[Tom_Doak]

 I saw Geoff Ogilvy just got the Medinah project. What does he call himself?  Again I doubt he cares but he probably wants some respect. 

Well, he owns his own design company, so I guess he would call himself the Boss.  Although I know his two associates / partners from the days of Barnbougle and St. Andrews Beach, and they are pretty talented, too.

[Jeff_Brauer]

The bolded quote got my attention, so I pulled out some of my ASGCA history material.  Peter was accepted as an associate member in 1966 and elevated to full membership (no. 40) the next year.  As always, it is the board of governors who formally approve membership.  Those aren't recorded in my materials, but just for grins, these were the leaders deciding if Pete should/could be a member:


President Floyd Farley - entered gca as a golf pro (not tour pro)


VP -Bill Gordon - Entered profession as a seed salesman, interned with Toomey and Flynn (who were never ASGCA members), went on his own, at first building courses for Ross and McGovern before getting any design contracts of his own.


Sec/Treasurer - Fred Garbin - Entered profession as an agronomy graduate of Penn State, partnered with his father in law Jim Harrison (an ASGCA member since 1950).


While how they felt about Pete by either you or I is pure speculation, since it was before our time, I am going to guess that him being a design-build guy was not or would not be a factor in his election to membership. 

After just re-reading Pete's book, I wonder if he told the ASGCA board that Alice was his co-designer on most of those early projects, and if so, what they thought of that? 

He did, and I recall it being a point of discussion mostly because Pete was the one who got all the press back then.  I recall making an offhand remark in Singapore about the board questioning Alice, which got back to her.    Pete sort of used that as some ammunition, but how much she was involved seemed to be a legit question at the time.  And Pete got a question during the membership discussion, which he obviously answered well enough to everyone's satisfaction because she got voted in.

[Tom_Doak]

Steve [Wynn] may have given himself some credit, but I think most just sort of know Fazio was the designer.  Having a big enough checkbook to cover mistakes is not on the list of gca skills needed to call oneself an architect.......

I believe Steve Wynn was actually pretty involved with the conceptual design of Shadow Creek and with a lot of the details as well.  Of course, he owned it and got to decide whether to credit himself or not, just like Donald Trump has listed himself as the co-designer of a couple of his courses.


The late Mark Parsinen is another developer who wanted to be very involved with the creation of his projects.  He was heavily involved at Kingsbarns but did not choose to credit himself there; he did list himself as co-designer of Castle Stuart but I'm not sure he did a lot more for that project.


I have met all three men and I could give you my impressions of their respective design chops, but let's not go there!

[Tom_Doak]

After just re-reading Pete's book, I wonder if he told the ASGCA board that Alice was his co-designer on most of those early projects, and if so, what they thought of that? 

He did, and I recall it being a point of discussion mostly because Pete was the one who got all the press back then.  I recall making an offhand remark in Singapore about the board questioning Alice, which got back to her.    Pete sort of used that as some ammunition, but how much she was involved seemed to be a legit question at the time.  And Pete got a question during the membership discussion, which he obviously answered well enough to everyone's satisfaction because she got voted in.

No, Jeff, I meant did he tell them that in 1966, when he was applying himself?  It was a very different time, and I can't imagine how that would have gone over. 


I have NO doubt that Alice was always involved in Pete's work, having seen first hand what her role was during construction at Long Cove or in the planning process at PGA WEST.  Whether that would be considered "co-design" by others, I have no idea.  But even Pete's book was written much later and could involve some revisionist history. 

[Mark_Fine]

Ira,
I am sure Ian did a good job with his analysis.  I will try to find time to look it up.  Thanks.

[Niall C]

Niall,
I think Ally and Forrest and others have explained this well but like most things that are subjective we will never get 100% agreement.  I know a guy in the Poconos who owns a road building company.  He designed and built a golf course.  I highly doubt his business card says golf course architect but he could call himself one if he wanted to.  Long story but I guarantee you there were no fancy grading plans and cut and fill measurements done,.., He had a big piece of property and wanted a golf course so he built one.

Yeah, and if I hit someone over the head with a hammer I suppose there is nothing stopping me from calling myself a brain surgeon but it still wouldn't make me one would it ? Likewise the enthusiastic amateur I referred to in an earlier post. You can call them whatever you like but they still aren't doing the same work as the architect/designer role that Ally outlined.


Niall 

[Mark_Fine]

Niall,
Is it what they do or what they produce?  That guy who built the course himself, well it has been a successful private club you can join for 20+ years.  It won’t make any top 100 list but it is a functioning golf course and has been for a long time. 

[Tom_Doak]

Niall,
Is it what they do or what they produce?  That guy who built the course himself, well it has been a successful private club you can join for 20+ years.  It won’t make any top 100 list but it is a functioning golf course and has been for a long time.

And if you wanted a "functioning golf course" [which is really all some developers want], then maybe you should hire him.  But, caveat emptor, playing around with your own money is different than spending someone else's.

[David_Tepper]

"The late Mark Parsinen is another developer who wanted to be very involved with the creation of his projects.  He was heavily involved at Kingsbarns but did not choose to credit himself there; he did list himself as co-designer of Castle Stuart but I'm not sure he did a lot more for that project."

I was able to visit Castle Stuart a couple of times while it was under construction. One of those times I spent well over 4 hours touring the project with Mark P. I was very impressed with the depth of his knowledge and involvement with what was being designed and built. I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure he lived on site for the majority of time the course was being built.


I have no idea how involved he was with the design & construction of Kingsbarns. I am willing to bet he was more involved and spent far more time onsite at Castle Stuart than he was there.   

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I agree but he did build it and designed it so he acted as a golf architect and delivered a golf course.  For that project he was a golf architect. 

Is a London street vendor selling her paintings for 10 pounds an artist?  She might not be famous (yet) and might not be Van Gogh, but these people are artists.

My wife worked with the father of Keith Haring. Some of Haring’s earliest paintings done when no one knew who he was (that most would have called vandalism or graffiti) became his most valuable works (once he became famous). So when did Keith become an artist?  Is there a parallel with golf course architects who are also artists? 

[Mike_Young]

Because Darius hadn’t previously done any of the technical work needed to get a golf course over the line, I still suspect he was more of a “design consultant” and that only because he was hooked in to the project prior to an actual architect / designer being engaged.

BINGO....do people realize how often that happens?

[Mike_Young]

Maybe you feel differently but I don't see a lot of BS in this business.  You either know what you are doing and stay employed with projects or you disappear pretty fast.  You can't fake a good bunker or an improved golf hole.  It is either well accepted or it sucks and if it sucks word will get around fast and you won't get many more jobs to screw up! 

I don't know about this.  There are lots of renovations on top of renovations going on now, and nobody ever asks out loud why it's all necessary?  Some of those guys did big renovations for ten or twenty years before clubs got around to erasing their work, and still to this day, you never hear anything bad about the guy.

IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE BS IN THE RENO BUSINESS THEN YOU HAVEN'T SEEN MUCH OF THE BUSINESS..."But think about a guy like Pete Dye deciding to quit his job and trying to become a Golf Architect (Designer) with no formal training.  Why would any one hire some insurance salesman to design and build their golf course?  He must have been a really good salesman.  Can you imagine what Pete’s congntemporaries like Robert Trent Jones must have thought about this insurance salesman trying to enter their business? "" I don't have to think about doing it the way Pete Dye did it because I quit my job w no formal training, ( even though I did work on three Pete Dye projects during my Summer vacations before (Atlanta National, Honors and LongCove)  mainly just to be nosey and see what I could dig out... And after my first project..it didn't take long to find out how much the established guys despised someone getting "their" jobs as an outsider..I guarantee if Pete had not gained a national reputation the ASGCA would never have accepted him and the way he worked...they almost had to take him...

Mike,


The bolded quote got my attention, so I pulled out some of my ASGCA history material.  Peter was accepted as an associate member in 1966 and elevated to full membership (no. 40) the next year.  As always, it is the board of governors who formally approve membership.  Those aren't recorded in my materials, but just for grins, these were the leaders deciding if Pete should/could be a member:


President Floyd Farley - entered gca as a golf pro (not tour pro)


VP -Bill Gordon - Entered profession as a seed salesman, interned with Toomey and Flynn (who were never ASGCA members), went on his own, at first building courses for Ross and McGovern before getting any design contracts of his own.


Sec/Treasurer - Fred Garbin - Entered profession as an agronomy graduate of Penn State, partnered with his father in law Jim Harrison (an ASGCA member since 1950).


While how they felt about Pete by either you or I is pure speculation, since it was before our time, I am going to guess that him being a design-build guy was not or would not be a factor in his election to membership. 


It was kind of fun looking back at that membership list.  While we associate the landscape architect trained gca to guys who came of age in the 50's, like Ed Seay and Bob Graves, etc., it really seemed to accelerate in my generation in the 1970's.  That said, it has never been the only path to the business or ASGCA.


Of the original 14 members, 5 had some training in LA or agronomy, 4 in construction, 3 were golf pros, and 2 were businessmen who converted (Maxwell and Bill Diddel).  A look at early membership through the 1960's shows about the same.


You made one other comment in your new deleted post that caught my attention.  You believe too many gca's rely on big contractors.  You say it like it's a bad thing!  However, with only dozens of new courses under my belt (or yours) I can count the instances of problems in construction where I was glad to have a Wadsworth, Landscapes Unlimited, or another contractor with hundreds or maybe thousands of project experience, which sometimes gave them the leg up on how to solve a construction problem I hadn't encountered.  For any construction method, you can sure name pluses and minuses, and of course, in the end, it usually boils down to just being lucky enough to work with good, passionate, and ethical people.

Jeff,
I erased that post because I was tired of arguing ASGCA topics...Respectfully we see it in a extremely different light.  I don't see that it brings a thing to the game of golf...I do see that it takes dollars from vendors who also cater to non members and have to spend some of their non member dollars to support the ASGCA...I don't like that.  If it is so clean right now and is no longer a black ball organization then it needs to acknowledge such to people it has messed with in the past....Read the book, (which ASGCA never mentions but was the USGA book of the year ) A Difficult Par, the biography of RTJ( I think around page 247)  and the author goes thru the initial set up of the group...the written rules and regs all sound good but as you say the board makes the membership decision , so it's just a little frat thing and nothing more.  And that doesn't mean I don't like you...   My bet is RTJ pitched a fit when PD got in but Diddle had enough sway to get it done...
As for contractors...don't read me wrong..there is definitely a place for contractors but I do design/build and have seen many architects that were so bad that the only thing saving them was a good contractor.  Fact is the good contractors can go to a club and build a course w/o the architect much easier than many architects can build w/o contractor.  My argument has always been cost for the average golf course...Landscapes, Wadsworth and those types...no problem....except when they make some goober look exceptional and the goober doesn't even realize it....     That's my main bitch..some guy will write an architecture book or magazine, desides he's an architect and calls a contractor...some dude read his book and thinks he can do the job...when the reality  is, he has no clue and a good contractor covered his ass...OH..it's more expensive for the client also...

[Mike_Young]

WHO CARES???
If  wish to a be tour player you can go to Florida and pay to play for your own money on several tours and each night , at the bar you can tell the girls you are on the tour.
If you want to be a songwriter then start writing and go to Nashville with a cowboy hat and tell them at the bar you are a songwriter..
If you want to be a golf architect,designer etc you can print a business card...retire and play in the dirt...

This thread could go on and on like two dorks in a light saber fight...so the best way to cut thru the BS is to ask the question ...Architect, designer...whatever...how many (even in the esteemed ASGCA) can make a living at it for 5, 10, 20 years or more w/o another source of income or a working wife?  Not many...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,


Yes, I am sure we bore the group with every thread turning to ASGCA/anti-ASGCA chatter between the two of us.  Cut that out!    You need to, because I won't, LOL.


You and I are friends, and despite a few obvious professional differences, have similar tenures and experiences in the profession.  That said, our outlooks are pretty different.  While I am not Betty White optimistic, I at least trend slightly that way, and you (or to be fair, your internet persona or "sthick" does not.


My take on life is that for any bad trait us humans can have, 98% of us are good, and 2% are scoundrels.  My take on the golf biz, in general, is that the good/bad ratio is 99-1%.  I can't think of a better profession to be in, both for the work we do and the people who are in it.


Your take seems to be more negative.  Just in this thread, you say most owners don't have a clue, many gca's are incompetent, some have a few unethical episodes over the course of their career, no association has any value, big golf companies don't spend their marketing $$$ correctly, and of course, everyone (especially big contractors) charges too much money.  If I ever came even close to believing the points you make, I would have found a more ethical profession long ago......maybe law!

[Mike_Young]

Your take seems to be more negative.  Just in this thread, you say most owners don't have a clue, many gca's are incompetent, some have a few unethical episodes over the course of their career, no association has any value, big golf companies don't spend their marketing $$$ correctly, and of course, everyone (especially big contractors) charges too much money.  If I ever came even close to believing the points you make, I would have found a more ethical profession long ago......maybe law!

Jeff,I'm an instigator on here to try to make someone question or think...I can't help it...I agree that 99% of golf industry is fine..I think most owners do have a clue and I don't recall saying they didn't.  I think most boards don't have a clue and I think the DUNNING-KRUGER EFFECT is usually in play there and is naturally used by vendors and anyone dealing with them. 
I don't think most associations have value and I think they often forget their place and fell the member is there to serve them more than they are to serve the member.  As for your favorite association, I never said they were unethical, they basically told me I was and that's why I will always feel the way I do towards that group.  I just don't think they are upfront..  AND I have never said the "big contractor charges too much money"..hell charge all you can get. I said boards pay too much...charging and paying is two different things.. I have always said if you go design/build you can save money.  I don't care what they charge. 
I'm a perfectly happy normal dude and  just do my daily thing until I read something on here that makes my BS detector go off....

[V_Halyard]

Your take seems to be more negative.  Just in this thread, you say most owners don't have a clue, many gca's are incompetent, some have a few unethical episodes over the course of their career, no association has any value, big golf companies don't spend their marketing $$$ correctly, and of course, everyone (especially big contractors) charges too much money.  If I ever came even close to believing the points you make, I would have found a more ethical profession long ago......maybe law!

Jeff,I'm an instigator on here to try to make someone question or think...I can't help it...I agree that 99% of golf industry is fine..I think most owners do have a clue and I don't recall saying they didn't.  I think most boards don't have a clue and I think the DUNNING-KRUGER EFFECT is usually in play there and is naturally used by vendors and anyone dealing with them. 
I don't think most associations have value and I think they often forget their place and fell the member is there to serve them more than they are to serve the member.  As for your favorite association, I never said they were unethical, they basically told me I was and that's why I will always feel the way I do towards that group.  I just don't think they are upfront..  AND I have never said the "big contractor charges too much money"..hell charge all you can get. I said boards pay too much...charging and paying is two different things.. I have always said if you go design/build you can save money.  I don't care what they charge. 
I'm a perfectly happy normal dude and  just do my daily thing until I read something on here that makes my BS detector go off....

This is the best thing on TV today

[Jeff_Brauer]

Back on the topic somewhat, in looking through ASGCA historical documents again today, a few members of ASGCA consulted an attorney in 1952 to get the name "golf course architect" reserved for members only.  Even back in those days, the lawyer reported back that there was no way that was going to fly.

[Tom_Doak]

I agree that 99% of golf industry is fine..I think most owners do have a clue and I don't recall saying they didn't.  I think most boards don't have a clue and I think the DUNNING-KRUGER EFFECT is usually in play there and is naturally used by vendors and anyone dealing with them. 
I don't think most associations have value and I think they often forget their place and fell the member is there to serve them more than they are to serve the member.  As for your favorite association, I never said they were unethical, they basically told me I was and that's why I will always feel the way I do towards that group.  I just don't think they are upfront..  AND I have never said the "big contractor charges too much money"..hell charge all you can get. I said boards pay too much...charging and paying is two different things.. I have always said if you go design/build you can save money.  I don't care what they charge. 
I'm a perfectly happy normal dude and  just do my daily thing until I read something on here that makes my BS detector go off....

Of all the things I might have expected you two to agree on, agreeing that 99% of the golf industry are good people was not one of them!  I'm trying to do the math on the rest of Mike's post above, and it doesn't compute . . . unless, I guess, anything short of "scoundrel" counts as a good person . . .


Don't get me wrong; there are a lot of wonderful, generous people throughout the game of golf, and I always try to remember all of them that helped me, whenever someone young asks me for help or advice.  But 99% ?

[Tom_Doak]

"The late Mark Parsinen is another developer who wanted to be very involved with the creation of his projects.  He was heavily involved at Kingsbarns but did not choose to credit himself there; he did list himself as co-designer of Castle Stuart but I'm not sure he did a lot more for that project."

I was able to visit Castle Stuart a couple of times while it was under construction. One of those times I spent well over 4 hours touring the project with Mark P. I was very impressed with the depth of his knowledge and involvement with what was being designed and built. I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure he lived on site for the majority of time the course was being built.


I have no idea how involved he was with the design & construction of Kingsbarns. I am willing to bet he was more involved and spent far more time onsite at Castle Stuart than he was there.

David:


Mark was very very involved at Kingsbarns as well.  Maybe he didn't spend as much time, in total, but I'd bet it wasn't much different.


I worked with him for a little while in between, on a project that never got built, just above Tom Weiskopf's course at Cabo del Sol.  He was by far the most engaged client I've ever met; basically, he wanted to design the thing himself, with help.  He only wanted me to tweak HIS routing for the holes, and the discussion of who had the final say on a hole was about how many times I could overrule Mark!


The project never got legs so I never really got to see whether we could work well together or not.  By the time Castle Stuart came around, it was after the success of Pacific Dunes and Cape Kidnappers, and I think Mark assumed I wouldn't want to work on his terms.  But, that could lead to an interesting story soon!

[Mike_Young]

I agree that 99% of golf industry is fine..I think most owners do have a clue and I don't recall saying they didn't.  I think most boards don't have a clue and I think the DUNNING-KRUGER EFFECT is usually in play there and is naturally used by vendors and anyone dealing with them. 
I don't think most associations have value and I think they often forget their place and fell the member is there to serve them more than they are to serve the member.  As for your favorite association, I never said they were unethical, they basically told me I was and that's why I will always feel the way I do towards that group.  I just don't think they are upfront..  AND I have never said the "big contractor charges too much money"..hell charge all you can get. I said boards pay too much...charging and paying is two different things.. I have always said if you go design/build you can save money.  I don't care what they charge. 
I'm a perfectly happy normal dude and  just do my daily thing until I read something on here that makes my BS detector go off....

Of all the things I might have expected you two to agree on, agreeing that 99% of the golf industry are good people was not one of them!  I'm trying to do the math on the rest of Mike's post above, and it doesn't compute . . . unless, I guess, anything short of "scoundrel" counts as a good person . . .


Don't get me wrong; there are a lot of wonderful, generous people throughout the game of golf, and I always try to remember all of them that helped me, whenever someone young asks me for help or advice.  But 99% ?

It was early in the day and I was trying to be diplomatic.  I'm not real good at that...I'll go 85%...

[Gib_Papazian]

I was fortunate to speak to Mark at length about Kingsbarns and when I state it is a "one and done" to me, my qualifier is to quote one of TD's questions:


"Is it worth crossing an ocean to play?"


The answer is no. It is WELL WORTH a play - and if it was nearby I would get out there at least once a year as its terrific, just not absolutely transcendent.


My impression was Mark was deeply involved in the golf course conceptually on a macro scale. His thoughts were more philosophical and general in nature - how he envisioned the flow and feel of his investment . . . . the "chi" if that makes sense.


And to that end, fabulous job, absolutely - and something of merit to be proud of in one of the toughest neighborhoods on earth. Took some brass juevos rancheros to see it through with your own dough, but that golf course was created on land that did not exactly remind me of the Inch Peninsula.


More like the Torrey Pines/Sandpiper of Scotland.


Having been lucky enough to consult on a few projects, ANY amateur who thinks they can figure out the cuts & fills, drainage, routing, endless ungodly complications and trade-offs on a complex undertaking like Kingsbarns needs to put down the bong and dial back the hubris to zero.


Oh, and still cough up an excellent golf course without making a complete mess of it . . . . . . .


One of the most interesting things about hanging with Mike Young over the years is how much I learn - not just about the particulars of why this tie-in works and that one does not - but how he integrates his design knowledge into the economic sustainability of his creations.


The downstream bizness end is a whole other end of the equation - and having mastered both skills to use in the dirt simultaneously is a million miles from Mark's expansive vision - or my often unrealistic suggestions that often gave a real architect like Neal a splitting headache.


Reminds me of having a G&T with Bobby Jr a few years back, when he admitted that Eagle Point - one of my favorite courses on earth - nearly broke his company. Trying to be both architect and business investor . . . . well, it is fraught with peril, which is why you bring in a legit super-gunner like Kyle to keep you from cutting your own throat.   


 




 


 

[Niall C]

Having been lucky enough to consult on a few projects, ANY amateur who thinks they can figure out the cuts & fills, drainage, routing, endless ungodly complications and trade-offs on a complex undertaking like Kingsbarns needs to put down the bong and dial back the hubris to zero.


Oh, and still cough up an excellent golf course without making a complete mess of it . . . . . . .

Gib


If only this had been post no.2 this thread would never have gone beyond the first page. You get exactly the point I've been trying and by the looks of it failing to make. I think you are also bang on about Mark Parsinen. He was clearly very generous with his time as I also spent half a day with him and a bunch of other wannabees at KB where he walked us round the course and talked through his design goals. Your comment and David Tepper's comment made me dig out a typed document he gave us titled "Perspectives on Course Design". A very interesting read but also very much high level and aspirational stuff.


Niall

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()