Principles worth fighting for..Doak

[A_Clay_Man]

In the cover story from the recent GW, Doak's team talks about arguing in the field.

“We’re not all alike,” Hepner says. “We do fight in the field a little bit, but we do it because of the passion in the product. At the end of the day we’re out having a couple of beers and laughing about it. But we’ll fight over ideas, what we think is right.

TD has even mentioned that his crew has started threads.

I wonder if any of "them" could share some specific situations or relay what some of those argued principles were?

Thanx

[TEPaul]

I've no idea what Doak's crew may have fought over in the field but a couple of times at Stonewall North I did see Kye Goalby and Brian Schneider madly chase Kyle Franz around in the dirt saying if they caught him they were going to whip his ass! Although I suspect it was all in fun at first it didn't look like it. All I can tell you is that Kyle is a maneuverable little waterbug because neither one of them could ever catch him!

Of the time I've stopped in at the field with crews there always is a lot of bitching about all kinds of things and people (almost always when they aren't around!). I think that's just the way it is out there and ultimately is probably a great dynamic. The most commonly heard complaint seems to be at the "irritaton people" (irrigation crew).

I suggest anyone stop in out in the field during construction (if you're not getting in their way). It's a great education many on here would be fascinated by, I'm sure. I wouldn't want to do it---it's hard work out there fellas!

[Tom_Doak]

Tom P:  When you are working twelve-hour days, six and seven days a week of construction, out in the weather, there are bound to be some tough moments and bitching is often par for the course.  In some ways it's like a season of "Survivor," in that everyone's weak points will eventually be found out.

On the other hand, I'm not sure that it's a good thing.  When we did Pacific Dunes, from start to finish there was no bitching and no disagreement on site, and I think that's one of the reasons it turned out as good as it did.

[A_Clay_Man]

I'm sure that flasks would help ease the tension, no?

TD- But seriously, what could these guys argue about on proinciples?

How centerline a bunker should be? or not?

[TEPaul]

TomD:

When I said I've noticed bitching going on at various sites maybe that wasn't a very good word to use. Maybe just critical or constructively critical is. I've probably been out on the sites of various projects less than 15 or 20 times in my life so I really don't know what's going on very well out there so when one asks questions maybe you tend to hear some critical things. I view that as constructive. I've never heard anyone say anything critical about their own crews exactly except maybe in fun, it seems to be more about some of the outside contracting or other crews of other architects. I didn't notice it every time I went out on a site but I look at it as constructive---I certainly think it's a good atmosphere for some of those who're laymen to learn a side of golf architecture they wouldn't otherwise know. If everyone and anyone who contributes to this site and analyzes architecture who's never been to a construction site could spend about 50 visits out there I think they'd probably have a very different take on it all.

It's a great education into a side most have little idea about,  in my opinion.

Actually Brad Klein touched on some of this yesterday at Baltusrol on his talk about the Dye project he was involved with in Conn.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:

Amen to that.  One of the reasons I stay on here is that most of the participants still have very little idea what golf architecture is really like, in the field, day to day.  And someone needs to remind them of that!

[TEPaul]

TomD:

I recognize you've alluded to this issue for years now and on here too, many times. This is an issue that's no doubt completely true. Although many on here who consider themselves competent golf architecture analysts might at first deny how prevalent this is I think it's only because they have almost no idea what's being implied here!

This website although very valuable and quite unusual does have far too many who generally tend to idealize all kinds of things to do with golf architecture. I think the primary reason they tend to do that is only because there're various areas of the general subject of golf architecture they simply aren't aware of and this is probably the primary area!

I see the evidence of this in things such as a basic misunderstanding of what "minimalism" in architecture is or let's say what it can be!

In any case this is an area that needs to be discussed and understood more and more and the good news is once those contributors on here begin to understand the import of it alone, they'll gladly get onboard to try to understand the details of it too. Unfortunately, the only ones who can pass on this information competently are those who are architects or in the business or those who've spent enough time in the field to understand it's less than apparent ramifications and realities!

To me the general subject of construction understanding and all those things about golf architecture that relate to it falls within that wonderful adage that I think might be the most important of any to increased understand of golf architecture;

"To always remember to know what you don't know!"

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Tom,
Any idea of why their was no problem while building Pacific?  Any ideas of why the crew banded together so well?  

Do you wish you could can that and sell that ingredient instead of pushing mud around in the rain?

[Carlyle Rood]

I see the evidence of this in things such as a basic misunderstanding of what "minimalism" in architecture is or let's say what it can be!

As long as we're standing up for principles...

I think every time the word "minimalism" is used on the board, we should parenthetically add "sic" to the sentence.

Minimalism is a school of design where patterns, rhythm, and forms are abstracted to their simplest elements.  MINIMALISM HAS ABSOLUTELY NO CORRELATION TO THE AMOUNT OF EFFORT REQUIRED TO CREATE SUCH A FORM.

Unfortunately, many prominent golf course architects and scholars insist on using this term inappropriately.  (Even worse, they will even profess to be minimalists!)

The following are good examples of minimalistic form:


Chocolate drop mounds as a minimalistic form.  (Photo Credit: Sea Island Company Archives)


The simple rythmic design of the Church Pews--a minimalistic form. (Photo Credit: Mathew Harris)