Did any architect ever get it right to start?

[mike_malone]

Many changes happened to Rolling Green between our 1928 photos and the mid 30’s photos. We have no evidence of who did them. But we know no changes happened between 1926 ( the opening) and ‘28.


   We haven’t eliminated any original features but have done away with most of all the changes after the original.


So I think Flynn got it right the first time.


  Some changes remain and I think the original is better than all of those changes.


It could be that Flynn never returned because the 30’s changes don’t seem like his work.


There were ideas in the original designs which weren’t built and even a different last 4 hole routing from 1925 which create interesting conversations about plans versus built.


But it is clear to me that he got it right.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
I am not surprised there were no changes in the first two years.  That was typical as Flynn wanted to see how the course played before changing anything.  It wouldn’t make much sense to change things right away without some data.


At the end of the day, we as golfers can decide what ever we want about the course.  That is how rankings happen.  I was more interested in what architects think of their own work amd why so many courses get altered as time passes (many by the original architect themselves). 


As has been said many times, golf courses are pieces of art but they are meant to be played not just looked at and as the game changes, it seems intuitive that the playing fields should change as well.

[Tom_Doak]

I asked if we can think of examples where that has not been the case or where the architect wouldn’t alter anything even if given the chance.  That is a harder question to answer.

If I wasn't clear before, I have designed 46-48 courses [including those currently in the works] and about 40 of them are still in existence.  On those 40, there is nothing I'd really like to alter on any of them, apart from removing encroaching trees.  That is not to say they're all perfect, but to say I'm happy with them as they are, and I'd rather not see someone else come in and mess with them in order to stay busy.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Would you say you are the exception or the rule when it comes to not wishing you could go back and alter something on your existing courses? 


Also No architect wants anyone else messing with their work.  There is probably 100% agreement on that and few architects (even those who will take most any work they can get) will not feel good about altering another architect’s original design if that architect is still practicing.  But I think you would agree, courses that are for example 100 years old could benefit from someone who cares enough about what was designed to start to help them understand how their course has evolved for better or for worse.

[Matt Schoolfield]

Perfect is the enemy of good. 

The older I get, the more I hold on to these words. My favorite rendition of this sentiment is from Dan Harmon: "You'll be perfect when you're dead."

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,
Would you say you are the exception or the rule when it comes to not wishing you could go back and alter something on your existing courses? 


Also No architect wants anyone else messing with their work.  There is probably 100% agreement on that and few architects (even those who will take most any work they can get) will feel good about altering another architect’s original design if that architect is still practicing.  But I think you would agree, courses that are for example 100 years old could benefit from someone who cares enough about what was designed to start to help them understand how their course has evolved for better or for worse.

I'm certainly the exception rather than the rule.  Most architects do far more renovations than new courses, so they have a bias toward believing that everything must be restored or improved.


I am sure you are right that if the future rhymes with the past, then most of my courses will be changed over time, because I am not naive enough to believe the governing bodies will manage to stand up against ball and club technology.  But I proposed here years ago that every architect should nominate two or three courses he would like to see preserved intact.  We don't own them, of course, so we don't have the final say, but I would like to think that the possibility of my haunting the owner and architect who change those courses might give them pause, in the same way I'm being very careful now in rebuilding the greens at Crooked Stick.


My eventual three choices would certainly include Pacific Dunes and The Loop.  I'll reserve my final choice for when I retire.

[Rob Marshall]

I would think that most of the work done by GCA’s are renovations. I would hope that the architect gets it right from the start because it’s tough at the average private course to get approval to correct work that was recently done that didn’t turn out right.


Not every private course is rolling in funds….

[Paul Jones]

I would think most architects got it right to start because it was a moment in time and they worked with resources, equipment and budget they had at that time. 


I think Augusta National got it right to start as Bobby Jones even talked about which shots/clubs he wanted players to hit into each green.


I think Cypress Point got it right to start also...


I would guess a problem with restorations is the architect knowing when to stop - especially if they are up and coming and want to make a name for themselves.  The other issue could be the project running out of money.

[Mark_Fine]

Maybe I am too close to this topic but I think it is a very interesting one.  I spend time in Hilton Head and one of the courses there is Heron Point at Sea Pines designed by Pete Dye.  I remember right when it opened I got to play it and so wrote a lengthy summary to Cary Corbitt who I knew well and was The Director of Golf Operations at the resort.  In summary I told him I loved the golf course but was shocked how difficult Pete made it given it was for resort play. I said it was at least a couple shots harder than Harbour Town and there were greens on the course where some higher handicappers might just pick up after four or five putts.  Not too many years later, Pete came back in and made some major changes to soften the design.  Frankly it was needed and the course is better or it.  Most here will recall a similar story at The TPC at Sawgrass. 


As Tom said, I think he is more the exception rather than the rule. 


How many people build a house and don’t modifications/additions down the road as they live in it and things/needs change?  Most golf courses are the same way as again they are living art that is used to play a game not static like most tennis courts. 


Money is a big issue as is time on site and so is the client. As pointed out, all are probably much bigger issues with restorations and renovation work as there is always emotional ties to the existing course to be worked on.  A new course is simply a piece of ground and most clients don’t have the vision to see what the architect sees so they leave them alone. 


I just got back from two weeks in Ireland where I had the privilege to layout a unique and very authentic private nine hole par three course in southern Ireland for a close friend.  He is an avid golfer and had a parcel of land he wanted to be able to practice on. I think I got it right but I am sure as he plays it and when I see it again in a year or two I will at least have the urge to tweak it    Anyway, thought this topic might be interesting and thought provoking.  Thanks to all who chimed in.

[Tim_Weiman]

Mark,


Does the fact that changes were made to a golf course necessarily mean the original architect didn’t get it right from the start?


Tim

[Mark_Fine]

Tim,
As Mike pointed out, maybe my thread title is not the best.  Many architects get it right from the start but if they did indeed get it right, why do so many want to go back and change things?  Maybe they are just trying to get it more right 

Or maybe they feel it necessary as the game and play on the course changes.  Why did Pete change Heron Point and TPC at Sawgrass? You tell me.

[Sven Nilsen]

Mark,


There are many reasons why a course might undergo changes.


Perhaps the course was first built with teams of horses and the amount of earthmoving was limited.


Perhaps new land became available.


Perhaps the club couldn’t afford a name architect at inception.


Perhaps the state decided to build a highway through part of the property.


Perhaps they wanted to move the clubhouse.


Perhaps flooding in low areas required a solution.


Perhaps the guy they originally wanted wasn’t available.


Perhaps the change from hickory to steel shafts necessitated lengthening.


Perhaps sand or seed husk greens were the only viable solution when built but grass became an option later.


Perhaps tree encroachment became a major issue.


This is a hard topic to analyze in the abstract.  Building on the earth is a different animal than painting a picture or constructing a building.  This discussion only makes sense when examined on a case by case basis.


Sven

[Mark_Fine]

Sven,
Good points and case by case discussion makes sense.  Many of the points you raised are what architects assess when studying an existing golf course and trying to help the owners or membership figure out what if anything should be done to it. 


Maybe there is nothing we can all agree on here which is fine.  Or maybe Tom’s idea has merit of preserving a few but letting the rest evolve as deemed necessary as most all do. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Maybe I am too close to this topic but I think it is a very interesting one.  I spend time in Hilton Head and one of the courses there is Heron Point at Sea Pines designed by Pete Dye.  I remember right when it opened I got to play it and so wrote a lengthy summary to Cary Corbitt who I knew well and was The Director of Golf Operations at the resort.  In summary I told him I loved the golf course but was shocked how difficult Pete made it given it was for resort play. I said it was at least a couple shots harder than Harbour Town and there were greens on the course where some higher handicappers might just pick up after four or five putts.  Not too many years later, Pete came back in and made some major changes to soften the design.  Frankly it was needed and the course is better or it.  Most here will recall a similar story at The TPC at Sawgrass. 

Mark,


I was doing some work for Jim Colbert when he was on the TPC revision committee working with Pete on changes.  At the initial (admitted that it was awkward) with Pete, no one wanted to say much, but Jim chimed in. 


"Pete, that mound in the middle of the first green that deflects shots off the green was a great idea.....but you liked it so well you did it 17 more times."


Jim had strong opinions, of course.  However, then and a few other times, he told me that for good players, the middle of the green is a "sacred" safe play, and the edges can be much harder.  I can tell you he is not a fan of "random contours" in the middle of the greens that so many current architects do.  I think he is representative of that generation of pros.  It would be interesting to see how the current generation feels.

[Phil Young]

Its not the architects fault, its the equipment makers and the powers-that-be who refuse to reign them in.

[Kyle Harris]

Was not necessity the mother of almost all of Pinehurst's invention for one reason or the other? Sand to grass greens conversion. Multiple interations of golf course/land use. Aging and weathering.

Which changes at Pinehurst #2 through history were the product of Donald Ross not "getting it right" the first time?

So it goes with Merion East, Lancaster, NGLA, etc.

You can't get something right now that needs to be changed in ten years for a reason that didn't exist yesterday.

[Tony Ristola]

Of course, I totally disagree with this point of view, and not just because I've built a few courses that I see no need to change anytime soon. 


Of course, if in fifty years' time there are kids hitting 400-yard drives, someone else will see the need to change it, even if amateurs still hit it 220 and the course works fine for them.  But are you really going to use THAT as proof that I "didn't get it right to start" ?  By your silly idea of design intent, if the equipment and the golfers keep changing, then it's impossible for any design to stay "right" for very long.


As for Pinehurst, Donald Ross lived there and he liked to tinker with Pinehurst #2.  By the same token, he didn't tinker much on Pinehurst #3, and it was just fine until the resort started taking ground away from it and squeezing 18 holes into the space of sixteen.  Did the long-term success of the resort mean he got #3 wrong?

The courses you built were often on wonderful land and with people who knew and loved what they were doing. Not all owners are so fortunate.


Scores of courses, especially in Central Europe, built on good land fell far short of their potential.


Let's say the architects drew awesome plans; who was building these courses during the boom years, and even afterwards? How much oversight was provided?


All this reminds me of a quotes, and a poll on the same subject, the two 70-years apart. (paraphrasing) Tillinghast said half the builders had no idea and left it up to the architect. GC News did a poll in 1996 or 97 asking North American architects if they had qualified builders for their projects. About half didn't, mirroring what Tillinghast noted in the 20's. Where were the quality builders coming from in Continental Europe? There may have been a few for the mass of courses being produced. There was a dearth of knowledge, care, trying or love.


There was one architect in GC News who spoke about his recently renovated golf course needing one in the future!!! This after they spent seven figures. I'm certain the club president hoped none of his membership saw that.


These courses could use a long-term vision to upgrade their golfing experience. Would the club be wise to rehire the original architect? If they didn't see fit to protect the client the first time, as is the case most of the time, I don't think so.


As I like to say, and have written in a short book for investors... "You only have one chance to build to build an incredible, cost effective project."


Everything that follows (redesign, remodel, improvements) is part of the original cost, merely deferred.


I also agree with what Cleve Trimble wrote on the original Prairie Club website... "Great courses are a labor of love, and greatness is unlikely if the designer and owner only play the inaugural round together and never see one another again.

[Mark_Fine]

Phil,
Good points and good example why “restoration” work is challenging.  Who knows for sure what the original architect would want done to their designs going forward as the game changes?  Unless they wrote about it or gave clear instructions it’s hard to know.  All you can do is learn as much as you can about the original architect, the course and the architect’s design intentions/philosophies and make educated thoughtful recommendations. 

Kyle,

Your last statement is a good one:

“You can't get something right now that needs to be changed in ten years for a reason that didn't exist yesterday.”

This is one of the reasons courses get changed or why architects etc at least think they should be changed.  But I think you would agree, many architects did anticipate their courses would need to change and some built elasticity into their routings in particular to allow for lengthening of certain holes. Some also provided tree planting plans, etc. 

Tony,
Lots of good points.  Many architects don’t always have the luxury of either having their own or having 100% access to an “A Team“ of hired builders and shapers.  Sometimes we get whatever team is available or need to work with the contractor who the client chose or the one who was available to work on the project at the time required.  Most of us have our favorites and try to work with those teams but sometimes those teams are not available and/or we need to meet budgets/timelines, etc and have to use alternatives.  And on some lower budget projects, the work is done in house and they can be hit or miss.  Having to rework a green or a bunker or some other feature multiple times is frustrating and sometimes you just have to compromise and do the best you can.  Change orders/modifications to plans can get very expensive and be time consuming. 

I recall a busy period where some greenside bunkers got sodded before I had the chance to approve them.  Most would never know I wanted something different and feel they turned out great but to me they weren’t exactly what I was expecting but too much time and effort was required to alter them.  This is just one example of where I might change something if the opportunity arose in the future.  I was guessing many others have similar experiences but maybe not.

[Tom_Doak]

The courses you built were often on wonderful land and with people who knew and loved what they were doing. Not all owners are so fortunate.


Scores of courses, especially in Central Europe, built on good land fell far short of their potential.

Let's say the architects drew awesome plans; who was building these courses during the boom years, and even afterwards? How much oversight was provided?

All this reminds me of a quotes, and a poll on the same subject, the two 70-years apart. (paraphrasing) Tillinghast said half the builders had no idea and left it up to the architect. GC News did a poll in 1996 or 97 asking North American architects if they had qualified builders for their projects. About half didn't, mirroring what Tillinghast noted in the 20's. Where were the quality builders coming from in Continental Europe? There may have been a few for the mass of courses being produced. There was a dearth of knowledge, care, trying or love.

There was one architect in GC News who spoke about his recently renovated golf course needing one in the future!!! This after they spent seven figures. I'm certain the club president hoped none of his membership saw that.

These courses could use a long-term vision to upgrade their golfing experience. Would the club be wise to rehire the original architect? If they didn't see fit to protect the client the first time, as is the case most of the time, I don't think so.

As I like to say, and have written in a short book for investors... "You only have one chance to build to build an incredible, cost effective project."

Everything that follows (redesign, remodel, improvements) is part of the original cost, merely deferred.

I also agree with what Cleve Trimble wrote on the original Prairie Club website... "Great courses are a labor of love, and greatness is unlikely if the designer and owner only play the inaugural round together and never see one another again.

Tony:


Indeed, that was my business model from the beginning -- to develop a team of talented people to help build the courses so that I could assure quality.  I don't understand why others don't do this, except of course that they would make less $ if they had to support a team instead of "drawing awesome plans" and pretending that was enough, even when they know it's not.


The best part of that is that now a lot of my team are out there building their own teams to try and continue the project, which creates opportunities for even more talented people.

[Tony Ristola]

The team approach comes with a couple challenges:


1. Responsibility. You have to keep the staff busy, as they've got families. So, it creates a cycle... where you're chasing work and become more a manager than practicing architect.


2. What happens when you take on projects and key staff decides to move on? Or multiple projects come through at the same time and you're spread thin?


Finding qualified guys is less a problem in the US than Europe, though the Tillinghast quote and GC News poll illustrates it is a challenge, and will always be one for at least half the projects.


You may not have had to face these challenges, but my guess is many offices do.


I like the Pete Dye method of limiting the amount of work you do at one time drastically, assembling a team and putting everyone on the owner's payroll.


The following contradicts some of what I've written above... and that is you really need one guy on-site to drive the project, and be capable of doing stuff himself as an insurance policy.

[Tom_Doak]

Tony:


1.  What do you think a "practicing architect" does?  I work on the routings of the courses, and overseeing the shaping of the greens and the bunkers.  The latter part is sculpture and I work with some of the best sculptors ever; it usually takes 20-25 days on site to oversee and edit all of the parts I want to.  Having really good employees was the key to being able to be that involved in that narrow of a time frame.


2.  When you're spread thin, that's the chance for the younger associates to prove their abilities, and they are keen to do so.


I'm not saying that having a substantial payroll is not challenging; it certainly is!  But it's the one way to assure the quality of your work, and delivering that quality consistently is what makes you a great architect.  I rarely felt that I had to take a job to keep them all busy; there was usually plenty of consulting and reconstruction work to fall back on if the new opportunities weren't appealing.  I did let a couple of guys go out on their own after 2008, but mostly because I thought they would rather do consulting work at home rather than build new courses abroad, and they could do that without me.


It's possible you could do it now by employing a bunch of free agent designer/shapers to help you -- there must be at least 20 of them out there who worked for us at one point early on.  But all of them want to be an architect just as much as you do, and they are only available when they don't have something of their own on tap, so it's very hard to manage compared to having a few key employees.

[Rob Marshall]

Tony:


1.  What do you think a "practicing architect" does?  I work on the routings of the courses, and overseeing the shaping of the greens and the bunkers.  The latter part is sculpture and I work with some of the best sculptors ever; it usually takes 20-25 days on site to oversee and edit all of the parts I want to.  Having really good employees was the key to being able to be that involved in that narrow of a time frame.


2.  When you're spread thin, that's the chance for the younger associates to prove their abilities, and they are keen to do so.


I'm not saying that having a substantial payroll is not challenging; it certainly is!  But it's the one way to assure the quality of your work, and delivering that quality consistently is what makes you a great architect.  I rarely felt that I had to take a job to keep them all busy; there was usually plenty of consulting and reconstruction work to fall back on if the new opportunities weren't appealing.  I did let a couple of guys go out on their own after 2008, but mostly because I thought they would rather do consulting work at home rather than build new courses abroad, and they could do that without me.


It's possible you could do it now by employing a bunch of free agent designer/shapers to help you -- there must be at least 20 of them out there who worked for us at one point early on.  But all of them want to be an architect just as much as you do, and they are only available when they don't have something of their own on tap, so it's very hard to manage compared to having a few key employees.

Tom,
Are you saying that there are no drawings that the shaper works with when he is building the greens? All just essentially “artwork” with some input or oversight on your part?

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,
Are you saying that there are no drawings that the shaper works with when he is building the greens? All just essentially “artwork” with some input or oversight on your part?

Rob:


I have not done a detailed drawing for a green in nearly 20 years.  I walk through and talk about most of them with the guy who's going to shape them before he starts; occasionally I will let them take a crack at one without any instructions.  It's 3-D sculpture, and I don't think any 2-D drawing that I could do would help them with that.


When I worked for Pete Dye it was the same.  The most he would ever give to a shaper was a brief talk and/or a little bit of "sketching" in the dirt.

[Rob Marshall]

Tom,
Are you saying that there are no drawings that the shaper works with when he is building the greens? All just essentially “artwork” with some input or oversight on your part?

Rob:


I have not done a detailed drawing for a green in nearly 20 years.  I walk through and talk about most of them with the guy who's going to shape them before he starts; occasionally I will let them take a crack at one without any instructions.  It's 3-D sculpture, and I don't think any 2-D drawing that I could do would help them with that.


When I worked for Pete Dye it was the same.  The most he would ever give to a shaper was a brief talk and/or a little bit of "sketching" in the dirt.

Really interesting Tom. Thanks for the reply.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I use the same approach but do have to modify this method with restoration work.  I know you are a believer in”true restorations”.  How did you handle for example the restoration of the greens Tillie designed that you had to restore at SFGC?  Like the little par three?