me. If you do that most supers and club managers with laugh at you behind your back and give the contract to someone who comes in and listens first. As that's how you truly sell a project.


Remember innovation and change happen at a snails pace its hard to truly understand the changes that are happening right now untill 5-6 years from now. Who knows the next DMK or Gill could be off planning a course that knocks the world on end right now. That's honestly why I feel this thread is in bad taste.


with kindness,


Ben