Why have so few tour pros been good golf course designers?

[Charlie Goerges]

Is there something about being elite at playing the game that keeps them from being elite at designing its playing grounds?


When it comes to being elite at playing and elite at designing is there anyone beyond Ben Crenshaw and maybe Jack?



Anyway, I have sort of a thought that comes from an idea about what makes racing drivers great. I think it was Nigel Roebuck who'd said something to the effect that the best racing drivers were blessed with a helpful lack of imagination about the potential consequences of their actions. I wonder if the best players/tour pros are sort of blessed with a lack of imagination that makes their job easier while playing, but that type of imagination is extremely helpful to those designing the best courses?

[Jason Thurman]

I reject your premise.


Successful tour pro architects include: Jack Nicklaus, Greg Norman, Arnold Palmer, Ben Crenshaw, Tiger, Jerry Pate, Graham Marsh, Tom Lehman, Tom Watson, Davis Love III, and others.


Other outstanding players turned successful architects include: Donald Ross, Old Tom, Pete and Alice Dye, Steve Smyers, Bill Diddel, William Langford, James Braid, and others.


Undecorated golfers who are successful architects include: Tom Doak, Seth Raynor, Bill Coore, and surely plenty of others... I can't guess the handicap of guys like Gil Hanse, Perry Maxwell, and others.


In a great big world, where only around 10% of golfers are better than a 10 handicap, it seems very clear that experience playing the game at a high level improves a person's likelihood of having a successful golf course design career. It's not essential, and it might be interesting to talk about the differences between courses designed by great players vs mediocre players. But I do not think the history of golf course architecture shows that elite players struggle to design great courses.

[Charlie Goerges]

I know it may seem like I'm splitting hairs, but I don't mean good to great amateur players, so eliminate a bunch of the names you posted. Additionally I said good at golf course design, so also eliminate at least half of the tour players you mentioned, maybe more. I admit it's a very specific question though.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I know it may seem like I'm splitting hairs, but I don't mean good to great amateur players, so eliminate a bunch of the names you posted. Additionally I said good at golf course design, so also eliminate at least half of the tour players you mentioned, maybe more. I admit it's a very specific question though.

In other words, what you wrote is true because you get to decide if someone like Arnold Palmer was a "good" course designer.

Okay then.

I think a lot of Tour players have become successful (and good) course designers. And that is from the few Tour players get into course design… because they've made their money and retire, or do other things… or keep playing Champions Tour golf and making more money playing. Or whatever.

[Ian Mackenzie]

I reject your premise.


Successful tour pro architects include: Jack Nicklaus, Greg Norman, Arnold Palmer, Ben Crenshaw, Tiger, Jerry Pate, Graham Marsh, Tom Lehman, Tom Watson, Davis Love III, and others.


Other outstanding players turned successful architects include: Donald Ross, Old Tom, Pete and Alice Dye, Steve Smyers, Bill Diddel, William Langford, James Braid, and others.


Undecorated golfers who are successful architects include: Tom Doak, Seth Raynor, Bill Coore, and surely plenty of others... I can't guess the handicap of guys like Gil Hanse, Perry Maxwell, and others.


In a great big world, where only around 10% of golfers are better than a 10 handicap, it seems very clear that experience playing the game at a high level improves a person's likelihood of having a successful golf course design career. It's not essential, and it might be interesting to talk about the differences between courses designed by great players vs mediocre players. But I do not think the history of golf course architecture shows that elite players struggle to design great courses.

Perhaps add:


- Mark McCumber
- Gary Player
- Nick Faldo


Amazing number that crossed over from being athlete to engineer.


I think the mind of an athlete differs from that of an artist/engineer/designer and let's not forget: businessman and marketer.
Perhaps the ven diagram of the intersection points between the two distinct professions and passions then shows the answer.

[Kalen Braley]

Charlie,

I'm not so sure its a tour pro issue per se, but more the ability (or lack thereof) as it applies to an entire population.

The skill set to be an elite golfer IMO does not have much cross over to being an elite golf course designer. And those big name pros I'm sure had ample and very capable resources at their disposal to make it all work from inception to in the ground.

[A.G._Crockett]

Bill Bergin should be added to the list of pros that have become successful GCAs. 


The highlight of his career as a player was probably having the Saturday low round (66) of the 1984 British Open, playing with Faldo on Sunday, and finishing 14th. 

[Charlie Goerges]

I know it may seem like I'm splitting hairs, but I don't mean good to great amateur players, so eliminate a bunch of the names you posted. Additionally I said good at golf course design, so also eliminate at least half of the tour players you mentioned, maybe more. I admit it's a very specific question though.

In other words, what you wrote is true because you get to decide if someone like Arnold Palmer was a "good" course designer.

Okay then.

I think a lot of Tour players have become successful (and good) course designers. And that is from the few Tour players get into course design… because they've made their money and retire, or do other things… or keep playing Champions Tour golf and making more money playing. Or whatever.

I'm not sure I'd stipulate Palmer as a good designer, he was really a name more than a designer. That's kind of what I want to avoid. Unfortunately, through the 90s, a lot of the tour players with signature courses didn't really design anything at all, they lent their names to actual designers (or really the developer) for marketing purposes. And when I was talking about elite players I really meant at least people who'd won top level tour events like on the European/DP or PGA Tours.


I was uncharitable saying only Ben and Jack, it's more than that, but not by a lot.

[Charlie Goerges]

The skill set to be an elite golfer IMO does not have much cross over to being an elite golf course designer.

That's an answer, but it's a bit vague too. I think it has the advantage of being basically true though.




And to others, I realize "good" is subjective, especially when you're talking about an entire portfolio of designs. There is a regional designer who was a tour pro who designed quite a few courses I've played and the quality of those courses ranges from "good" at the top end to terrible at the low end. But he's a good dude and was a tour level player. Should he be called a good designer? I tend to think not, but I suppose some would say yes.

[Jason Thurman]

I know it may seem like I'm splitting hairs, but I don't mean good to great amateur players, so eliminate a bunch of the names you posted. Additionally I said good at golf course design, so also eliminate at least half of the tour players you mentioned, maybe more. I admit it's a very specific question though.

Which names that I listed would you eliminate? You said in your OP that the guy with this resume is a "maybe" good architect. By that definition, there can't be more than about 6 or 7 good architects in the history of GCA according to whatever it is you're defining as "good." Even if Crenshaw is only 1 of the 7 or so good architects, that's still a pretty good average... any person on earth has about a .0001% or so chance of becoming a Tour pro, but once they're a Tour pro, they have a 14% chance of becoming a good architect as defined by Charlie. Maybe even 25% if Charlie ultimately decides that Nicklaus passes the "Is he a good architect?" test.
 
That still makes a Tour pro significantly MORE likely to be a good golf course designer, relative to the general population. I still reject your premise.

[Brian Finn]

So, the discussion seems to depend on what we consider "elite" both as a player and a golf course designer.  It seems much easier to delineate on the playing side, as anyone who played as a top-level professional clearly qualifies, and accomplished amateur tournament players would also seem to qualify. 

Determining which golf course designers can be considered "elite" is far more subjective, but if we listed the 5, 10, 20 "best" architects of all time, how many would NOT have been accomplished players?  Historically, very few, I believe. Raynor would be most notable, since he rarely played golf. 

However, it does seem that non-elite players are making up more and more of the most recent generations of "top" golf course architects.

I think the prevalence of tour players lending their names to developments for an extended stretch at the end of last century skews how many of have typically thought about this. If we are limiting the discussion to tour professionals, I do think the pool of elite designers is shallow, and as long as the game played by tour pros remains so different than the game most of us play, I wouldn't expect that to change much. 

[Rob Marshall]

No one has  mentioned his name so I’ll throw it in. Peter Jacobsen designed Hammock Bay and did Renovation work on The Rookery. Both are just off Marco Island. They aren’t great but they are good Florida courses.


Unless I missed it no one mentioned Weiskopf.

[Michael Felton]

I don't really have much background to base this on, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of the good architect, former pros are really just there to put their name on the course and lean pretty heavily on the people around them.


I would love to know how Coore and Crenshaw go about designing something. I would think it would make the most sense to have Bill Coore figure out a routing and then share it with Crenshaw to have a look and see what he thinks. Then do a preliminary design of the holes, discuss, share thoughts and refine.


I think tour players are likely to have some good insights as to what works and what doesn't. They get to play at a vast array of pretty good golf courses through their careers. You would think they'd at least understand what is good vs not, even if they might not be able to actually divine that out of a topo map or the ground. I think a decent amount of good architecture is how a hole makes you feel standing on the tee or in the fairway (or rough, trees, bunkers, etc.). Does it encourage you to go for it or is it more a feeling of being pushed away from the hole for whatever reason. People who play a lot and play lots of courses will I think have a good idea of what makes you feel a particular way and will be able to provide that information to the nuts and bolts type of guys who they have working for them. IMHO anyway

[Ian Mackenzie]

Hey, how about this as a reason:

- If you are, in fact, a really good tour pro, maybe you make a lot more money than a really good GCA?

I am not aware of all the current GCAs flying private, at least from the airport photos that TD regularly shares...;-)

Tour Pros and PJs are pretty much a thing now.
Dont think GCAs are getting a lot of endorsement deals either.


Tour pros are in shape, eating right and have shrinks and play on through their 40's until the welcome siren song of the Champion's' Tour.


Lastly, soverign wealth capital aint recruiting GCAs to have bi-weekly design contests either.

[Thomas Dai]

The inability to view the game through the eyes of any level of ability player other than their own level likely has something to do with it.
Atb

[Niall C]

A couple of comments in response to some of the posts so far;


- being a successful gca isn't necessarily the same as being a good gca. Top professionals generally get the gig due to their name or profile. Being successful in getting lots of jobs therefore might not speak of their design ability.


- how many of these tour pros actually do any of the design work, and of those that do, what exactly is it they do and what is done by associates and how important is that to the quality of the finished course ?


I'm not saying there aren't any tour pros that have become good gca's but simply judging them by a list of courses that they happen to have their name attached to doesn't necessarily mean anything.




Niall

[Ally Mcintosh]

Bottom line:


Most golf pros - nearly all - have not put in the same time and effort at learning and practicing golf course design and construction as someone who has made it their primary career.


It is a hobby, something to add on.

[Dan_Callahan]

How many of those pro listed above are actually architects? I assume Crenshaw is. And Jack? Of the others, beyond maybe expressing an opinion on routing and what "kind" of course they prefer, how many get involved in shaping and other details? I would think they are there primarily because the course benefits through the PR and name recognition, and the pro benefits as a secondary income stream. But I guess I've always assumed they hire (or partner with) actual architects to get the real design work done.

[Tim_Weiman]

Jason,


Wasn’t there some “undecorated golfer” who was a medical doctor that built a few good courses?


Tim

[Steve_ Shaffer]

I'll mention Weiskopf ( Hall of Fame)  and his 16 wins/25 seconds and 66 courses:

Drivable par fours define a Weiskopf design, and they're harder to do than you think.
https://golfweek.usatoday.com/2022/08/21/golf-obituary-tom-weiskopf-dead-at-79/

[Adam Lawrence]

_Most_ 'signature' designers are in no sense golf course architects.

Arnold Palmer, for example, was not a golf course architect in any meaningful sense of the word; he was the brand of a golf design company. The only way in which he could be described as a golf course architect was that it was his name that got the jobs in the first place. But he did not design the courses, the golf course architects who worked with/for him did that. You can argue about whether that makes it in reality an Ed Seay/Vicki Martz/Brandon Johnson (and the rest) golf course, but the reality is that Arnold was the brand and not really anything else.

Mostly that is true for the other player-designers too. There are exceptions, people like Bill Bergin, John Fought and Graham Marsh, who no longer play competitively and earn their livings as full time GCAs. But they are not the same as a Player, a Faldo or a Palmer.

With the signature guys, their level of involvement will vary depending on their level of interest, and the particular project, and from the outside it is nearly impossible to say precisely what they did. But you can pretty much guarantee that no-one of that stature is going to be ensuring that the golf course drains, that it is easily buildable, maintainable etc -- the nuts and bolts of golf course architecture. They _might_ be involved on individual hole design -- move this bunker, put a pond here, let's have this green sloping left to right. But they aren't drawing the plans that most design firms hand over to the contractors to get the course built.

The most fundamental part of building a new golf course on a decent piece of ground is the routing, and I am not aware of any 'signature' level pro who does routing. It is said that Nicklaus, who has been very involved in the hole details on his higher profile projects, has never routed an entire golf course himself. I don't know the truth of that for sure, but I did an interview with Ron Kirby shortly before his death in which Ron said that Jack was very much a detail guy, and described the design of the Centenary course at Gleneagles to illustrate that. It is up to you whether you consider someone who drives the design of individual holes a golf course architect.

[Wayne_Kozun]

How many Gary Player or Arnold Palmer courses are on the global top 100 of courses constructed in the last 50 years?  I am imagine that Nicklaus will have a couple, but not sure about a lot of the other guys.
Crenshaw would have a number on such lists.

[Charlie Goerges]

Adam, you explained it well. I guess I kind of assumed that Adam's post was common knowledge, but that was a big part of my thought process.


Additionally, some good answers as to exactly why there are very few tour pro course designers. Not least of which is that architecting is hard and requires a lot of learning and experience. Maybe that's the most simple answer. I do like and agree with some of the ideas about the thought process and personality needed to be elite at playing being at odds with the sort of sympathy needed to design a course for all types of player.

[Carl Johnson]

I'd say most of the pros aren't nearly smart enough or business savvy.  Nicklaus is an exception.  He was smart enough and put together a real business. Crenshaw an obvious exception (based on reputation).

[Pete Lavallee]

I would agree with Adam, if you didn’t route the course how could you be considered its architect?