Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Ben Sims on July 20, 2009, 10:09:12 PM
-
Through my first few years studying courses and being interested in golf architecture, I have come across a few things that confused the hell out of me. USGA greens, nematodes, drainage concepts, client/architect relationship; these are but a few things I have needed extra help to figure out.
One continues to confuse me more than the rest. AGSCA. I used to think the reason that it was placed beside an architects name was due to it delineating some sort of accreditation, like a doctor with "M.D." I dug and found that to be untrue. I also dug some more and found that the required 5 courses for entry don't necessarily have to be designs of your own. What's more, the design may not even have that members name on the scorecard, but somehow they are given credit for design in order to enter into ASGCA. Are associate designers required to be in employment on their own at any point?
I wanted to start a thread--for clarification mostly--that explains what the purpose for the organization is. Is it a professional organization, or is it a right of passage for rising architects? Does it serve simply to provide a common arena for GCA's to talk professionally, or does it monitor and regulate architecture in some way?
I understand this could be controversial, but as someone very interested in the business, I would love to hear some thoughts on these matters.
-
Brauer? Brauer?
-
I can't answer your question first hand - the society doesn't want to know anything about me until I've designed 5 courses.
Even if I built them using endangered species homes over tribal burial grounds....
As individuals it is a different story.
The ASGCA does not regulate.
Although Jeff still says he is a licensed GCA in Golf Course Industry. :)
I do think the language of the ASGCA attempts to reduce the credentials of those not in the society.
-
Oy Vey!
ASGCA is a professional society, like AIA or ASLA. There is no accreditation. If a gca puts ASGCA behind their name, it signifies only that they are a member. There are no corporate memberships, only individuals.
It exists to serve the common interests and address issues of concerns of its members, the profession and the game of golf, as best as they can be served within a small, underfunded organization. You could say that it provides a forum for continuing education and open idea exchange among its members.
The minimum requirements for joining include passing a peer review of members after having proven that you have designed five courses (some of which may be major remodels), but those may be designed in collaboration with a member. Thus, many members achieve membership without ever being head of their own firm. Some have risen to the Presidency, like Don Knott, Greg Muirhead, Tom Marzolf and Bruce Charlton by being designers for bigger firms their entire career.
I got in as an associate member in 1981, being an apprentice under Killian and Nugent for the minimum (then) of three years in the business. At the time, there was no real definition of having designed five courses and several of mine were remodels. There is much more review now, some of it coming out of my time as membership chair from 1989-1992 or so, but the requirements have been strengthened over the years.
In addition to being the membership committed chair, I was on the executive committee, and then served on the board, rising to President in 1995. (I left the room and got nominated....d'oh!!) I still put a lot of time into the group, and mention it only to highlight some of the issues of concern that the organization has addressed. I have co-authored the "standard" general specs issued by ASGCA and GCBAA, some standard gca contracts (full, abbreviated, short for renovations and master plans, and a short one for land planning/routing) I sat on the Golf and the Environment Committee, contributed to "Golf and the Evironment" booklet by ASGCA, particpated in Remodel U, the GCSAA show, Club Managers, etc., Was chair of the Long Range Planning Committee for a few years, and am now (with Damian Pascuzzo) the internet committe, and we are in charge of the redesign of the site a year ago (with some professional help, of course) and providing some content there.
I once proposed an "Internet Control Committee" but the membership thought it was unwise, so I try to do that single handedly as an independent!
Okay, so you get the idea that ASGCA has been a pretty important part of my life. What was your question?
Mike Nuzzo,
I have tried to get GCI to change that for years. New editor. Maybe another chance to do so.
-
Jeff,
I read that there are no corporate memberships. But you mention that the peer review of five works must be designed with a member if you are an associate designer. Does that mean that an associate that works for a non-member is not able to be admitted? Even if they are signed off by their employer as having co-designed?
Seems like only employees of current members are eligible if they are associates. Also seems that the membership could be quite one-sided if that's the case.
Just being objective here.
Also, does the organization appoint people for nomination from the business at large? Or is it something that one must apply for?
-
Ben,
You must apply. There are no nominations. However, individual members have lobbied qualified applicants to join from time to time.
The fact is, that there are associates of non members that have gotten in, like Paul Cowley! Mike Beebe got in before Mark McCumber. There are others, including guys who work for the PGA Tour Design Services Group. Generally, we like the prinicipal of the firm to get in before their associate architects, but there are exceptions, and in the cases mentioned, it was because it was clear that these gents were working for Tour Pros and were the ones really doing the bulk of the design work. The one doing the work is what we look for. Not everyone is working in the traditional small design firm.
By the same token, many many members who head their own firms but never had a connection with any ASGCA member have attained membership too. While it was certainly easier for me to get in, having worked for two past presidents, its by no means impossible for others to get in.
Or, for that matter, for an employee of a respected member to be denied, or at least delayed, if they don't meet the rules of membership, such as five courses clearly designed. We have had some isolated cases of members pushing their associates for membership, and pushing them before the committee eventually deemed that the associate of the firm had completed five courses. And, they didn't get in, at least until such time that they were deemed to have co-designed the appropriate number of projects.
Our principal's take putting up their associates very seriously. When I was membership chair, I recall an anguished member consulting me on whether a particular associate truly did enough work on five projects to have been deemed the co-designer. It usually comes out in the peer review. One question to ask the Owner is "who did you call when you had a problem?" If I am reviewing and the answer isn't "Candidate X" I doubt they truly co-designed the project.
Besides the sponsor, there are independent course reviewers who question the applicant and the Owner. Most of our members are attuned to vague answers about things like "what was the source of the bunker sand?" or "Why was the bunker placed there?" If the applicant doesn't know, then he/she couldn't have been too involved. After five individual reviews of courses and Owners comments, then the applicant faces an interview with the executive committee. At one point, I developed a laundry list of simple questions and the committee rotated asking those, and added their own as circumstances permit.
One applicant was denied after claiming to contour greens within the "normal range - 11-12%!" Now, we would have accepted anything that was close to the range normally done in the industry. For example, if Tom Doak ever interviewed, and he gave a rational explanation as to why he might contour up to 4% (as he has done here) given all he has done, we would nod and move on. But when an applicant can't give a straight, simple, or well reasoned answer, it certainly causes some discussion.
The last part is of course the membership vote. More discussion ensues before that and from time to time a member will bring up a heretofore unknown issue which might cause a table or a rejection. In rare cases, the Board of Governors (who actually make the final decision) will vote against the will of the membership. In 28 years, I only recall 2 of those.
So, the process isn't tilted in any way towards or against any applicant, other than that the bulk of the information we can discover shows that they have done the five courses, are still active in the business and don't have any huge ethical questions hanging over them. We also consider, to about 1%, whether the applicant is likely to be a "good" member, serving on committees, etc.
The process isn't perfect and applicants complain about how difficult it is. However, we made it that way to discourage non qualified applicants from trying to get in, and truthfully, to counter any perception that it is a good old boys club where friends get in and foes don't. That kind of perception dates back to the rumors of feuds between RTJ and Wilson (Dick, not Hugh) and we are sensitive to it.
-
Jeff,
I enjoyed the post and learned a lot.The one thing that jumped out at me is the importance of Club Ownership interaction in the project. You said things such as, "One question to ask the Owner..." & "Besides the sponsor, there are independent course reviewers who question the applicant and the Owner..." & "After five individual reviews of courses and Owners comments..."
It made me wonder just how receptive most owners are to being interviewed in this manner. Without naming names, are there any tales of "Don't bother me" types?
-
Phil,
Not really, at least that I know of. If someone you got along with tells you that ASGCA might be calling for a reference, most are quite helpful. In some cases, we have to read between the lines of a lukewarm recommendation letter or its so generic that it is of no help. That is why sponsors and course reviewers are asked to speak with owners themselves, to hear the voice inflection, etc. Not that any of us are trained in that sort of thing, but its generally pretty easy to tell if an owner is enthusiastic about the person applying.
-
Jeff. Have they ever considered expanding to different classes of membership like the GCSAA? Increasing revenue and potentially teaching those without all that experience
-
Adam,
That comes up periodically, but has never really been considered. In the end, when you are sitting in the room for the meetings, we like to think that you are either qualified to design a golf course or you are not. Who would want to sit there with a "60% qualified and proud of it" badge?
ASGCA comes up from time to time here on golfclubatlas.com. Old Tommy N used to regularly give me the business on it!
The issues I have heard over the years really centered on:
*How much we help non-members (not much, since they don't pay dues, but they do get some benefit from our representing the industry),
*The long time emphasis on new course design, which keeps otherwise qualified restoration specialists like Ron Forse on the sidelines. (Yeah, but we polled our members and we decided that routing was an important criteria in determining the skill of a competent golf architect, so go figure)
*The old boy syndrome (which we work hard to dispell, mostly through a comprehensive membership process, as addressed in my first post. But we also provide ever more comprehensive continuing ed for our members, which we are trying to publicize, because CE is vital to being currently qualified in any profession)
*A few questions about a couple of individual members who the poster just doesn't believe is qualified (in private, I might agree on a few, but I go with the vote!)
*A few questions on the memberhsip process (also described above)
*A belief that, despite no such wording in any document, ASGCA is or implies that it is a "sanctioning body." Well, it has no govt. authority and has never sanctioned anyone. Yes, we do hope that being an ASGCA member implies that you have passed rigorous peer review and are a qualified gca. This is mostly because the profession is too small to be licenced, and has too many members (like pros JN and former insurance salesmen like Pete Dye) to have a sanctioning body. So, if being as ASGCA member signifies that you have, according to those who should know, practiced ethically and done some decent courses, then represents what it represents.
-
Does anyone else see a rather glaring conflict of interest at the root of the very membership process of the ASGCA?
-
Kyle,
Outwardly I will agree that there is a "rather glaring" conflict. I think ASGCA is a great organization, if you are a member of it. I can see many fraternal tendencies and it seems sort like a "legacy" at a fraternity or sorority.
For instance, firm A's principle already has a member in the society. Firm B's principle was voted in a few years ago through support and urging by firm A. Firm A has an associate put to membership that is supported by firm B. Firm A then supports firm B's associate for membership. Self licking ice cream cone.
Believe me when I say that I have no doubt that the intentions of the organization are noble. However, the process seems jaded and subjective. The land swap at Merion is clearer to me than the purpose and membership process of ASGCA.
Jeff,
I still don't buy that members put the "ASGCA" by their name to delineate them as members. It does represent an inherent belief that membership "qualifies" you as an architect. It would be similar to me putting "ATA" beside my name to delineate that I was a member of the Airlift Tanker Association.
-
The land swap at Merion is clearer to me than the purpose and membership process of ASGCA.
Might be the funniest post of the year.
-
Michael,
Not to disregard your compliment--I put a lot of emphasis on humor. But oddly enough, funny wasn't my intention with this thread.
Honest and direct feedback is my intention however. Mr. Brauer is being very compliant and understanding. It takes mettle to point out strengths and weaknesses of one's member organization.
-
Ben,
In all seriousness, there are plenty of threads on this topic where many architects have chimed in with their pros and cons of the organization. Not coincidnetally, the pros came from ASGCA members and the cons came from non-ASGCA members.
If you utilize the search function you can probably finds some of those threads. Then after reading them you'll be even more confused, and probably appreciate why I thought your Merion land-swap statement was funny.
And I agree, Jeff always does a great job explaining ASGCA when the topic comes up.
-
Yes, Jeff does a good job...and there are plenty of good guys in the ASGCA...truth be known..probably 99 percent of them...and some of us have applied ( the really stupid one like me ) more than once and been turned down more than once. And always seems to be an ethics issue. Makes me feel like Sara Palin.... ;D
I think it was something to do with minimalism and sheep ;D
-
Ben/Kyle,
I'm not sure what you're getting at with the glaring conflict of interest comment. The example put forward by Ben where firm A scratches the back of firm B is pretty weak when you consider of more over riding concern to members is ensuring standards are maintained. I too am a member of a professional organisation and I remember a former boss of mine who was on the interview panel for the organisation being really tough on candidates. His view was that if he let in someone who hadn't attained the right qualifications and then they subsequently did a rubbish job then it cheapened everyone elses qualification. From what Jeff has described, I can't see how the ASGCA are any different in that regard to any other professional organisation.
Niall
-
Niall,
I thought it was quite clear what I was getting at.
I think many of us are members of professional organizations where "membership" is a "qualification". I think its unfortunate that this particular one does that. Also, understand that when associate designers from other firms are well represented without specific designs of their own, then it is a conflict of interest.
You can't tell me that a member designer isn't making it known to clients that they are indeed a member. That has to hurt nonmembers when competing for projects. Most especially when the client isn't well informed about the GCA community.
-
Ben:
I am not a member of ASGCA, and in all the time I've been in business, I don't know of a circumstance where I lost out on a job because I was not a member, no matter what the competition might have said (or not).
-
Tom, Please tell us how Forrest is coming along with his back channel attempts to get you to join?
-
Adam:
The last person who asked me about it was actually Perry Dye, who bought me dinner the night after the opening of Common Ground. I hadn't had dinner with Perry in 20+ years. It was a fun evening, too; but he didn't change my independent streak.
P.S. It's not like I don't get along with those guys individually. Just wrapped up the Renaissance Cup this evening and we had five or six architects in the field of 64 ... Brian Phillips and Graeme Webster, Scott Macpherson and Greg Turner, Line Mortensen, James Duncan, and of course my own crew. Greg Turner had one of the funniest lines of the week; starting his semifinal match, he casually announced "Geez, the last time I played a foursomes match was in the Presidents Cup" ... but then he and Scott lost on the ninth green.
-
... but then he and Scott lost on the ninth green.
In a 18-hole match?
-
Oy Vey!
ASGCA is a professional society, like AIA or ASLA. There is no accreditation. If a gca puts ASGCA behind their name, it signifies only that they are a member. There are no corporate memberships, only individuals.
It exists to serve the common interests and address issues of concerns of its members, the profession and the game of golf, as best as they can be served within a small, underfunded organization. You could say that it provides a forum for continuing education and open idea exchange among its members.
The minimum requirements for joining include passing a peer review of members after having proven that you have designed five courses (some of which may be major remodels), but those may be designed in collaboration with a member. Thus, many members achieve membership without ever being head of their own firm. Some have risen to the Presidency, like Don Knott, Greg Muirhead, Tom Marzolf and Bruce Charlton by being designers for bigger firms their entire career.
I got in as an associate member in 1981, being an apprentice under Killian and Nugent for the minimum (then) of three years in the business. At the time, there was no real definition of having designed five courses and several of mine were remodels. There is much more review now, some of it coming out of my time as membership chair from 1989-1992 or so, but the requirements have been strengthened over the years.
In addition to being the membership committed chair, I was on the executive committee, and then served on the board, rising to President in 1995. (I left the room and got nominated....d'oh!!) I still put a lot of time into the group, and mention it only to highlight some of the issues of concern that the organization has addressed. I have co-authored the "standard" general specs issued by ASGCA and GCBAA, some standard gca contracts (full, abbreviated, short for renovations and master plans, and a short one for land planning/routing) I sat on the Golf and the Environment Committee, contributed to "Golf and the Evironment" booklet by ASGCA, particpated in Remodel U, the GCSAA show, Club Managers, etc., Was chair of the Long Range Planning Committee for a few years, and am now (with Damian Pascuzzo) the internet committe, and we are in charge of the redesign of the site a year ago (with some professional help, of course) and providing some content there.
I once proposed an "Internet Control Committee" but the membership thought it was unwise, so I try to do that single handedly as an independent!
Okay, so you get the idea that ASGCA has been a pretty important part of my life. What was your question?
Mike Nuzzo,
I have tried to get GCI to change that for years. New editor. Maybe another chance to do so.
Jeff first statement in this quote is a little misleading. The ASGCA may be a professional organization, but it is more of a fraternity than a representative organization. Architects and Landscape Architects who have AIA or ASLA after their names have graduated from an accredited program, passed a licensing exam, and practiced for three years. These are objective qualifying standards. Any one who meets these standards can pony up and join.
The ASGCA is about guys sitting in a room and voting- fear the black ball. Jeff admits that putting ASGCA by does not signify accreditation. Comparing the ASGCA to the AIA and the ASLA is doing those organizations and their members a disservice.
I am surprised that in the organizations 63 years of existence they have not worked to come up with a more objective way to handle membership nor worked towards some sort of licensing exam.
-
Willl,
I will say upfront that I am more than a little teed off at your statement that I make misleading statements. Of course, anyone reading can choose to believe that a non member spouting off on an unregulated website, perhaps with a glass or two of wine in hand would know more about ASGCA than a 28 year member who has served in nearly every position there was to serve in and attended 24 of the 28 meetings he could have. Yeah, I think you got a better chance of nailing it!
That said, I would say all professional societies value their fraternal ties. One of the big benefits of sitting in a room with your peers is that you can informally learn something by just asking a simple question. As an example, I still recall Rees Jones joining me at the table when I was a new member, and upon hearing my complaint about having limited corridor widths, telling me that his corridor widths were also governed by the traditional double row system and that he was starting to push for triple row systems. That seems small, but it had a big influence on me, both in pushing for more sprinklers, but more importantly being treated like a peer by one of the biggest in the business and giving me advice.
We have increased our professionalism continually in all 28 years I have been a member, in terms of projects and both internal and industry education. I was proud of initiatives when I was on the EC, but when I read about what the younger guys are doing now, they are blowing way past anything I ever envisioned we could be as a group. So, tell me how that is a bad thing?
As to licensing, as I explained earlier, gca is such a small profession that few states try to licence it. So, ASGCA with its 160+/- members is inherently a lot different than AIA with (I think) 70,000 membesr. ASGCA itself has no moral authority to create a licensing program for the profession and its own members (although some have suggested it). Nor do I believe gca should be a licencsed profession. After all, golf courses don't fall down so there is no compelling health, safety and welfare issue that would suggest it should be government controlled. And in a profession dominated by the likes of Jack Nicklaus and Pete Dye, neither who has a degree in LA, its silly to base membership on either a preferred college degree when so many have come from many differen fields. When Florida wanted to licence gca under landscape architects our successful argument was "would millions of visitors come to golf in Florida if the courses were designed by Joe's Landscape Company instead of Pete Dye?
Our membership process is in essence a peer review in lieu of licensing, which does connote some kind of qualifications, and yes, we intend it that way. I believe the membership process is very objective and has been strengthened and made more objective through about twenty years of dedicated membership chairs and executive committees. Of course, I was in on that process and its improvement, so I am biased. But, a lot of thought went in to how to be fair to applicants and get qualified members (you would have to know all who applied to get a sense of what we deal with)
I hear stories of the old days when guys got in because they could tell a joke or tend bar! That is not so today. Every applicant goes through a controlled and identical process and we spread the review around as much as possible to ensure that one or a few individual members who might have a conflict of interest with a particular applicant cannot unduly influence the application.
And your "black ball" statement is QUITE misleading. There are over 100 voting members that vote on applicants. Acceptance is technically voted on by a dozen or so board of governors by a separate vote. In NEITHER voting process can one member vote no and cancel an application. Majority rules.
Ben,
I would love to hear your take on why there is a glaring conflict of interest. And why it is so unfortunate that it aspires to get the best in the business to join, rather than accept all comers just to collect their dues, as AIA and ASLA do.
If you think the membership process is unfair, I will say that I do believe that in a few cases, an applicant has been denied because of another members fear of competition in his own area, but that is greatly reduced by the process. At the same time, I agree with Niall that we all want the best possible members, which for most of us, is the driving force behind voting yea or nay, not some petty differences. Its a pretty strong group and if you believe every single member, or even a large majority of them feel so threatened by competition that they vote no on qualified applicants, then I believe you are sadly mistaken. Just MHO, but I know these guys pretty well, while I presume you are mostly guessing.
The simple facts are that non-members continue to get projects and some of those apply for membership when they get their five courses. It has been this way for 63 years, and the group continues to grow, usually from 5-10 new members a year, some from firms with existing ASGCA members and some from "outside the fold" so there is NO solid evidence to suggest that the existing membership tries intentionally to keep people out.
I also agree with Tom Doak that I have never felt any percieved advantage in securing jobs as an ASGCA member. I recently relayed the story of an interview in Florida, and what a big zero all of us mentioning our ASGCA membership was, but I could tell others. I do know some non members feel it the other way, because yes, we bill ourselves as the society of the leading gca's, and publicize that membership means you have passed rigorous peer review (in lieu of non existent licensing), and the world generally knows you need to have completed five courses so if you are in ASGCA, you aren't a complete novice.
It sounds to me like you have had your ear bent by a non-member. I can understand (and in a few cases) sympathize with that position. I have given the whole membership scenario a lot of thought and input. So have others of intelligence and knowledgable about the profession. While not perfect, its pretty damn good. You on the other han,d have decided to start a thread after perhaps a few minutes of thought.
-
Jeff,
I apologize if I riled you. It really wasn't my intention. I am seeking informed answers to me and others' questions about the society. I do have my reservations that I mentioned above. But in reality, they don't mean anything as I am not anywhere near the business. I am posting based on some informed fact. The rest is hypothesis and opinion--which we are allowed to give on this site--based on factual information you have provided. Feel free to join an any chat room for a hobby you love and someone that knows more than you will correct you if need be, as you are helping to do here for me. It's all for free and unhindered dialogue. No offense.
A couple of things you mentioned above struck a chord.
1) Why is membership so heavily regulated? It seems that some cutting edge work could be done for the society if new ideas were freely given by younger and possibly "less qualified" designers. Imagine what topics and methods could've been broached in the early 90's if young independents were allowed to participate.
2)If the society isn't licensing, then why the time consuming and thorough peer review? I mean, it's a reviews of five courses, a review of drawn plans, an interview by the committee, etc. That seems pretty involved. My guess is that you're statement of "a peer review in lieu of licensing, which does connote some kind of qualifications, and yes, we intend it that way", is a way of tending the flock as it were. By intending for membership to connote qualification, and then saying that the society isn't a licensing agency, then openly stating that the society is against licensing of any form for GCA; that seems to be a conflict of interest, IMHO. That's all I was trying to say.
I think that I put a bit more thought into this than you give me credit. But of course, not 28 years. I am not being disrespectful. I am just trying to answer concerns that some on GCA have about the society and it's purpose. We are all united by a love of golf courses on this site. Some are infinitely more involved in that process than others. I am one of the small fish, just trying to see the bigger ocean.
-
I believe the membership process is very objective and has been strengthened and made more objective through about twenty years of dedicated membership chairs and executive committees. Of course, I was in on that process and its improvement, so I am biased. But, a lot of thought went in to how to be fair to applicants and get qualified members (you would have to know all who applied to get a sense of what we deal with)
And your "black ball" statement is QUITE misleading. There are over 100 voting members that vote on applicants. Acceptance is technically voted on by a dozen or so board of governors by a separate vote. In NEITHER voting process can one member vote no and cancel an application. Majority rules.
Jeff,
You keep mentioning the "design five courses" rule as the major qualification for membership but there must be more important criteria than just that if someone like Mike Young, who has designed dozens of courses, is denied membership.
-
Ben,
You cut me and I bleed red, blue and green Ross Tartan Plaid, so maybe I get riled.
Any professional society has the limted purpose of banding together wherever there is a common interest of all. For the most part, we provide our members continuing educmacation (via playing courses at our annual meetings, and seminars there, at the GCSAA, at a mid year educmacational event, and now even via internet conferencing) which make us all better gca's. We provide Contracts, RFQ's, Specs and other documents to the industry and general public related to gca. We preserve the history of gca. We work with other golf associations to promote golf in general and architecture in particular. We learn from each other a few weeks a year and beat each others brains out the rest of the year competing for jobs.
Despite differences in membership processes with bigger organizations, this is what all professional societies do. I think my above pp pretty much answers all of your initial questions about what ASGCA does. As to being a rite of passage, yeah it was for me. I learned of ASGCA when I was about 15 years old and wanted to be a member from the first time I saw their materials.
I am not sure what you mean by heavily regulated membership, but the five courses as an absolute minimum has been basically in place (oft refined) since 1947 when Ross himself was honorary President and RTJ was the VP. In some ways, we stick by the tradition as if it were our constitution. If Ross thought five courses was a good benchmark, who am I to say much differently? Yeah, we keep adding to the peer review to make the best effort possible to get qualified, enthusiastic and ethical members, since the group is in essence no better together than the overall performance of its members. We have tended toward the motto of "when in doubt, leave 'em out" (with due respect to the late Johnny Cochran for the chant)
Would we benefit if younger, untested designers were members? I dunno, but probably not as much as they would. And, we do have a lot of young associates in the group, so I am not sure what we are missing by your reasoning. We have made a point in recent years to interview and even get some of our new members to present some of their work so we can see what they are doing. Of course, we miss young independents who don't seek to join our group, or don't have the experience to do so.
I have to wonder if we were listening to someone who had done one course, but not five, just how much we would learn. For every David Kidd who hits a homerun early in his career we might be listening to ten semi-duds, who are unlikely to know more than the guys sitting in the room, no? In fact, most of us are almost as star struck as anyone else. We naturally like listening to Faz, Jack, Pete (even though we have figured out that he has exactly seven stories/parables about gca) etc. We like listening to historians like Whitten, Klein, and local experts wherever we go who can tell us about the courses there. We like (or need to) listen to environmental, financiing, or other experts.
IMHO, I figure membership is worth the wait and is (for me) a reward, not a right, privilege, etc. I tell young guys that I am pretty sure ASGCA will be here in five or ten years so work hard and get in. (I tell old guys not to wait, if they are the kind that won't even buy green bananas!)
I have enjoyed every minute. I wear the coat proudly. I just don't see the negative and sinister things in ASGCA that sometime pop up here, usually because a favorite son is not a member for one reason or another.
-
Ben, I'm not sure of your intent. Are you just curious, or is ASGCA something you hope to one day join. You initially stated that nothing confuses you more than the ASGCA, now your most recent post mentions that you are asking questions for yourself and others.
"trying to answer concerns"
There's a special place in heaven for Jeff. He's stepped into the crosshairs and stayed there to respond to the questions asked. At some point you could realize that ASGCA is set up the way it is and it will remain like that for a while.
Have your questions not been answered? I understand you may not agree with the answer you've been given. Doubtful that continuing to press on the issue will change their policies. If we just point out that the five course requirement is too many, maybe they'll remove it.
No idea if Jeff's active on the model railroad chat rooms. If he is, I don't know that it is in him to badger the people that know more than him. According to you, there's a rather glaring conflict of interest and the process is jaded. Jeff offered detailed responses, but now you seem to take a argumentative tone because things struck a few chords.
Jeff will no doubt respond. That's a reflection of his character. But what more is there really to say if you are looking for the 'big ocean'. Quibbling over minor points is always possible. The answer is that ASGCA is an organization with rules and regs. Golf course architects may or may not be members.
Smart people can join MENSA. They don't have to. Does a smart person really need to question how MENSA runs their group?
-
NAMBLA
-
Jeff,
Direct questions begets direct answers and ultimately understanding. Thank you for that. Your writing seems to flow in a way that lets me know you've fought this battle before, no?
John,
I am asking why it is set up the way it is. A devil's advocate role if you will. I wouldn't call answering questions from a guy like me "stepping into the crosshairs". I am no Bill O'Reilly. Jeff has however, been the guy that has taken on my questions and answered them. If you think I'm badgering, move on to things that interest you. I don't get off on how many times a topic has been read. I just want to broach a subject that confused the hell out of me and based on my search of past info, others as well.
This has taken a turn I didn't intend. But thank you to Jeff for explaining things.
-
Ben,
I re-read some of your posts, particularly the back scratching example. Years ago, I was asked to sponsor a partner of a friend in the biz. Upon inspection of the applicant, I quickly realized that he wasn't meeting the minimum qualifications, despite being a partner of a friend and an all around great guy. He didn't get in that year, but did eventually. More importantly, it highlighted for me the problem you describe and set some changes in motion to the process.
Specifically, now you have a sponsor, who must have known you pretty well, and then four course reviewers, which you can suggest, but of which the ASGCA always names at least one. The application has also been split into prelim and final phases to allow the membership committee and sponsers to determine if the applicant meets minimum quals.
Basically, by spreading it out, we can nearly shame any member who sponsors an unqualified applicant into never doing it again and provide "cover" for those who get into a sponsorship like I did and hate to tell a friend he has to back out.
So, I hope I have addressed what you percieve to be "concerns" (among who, I don't know). As I said before, many smarter guys than me have been in ASGCA and over the years, we have tried to address all those problems that can arise, or moreso, can be percieved to arise. Now, the biggest membership process question I feel we need to address is "Have we made the process to hard and time consuming?" I know that for an unsuccsessful applicant, the answer is alway yes. Surprisngly, even some successful applicants say they would prefer waterboarding to our process........
-
Thanks Jeff. Being a military school guy, it sounds like something I went through my freshman year. Water-boarding was not involved however. It's not fraternity hazing is it? ;D
-
No frat hazing. Its kind of funny but there is a sense of fellowship once a guy or gal gets in. We do assign members (usually the sponsor) to kind of introduce newbies around and try to make them comfy. I guess the closest thing to hazing is the threat that they might have to play golf with Brauer if they don't behave.........
-
I guess its true that I go to bed at night thinking Ross Tartan and I wake up thinking Ross Tartan, esp. when Ben asks some good questions. Another perspective on the five course (and minimum number of years in the biz, which has raised from three to five) is that in setting these standards we accomplished a couple of things.
Our membership roster has been remarkably consistent over the years, in part because in setting the minimums so high, we ensure that we are getting someone who is active in the business and likely to stay that way. If we set the bar at one course, we would get a lot of land planners, park directors, contractors and others who somehow managed to design one course, and that is not our vision of a good member. Even when there is a clearly talented, passionate young gca, like a Mike Nuzzo, one course doesn't make a pattern of longevity. While he will probably continue and eventually design five courses and be eligible for membership, we just don't know that, because in most cases, the need to make a living at gca forces many out of the biz.
We don't believe you can be a leading gca (as we like to call ourselves) if you aren't active in the business as a practitioner. I am not sure what the value of the AIA Membership is, when if you look at the roster, all the young associates change in and out to a large degree every year because they have decided they can't afford the dues when between jobs, or whatever. Our higher minimum standards have both discouraged the periphery guys, as well as contributed to a stable membership, which we think is better than an ever changing one. (and I say that knowing that right now we perhaps face an unprecedented membership decline)
Like golf, we honor traditon, so if RTJ and co. set it up that way in the early days, and it seems to have worked, we see no reason to change it now. The system doesn't work as well for everyone, but I doubt any system can. Overall, it has worked pretty well and the membership roster comprises most of the active gca's in the country at any given time.
-
Thanks Jeff for taking the time to respond to the likes of Ben Sims and myself. I apologize if I "teed" you off.
I understand that ASGCA is a much smaller field than the AIA, but it seems to me that a lot of the ASGCA's problems would be solved by creating more objective membership process. I do believe the field would still function if Jack Nicklaus had to have a licensed gca on staff to stamp the docs like in other fields. People would still travel to Florida.
I again apologize about the black ball comment. How does it work? Is is it a straight majority vote by the whole membership? That would be pretty democratic.
I do have to say that the ASGCA has done a much better job about providing information about the field in recent years. Your website is much improved and I was very impressed with what was on it when I visited recently.
Jeff, thanks again, for all your time on the subject.
- Will
p.s. I was dead sober when I wrote my original post.
-
Will,
I was a little harsh on the wine drinking comment and you didn't really tee me off. Years ago I made a post about visualizing posters here in their bathrobes eating cheerios and the general consensus at that time was that most figured they posted with a drink in their hand.....
In essence, any tour pro does have qualified gca's like me behind them, whether via staff or contract. Perhaps its just the Texas republican in me, but I don't see ANY need for govt to be involved in the gca profession via licencing or developing "design guidelines" which has happened at the state, county and city level. How does some regulator know in advance of seeing a site what is going to work and how is that a better opinion than say, me or Pete Dye making that decision the traditional way? And beyond perhaps some environmental regulations that would apply to any new development, and ADA accessibilty, what are the public issues with golf design that need regulation?
Also, I fear that any licensing process might allow someone with no credentials to get a gca license based on passing a test. Hell, many of you could pass a gca test, I think. What is better, proving yourself through an apprenticeship, or paying a state to give you a card?
I guess I still don't know what you mean when you say the ASGCA process isn't objective. As I have tried to describe, it started with RTJ and company sort of deciding in 1947 that to be an active professional you should have designed a minimum of five courses. That is pretty objective. Over the years, we have added a few layers of review to give every applicant whether he works for RTJ or himself the same process to go through. That is pretty objective. That process involves asking all involved in the projects reviewed just what went on, from the gca to the Owner, using members to ask the questions and make the evaluations. Who is more qualified than an active gca to determine if an applicant, in essence, walks like a duck, etc.? Its pretty objective and by having multiple layers, we can weed out or identify most subjective opinions any member might have unreasonably for or against an applicant.
And finally, applicants who get to phase II get a vote of all the regular and fellow members attending the annual meeting that year. Of 160+ members, we usually get 70-90 voting members attend. Then, it is confirmed by the Board of Governors in a separate vote. Both are simple majority I believe, although I would actually have to look up the BOG regs on that. That seems pretty objective to me.
On a few occaisions over the years I have fought changes to the process (or encouraged them) when a unique membership case has raised issues. My general rule of thumb is that if we think we will informally name a membership rule after a specific applicant's case, (like the Dat Effen Golf Course Architect membership rule) that it is probably a pretty stinky rule. Again, we put a lot of thought in that process to make it far more objective than far less, while maintaining our historical standards. If we look at if from the perspective of someone who is rejected or doesn't yet meet the quals, I guess we would naturally find some problems, which is where I sense you and Ben are coming from.
So, I guess I do bristle, having been so involved in the process of trying to make the membership process more objective, to hear golf club atlas participants put it out there that we need to make it even "more objective." Just what do you propose, after reading all my summaries of the process and filtering through those as best you can? And just as importantly, what is your basis for proposing it? Allowing a certain gca in? Allowing all gca's in? Generally reducing the membership standard for younger pratitioners to get in? I guess we have our opinions/biases as to what constitutes a leading gca and I am just wondering how yours might differ.
-
Damn..I told myself I was not going to get into this thread BUT....
I probably know as much about ASGCA as anyone on the outside. And as Tom Doak said earlier I really don't have any problem with the different individuals that are members and a few of those including Jeff Brauer have gone out of their way to help me. So I am not going to sit here and openly attack their organization. But I will state a couple of facts for clarification....
1. Yes you do need five courses minimum with three in the last 5 years etc....and the group will ask for random volunteers to go and evaluate 4 of those courses. BUT- all of that can be fine and you still must get thru the interview. In my case I gave a bad interview..mainly because I had the flu and was about half there and then when I walked in the room I realized that many in the room were from my area and could have evaluated my work but did not volunteer and these guys had also made insinuations in the past as to my work and that of other non members in the area. So I was defensive instead of offensive...And that's my fault....but understand in the process they use hearsay.... and rumors can be used and you may not even know the source...man I have have heard things from "we don't feel like your owner got a good deal" or I have accurate knowledge that he was sued on this job" when it may never have happened.....which brings me to the second point...
2. There is a double standard between associates and independents that have their own shop- why do I say this? The associate doesn't have the scars that come from competing against other members...he also doesn't have the liabilities involved with the everyday business....and in most cases he doesn't have to SELL the job....so the associate has much less controversy outside of the actual work done on five courses than someone that has been in the business competing. Which brings me to the BIG issue I have with ASGCA, the organization, not the individuals....ETHICS....
3. You may have a group of people that has never met you making a determination of your ethics based on random information. And they may meet you for an hour. And you may have been in business for 20 years and they can decide if you need to go to a vote or not....Associates don't have these problems.......they have had presidents threaten to quit because someone gets in and it is usually someone from their locale. So even if one has the work requirement...there are a lot of subjective assumptions before one can get to a vote...
So my recommendation for anyone that wants in is to ...get in as an associate while working for a member firm...it is much easier....
Also, if you don't do a lot of drawings then make sure you have a few nationally ranked projects and members recruit you to join....don't ever ask to join without being asked.
Now here is where I see the future issues:
If the ASGCA maintains its same entrance requirements then there will be no applicants for a few years. Which brings us to the question is the ASGCA there for the members or are the members there for the ASGCA?
How many members presently are no longer active in the business as they claim is required to be a member and what is the grace period and will it be enforced? Or how many will choose to pay the 1500 dollars annually?
Now having said al of the above.....they have the right to do all of the above....but what do I think they are missing?
1. The significance of being the principal
2.I think they miss the intangible of getting the course to opening day. You have heard the old saying "the buck stops here"...so many members that are associates have not been exposed to that element and are protected by a larger firm. If a US Open champion has gotten 5 or 10 courses in the ground and you find a reason to say he doesn't qualify such as how he interprets a drawing etc then something is wrong. From what I have seen If Ford Motor Company was a golf design firm... an associate might have gotten in and Henry Ford may not have....and then again maybe he would have ;D ;D.
As Jeff says the system probably works as well as it can under the rules they use. That is their choice. Just don't hold outsiders to a different standard than members and then promote ASGCA as the "best of the bunch".
All the best to my ASGCA buddies,
Mike Young nonASGCA
-
I am traveling today, so maybe I can write a little bit more later. Jeff how does one get to Phase II
Thanks for taking the time to explain all of this to us.
- Will
-
"...The land swap at Merion is clearer to me than the purpose and membership process of ASGCA."
Oh, certainly that is not true! Reads like an attention getting post, which of course works well here in GCA-land.
Ben — Please don't always believe what you read on scorecards with regard to the golf course architect.
I have heard the debates on ASGCA being a "fraternity" organization and, as noted, the many posts by ASGCA members who defend the group as being a professional organization. In my view it is both for the simple reason that, compared to most professional-based organizations, it is so small. When you are considering just a few hundred professionals in the U.S. it is really not possible to distance the group from seeming, or ever approaching, a social group. To me the AIA would be a far better bargain if people could truly get to know and interact with Michael Graves and others — but, AIA has become a "mill" of professionals that only scratches at the true meaning of what it is to be an architect. Rather, AIA is now about credentials, standards and formulated contracts. Indeed, one of the most treasured directives of the AIA is their standardized contract. Good, but it likely does not produce better architecture.
Another dimension (of ASGCA) is that golf architecture is very different from building architecture, geotechnical engineering, landscape architecture or home inspection. Golf design blends landscape with a game. Each of the professions I noted has professionals licensed, and in all states involves technical registration. Golf architecture — thankfully — has avoided this. I believe it elevates the art.
---
Adam — I am not sure if "back channels" is a way to describe my encouragement of Tom D. or others to become involved with ASGCA. Over the years I have reached out (usually in a rather public forum) to a few selected individuals (selected by me) who I feel would add to the ASGCA and be productive. Tom D. is one of these individuals. It may well be selfish on my part ... but I am convinced that having Tom D. (and others) be a part of ASGCA would give me more access to thoughts and insights. This is one of the greatest aspects of the ASGCA — having the benefits of a forum (just like GCA, or at least sort of like GCA) and being able to "see" golf architecture through the eyes of other professionals.
As for the preservation of individualism...I can only tell you that there is no shortage of individualism within the ASGCA and I doubt that the DNA of most of our members could ever be damaged by the five Roman characters ... A, S, G, C or A.
-
Mike,
Thanks for answering my question that Jeff either didn't see or ignored. The whole process sounds pretty subjective to me and seems like more of a club than a professional organization.
-
David,
I think Jeff has made a very good effort to explain the ASGCA as he sees it and has not avoided any of the questions....he didn't have to give you any answers....it is sort of where one has to agree to disagree....remember there are 180 guys that could comment if they wished and he and Forrest usually do the talking so I don't think anything was intentional on his part....
Darn, sounds like I'm taking up for them huh? ;D ;D ;D nah
-
Mike, the good news is that you have a career in the profession despite not being a member. Lack of admittance did not prevent you from getting jobs. Your comment about lead guys versus associates obviously is valid. Still, I'm not sure the group can easily do much to change it. Visibility does have the unintended consequence in this instance.
ASGCA is not an oligopoly capable of preventing someone from practicing.
-
Mike,
I wasn't casting any aspersions when I said he didn't see or ignored my question. Either is ok, this isn't a deposition.
I'll just amend my statement to say that the process you described seems highly subjective.
-
There was a sentence or two that I had read in one of Jeff's post last night or this morning that I now cannot find. Maybe it was edited.
But he mentioned that there have been instances where an applicant was denied membership because other ASGCA members felt they would feel more business competition in their regional market if that person were accepted as a member.
I'm sure (hope) that's a rare exception and not the norm but something like that certainly qualifies as a subjective process.
In theory everything that Jeff and Forrest describe sounds great, but like anything else can be something different when put into practice by real people who compete for the same business every day.
The process it seems, as Jeff said in an earlier post is 'not perfect, but pretty damn good' seems true but probably could use some tweaking somehow, and I assume it's constantly being tweaked...or at least the tweaking of it gets discussed.
Thanks Jeff, Forrest and Mike for all the insight.
-
David,
I think I answered all of your other questions and won't answer your question about Mike specifically or officially as an ASGCA member, other than to offer my opinions that I am dissapointed he is not a member.
He is a friend, both to me and many in ASGCA. He is a talented gca who, IMHO, entered the profession without an apprenticeship of any kind, basically learning on the job, thus creating some technical mistakes on his early courses, and as a consequence he had a few bad early references, some of which affected his app, even though he has now "graduated" as a gca. I understand his point of view that outsiders have a tougher time of it, which was probably true in his case, while disagreeing that this is generally the case, or that the process is unnecessarily subjective. Again, all IMHO.
M Blake,
Just saw your question as I went to post this. All I can say is believe me, we spend a lot of time thinking how to make the membership process better and every year it seems a case or two comes up that seemingly justifies that. We usually wait a while to make sure we aren't overreacting to a situation that may never happen again. And we try to make it fairer for the applicants - and have addressed, we think, the possibility of a few members exerting undue influence on any application. Of cousre, we will probably address it again, but not because you suggested it!
-
Jeff,
I agree with your point about not letting in the county sheriff for designing a single course.
I don't think I should be a member - it is your rules - I'm not suggesting the rules be changed.
My comment was in reference to being ignored until I've completed 5 courses.
That doesn't seem like a good idea.
If I were the ASGCA I'd engage with individuals that have a desire and projection to become a member one day.
Mike Young's points about principal on my own vs. associate are good ones.
My last project I was designer, project manager and grow-in super (with help from Don Mahaffey).
To me it was an incredibly valuabe experience.
To the ASGCA it wouldn't even count - it was only 12 acres.
Cheers
-
Yes, Jeff does a good job...and there are plenty of good guys in the ASGCA...truth be known..probably 99 percent of them...and some of us have applied ( the really stupid one like me ) more than once and been turned down more than once. And always seems to be an ethics issue. Makes me feel like Sara Palin.... ;D
I think it was something to do with minimalism and sheep ;D
Whose ethics?
-
Let me do some friendly jousting at Jeff w/o speaking of ASGCA directly but as to the definition of references and apprenticeships. ;D
Apprenticeships- I never worked for a golf architect and do not regret it. IMHO I think I got a better education than many associates would receive in an office. I called on old golf courses, new construction, supts., and architects offices for a major equipment distributor. I got to work the Masters every year for 5 or 6 years....I could come and go on all the different architect's construction sites as I pleased calling on contractors and supts...watching construction....learning irrigation and even working some summer vacations for supts and contractors etc...I would go in an architects office and see how they operated...and I got a pretty good network of contacts doing that...much more than I would have in an office....so when I talked a guy into letting me do a course it probably aggravated the hell out of the guy that was an ASGCA member and did not get the work....that's human nature.....
References- I can still call that owner of my first project tomorrow with no problem and have a good reference letter from him....BUT what do we call references ?...I think I have remained on good terms with all my owners except the dead ones....Now management companies and contractors...are they references? or even USGA guys? IMHO satisfied owners are the reference. When you build your own work you will not get references from general contractors that know they cannot bid your work. If you build a sand green and a USGA rep comes to a site for a visit....you will not get a reference for him in favor of your greens method....I even had a supt that sprayed beer and pepsi on his greens every monday and they died every year until he was fired. Was it my fault or his? Believe me..it was mine in his eyes.....or let's say a contractor delivers 5000 bushels of grass to put out at a rate of 800 bushels per acre and he does a calculated 5 acres and you approve only the total acreage and not what he delivered....you think he will not be bitching....or a management companies that hires the cheapest supt they can find for a project....who do they blame?
Everybody has the same deals..whether ASGCA or not...I can show you courses by members where entire fairways have moved...or USGA greens had 3 feet of rootzone in areas....it's just different once one is inside....and I can obtain any type of reference I want on anybody in the business...Owners are what count...
Can you imagine this same scenario with say NCAA football coaches and all the recruiting issues etc....it just couldn't happen ..they would be kicking each other out daily.... ;D ;D ;D
But I liked my "apprenticeship" Jeff ;D ;D
-
This has been a beneficially open and informative discussion. Jeff Brauer, you are obviously very passionate abouit ASGCA and do a great job representing the group, explaining its policies and procedures, bleeding Ross Tartan all the while. And yes, the Wilderness was a really good course on less than wonderful property!
Mike Young, you are living proof, along with Tom Doak, that ASGCA membership is not a prerequisite for success in the golf architecture field. That wouldn't be possible in some professions.
Unless the economy revives soon and the demand for new courses returns, ASGCA is going to have a problem growing with new members. Maybe having an associate membership could be a good idea, getting those young associates in the association without full membership.
-
Jeff,
I think Mike Young and Mike Nuzzo have helped scrape away my crappy writing and expose my earlier points. If the ASGCA isn't interested guys that design courses like Long Shadow and Wolf Point, then are they really doing their best to promote their goal as a professional organization?
I get it, the society has rules and the society lives by those rules. It's just a question. I am impressed by your ability to take fire though. ;D
Forrest,
First this:
"...The land swap at Merion is clearer to me than the purpose and membership process of ASGCA."
Oh, certainly that is not true! Reads like an attention getting post, which of course works well here in GCA-land.
Then this:
Ben — Please don't always believe what you read on scorecards with regard to the golf course architect.
It seems that we are both equally adept at over the top statements. I was playing a course this morning with a fellow officer and asked him, "who designed this course?" He grabbed the scorecard from his pocket, flipped it over and said "Art Schaupter". I then asked him what those five letters meant after his name, he said, "I don't know, is that where he went to school or his accredidation? I really have no idea." I reached into my bag and grabbed my scorecard from Stone Eagle and asked the same questions. He's a Lt Col, pretty smart dude, and asked why one was accredited and one wasn't.
You could choose not to believe any piece of advertising about any brand. So where should it stop? The irrigation tech, the shapers? At what point do we say that there is ONE in charge and HE gets the credit. I think many GCA's do a great job of recognizing their associates. But there is a reason that the name is printed on a scorecard the way it is.
-
Mike Nuzzo,
Have I ever ignored you? There can be and is a lot of informal interaction between members and non members. When you meet the five course miniumum (including as it stands now a couple complete remodels) you will have plenty of members who know the kind of work you do.
Mike Young,
Did that super process that beer and pepsi before spraying it on the greens? ;D
-
Will the ASGCA ever acknowledge that a contraction of golf courses in the United States is best for the game?
-
While I occaisionally play Carnac at ASGCA meetings, I don't think I would or could predict that. You have to recall, BTW, that it wasn't ASGCA pushing a golf course a day 20 years ago, it was NGF. Our members have always had work loads that ebbed and flowed with the economy. Nothing we can do can ramp up construction.
Personally, I think it is almost always sad when a golf course closes, but its happened for as long as golf has been played for various reasons.
-
While I occaisionally play Carnac at ASGCA meetings, I don't think I would or could predict that. You have to recall, BTW, that it wasn't ASGCA pushing a golf course a day 20 years ago, it was NGF. Our members have always had work loads that ebbed and flowed with the economy. Nothing we can do can ramp up construction.
Personally, I think it is almost always sad when a golf course closes, but its happened for as long as golf has been played for various reasons.
Jeff,
I'm glad you didn't see my question as an attack (I hope my qualifier about being in the US helped).
Wouldn't it be difficult to have new members if few golf courses are being built? Do you feel the membership and outreach aspects of the organization are fluid enough to change or accept new markets?
A generally locally oriented guy like Jim Blaukovitch, who is presently a member that designs affordable and worthwhile golf courses in the Philadelphia area would have difficulty joining in this economy for example.
-
Mike Young,
Did that super process that beer and pepsi before spraying it on the greens? ;D
Jeff,
He didn't process anything but it is a great story. True and funny.... The owner interviewed for a super after the course was a year old and the first supt had left....this guy tells him he works at a prominent club in ATL...he just forgets to tell him he was in charge of the flower beds..so the owner thinks he has been on the golf course....owner never checked....the guy would really spray beer and pepsi...I would plead with the owner to get rid of this guy...he would go to supt meetings and tell them we planted 419 on greens and the construction was bad etc....well finally the owner got rid of him and the new supt came in and was having problems so the owner said "ok..let me hear what you have to say... I went out and ask him to show the drains to see if water was coming out..he says that's the problem there are no drains ....I said yes there are...(these were USGA w/choker and 85/15 mix...8 years old....) he says well the last supt said these were push up....I dug up 18 drains where he had capped them over three days....opened the drains....you talk about odor..whew....and in two weeks 8 years of issue was gone....all of this because you have a high net worth absentee owner that gets to hear his supt everyday....I got a really nice apology letter from that owner....I just think if he had used diet pepsi it would have been fine..there was too much sugar for the microbes ;D ;D ;D
-
Mike,
While 99% of supers are great, there is the occaisonal fraud, but I guess you wouldn't call them supers.
I had one who most (except the Owner, who was a friend of his daddy's) knew was a fraud. During grow in, he sprayed roundup as weedkiller which put me over the edge. After many complaints to the county judge (a county owned course) they said come on down and make your charges public. In a few days, I had to get all his records and he lied about everything on his resume, even inflating his kindergarten year to a private school. He lied about where he had worked. He said he had wond super of the year twice, which was easy enough to check. It would be comical if it didn't cost everyone so much money.
Cheers.
-
You are correct..I should not have called him a super....I apologize to the 99.5 percent of supers out there....but my hero is still Carl Spackler....."Oh Mrs. Crane, you're a little monkey woman. Yeah, you're lean, mean, and I bet you're not too far in between are ya. How'd you like to wrap your spikes around my... " now that's a super to be proud of.... ;D
-
"He's a Cinderella story...tears in his eyes...I guess."
-
Lot of back and forth in this thread but let's be fair and accurate. Spackler was an assistant. Sandy was the Super.
-
Jeff,
Of course you have never ignored me.
No person has.
I've met dozens of ASGCA members - most high quality fellows.
Cheers
-
Five courses and three in the last five years.
What about the individual who sets out to design one-at-a-time? A school boy would know scheduling becomes somewhat problematic.
Spends 100 times more time on-site than the hit-and-run architects?
Which is more valuable for the investor, and which is a better school of training? Quality or quantity?
I wonder how an outspoken individual, somewhat critical of the ASGCA, who is independent (no ASGCA apprenticeship) would fare if he applied for membership? Some years ago in a Golf Course News round table with the then ASGCA leadership came out pretty rough on young independents.
I think the ASGCA setup is good for keeping the membership small; if that's what they want... OK. I can understand why... but...
When there is an economic downturn or the golf industry hits the saturation point and new courses aren't being built... what then?
Is the ASGCA ready to see its membership dwindle to the point of near extinction? Or...
Will they change their entry rules, and if they're willing to do so in the future... why not now... to qualify qualified architects as members?
Before I forget... somebody should Call Jim.
:)
-
OKAY..this from the golf news this morning:
http://www.golfbusinesswire.com/story/203481/ read it....
and there is more(maybe I could join thru this ;D ;D ;D http://www.asgca.org/images/stories/partnership_opportunities.pdf
Now simply from a business standpoint I have purchased at least 3000(for FaTass and Costa rica) Imperial hats in the last two years. And the courses I have designed have done even more....I just ordered 200 two weeks ago.....no more...
The article starts off...."associated with the leading designers"....
Imperial made a business decision to pay a fee to be a Patron sponsor ....I will be calling my rep this morning....
You can't have your cake and eat it too.....
You will see more and more sponsorships from all organizations....
-
Couple of points ...
— I do not think Jeff intentionally ignored the question about other criteria. (I detest snotty posts suggesting someone purposely ignores a question...can't we all just get along...!?) There is the ASGCA litmus test of having a certain number of courses, but there is also a process to have independent evaluators look at one's work, references and an interview process where one has an opportunity to present his/her design philosophy, discuss their career, answer tough questions about ethics, and explain any questions that have risen about their application or the information presented to the ASGCA. All this is in addition to mostly black and white data such as age, citizenship, etc.
— Unlike the AIA or ASLA where we have thousands upon thousands of peers to review applicants, ASGCA has a very small pool to draw from. I do not think there will ever be a way to once and for all make it appear to anyone here, or elsewhere, that the process is not somehow flawed. Yet, it works very well most of the time. Especially during the past 10+ years when the process was revamped to eliminate — and also add — some steps and details.
— As to the point of ASGCA growing, I do not see that as a goal necessarily. The organization has had tremendous growth during the past 20 years and I foresee a slowing of new applicants due to the economy. There have been discussions about organizing events for associates and others who are in the profession, but are not yet members. Whether this will happen depends on finding someone to champion that cause.
— Regarding the comment that a 12-acre practice course or par-3 does not qualify, this is not true. The membership chair can accept any project with the caveat that it might not count as the equivalent as one, regulation 18-hole project. For example, when I applied for membership two of my 9-hole projects were counted as "one 18." Today, with somewhat flexible interpretations, a partial restoration/renovation may well be accepted along with, for example, the Nuzzo 12-acre example, as "one" qualifying project. The time limit on "recent" projects is also somewhat flexible as the process can recommend waiving certain time limits for a variety of reasons. For example, if an applicant met all of the criteria but had gone abroad to serve in the military, I am guessing this would be a circumstance we would take into account. If an applicant met all of the requirements, but one project opened a few years later than expected, I believe it within the guidelines to "freeze time" on that applicant so his/her projects would still be "recent" in the spirit of the five year term.
All of the details are important, but they are balanced by having the character of the applicant also held high in the process. To some this may appear as a flaw, but to me it makes the process more complete.
-
Will — Phase II is when an applicant appears to meet all of the requirements in the eyes of the membership chair, has all the necessary paperwork, questions and sponsors in place. In essence, it is most everything but the important interview process and anything required once projects are evaluated or other information is submitted. (I may be wrong in parts of this, but I believe it is a close definition.)
Also Will — I am not sure any more objectivity is possible, or needed. If you feel that the process in place is unbalanced towards subjectivity, I really do believe you have the wrong impression. Our membership is made up of a very diverse group — low budget course designers & high profile project designers...wild and crazy designs & mundane designs...minimalist construction & USGA-greens--on-steroids construction...classic appreciators & blow-it-up mentalities...loud & quiet...fat & thin...etc. The process does not decide who draws pretty or who doesn't. I cannot see any decision being made of a purely subjective nature. For example, I have evaluated a few courses that I would not personally design, or may not enjoy playing a lot. But my role as an evaluator was not to determine those qualities — I was there to make sure the applicant was primarily responsible for the bulk of the work, that the course was a solid representation — e.g., that it was not a plan thrown together and built by others with no involvement of the designer, or that it was planned and constructed so poorly that it could not be played, maintained, etc. (at the time of the evaluation.)
-
Forrest,
Your last post just digs it a little deeper in my mind ( and I never meant to post the first thing on this topic ;)
Indirectly a sentence such as your last sentence conveys to someone such as myself that my character is not worthy of the ASGCA. That's the entire problem with this little set -up. ;)
Take care,
Mike
-
Mike — Once I knew the sponsors you had, your character was no issue for me. My post (and sentence) was not aimed at you. I was just pointing out that the process balances details and submittals with other "steps" such as the interview and all that goes along with that presentation. Maybe "character" is too broad a term...or conversely, too narrow.
-
Like Forrest, I can tell you that nowhere and at no time has ASGCA ever set a new member quota!
And, for those who think its going to dwindle, I think that perspective is pretty short term, just like those who think golf is doomed because of this recession. It's not like the ASGCA hasn't seen deep recessions previously, and as I mentioned, maintained a very stable membership. I believe its in part because we do accept members that seem to have been active in the business for a while as an indicator that they will continue in the business.
Opening it up to relative newcomers who might be able to afford the dues a year and then quit when they can't is simply not our MO. We like to take in "members for life" and have only lost a few over the years. That said, this will be a very testing time ane we may lose more now than in our total combined history.
For anyone who thinks that our members routinely try to keep people out, how do we grow by 5-10 new members a year. More than half the membership has to vote yes for them! While it is possible that a member would try to stop a certain application for less than honorable reasons, and it has happened, in general, most members welcome new applicants. If they didn't they would never go to review a course in the first place.
Tony,
Like a few others, I know you have a chip on your shoulder about organizations. I will simply repeat what I said before - if RTJ or Ross thinks five courses is a good benchmark of experience who am I to question them? Its been in our by laws from the beginning. As Forrest mentions, there is a rule that says that we can make exceptions. In his military example, if by some chance those home made golf courses on bases in Iraq were designed by an applicant, we might allow those even though no member would be expected to go to a war zone to check it out! In general, we don't like to make exceptions to our process because it would open us up to even more charges of subjectivity - if one person got a waiver for this, why wouldn't the next one, etc? Now that really would be subjective on our part, no?
So yeah, we follow rules set up by our founders, tweak them to meet current conditions in their spirit, but as we see fit, and try to hold to them. While I understand the concerns of those who don't qualify, I won't aplogize for the goals and processes that have been in place a long time, nor do I think ASGCA will change just to satisfy those complaints. Most young guys should feel like its worth the wait. If they don't, then I guess they wouldn't be enthusiastic members anyway.
-
What does this have to do with golf architecture?
-
Forrest,
Thanks for the clarification.
Maybe character is all together the wrong term. Maybe the subjective process of innuendos and opinions from people that have never spent 2 hours with you is not a good idea either....I am amazed at the BS that comes up in some of those so called "vettings" . The ASGCA would have no problem from me if they stuck to finite issues. To try to sit as a court and decide if a guy knows what he is doing after he has done what is required physically and has had the independent valuations to support such and has the letters and evaluator interviews with the owners is pure BS. Looking at any project or anything from the outside never allows one to know what really went on. All you get is jaded opinions. To try to sit there and spout hearsay regarding projects without really knowing what goes on is wrong....
If the ASGCA is promoting itself within the industry as the professional group for architects then they have the responsibility to accept objectively as do the PGA and the GCSAA. Because the ASGCA allows others to perceive them as such. That's obvious with the Patron Program etc....those guys don't know that many of their customers cannot get in the ASGCA.
What if the GCSAA membership committee had a supt sitting there that had been growing great bentgrass greens for 20 years....and they said well what do you do...and he says" I allow my golden retriever to whizz on them every tuesday for 10 minutes. Do they tell him he is wrong or he can't be in the GCSAA when his greens have been fine.
I don't mean to argue this but the unspoken Phase 3 is a very subjective process and varies from applicant to applicant....
Take care,
Mike
-
Does anyone know who the last amateur architect to be admitted was?
Would it even be possible today to be am Am and get into the association?
-
Tom Mac,
Its relevant because ASGCA is considerig a posthumus membership for HH Barker based on Philly train schedules....... ;D
Adam,
Given the state of the industry, I doubt an am architect of the Crump, one masterpiece type would exist, or could get in. It is a professional society after all. And, as discussed, we do have the five course minimum!
This BTW is another example of some of the issues ASGCA faces. At one time, there was a clause that the majority of a members income had to come from gca. Not only would that have affected historical figures like CBM (and that gca model was long dead when the ASGCA was formed) but it would keep modern tour pros out. Also, many members own other businesses and so the original clause was deemed unfair. And it would require an applicant to disclose his full financials, which no one wants to do.
Mike,
In all my research in support of your application, I recall only one innuendo that originated with an ASGCA members years ago. Others came elsewhere and ASGCA was merely evaluating them, within our time constraints of getting your application ready for the meeting vote. I think its clear that when innuendo gets into the process from other sources, then pure "finite objectivity" is by definition, impossible and both subjectivity and some doubt creep in. I am dissapointed for you that you fell into the "shred of doubt" category and understand your vents, but I can also understand the result in terms of the long term history of ASGCA. It is a tough situation and you continue to take the high road, which for me is evidence enough of your good character!
-
Tom M. — ??? I will reply by simply saying that the effort and words in your recent post above has zilch to do with golf course architecture, while at minimum the words and efforts of the other posts before yours have made honest attempts to weigh in, ask questions, give answers, etc.
To answer — A discussion of ASGCA seems very worthwhile, even though I would prefer it to focus on aspects other than the skeptics who view it as a club, a waste of time and the status quo of golf design. Like it or not, the ASGCA is a part of the game and a part of the art of golf course architecture.
While Jeff visualizes GCA-ers in their bathrobes eating Cheerios®, I have always used the cocktail party as a visual. Here we are — talking and discussing new and old topics hovering above the broad game of golf and golf courses — and along comes someone to throw ice cold gin on the conversation...this not only wastes the gin, but quiets the room for long enough that those who were engaged must now regroup. It does little to stimulate the conversation or expand one's mind on the subject.
-
Forrest,
You put gin on your cheerios?
-
Not lately, considering the price of Cheerios®. But, yes, pre-2009.
-
Forrest,
We keep this banter up, and maybe we can add the 96 pages necessary to catch the Merion thread! And the info we generate will be JUST as useful........
-
Mike,
In all my research in support of your application, I recall only one innuendo that originated with an ASGCA members years ago. Others came elsewhere and ASGCA was merely evaluating them, within our time constraints of getting your application ready for the meeting vote. I think its clear that when innuendo gets into the process from other sources, then pure "finite objectivity" is by definition, impossible and both subjectivity and some doubt creep in. I am dissapointed for you that you fell into the "shred of doubt" category and understand your vents, but I can also understand the result in terms of the long term history of ASGCA. It is a tough situation and you continue to take the high road, which for me is evidence enough of your good character!
Jeff,
Thanks both for the above and your efforts on my behalf. I will get you some tater salad on white bread one day. ;D ;D
As I told you ..I'm hard headed....I have always like the "beyond a shadow of a doubt" much moreso than the "shred of doubt"....
From my experiences with ASGCA and from the little I know of the process I think it is fair to say that ..at the end of the day..you need 9 votes from the Board of Governors....that's it....no majority vote from the members even if that is usually the basis...
Also you must have the membership committee allow you to be voted on by the members that are present at the meeting..which could be 10 or 150.....If the membership committee votes to not support the candidate then most likely he will not be approved by the 2/3 majority of the board of governors. So I think it is fair to say that one can have all of their Phase 1 and Phase 2 complete with evaluations and owner interviews etc....which are measurable items....and never get to a vote....
With all due respect to you specifically and other individuals within the organization....if direct questions are asked where there are concerns the evaluation process may be expedited....the vagueness of never letting an applicant there is a concern or issue or rumor until the last moment is not then a problem....
AND in the innuendo process the ASGCA member needs heed to Item 7 of the Code of Ethics-"Members shall recognize and respect the work of other golf course architects and shall not knowingly make statements or offer opinions and comments that are false or attempt to injure or disparage their practice, projects or any of their work." even when his "personal" knowledge of such is shown to be incorrect.
Let's call time out....goin to play golf...
Now maybe if MacWood will come over here we can get a 100 pages out of this ;D
-
I leave you guys alone for 10 minutes.... ;D
I want to post something key to my disagreement with the society--like Mike Y. said, individual members aren't targeted here. Just the organization as a whole. This is from the ASGCA website.
Vision
ASGCA is the leader in advancing the interests of golf course architects and the profession of golf course architecture for the benefit of ASGCA members and their clients, the golf industry and the game of golf.
Missions
Foster Professionalism – Foster the professionalism of ASGCA members through education, promotion and fellowship of the world's leading golf course architects.
Support Design Excellence – Support the design of golf courses that are technically, strategically and aesthetically excellent and meet the economic, environmental and other needs of golf course owners, developers and communities.
Help Grow the Game – Assist in the growth of golf.
Expand Opportunities – Expand the opportunities of ASGCA members to better serve their clients and the game of golf.
I see a lot of things there that have to do with the overarching group of the "golf industry" and "the game of golf." They support sound design. They assist in the growth of golf. I am wholly behind that vision and mission as noble and right. But from what we've been reading here, he execution of that vision and mission is missing, in my humble opinion.
When you tell a young, unique and groundbreaking architect to "call us when you have 5 projects", are you assisting the growth of golf? Are you advancing the the interests of golf architects and the golf industry as a whole?
-
Ben:
There is a huge difference between what's good for golf, and what's good for the golf industry. That may well be the subject of my next book.
Unfortunately, I am not sure which side the ASGCA is on in that discussion.
-
Ben:
There is a huge difference between what's good for golf, and what's good for the golf industry. That may well be the subject of my next book.
Unfortunately, I am not sure which side the ASGCA is on in that discussion.
Is this book before or after the printing of the PacDunes book and the new edition of the Confidential Guide? ;) ;D ;D
-
I leave you guys alone for 10 minutes.... ;D
I want to post something key to my disagreement with the society--like Mike Y. said, individual members aren't targeted here. Just the organization as a whole. This is from the ASGCA website.
Vision
ASGCA is the leader in advancing the interests of golf course architects and the profession of golf course architecture for the benefit of ASGCA members and their clients, the golf industry and the game of golf.
Missions
Foster Professionalism – Foster the professionalism of ASGCA members through education, promotion and fellowship of the world's leading golf course architects.
Support Design Excellence – Support the design of golf courses that are technically, strategically and aesthetically excellent and meet the economic, environmental and other needs of golf course owners, developers and communities.
Help Grow the Game – Assist in the growth of golf.
Expand Opportunities – Expand the opportunities of ASGCA members to better serve their clients and the game of golf.
I see a lot of things there that have to do with the overarching group of the "golf industry" and "the game of golf." They support sound design. They assist in the growth of golf. I am wholly behind that vision and mission as noble and right. But from what we've been reading here, he execution of that vision and mission is missing, in my humble opinion.
When you tell a young, unique and groundbreaking architect to "call us when you have 5 projects", are you assisting the growth of golf? Are you advancing the the interests of golf architects and the golf industry as a whole?
I repeat again -- it might be a great opportunity for ASGCA to create a new "Associate" category of membership for those young industry members who don't have those five courses under their belts yet, but could contribute to the association and meet mentors, etc.
This might make Ben happy too!
-
Bill M: It might be a good way for ASGCA to increase its coffers, since there are so many young men and women interested in the profession and desperate to find a way in, and so few jobs to be had. However, I think it would be somewhat unfair to raise their hopes in that way. (In fact, the EIGCA in Europe has been doing just that ... running a program for students under the auspices of their society as a recruiting tool, very successful in the short term but not so much right now.)
An interested student should not be hanging around the ASGCA annual meeting. He should be working on a construction site somewhere ... if he can find one.
-
Bill M: It might be a good way for ASGCA to increase its coffers, since there are so many young men and women interested in the profession and desperate to find a way in, and so few jobs to be had. However, I think it would be somewhat unfair to raise their hopes in that way. (In fact, the EIGCA in Europe has been doing just that ... running a program for students under the auspices of their society as a recruiting tool, very successful in the short term but not so much right now.)
An interested student should not be hanging around the ASGCA annual meeting. He should be working on a construction site somewhere ... if he can find one.
If ASGCA is representing a majority of GCAs, their meetings might be a good place for these youngsters to make the connections necessary to get a construction job. So far you and maybe one or two others are the only GCAs I've seen offering these opportunities in public. Congrats to you for doing that, it's apparently been mutually profitable as you keep coming up with these creative and hard working associates!
-
So is it better to have an organization that gathers some interested members of the industry or have none at all?
-
Tom:
I agree with two points.
1) Yes, there is a complete disconnect between what is good for golf, and what is good for the golf industry. ASGCA--in their vision statement--claim that they exist in order to advance golf architecture for the betterment of golf AND the golf industry. As we have seen in the recent downturn--with conjecture about the saturation of golf courses--these two things are mutually exclusive at times.
2) I agree that a student of the game and more specifically golf architecture and construction--a guy like me--could be 100% better served by spending his time on a site learning the odds and ends. But I wasn't talking about students of architecture. I was explicitly illustrating a point that many have made before me. That ASGCA isn't interested in young talent unless they have a requisite portfolio of their own or a portfolio sponsored by a larger firm that they are an employee. The Mike Nuzzo's of the world--talented as they may be--aren't talented enough yet to seek knowledge or give knowledge in an official capacity to the society.
Ross laid the foundation, who are we to question.....
-
Ben,
What you miss there is that a young gca can go to work for Doak or an ASGCA member. Its not like either or. ASGCA has no summer jobs to offer, but its members do. If not, how do all those associates in those firms get started, get in their minimum time and then join ASGCA?
But you will be glad to know that we are discussing some kind of an outreach program to potential future members, although its in a very formative stage (like since this afternoon when HQ got wind of this thread!) and may not come to pass.
BTW, I would love to hear both you and Tom tell us what the complete disconnect between good for the industry and good for golf is. Its a great sound bite, of course. But I would love to know how its true IYHO. Especially since you have twice referenced the current recession, which is a baddie, but which has been weathered before since golf took hole about 600 years ago. I guess I am pretty confident in golf long term.
Again, as to the Mike Nuzzo's of the world, I say membership is worth the wait. But, that is just me. And like John C says, its almost inevitable that something like ASGCA would be formed, because almost every profession in the world seems to have its own professional society.
-
So is it better to have an organization that gathers some interested members of the industry or have none at all?
If it is an organization such as GCSAA or PGA where you can't discriminate or let subjective issues slide in then of course it is better...if it is where people have met their requirements but don't measure to their "character" standards as Forrest mentions then it is best to have none....exclusion limits credibility in my book....JMO
-
Jeff,
I may be wrong, but I think what Tom D was referring to had to do with a scenario along these lines.
Big name firm gets hired to build big name course for big money. No expense is spared--even the tiles on the clubhouse roof are from Italy. (Sorry, but that's just funny, no reference to your Wildhorse of course). Much earth is moved, much ink is printed, etc, etc. The course is a windfall for the owner, for 2 months. The luster fades as often happens with big courses--the excess of the 80's-90's. No less than 15 different companies benefit financially from the original expense of the course. Big plus for the golf industry right?
Now Joe Handicap lives locally and wants to play said course. He plays it twice opening month. Once a year afterwards. "It's just too expensive" he says. His friends that are even less avid than he is, play once or twice, saying that it is too tough, too expensive. "Why would I want to pay 90 bucks to play here when I can go down to low scale daily fee X, or muni Y and pay 30 bucks, lose less balls, and have more fun learning the game?"
It seems that this hypothetical is both good for the golf industry and bad for the game at the same time. I know this story well. The Frog back home in Georgia, or my hometown's The Lion Golf Club, deal with it yearly.
-
Mike, the PGA of America discriminates by virtue of its Players Ability Test. I'm sure there are players that can't pass due to a physical ailment or late start in the game of golf and cry foul that they can't become a Class A member.
Any time there are standards you need to draw a line. Any time you draw a line there are people that will fall on the wrong side of it. I'm not familiar with the details of your plight and if you are to share them with me I'd only be hearing one side of the story.
In looking at the ASGCA, I'm not looking at little details. I'm looking at the big picture. (Funny, Ben said he was too, yet he's very caught up in its finer points.)
I have no dog in the fight. The industry has a group. Given the frustration with their standards, I'm surprised it doesn't have two. (In my line of work a group didn't like the focus of their organization so they began another. Tons of clubs have been formed because golfers were denied access to another.) You, Doak, and Sims ought to create the ASoRGGCA or something.
-
I leave you guys alone for 10 minutes.... ;D
I want to post something key to my disagreement with the society--like Mike Y. said, individual members aren't targeted here. Just the organization as a whole. This is from the ASGCA website.
Vision
ASGCA is the leader in advancing the interests of golf course architects and the profession of golf course architecture for the benefit of ASGCA members and their clients, the golf industry and the game of golf.
Missions
Foster Professionalism – Foster the professionalism of ASGCA members through education, promotion and fellowship of the world's leading golf course architects.
Support Design Excellence – Support the design of golf courses that are technically, strategically and aesthetically excellent and meet the economic, environmental and other needs of golf course owners, developers and communities.
Help Grow the Game – Assist in the growth of golf.
Expand Opportunities – Expand the opportunities of ASGCA members to better serve their clients and the game of golf.
-------------------
Expand Opportunities – Expand the opportunities of ASGCA members to better serve their clients and the game of golf. DING DING DING DING you mean sort of like a trade organization??? ;D
Let me ask you guys if any of you remember when Tor signed Arnold Palmer to a contract after the Pennzoil commercial with the Toro tractor and wanted to use him in ads....How long did it take Nicklaus to go strictly Rainbird?
If you were a vendor and an architect was not in he group that was having their "opportunities expanded" for the good of the game...and he found you were sponsoring such....would you go neutral or would you take a side....
Again all of this stuff sounds good until you hear a green comm member secretly tell you that the GM (CMAA )informed them " you know we are an allied assoc with the ASGCA and a couple of the guys have mentioned that they would not accept candidate A...those kinds of things are there to give an edge... not to help the game of golf....and any architect that allows a vendor to work on his projects and support a group that is using that vendors sponsor money to promote their members is crazy.....it's not against individuals..it's just business....vendors will be smart to remain neutral.....
-
.
-
Mike, the PGA of America discriminates by virtue of its Players Ability Test. I'm sure there are players that can't pass due to a physical ailment or late start in the game of golf and cry foul that they can't become a Class A member.
Any time there are standards you need to draw a line. Any time you draw a line there are people that will fall on the wrong side of it. I'm not familiar with the details of your plight and if you are to share them with me I'd only be hearing one side of the story.
In looking at the ASGCA, I'm not looking at little details. I'm looking at the big picture. (Funny, Ben said he was too, yet he's very caught up in its finer points.)
I have no dog in the fight. The industry has a group. Given the frustration with their standards, I'm surprised it doesn't have two. (In my line of work a group didn't like the focus of their organization so they began another. Tons of clubs have been formed because golfers were denied access to another.) You, Doak, and Sims ought to create the ASoRGGCA or something.
John,
I understand the PAT and discriminating against physical handicaps....no problem with that....you have an actual score to prove ability....same with any sport.....and you can have standards but don't move the line....and I am not asking you to hear just my side of the story..forget that....
I am also looking at the big picture.....and I am quite simple...have your five courses or whatever...and make it a finite just like the forms for PGA or GCSAA .......get it signed by your sponsors or evaluators just like GCSAA etc...then I got no problem......just don't give me that PEER review crap.....that's as subjective as one can get....
How you doing in Florida there?
-
Like a few others, I know you have a chip on your shoulder about organizations.
LOL... Nice try at positioning Jeff. Is this your attempt to recruit new members?
But for argument sake let's assume I have a chip on my shoulder. Does it invalidate the questions asked? Of course not. They were good questions.
I have asked questions of the ASGCA code in the past.
I think questions and debate are a good thing. If this qualifies as a chip on the shoulder, so be it.
I have seen the result of ASGCA and EIGCA rules and looking at them with a critical eye, it was easy to see how they were/are detrimental.
In fact, one of the detrimental rules we debated has been changed in the last few years. Good for you guys.
I will simply repeat what I said before - if RTJ or Ross thinks five courses is a good benchmark of experience who am I to question them? Its been in our by laws from the beginning.
This is brilliant. Follow blindly.
The world changes, and if the goal of the ASGCA is to have qualified members... a little thinking about how to qualify members could be in order. Not simply following a six decade old rule by a group of guys that started the organization, as one journalist/historian noted, along the lines of a cartel.
In general, we don't like to make exceptions to our process because it would open us up to even more charges of subjectivity - if one person got a waiver for this, why wouldn't the next one, etc? Now that really would be subjective on our part, no?
I could see difficulties, but if someone is clearly qualified... then why not. There are always exceptions to the rule, and strong obvious cases aren't likely to be disputed, though I could see how this could evolve into a nepotism type ordeal as years pass.
So yeah, we follow rules set up by our founders, tweak them to meet current conditions in their spirit, but as we see fit, and try to hold to them. While I understand the concerns of those who don't qualify, I won't aplogize for the goals and processes that have been in place a long time, nor do I think ASGCA will change just to satisfy those complaints. Most young guys should feel like its worth the wait. If they don't, then I guess they wouldn't be enthusiastic members anyway.
Can you explain why a member should be enthusiastic? What about qualifying members and leaving it at that? Wouldn't a few folks in the organization who don't bleed Ross tartan be a great thing? Strengthen the organization? If not, then the group doesn't seem to be one that is focused on bringing in qualified architects, but a sect of qualified architects.
What are the great benefits of ASGCA membership?
Why should someone want to join?
In the past, pre-internet I could see some value, but now?
Really Jeff, I'm am curious, what is the benefit?
-
Yeah, I am going to ASGCA Monday morning and tell them to dumb down the whole organization just for the benefit of a few here. We have no right to make any subjective decisions on who gets in to our group. So, moving forward, any potential client who picks up our membership list as a tool in making perhaps the most important decision of their entire golf course project, will be assured of the following:
Experience - Nope. Even though most of us learn from experience, it is deemed too "subjective" a criteria for membership, so the ASGCA member could have as little as one 3 hole renovation in different soils and weather than you have. What could possibly go wrong there? And we can't actually judge the quality of the courses applicants put in, again its too subjective, even though I recall astute business people who say there is a difference between five years experience and the same year of experience five times over.
Ethics - Nope, too subjective. Even if people call in from all over the country to tell us an applicant uses fraudulent or unethical practices, we shouldn't consider that, because that would be a subjective and unfair peer review. Maybe there should be licsencing instead. You know how little we can trust the ASGCA guys to know what a qualified and ethical architect looks like, under the "takes one to know one" theory, and you KNOW how well and cost efficiently the govt. generally does at policing things, including ethics in government and the (formerly) private banking industry. Need a gca? Call your governor. Better yet, call the President!
Technical Competence - Sorry, some guys breaking into the business says that stifles them in competition with more experienced gca's so we can't use that as a membership criteria. And while we are at it, ASGCA should demand that no client EVER asks about experience or competence in any RFQ or interview to maintain a complete standard of fairness. No sir, competence shall not be the hallmark of an ASGCA architect.
Continuing Education - Nope. Not necessary. Just because laws and products and technology change, its not a good idea for the best and the brightest in the biz to conflab about that and try to determine how to design the golf course of the future. Nope, we should be listening to a guy who has designed one course on the chance that he/she might tell us all something about his new bunker style, which might improve our ability to design by a max of 1% compared to following good practice in general.
Ability to Draw Plans and Obtain a reasonable bid? - No sorry again. We are told that we are bad for golf, even though one of our criteria is being able to draw the plans and docs necessary for efficient and cost effective construction. And some guys (in ASGCA and out) don't draw plans, so even our mid level golf couse can be built by a guy who pushes dirt around for a decade until he decides he has it right. That will keep costs down, I'm sure!
But we ARE the leading organization for gca's and you should stilll pick from our members, even though we will have no standards at all because some people think its unfair. I will recommend that we change our name and misson to the NSSGCA (no standards Society of Golf Course Architects) I am sure someone here will tell me how that will help the industry or the game of golf more. ::)
I really can't see anything wrong with the ASGCA's original puprose of trying to set and encourage high standards in golf course architecture. Nor do I see any real problems with our general programs and the criteria set for membership that can't be fixed with minor tweaking and improvement. Frankly, from my observations, very few in the industry do either. Its mostly guys who don't qualify or haven't gotten in who complain and I would urge you to consider what that tells you. Guys who are complaining loudest either want in as soon as possible or tried to get in and couldn't. In both cases, their complaints are based on what they percieve to be missing out on in terms of benefits, so in a way, even the complaints are a compliment to ASGCA.
Yeah, we help our members, but in reality all the "big picture" complaints lodged really just a request for us to tweak things around (sometimes very specifically to an individual) to help non members? Are people making excuses based on how ASGCA has "harmed them" doing just that - making excuses?
And, there are a few gca'ers who naturally root for the underdog and have a natural interest in seeing new faces design golf courses. No problems with that, but its happened for 400 years and I don't think ASGCA is holding a truly gifted person back. I recall nearly everyone from Mom on out telling me not to be a gca. I always figured my first qual to be a gca was to NOT QUIT because of competition, difficulties, etc.
I think most of our members are proud of what it generally means to be a member and, once again, for a gca who qualifies, we believe it is worth the wait. Yeah, you could join the NSSGCA a lot quicker and easier, but who would be proud to be a member of an organization like that?
-
Tony,
I don't know why all people would want to join, but I know when I saw that list at age 15, with RTJ and others, I knew I wanted to be associated with the best gca's when I got to that point.
As to the net, its not all about the communication. Learning and socializing in person (ie. the fraternal aspects) are a big part of it and I don't see that as a bad thing. Most of our members will tell you they learn the most from informal discussions. In that sense, you would never know where you might get an offhand tip from even a relative newcomer, as some have suggested.
You will be interested to know that just today, our members only forum is going on line at our site to use new fangled technology to help us communicate on industry issues. IMHO, it won't replace our annual meetings, if for no other reason that you can't play golf on the internet.
-
Jeff:
Every one of your detailed points above could be summarized as saying you are upholding the standards of architecture -- that "we" the ASGCA are better than "they" who are not in. Which is exactly what Mike Young has been arguing all along.
I will also point out the fallacy of your statement that "guys who complain the loudest either want in right away or tried to get in and couldn't". This is just further slamming of non-members implying they all fall into those two categories ... and you made no exception for the many who don't have five courses yet, such as Mike Nuzzo. And which of those applies to me? Maybe that's just because I have been too polite to complain lately, and if so, thank you for the reminder.
Exit question: do you think it would be possible for the ASGCA (or any group) to promote the furthering of golf course architecture WITHOUT picking sides and denigrating others? It should be noted that it sure doesn't work as planned for Golf Club Atlas -- denigrating others seems to go with the territory here.
P.S. to Carnac: I will send you a full five-minute routine of replies to some of your defenses above, but in the meantime, I suggest you just edit the threat to "dumb down the whole organization" before somebody runs with it. I am definitely not interested in joining the org. to dumb it down.
-
Jeff,
Late night post really can take on a different tone ;) Mine do...
---------------------
I really don't disagree with most of your argument above. Myself, like you, wanted to get in at an early age. Now, I am not arguing because I want to get in anymore. The "dumb down" explained it for me....I would have definitely brought that number a little lower ;D Ya'll could have just told me that.....I feel for Larry the Cable Guy everyday....dummy
The only issue I really argue with is your ETHICS line above.....you say..."Ethics - Nope, too subjective. Even if people call in from all over the country to tell us an applicant uses fraudulent or unethical practices, we shouldn't consider that, because that would be a subjective and unfair peer review. NO you should not necessarily consider that... I think it fine if you have parameters and consider why...and how....and who....
The best example I know is to use NCAA football coaches- Tuberville leaves Miss St and goes to Auburn- the Miss St fans all of a sudden hate the guy....oh man his recruiting at AU is bad...all kinds of stuff.....reality...there ain't nothing wrong with the guy...
Saban goes to Alabama and LSU can do nothing but slam the guy .....list goes on....and these so called incidents from people "all over the country" but the truth is most of the people saying this stuff don't even know the guys..and also if they were that "unethical" they would not be staying in the profession. So it's all a matter of where you get information and how accurate that information is.
I know that for instance in my interview I saw an excerpt form a letter..." Mike had a chance to WOW the committee but he stonk up the interview" I agree BUT I was not ever there to WOW a committee. They had my information. AND then later you hear " he's holding something back, I know it".....that's real good....if i was holding anything back that was any different form the other members I wouldn't be on an internet site talking about this stuff.... and then someone says they "have never seen an app gone over like this one" hel I probably ought to be in Jail ;D ;D
But ethics.....who is the evaluator....if you walk into a room and one of the iterviewers is a guy who had come onto one of your projects and taken a contract while you were still involved....(now this was because he was friends with a new golf pro that claimed he did not realze we had a continuing Masterplan on the ground and working)...I think that is your Ethic # 9- Members shall not attempt to obtain or offer to undertake any commission that they know is already under a legitimate contract or agreement with another golf course architect. BUT he should have called when he found out..yet it was me that wrote him a letter and said I would be glad to step aside if the client wished....And another sitting their had recently sent an email telling a client that he was the only architect"certified" by ASGCA to do such a restoration..and the rest of the guys in town were a bunch of "Jack-legs".( I think that takes ethics# 4,5,6 and 8 all in one package. ;D I know it's just business banter but don't use it just when it fits....
And don't allow plays on words to have so much weight....such as " have you ever been involved in a lawsuit"....that's a loaded question...if you were the architect on a job for a city that required a recreation bond issued...then you were involved in a lawsuit..because each bond issuance has to go before the judge as a suit....or you might have had a divorce....or you may have bought a Dell computer and been in a class action.... so if you answer as " I don't think so" instead of yes or no....are you holding something back? No ..Now, if the question was have you ever been in a lawsuit over design techncalities and you had been sued for greens construction or drainage or something then you can answer yes or no.....But most of us would hedge ourselves on the first question if you sense the guys asking it have an agenda ( whether they do or not)....
And also when you bring into account "people from all over the country" for a candidate.....who are these people.... DO THEY HAVE TRUE DIRECT KNOWLEDGE? let me ask a simple question....doesn't it seem that one would value the opinions, letters and interviews of appointed evalautors with an owner much more than gossip? And if they are so confident in the so-called "people from all over the country"...why don't they confront the candidate with the concern directly and hear another side...GET YOUR ETHICS QUESTIONS ANSWERED FROM OWNERS
Some situations where "people from all over the country" may be biased....
A golf professional or management company person has used two prominent ASGCA "signature" architects in the past and he is doing a job with one of us "I am not worthy ;D" types....let's just say something happens for the company to no longer be on the project( you know other wife porking and stuff) you have an issue with the guy and that guy tells his two ASGCA buddies how bad you are.....weigh it( of there will be two sides) DO YOU COUNT HIM
I have seen a contractor tell a client that he will not work for one of us "I am not worthy" types because we are not ASGCA...now understand this was all a roll of the dice for this particular contractor because he was working to make sure his ASGCA contact got the job with him.....now you get the job and the contractor comes kissing..and you have your own guys.....DO YOU COUNT HIM?
Or what about the contractors where you have approved less payment than they requested or other issues....they don't walk away on your side...
All of the above is how crap gets started and myself....I usually take it with a grain of salt because I have heard it about everyone in the business whether ASGCA or not....
And so trust me...i am not sitting here begging to get into ASGCA....been there and done that....I am bitching because of " what they say when they don't say".....their basic language in type denigrates outsiders which in itself is a violation of their ethics#8....
And I am not intimidated by ASGCA members work vs. my own....
You see you have to expect such bitching when someone passes all the written requirements ,,,,because what you say by not saying is that that person ethics are worse than 180 other members....I call pure bullshit....now all of that is fine if you are a fraternity..but all this promotion is done as " for the good of golf" yada yada yada...so the public doesn't see ASGCA as a frat....
got to go play golf now but give you two thoughts before I get back on here later....
...if Tom Doak had not done Pacific Dunes and other prominent courses after writing the Confidential Guide...do you think guys would be trying to get him in? HELL NO
and, with all due respect for associates ad their talents...do you think you can really be the architect of a project as an EMPLOYEE and not the owner of the firm? I don't.....
And finally...again...none of this is personal with ASGCA member mentioned above....the one's that give me a hassle don't even now me....I just think it is petty frat type stuff.....
Rodney King....oops I mean Mike " why can't we all just get along" ;D ;D
-
Tom,
I doubt anyone is interested in joining ASGCA (or AIA or ASLA) to run it down, dumb it down, etc. And I think I pointed out in previous posts, BTW, that you are among a handful who has simply chosen not to join, like Wilson in his generation, etc. We don't get everybody.
I don't think its a bad thing for a professional society to set standards. Traditionally, that is what they try to do. Being a member suggests that you agree with those standards and are willing to further them and abide by them. Not being a member can suggest a lot of things but you would be hard pressed to find any examples of ASGCA denigrating any non-member. I do know of examples of members who individually will tell clients that it is preferable to hire ASGCA members.
I looked at the AIA and ASLA web sites for comparables. From the ASLA web site regarding membership beneifits:
ASLA Professional Designation Only ASLA members can use the professional designation. This exclusive credential shows clients and peers a commitment to the highest level of professionalism, giving you an important competitive edge.
Having initials behind your name, should you choose to join an organization is apparently seen by the other professions as a membership benefit, too. It goes with the territory.
I decided I didn't need to be on the defensive to state my support for ASGCA as a professional organization any more. And while my post somewhat exaggerated and combined the anti-ASGCA opinions stated here (humorously I hoped) it conveyed the flip side of what it would seem like to ASGCA and many others if it were run according to the wishes apparently expressed in this thread. I doubt we could be of any assistence to golf at all if we didn't try to maintain high standards.
Nor do I want readers here to just presume that we "get it wrong" in how we set our standards or conduct our membership process just because a few gca.comers say its true. While I have always admitted that we aren't perfect, we get our membership process right about 99% of the time and our standards have served us, golf and the golf industry as well as AIA and ASLA have served their members and the public.
-
I think Jeff has tried very hard to answer questions and keep his frustration in check. This is a no-win situation for Jeff trying to answer questions – and yet he continues to try explain things. The thread is beginning to deteriorate and become personal. I knew it eventually would and that’s why I have not participated.
-
Ian,
Yeah, and I have been quite cheesed at you lack of defense of ASGCA.....not that its personal, ya know! ;D
-
The question remains:
Does having five courses to your name prove skill in golf architecture or skill in selling a plan?
How many ASGCA members have built golf courses that are virtually unmaintainable without a significant budget? How many require/rely on golf cart revenue or use for the sake of getting golfers around in a reasonable amount of time.
What's good for the game is less time consuming rounds at less cost. What's good for the business is revenue generation and repeat business. Some similarities there, but often what's good for the business gets caught up in getting the most out of the golfer per round instead of the most rounds per golfer.
-
Kyle,
How can the question remain when you just asked it?
Those five courses are reviewed by ASGCA members. I doubt that "Dog Poo CC" would be allowed as a qualifying course by most evaluators. Even so, most would think that the ability to sell a plan is an important part of being a professional gca. As stated, we want people who are practicing in the biz and if they can't sell, it won't be too long before they aren't in the biz. That is why I think the five course rule is pretty good. Its about the minimum where you would feel comfy that an applicant is in the business full time.
As to what is good for golf and design, with all due respect, I don't think any of us has a lock on that, nor do I think that high end courses like that really make up the majority of the market, even if we discuss those the most. Nor do I think cart use has risen constantly over the last 40 years because of design. Its the other way around, design has changed because of cart use.
And lastly, I can name a lot of examples of both ASGCA and Non ASGCA, high end and low end (trying to get to the high end) gca's who have built hard to maintain courses. However, I think the middle market is bigger than you think, and when I design a course, my clients always tell me to consider maintenance and the super is usually on site to match the design to the equipment being purchased, etc.
Lastly Part Deux,
Imagine how ASGCA would be percieved if we set out strict guidelines for our members to design to! We don't do that. We believe that we band together whereever we can for the good of the profession and the game, but we each try to design distinct, individual golf courses. If we set design for maintenance guidelines there would be no Pete Dye designs, for example.
Lastly Part Tres,
Many of those high end courses are doing pretty well. I agree that the trend in the 1990's was for most courses to aim at the high end because that was where the market was at the time. While that market is gone, those courses that were once high end have been sold at bargain basement prices and many reopen as some of the best mid market courses the world has ever seen, which while painful for the Owners and banks, is good for mid price golfers. That is not a new trend. Many, many city courses were once private clubs or privately owned publics.
-
Jeff,
Within your answer, I believe, lay the problem.
The GCSAA and PGA set education standards and guidelines and also set standards for continuing education for its members. They don't tell members how to maintain their golf courses or golf shops, nor do they give any oversight on such management. They simply ask their members to continue educating themselves.
As far as I know, there are no objectives set forth by the ASGCA. Yes, you have said time and again that the ASGCA does not purport to "certify" golf architects, however, there still exists a public perception that that is what ASGCA actually is.
In fact, I have a well-put article penned by you on the cork board above my desk about wet approach areas. You're in your Ross Tartan blazer... no doubt to give yourself some credibility in penning the article. Whether or not that is actually what you say, the symbols of your membership do imply some sort of certification or reliability - however, the standards for your organization do not represent that.
Even if I were vehemently opposed to a standard set by the ASGCA, I'd be much more comfortable knowing that SOME sort of meaning were applied to the membership.
-
Kyle,
You are just dead wrong about their being no objectives set out by ASGCA. Read the website or some of the posts on the other thread. Continuing Education is a big part of the service we provide our members.
In one of my recent posts on the other thread, I show that ASLA for one, do believe that someone who joins their organization has demonstrated some kind of reliability. Howewer, its even stronger in ASGCA because we do something other than just take the check. Of course, we don't have licensing to fall back on (but then landscape architects don't have it in all states either) to prove reliability so we review candidates.
We NEVER have said we certify anyone and I don't know how I can stop the public perception on the part of some that we do. I trust that MOST know the difference. I think there is meaning to a membership - the group sets certain professional standards and I agree they are worthy and try to uphold them. That is what professional socieities do and why architects join them.
-
Kyle,
You are just dead wrong about their being no objectives set out by ASGCA. Read the website or some of the posts on the other thread. Continuing Education is a big part of the service we provide our members.
In one of my recent posts on the other thread, I show that ASLA for one, do believe that someone who joins their organization has demonstrated some kind of reliability. Howewer, its even stronger in ASGCA because we do something other than just take the check. Of course, we don't have licensing to fall back on (but then landscape architects don't have it in all states either) to prove reliability so we review candidates.
We NEVER have said we certify anyone and I don't know how I can stop the public perception on the part of some that we do. I trust that MOST know the difference. I think there is meaning to a membership - the group sets certain professional standards and I agree they are worthy and try to uphold them. That is what professional socieities do and why architects join them.
Jeff,
For starters, you can treat the symbols of your organization like the Masons or other fraternal organizations do, and not like the PGA or GSCAA do.
Why do golf architects have the ASGCA logo printed next to their names on the scorecards for their courses? This IMPLIES certification and meaning, regardless of what you say.
The PGA sets rigid standards for the use of their symbol and if the organization cares that deeply about the true perception of their purpose - the organization needs to take better care of its symbols.
The tenor of my post is to indicate that the usage of membership symbols and your explanations of the lack of external guidelines do not match up in the court of public perception.
-
I agree it implies meaning and is intended to imply meaning as described above. I don't agree that it implies certification. Please give me an example of where there is credible self certification? Its either done by a govt agency or an independent agency like the ASTM for construction materials. For AIA, ASGCA, ASLA, AMA or whatever accreditations you see at the end of films, etc. its just a signifier that you are a member of the leading professional organization for tha profession.
Yes, I would hope it implies that you were good enough to get in. I think most people presume that if you are a top practitioner, you want to join an organization that helps you with your common needs.
We do have limitations on how members use their title and the symbol. Without looking it up, I doubt they are much different than the PGA or the GCSAA. Most pros and supers put their logos up behind the desk and many put their affilitation on the scorecard, too. ASGCA encourages members to get design credit on the score card and to use the ASGCA designation.
WTF is the problem with that? Here is an excerpt from the AMA website:
What Can the AMA Do for You?
As an AMA member, you'll have access to invaluable resources for every stage of your career—from medical ethics and exploration of legal issues to CME and practice management.
You'll also be able to take part in our member groups, expanding your network and learning from others with similar needs.
Learn more about discounts, free medical journal subscriptions and other valuable benefits
and, for those who just think ASGCA is a trade group, this
The AMA protects your interests now and as a physician by representing you on monumental topics such as medical education debt relief, access to care for the uninsured and improving resident working conditions.
I guess you would argue that your doctor being a member of AMA somehow confers that he is a licenced physcisan? Well he doesn't have to be if he has an intern membership. The point is, professional socieites do imply standards are being set for the good of the profession and are advocates for the profession. I guess just because you don't understand that, that ASGCA is bound to alter its mission.
Kyle, sadly you have made several misstatements about ASGCA and what it does. And it gets frustrating to be the one who chooses to answer non issues you raise wrongly.
-
Jeff,
It must be equally frustrating to have me explain that the ASGCA confers no license, nor implies a quality golf course to the people I've met on the golf course that think otherwise!
That's my case. The ASGCA is allowing itself to be misrepresented by the careless use of its symbols of membership. It does not matter what the organization actually says because that message is not broadcast, and it's an insult to golfer intelligence to actually expect the ASGCA letters to have meaning once the truth is explained.
Furthermore, a member may take design credit, have his name on the card with the ASGCA logo and may not have spent ANY time on the project...
If the organization is content to allow itself to be misrepresented by its membership as a whole, that's fine. But you can't possibly tell me that having Tom Fazio's name on a scorecard with the ASGCA logo next to it when a non-ASGCA associate of Tom's worked on the project is in any way a quality representation of the organization.
-
Kyle,
I am still not quite sure what you are trying to say, but I will make sure that HQ sees your thoughts.
I doubt they will agree that the members are misreprenting themselves but some changes might be made. I know that the points raised here have fostered some discussions because it is not really our intent to slam non members. I know we don't do it officially and directly but perhaps even the implications can be reduced a bit. I noticed in a recent press release that we have changed our wording from "leading" to "experienced" architects. I guess you could say leading is subjective, and experience is a bit more empirical because we know a member has designed or co-designed five courses.
So, its not that we are not aware of issues non members have with our representations, even though I think we have every right to make them. We believe our stature has grown among the allied associations considerably with out programs over the years. We would be interested in being aware of what the general public thinks. It is a tougher nut to crack, of course, both in determining what is a consensus opinion, or even if ASGCA really registers with the golfing public or not.
I suspect it doesn't, sadly. I think we have always considered our target audience for the message as it were, golf course developers and existing clubs that may be undertaking a project, and giving them some resources and a place to look for qualified gca's. Of course, NGF also had a list which lists non members, now Golf Inc. prints a mixed list of gca's, etc. So, we are not the only source, just a source. In any case, that still doesn't strike me as a bad goal, whether done by ASGCA or others.
-
Kyle,
I am still not quite sure what you are trying to say, but I will make sure that HQ sees your thoughts.
I doubt they will agree that the members are misreprenting themselves but some changes might be made. I know that the points raised here have fostered some discussions because it is not really our intent to slam non members. I know we don't do it officially and directly but perhaps even the implications can be reduced a bit. I noticed in a recent press release that we have changed our wording from "leading" to "experienced" architects. I guess you could say leading is subjective, and experience is a bit more empirical because we know a member has designed or co-designed five courses.
So, its not that we are not aware of issues non members have with our representations, even though I think we have every right to make them. We believe our stature has grown among the allied associations considerably with out programs over the years. We would be interested in being aware of what the general public thinks. It is a tougher nut to crack, of course, both in determining what is a consensus opinion, or even if ASGCA really registers with the golfing public or not.
I suspect it doesn't, sadly. I think we have always considered our target audience for the message as it were, golf course developers and existing clubs that may be undertaking a project, and giving them some resources and a place to look for qualified gca's. Of course, NGF also had a list which lists non members, now Golf Inc. prints a mixed list of gca's, etc. So, we are not the only source, just a source. In any case, that still doesn't strike me as a bad goal, whether done by ASGCA or others.
Jeff,
I think it's simply a perception of the fact that someone felt it was worthwhile enough to throw that symbol and someone's name on a scorecard as though it had some significance.
Of course, there is significance so don't think I'm trying to argue there is none! However, simply naming a name is how one gives credit for work.
To take a symbol of an organization and place it next to the name to denote membership brings a whole new level of perception to the field. For someone to go to that trouble indicates that the symbols means something and should mean something to the golfer.
What does it mean to the golfer, is the question. I can't possibly say this is categorical, but I've had more than a handful of discussions about what the ASGCA is and how one becomes a member. Ultimately, most golfers seem to conclude it's simply a better way to market one's self as an architect as opposed to a trademark of quality.
The thing is, I do believe that YOUR (Jeff Brauer) and YOUR (ASGCA) intents are honest and pure... however, can this be said for all your members, especially when things are lean on the new development front?
That is the problem with these organizations, the members only row in the same direction when there is nothing at stake.
-
Kyle,
Well, we do joke that we beat each others brains out 51 weeks a year and then get together to talk about it the other week! Sitting together with your competitors can be an awkward situation but we handle it pretty well. I know that there are gca's I just hated in my mind because I lost so many jobs to them. Then I sit down with them and find out they are nice guys and feel like they lost a lot of jobs to me....that turns out to be a common thing for both members and non members alike!
I know it took the contractors a lot longer to sit down and form a real professional organization. The feeling I got was that they were afraid of sharing too much info at the bar since they are often in bid situations. On the other hand, Pete Dye rarely (if ever) went against me for a job and was always free with the advice. I would try to give advice to anyone on the lower rungs who would listen until I realized I was on about the lowest rung we had. ::)
Like you, I can't say what golfers think of ASGCA. As I said, I doubt it registers if the grass is green, the beer is cold and the cart girls are hot. I understand that ASGCA has the dual edged sword of sort of promoting uniform quality as a message while at the same time promoting diverse designs. I can recall voting down a high profile guy because he made it seem like he was just in it for the money and I can recall members who got in with a modest, but earnest portfolio of low budget courses, or average courses built on difficult sites, etc. Both are important to gca and golf, but I can see how someone might get confused if they expected to play a 5 star course just becuase it was an ASGCA member who designed it.
So, that is some food for thought for HQ.
-
Jeff,
I think it would be a huge boon for the ASGCA if they simply just came out and said that this is a group of architects that will deliver a project in a reasonable amount of time and on-budget given normal circumstances. This leaves the artistic element up to the architect. Maybe you guys do already say that, but it's not the message getting out to the laymen, and by some of the implications on this thread is not the message getting to all the contractors or developers.
-
I will pass it on. While I think that is our message, I get the feeling that its time to refresh it a bit.
-
I go to play golf for 5 hours and come back and KYLE you have had Jeff working all morning on this stuff....give him a break....and Ian has a point also....he doesn't have to say a word or put himself in front of this group in any way...appreciate that...
And a few of the points you were making to him really confuse me as a no-member. I have ZERO problem with an architects name being on a scorecard with the ASGCA logo even if an associate did all the work..because he is paying the guy and he is responsible...simple as that....the world works that way and always has and always will.....whether a homebuilder, Ledbetter style teaching center, whatever....and many of the associates may have 5 courses but they really don't have the experience of the guy taking the heat.....it just ain't the same....
Now I did pick up a few interesting notes in all of the banter between you and Jeff...
1- Jeff mentions..Even so, most would think that the ability to sell a plan is an important part of being a professional gca. As stated, we want people who are practicing in the biz and if they can't sell, it won't be too long before they aren't in the biz. That is why I think the five course rule is pretty good. Its about the minimum where you would feel comfy that an applicant is in the business full time.
AMEN to Jeff...take a few hours and read the site and see how many members have not sold one of their five courses....and have never had to....been my point all along......
2- Somewhere in one of the thread the "allied associations of golf " gets mentioned. The allied associations of golf are associations and not societies.....The ASGCA in the allied associations of golf is sort f like the Sigma Nu Fraternity being in the SEC ;D
if the PGA used a process like the ASGCA..half the golf pros would not be members....
So anyway..if the American Bar Assoc had the same entry requirements, Clinton, Bush Sotomoyor, Clarence Thomas and others would have had years when they could not have gotten in ;D ;D ( all according to who was on the board or membership committee)
I think maybe golf Architecture does need an association and from that societies can exist....much like a university with fraternities....
I can agree with 90% of what Jeff says and most of ASGCA....I think when he tells you they listen and change..he is correct....the young man that is the Executive Director is solid and sincere.....BUT you just cannot have a few guys that want to be judge and jury over other guys and play little games...we all live in glass houses.....as Jeff says regarding selling.....same goes for ethics and character....we don't all like each other or agree but if a guy stays in business it says what needs to be said.
Also....yes....some ASGCA members constantly use the ASGCA card in interviews and with unknowing committees...BUT I don't blame them....some even wear the blazer(I think they put it on when they get there....they don't want to be changing a tire on the road or anything or walk in McDonalds and be seen...especially in South Ga ;D) But I don't care.....
All ASGCA needs to do if they are really sincere as to "Good for the game" etc....is act as an Association and not a society even though they have every right to do so and operate as they do.....
Well I am going to try to take the afternoon to make me one of those little ASGCA signs but with a slash thru it sort of like the "no smoking" sign for my scorecards..... ;D ;D ;D
-
But you will be glad to know that we are discussing some kind of an outreach program to potential future members, although its in a very formative stage (like since this afternoon when HQ got wind of this thread!) and may not come to pass.
Jeff,
Wow. I am flabbergasted. It took me rousing the collective with additions by names in the business on this website to consider an outreach to new talent? I guess that's a good thing.
If all that comes of this entire thread is a new awareness about the issues discussed and even just a second of consideration by the society about those issues of perception, then my motive will be served. I really like what Mike Y. said above. "All ASGCA needs to do if they are really sincere as to "Good for the game" etc....is act as an Association and not a society even though they have every right to do so and operate as they do....."
Jeff, you are to be highly commended for your insights and defense of the society. You have written over a dozen and a half posts on this thread alone, educating me and others. We don't always agree, but for the most part, the discussion has been respectful, if controversial.
-
Exit question: do you think it would be possible for the ASGCA (or any group) to promote the furthering of golf course architecture WITHOUT picking sides and denigrating others? It should be noted that it sure doesn't work as planned for Golf Club Atlas -- denigrating others seems to go with the territory here.
Tom, Jeff has been attacked here from multiple angles. Is he picking sides and denigrating others to thump his chest and claim superiority? No. He's not, he's not like that, and you know that.
Two choices - say nothing or respond to these questions. Jeff chose the latter and no matter what, some won't be satisified with his answer. Do you for one minute think Mike Young is going to say, "yup, makes sense." Is Ben Sims going to say, "thanks, I get it now." No. They aren't.
Is the world better off without the ASGCA?
-
John,
I hope you don't think I have been jumping on Jeff. He is a friend of mine....
Can you explain the question where I should say "yep it makes sense"? I have no problem admitting a mistake if you can show me where ....I will be glad to say "yep it makes sense"....
But I do agree....Jeff usually takes the heat here on this site when it comes to ASGCA.....I don't know that I would do it.....
Take care,
Mike
-
Mike, gladly. Sorry my fragmented thoughts aren't clear.
You wanted to join, met all of the criteria, and were denied admittance because of a fuzzy area they can always revert to if they want to keep someone out. No matter how it is explained, I think you'll always have a valid point to come back and question the admissions process.
Above you've done a great job detailing many of the issues that can/could arise in a competitive business. Like you've mentioned in your posts today, Jeff has done a good job of taking the heat. Some guys on this board seem to want to keep taking it further.
Things are well for me. Glad you've had time to get out for a few rounds of golf recently!
-
ok...makes sense ;D
Go see Rymer in the studio one day....let me know and will call and you can watch them shoot the afternoon news or one of the teaching sessions or something....
Hope things are well...
Mike
-
Jeff, it looks like you took the ASGCA thread answering to a new level. I'm learning a little something more every time.
While there are legitimate arguments against some things the ASGCA does and maybe the very premise of it, I feel you get a bad slant from this board since their favorite GCA (s) is not a member.
1. I think a new membership level for associates would garner a lot of interest.
2. I have no problem with the 5 course limit: I also think its a good # (Since I was born and raised here, I cannot question the words of any ODG's) but I see no need to require 3 in the last 5 years.
Especially in this economy, and this golf industry (which is going down & probably not coming back up), It just does not seem reasonable. If you are an associate at a big/busy firm, that is one thing, but these 1 man firms will have a hard time finding that much work to keep them qualified. I think the 5 courses is enough to keep out everyone that should be kept out. IMO,you extend or remove the time limit, or start excepting less then complete re-model jobs & small practice facilities (not to take anything away from Mike Nuzzo) or new membership may cease entirely.
3. Have you had problems getting members to Asia to evaluate courses? What if someone designs their 5 courses overseas and the society can't find the volunteers to rate these golf courses and interrogate the clients?
-
Ryan,
In fact the three in five years was changed recently and expanded by a year, I think. Also, two of the five could be major renovations, which is traditional, but when things got busy, we made all five be new courses with routings. So, we do actually tweak the definition of five courses, even though we keep five courses as the benchmark. I think its so all members can say they got in on roughly the same standard. Without that, we would really be open to charges of subjectivity.
As you probably know, there is already an associate level. That is where new members go until they design two more courses to attain full membership. If we were going to do another level, it would have to be called something else. AMA has intern status and AIA has apprentice status. We have discussed it, but so far, don't see the value or practicality in it.
Another point to consider on the big firm thing - for ASGCA membership only one person can claim to have been the major assistant/project architect. If three guys get in from one firm in a year, then it means they must have done 15 courses over the last five years, at least. And we do check to make sure they just aren't given the title to get in. So, big firms naturally will have more members than small firms, which seems to make sense.
Mike Young,
Good to see a sense of humor here. You should go on the Merion thread and lighten that one up. I have heard the trade association argument as well, but I posted the AMA and AIA snippets to show that any professional society DOES concern itself with the business side of the, ah, well, business. I laughed when one of the benefits of AMA was collecting bills quicker from Medicaid or some such. Why should ASGCA be any different, since the business aspect is one of the areas of mutual concern - much more so than design where we all try to be different.
-
Jeff,
It don't get no better than arguing this stuff on an internet site and watching saturday nite live....watching Ryan Fellows....yep.....
ah.....with all due respect I think AMA and AIA are associations and not societies..... ;)
-
Mike,
I knew you should be on the Merion thread. You can parse words with the best of them! Now if only they put wi fi and big screens in Waffle House, your Sat. night would be perfect.
But since you made the distinction, I looked up this transcript in Wikipedia about professional associations and they say the term is interchangeable with others, I copied the whole thing, not just the snippets:
A professional association (also called a professional body, 'professional organization, professional association or professional society) is a non-profit organization seeking to further a particular profession, the interests of individuals engaged in that profession, and the public interest.
The roles of these professional associations have been variously defined: "A group of people in a learned occupation who are entrusted with maintaining control or oversight of the legitimate practice of the occupation;"[citation needed] also a body acting "to safeguard the public interest;"[citation needed] organizations which "represent the interest of the professional practitioners," and so "act to maintain their own privileged and powerful position as a controlling body."[1]
Such bodies generally strive to achieve a balance between these two often conflicting mandates. Though professional bodies often act to protect the public by maintaining and enforcing standards of training and ethics in their profession, they often also act like a cartel or a labor union (trade union) for the members of the profession, though this description is commonly rejected by the body concerned.
Therefore, in certain dispute situations the balance between these two aims may get tipped more in favor of protecting and defending the professionals than in protecting the public. An example can be used to illustrate this. In a dispute between a lawyer and his/her client or between a patient and his/her doctor, the Law Society of England and Wales or the General Medical Council will inevitably find itself plunged into a conflict of interest in (a) its wish to defend the interests of the client, while also (b) wishing to defend the interests, status and privileges of the professional. It is clearly a tough call for it do both.
Many professional bodies are involved in the development and monitoring of professional educational programs, and the updating of skills, and thus perform professional certification to indicate that a person possesses qualifications in the subject area. Sometimes membership of a professional body is synonymous with certification, though not always. Membership of a professional body, as a legal requirement, can in some professions form the primary formal basis for gaining entry to and setting up practice within the profession; see licensure.
I am sure you, Tony R and a few others will take note of certain portions of that definition, and I cannot say that there aren't potential conflicts of interest in unusual situations. Please note that certification is not necessarily synonmous with membership. There are no laws stopping anyone from being a gca, and as far as I know, ASGCA has never attempted to formally stop anyone from practicing, albeit we have denied membership to some and as noted, a few individuals use ASGCA in shop talk as a percieved advantage for their marketing.
Just FYI. There could be a lot of things taken out of this Wikipedia definition. It might take 100 pages or so to parse out the meanings of the words contained in that small definition, don't you think? ;)
-
John,
I have asked questions of merit. I haven't challenged the knowledge of Jeff Brauer. When I get back from a round of golf and see 10 new posts from various architects with sound explanation from the two guys defending ASGCA--Jeff and Forrest--I ask more questions. Is this so wrong? The pros and cons are both illustrating their points and continuing the dialogue. I haven't once intentionally attacked anybody.
I guess you want me, or Mike Y., or Tony R. to just say "oh that makes sense, I love how the society conducts business now".
When a healthy, provocative and respectful debate is going well on this site, why would you want to denigrate those that are on one side of the argument? It's not like "other" threads where people call each other names and insinuate lawsuits and murders and such.
I have repeatedly thanked Jeff for his inclusion in this thread. Of course I don't believe that the world is better off without ASGCA. But could the world be even better with a different ASGCA? In my humble opinion, yes. Like I mentioned above, my motives of starting this thread are served if it effects any change in behavior or stimulates thought. Gathering from the most recent 20 or so posts, it has done just that.
I also appreciate your involvment and I hope this clears up why I continue to ask questions.
-
Jeff,
I might need a wi-fi Waffle house..you saw where Phil Mickelson s trying to buy the 105 WH in Nashville area didn't you?
But can you guys ride those electric bulls on Saturday nites and do text on wifi at the same time? Didn't think so... ;D
Yep...will probably take 100 pages but not from me....your smarter than me if you know how to make that text print red....
I can't speak for others that have been disallowed in the ASGCA ....I'll just cut thru the crap....I'll put $10,000 dollars with a neutral party and give it to the first guy that shows me where my body of work, abilities , character and ethics is worse than any member I choose in the ASGCA....now that would be fun wouldn't....we could video tape that question and answer session and get at least two seasons of a pretty good soap opera.....but I'm willing... ;D and you can stop answering all these post....
I got to go to bed..just got some new pajamas with individual toe slots in the foot sections..they are nice....but hard to put on....good nite....
-
When a healthy, provocative and respectful debate is going well on this site, why would you want to denigrate those that are on one side of the argument?
Ben, ay. Rub.
I'm not sure which is less becoming, someone that asks questions under the false pretenses of gathering knowledge when they already have their mind made up, or someone that's numb to the fact they're doing it.
You would do well to follow Young's lead. All his cards are on the table.
-
I have just returned late yesterday from 6 days on a job site with no cell and limited Internet....so I'm playing a little catch up here.
I am proud to say that [as usual] my learned colleagues...Jeff and Forrest...have done an excellent job providing information, and repelling mis information about the ASGCA.....these GUYs are good, and they can write without having to stare at the keyboard and hunt and peck with two fingers...as is my case.
One thing that I find interesting about the Society [good name choice], is that it is comprised of a wide variety of individuals, of varied backgrounds, that come together to learn, celebrate, and enjoy each others company....bound by the common element of golf design and its history.
Personally, my route to the Society was through many back doors, using self taught skills and hard work. Not necessarily a path I would suggest future members take, but it worked for me. Being goal driven, my decision to join the ASGCA was one of continual improvement...I knew my work qualified, and I wanted the validation of my peers, as there is really no other form of recognition in this profession aside from the ratings and rankings that the press doles out in a haphazard way....but to thier credit, its a tough job.
Another of the reasons I applied was the opportunity to fraternize and put a face on all the other names I have heard of in this business.....and this has become the biggest joy of membership for me. I have made and continue to make friends in the Society, and our annual meeting is one that I schedule early.
I have pushed Tom Doak as far as I sensibly can to join....not because he needs the recognition of being a member....but because I feel he would enjoy this fraternization similarly....and we would enjoy his company as well.
I think Mike Young chose a path very similar to mine in his design career.
I feel Mike is a qualified as I am to be in the Society....and I'll qualify that further by saying I feel I am as qualified as any of my peers in the group to design golf courses.
If he still has the desire to continue to apply for membership [and I wouldn't blame him if he didn't after all the effort he has made in vain], I think he will prevail.
My bigger fear is that upon achieving his goal, his prize becomes one of "I saw a ball of gold in the sky and climbed to it....and it was clay".
I think he's a fighter though....and as such knows that the fight is half the fun of the journey...and sweetens the prize!
To all the rest of you non members.....The ASGCA isn't about exclusion, prejudice, secret handshakes and trying to gain unfair advantage over others.
It's really only about a group of guys and gals getting together in a non competitive setting to enjoy each others company and to celebrate the game we love....and to learn, educate, advance and protect the standards of the Game.
Simple really.
-
Paul,
Good to hear from you. I hope that spider bite has healed.
Around here, I guess ASGCA is about as welcome as a turd in the punchbowl. So be it. I think its a natural progression of the fact that TD isn't a member by choice and the also natural desire to root for the underdog, i.e., talented young gca's like Mike Nuzzo. I understand how all that combines into sort of an anti-establisment type agenda.
I really have no problem with anyone asking questions and your post puts a lot of my thoughts in perspective about what ASGCA has meant to me over 28 years and why its so hard for me to understand the vitrol thrown at it by some. I DO occaisionally get frustrated when some seem to think that by definition, we aren't the brightest bulbs in the gca universe, so I will post the following:
The first shot is my butt and the second is a big hole in the ground! Now, no one can honestly say that I don't know the difference!
-
Paul,
Thx....
Jeff,
I just gave that photo to a Gay golf architect friend of mine....he thinks it's HOT....can I give him your cell.... ;D
-
Jeff,
I just gave that photo of a giant hole in the ground to a gay golf course rater friend and... well never mind! ;)
-
Nicely said Paul. My journey into the Society was rather unorthodox as well but I had many of the same aspirations and goals.
Having been elevated to to regular member status just this year after three years as an associate means I have attended just two annual meetings (did not go to Scotland). I must say the interaction with other members has been very interesting and in some cases educational and rewarding.
I think Jeff and Forrest have given fair and compelling answers to some tough questions and have stated with accuracy the goals and positions of the ASGCA. Their answers will not, however, please those who don't understand the organization and never will. This seems true with any debate on professional organizations.
Not taking the "traditional route" into the ASGCA meant it would take me many more years than some others to become an associate. This was my choice. Not one I would recommend for those trying to "fast track" but it did help me stay focused on a goal and taught me some much needed patience. Even though I spent almost 4 years as an apprentice to another (member) architect, I decided early on not to use any of my work with him as my five courses.
By the time I did apply, I had only my work being considered which meant there was no question I could not answer about my projects. This was valuable to me and I think it made a difference to the interviewers as well. It is not a popularity contest and a "good-ol-boy" club as some have suggested. My interview process was tough and professional. I have interviewed for jobs in the military that were easier. It was demanding and professional.
Lester
-
Demanding and professional. Lester, I think that is exactly the way ASGCA wants it to be. Of course, I understand the dissapointment of those who don't fare well in the process.
Ben,
I should point out that I haven't been President for 14 years, so when I say I will bring it up, it will carry all the weight of a long past has been in the group! We are concerned about our perception, naturally, but again, many issues raised here have been mulled over by some pretty bright minds and we are where we are. I guess after all the dust settles the governors of the society right now will probably weigh 60 years of traditon a bit heavier than a post on golf club atlas.
That said, you never really said how YOU would think ASGCA would be better, even if I think it might be implied.
-
Jeff,
So you're saying that you're the Jimmy Carter of the ASGCA community? I like boiled peanuts, and habitat for humanity is a big hit, so there's still hope!
As for what I--the mid twenties dude with no discernible connection to the golf industry--think that the ASGCA could do to improve their image and operations?
1) Seriously look at how they can reach out to young talent and foster their development through professional mentoring. Match Mike Nuzzo up with Bill Coore for instance. Make some sort of program that involves mutual site visits, conversation, etc.
2) Reevaluate the membership process. Completely scrap the interview and membership board processes. Have applicants submit a concise resume that includes three courses of their choosing. ASGCA membership board then assigns two members per course in that region to review the courses and report back. Try to assign objective "point values" to aspects of the resume, i.e., being the principle of a firm and actually having to sell your product should earn more objective points than being an associate, etc. The vote should be put up to the entire society as a whole at the annual meeting. The applicant should be able to address the entire membership in either written or verbal form to let them know "what he's about".
3) Form committee's as liaisons to different sectors of the game. Make an equipment committee to communicate and investigate how architects and equipment manufacturers interact for the benefit of the game. A committee to interact with the GCSAA. Make a tour committee to liaison to all of the different tour's concerns, make an outreach committee to research how to affect programs like First Tee.
4) Talk to colleges and universities--like the GCSAA does--to develop something to educate and teach. An MLA is the closest thing to a course in golf architecture at this point.
Okay, that's all I got right now. I am sure you could pick most of that apart. Some of it is really good, some of it is merely conjecture to lofty goals. But I do think that all four of those points would help the society to accomplish their vision and mission statements.
-
....that's pretty much what we do.
-
Ben,
Like Paul said, that is pretty much what we do, save for the educational programs, where we philosophically differ with the Euros who have one and a formal (to date) match up program with non member and members. Mike Nuzzo is screwed of course, because we have often exchanged ideas on gca and if he listens to me much longer he will be building them upside down, backwards and purple......
We used to be sponsors only right to the direct members meeting, with very little work on the membership chair. We added the executive committee interviews precisely because some people sponsored too casually and also because its harder to know everyone in the biz like the old days. We wanted more review, not less and the process got expanded. I think it works welll.
If you as a gca buff doesn't have a clue that this is what we do, I think we ought to redouble our efforts to highlighe what we do or try to do for the industry.
-
If you as a gca buff doesn't have a clue that this is what we do, I think we ought to redouble our efforts to highlighe what we do or try to do for the industry.
Jeff,
I feel that's a good place to leave this. I think we all got something out of this little 5 day exercise. Thanks for your involvement. And to everyone else that chimed. It seems that feelings run deep for and against the ASGCA. I hope to see an evolution, but it's not up to me nor do I have any vested interest compared to many on this site. I was just stimulating conversation and voicing my own issues while learning more about the organization.
-
It seems that feelings run deep for and against the ASGCA.
An overwhelming majority of golfers don't care. Of those that do, it is a pretty small minority whose feelings are against the Society. For those, you are right about the deep part.
-
It seems that feelings run deep for and against the ASGCA.
An overwhelming majority of golfers don't care. Of those that do, it is a pretty small minority whose feelings are against the Society. For those, you are right about the deep part.
John
Not to be harsh to those in the ASGCA, but I agree with you. I could care less about a professional organization, society, association whatever. It sounds to me like a bunch of guys who care about something get together once in a while and discuss their profession amongst other topics. How could I possibly be against something like this? This thread, while perhaps helpful for some, has been totally bizarre.
Ciao
-
It seems that feelings run deep for and against the ASGCA.
An overwhelming majority of golfers don't care. Of those that do, it is a pretty small minority whose feelings are against the Society. For those, you are right about the deep part.
John
Not to be harsh to those in the ASGCA, but I agree with you. I could care less about a professional organization, society, association whatever. It sounds to me like a bunch of guys who care about something get together once in a while and discuss their profession amongst other topics. How could I possibly be against something like this? This thread, while perhaps helpful for some, has been totally bizarre.
Ciao
Really. First the Merion threads. Now this. The passion for esoterica on this site is incredible. I can understand how the archies and the wannabes looking from the outside might get their dander up over membership requirements deemed too difficult to meet (I was a bit disappointed when the head pro at Crystal Downs told me I had a near zero chance of gaining membership in my lifetime). I am sure glad that we had the opportunity to educate the resident Society members and through them the Society at large. Perhaps now that we've reformed the Society and got it pointed in the proper direction, maybe we can focus our attention on socialized health care, carbonless energy, and the re-regulation of the U.S. economy and provide President Obama and the Democrat congress the benefit of our boundless wisdom.
A special thanks once again- how many times has the ASGCA come up over the years?- to Jeff and other stakeholders for the candor and measured discussion. Not being a member of the ASGCA would not preclude me from hiring an architect, but the amount of due diligence I would have to do in order to do so would increase. If I was acting in the role of a fiduciary, e.g. hiring an architect on behalf of an institutional client, it would be much easier and probably safer to pick someone from the list. Particularly in dealing with government clients, being a member must be a huge advantage.
-
Really. First the Merion threads. Now this. The passion for esoterica on this site is incredible. I can understand how the archies and the wannabes looking from the outside might get their dander up over membership requirements deemed too difficult to meet (I was a bit disappointed when the head pro at Crystal Downs told me I had a near zero chance of gaining membership in my lifetime). I am sure glad that we had the opportunity to educate the resident Society members and through them the Society at large. Perhaps now that we've reformed the Society and got it pointed in the proper direction, maybe we can focus our attention on socialized health care, carbonless energy, and the re-regulation of the U.S. economy and provide President Obama and the Democrat congress the benefit of our boundless wisdom.
A special thanks once again- how many times has the ASGCA come up over the years?- to Jeff and other stakeholders for the candor and measured discussion. Not being a member of the ASGCA would not preclude me from hiring an architect, but the amount of due diligence I would have to do in order to do so would increase. If I was acting in the role of a fiduciary, e.g. hiring an architect on behalf of an institutional client, it would be much easier and probably safer to pick someone from the list. Particularly in dealing with government clients, being a member must be a huge advantage.
Lou,
What in the world does this have to do with this thread? How are us "wannabes" supposed to learn how to become members of the only established society of the trade.
Also, what amount of due dilligence would be required to refer messers Young, Nuzzo & Doak given your esteemed position on this site?
Wyatt
-
Lou:
Your last statement is probably the greatest bone of contention here.
Why is it safer to pick someone from the ASGCA than someone who's not in it?
That question leads back naturally to what are the qualifications, and whether anyone who's qualified is automatically admitted.
You are right that many organizations will confer additional status to an architect who puts ASGCA after his name, without understanding how one becomes a member. But, since you now understand the process, do you still automatically assume that Mike Benkusky, ASGCA (to choose just one member at random who doesn't have a lot of name recognition) is a safer or more qualified choice than Mike Young?
That said, I do not understand the prurient interest of some of the younger board members who are not golf course architects, unless of course they think they're going to be one someday.
-
Damn, I promised myself that I was done with this thread and it had run its course.
I have to say that Lou's post struck me as odd. Aside from the obvious rant, what were your motives Lou?
Sorry, but I think that the vetting and/or due diligence for an architect should be based solely on their qualifications.
Furthermore, as someone who spends far too much of their pay on travel to study golf courses, it's my honor to be able to question those that provide the product. By the way Lou, as a taxpayer, I EXPECT you to question the manner in which I do my job. You are the customer for a product that we provide. The onus is on you to ensure that we provide it efficiently and ethically.
Why am I so wrong for wondering the same things about the only professional organization for a field that I love?
-
[Lou,
What in the world does this have to do with this thread? How are us "wannabes" supposed to learn how to become members of the only established society of the trade.
Also, what amount of due dilligence would be required to refer messers Young, Nuzzo & Doak given your esteemed position on this site?
Wyatt
Wyatt,
As with many internet communications, it is difficult for me to tell if the comments/questions are rhetorical, facetious, or serious. I will assume that yours are in the last category and respond accordingly.
If I was aspiring to pursue a career in a certain field, I would likely seek guidance from successful practitioners and related professional organizations directly. As we have all seen on this site, there are a good number of gcas who are very willing to help. The ASGCA is hardly a secretive body. They have a website, a live secretary who actually answers the phone, and you can often find a few members at golf industry gatherings. Other than perhaps offering some opinions on their sartorial choices, I think that outsiders telling the ASGCA how it should be structured and conduct its business is a bit arrogant and pretentious.
Regarding your second question, the "me" and "I" was meant to be general- a person choosing an architect- not literal. I happen to know the three gentlemen you mentioned and have some familiarity with their work. If I was acting in the role of an owner/developer, I would not have to do very much due dilligence to choose among the three. However, if I was advising a client or had financial partners to satisfy, a longer list and greater scrutiny would likely be necessary.
-
Lou,
Hope you are well.
Your logic is understandable at first glance and therein lies the problem for me. As I have stated over and over and really did not mean to comment again.....I have no problem with individual ASGCA members. It is not my place to judge their abilities as golf architects....the ASGCA has written requirements that they supposedly have submitted and met the minimum number of courses. No problem there with me....but make it the same for any architect that has shown such. To keep it simple..you have to have a vote of 9 peole on the board...that's it.
If the public perceives the ASGCA as some type of organization that you could use to aid in selecting an architect, yet the membership is determined by a vote of a board of governors after meeting the objective requirements of the organization......then IMHO it is flawed.... And it is because of your chain of logic above that I always argue this point....
Come to GA sometime soon.
Mike
-
Lou:
Your last statement is probably the greatest bone of contention here.
Why is it safer to pick someone from the ASGCA than someone who's not in it?
Because getting into the Society requires a certain level of achievement, the vetting process and peer review are extensive, and in the context I referenced (advising an institutional client), membership in a widely recognized professional organization connotes a level of expertise and competence.
That question leads back naturally to what are the qualifications, and whether anyone who's qualified is automatically admitted.
The operative word is qualified. If anyone who wanted in got in, membership would not be worth a whole lot.
You are right that many organizations will confer additional status to an architect who puts ASGCA after his name, without understanding how one becomes a member. But, since you now understand the process, do you still automatically assume that Mike Benkusky, ASGCA (to choose just one member at random who doesn't have a lot of name recognition) is a safer or more qualified choice than Mike Young?
If Mike Young was an equal unknown, the fact that Benkusky is a Society member tells me that at least he has completed the requirements for membership, and can build a golf course. The only thing I would know about Young is what he says on his resume. Presumably I could verify his claims, but I can confirm relatively quickly Benkusky's minimal credentials on the ASGCA site.
That said, I do not understand the prurient interest of some of the younger board members who are not golf course architects, unless of course they think they're going to be one someday.
Ditto.
-
Lou,
Hope you are well.
Your logic is understandable at first glance and therein lies the problem for me. As I have stated over and over and really did not mean to comment again.....I have no problem with individual ASGCA members. It is not my place to judge their abilities as golf architects....the ASGCA has written requirements that they supposedly have submitted and met the minimum number of courses. No problem there with me....but make it the same for any architect that has shown such. To keep it simple..you have to have a vote of 9 peole on the board...that's it.
If the public perceives the ASGCA as some type of organization that you could use to aid in selecting an architect, yet the membership is determined by a vote of a board of governors after meeting the objective requirements of the organization......then IMHO it is flawed.... And it is because of your chain of logic above that I always argue this point....
Come to GA sometime soon.
Mike
Mike,
First of all, I am generally aware of your troubles with the Society. Though not entirely analogous, I know an individual who was black-balled at a Top Five golf club by a member who was a business competitor and apparently did it (opposed my acquaintance's nomination) to protect his financial interests. The spurned candidate was asked some years later to resubmit his application, but his pride or sense of having been slighted wouldn't allow it. I think it is his loss, and hope that you will not make the same mistake (he would say that it is not).
Second, I think you and all other architects have every right to question the Society and its policies. To the extent their requirements are arbitrary and capriciously or politically applied, the Society would be "acting stupidly" if it refused to change. Being that it is an organization made of imperfect humans, mistakes will be made. I don't sense that the problems are institutional or systemic, but I can see how personality and other non-performance/qualification issues might crop up from time to time.
Any organization that precludes qualified members from joining for competitive reasons risks losing its stature and encourages those unfairly rejected qualified candidates to form their own competitive professional organization. However, an organization that has very minimal standards and offers membership to anyone willing to write a check probably is of very little benefit to its members.
Lastly, my "chain of logic" is really not how I think about architects and other professionals, but how the world generally works. The interests of those buying architectural services are often not the same as of those wanting to do the work. A developer may wish name recognition to sell memberships and/or lots. A city manager may want a "credentialed" individual he can sell to his political superiors with minimal opposition. A consultant advising a lender and a developer has little to gain going with a lesser known architect, particularly when the professional design fees are not a major component of the overall project costs. To the extent that the list contains qulified providers, the main concern- the success of the project- is satisfied. That some deserving candidates failed to make the list is at most an opportunity cost to the client.
I suspect that a primary objective of those seeking membership is that it helps them to differentiate themselves from the competition. It is an additional credential, maybe a tie-breaker in a few rare instances. Perhaps being a member leads to referrals. Maybe some business is simply generated by a potential client perusing the ASGCA website and finding a local member which he then proceeds to contact and develop personal rapport.
There are excellent architects who are not Society members. Wyatt mentioned three that I know. Some people are simply not joiners. Others like you have had an unfortunate experience. A number have not had the opportunity to develop their resume. There is also reason to believe that like with every other profession, some do not have the "necessities" to qualify. Though the market for the foreseeable future appears unfavorable, the one upside is that the ASGCA stamp of approval is not a requirement to be hired. Hopefully the barriers to entry will be kept to a minimum, though I have to believe that the current yearning for government regulation in most aspects of our lives may seep into this as well. Hopefully the Society will not lobby for licensing under its auspices as a condition of employment. If it does, get the pitchforks out.
See you at the Dixie Cup?
P.S.- why doesn't your partner do Jim Thorpe impressions on the Golf Channel? You'd think he'd throw you a bone once in awhile. BTW, I think you're much funnier.
P.S.2- did I tell you that my member friend at Reynolds brought his large group out to LS and they were all blown away? I think he said that with a maintenance budget approaching one of theirs, LS would be far better than anything at the Plantation. And that ain't benign, feigned praise!
-
Lou,
Esoteric or not, that was well thought out and written. It was most cathartic compared to your first post on the thread. Thanks for the addition. Sorry if we got off on the wrong foot.
And your member friend out at Lake Oconee is right about LS.
-
Sorry, but I think that the vetting and/or due diligence for an architect should be based solely on their qualifications.
Isn't it?
-
"However, an organization that has very minimal standards and offers membership to anyone willing to write a check probably is of very little benefit to its members."
This couldn't be anymore false. GCSAA. I've been a member for 14 years ever since I was in turf school and have been to every national conference since. Each one packed full of educational seminars, not to mention all of the podcasts and at home continuing education courses I've taken over the years. Let's also not forget the countless relationships and networks I've been lucky to make.
And you know why Lou? Because that organization was willing to "lower their standards" and "take a check" from a nobody. But that nobody was a young passionate "kid" that wanted to persue a career and do it for more than a paycheck. I can't imagine where I'd be without having a good professional organization to help guide me through my career.
Now, as I'm finishing an autocad course and taking landscape architecture classes at UCLA, what professional organization will I have as I aspire to finish my career building and designing golf courses? I will certainly maintain my GCSAA membership so I can continue to have that resource. Because from what I'm reading in this thread I'm not going to have the ASGCA to be there for me like the GCSAA. Hell I may NEVER have the ASGCA!
I understand it's a "society" and they can run their organization anyway they choose, I just think it's a damn shame that they can turn their back on a guy like the Mike Youngs, who could be me or many other youngsters passionate about GCA. I believe that the ASGCA does stand for something and holds a credibility, but I'm very discouraged with thinking someone young like me could ever be a part of it unless I'm very very lucky with my path taken.
-
John,
If it's "easier" to select someone because of membership to a society--as Lou pointed out yesterday--then in my opinion, that is not vetting based on qualification. I think that's also what Tom and Mike Y. were both saying.
Mike said, "If the public perceives the ASGCA as some type of organization that you could use to aid in selecting an architect, yet the membership is determined by a vote of a board of governors after meeting the objective requirements of the organization......then IMHO it is flawed"
Tom said, "why is it safer to pick someone from the ASGCA than someone who's not in it? That question leads back naturally to what are the qualifications, and whether anyone who's qualified is automatically admitted."
I have begun to understand both why this debate is so polarizing and that there are great aspects to being a member. It seems as though some have conceded that there is a perception issue with the society and it is worth exploring how to remedy that.
-
Ben, the path your on here appears to me to lead you to a dead-end or off a cliff. I'm not sure which.
Are you comparing ASGCA to what preceded it (nothing)?
Are you comparing ASGCA to other clubs where admission isn't guaranteed?
Are you comparing ASGCA to what you think it should be?
Sure seems like the latter, which is the part that seems puzzling. To me. To Mike Young. To Tom Doak. (Unless I don't comprehend their posts.)
Isn't this like the BCS discussion?
If you compare the way Division I college football crowns its champion today it is better than everything the preceded it. If you compare it to an NFL-style playoff, which most fans agree would be cool, it falls short. You can't be what you aren't.
Do you want ASGCA to be like the USGA where I can join if I send in my 20 bucks after seeing Arnold Palmer on the commercial. (Maybe those were a long time ago. Do they still advertise or is there a new spokesperson?)
Do you have a problem that ASGCA is more like admission to one of our nation's miliatary academies where a student needs solid grades, a decent board score, and a letter from a member of Congress recommending them?
I think - call me crazy - that a group should decide who gets to be a member. (I'm not in any groups, which causes one to immediately think of the "I don't want to be a member of any group that will have me" mindset.) If a Toastmasters group is racist or a doctor's association is sexist there is probably a wrong to right. If the ASGCA says, "applicants need to pass review of our present members," it hardly seems the same.
There's another issue here, which you mention, and that's one of perception. If a layperson believes an ASGCA member is the only person capable of designing a golf course it is not the fault of the ASGCA, for they do not perpetuate that misconception. If a layperson believes that every ASGCA member is more qualified than everyone that is not a member the person is flat-out stupid. That would be the same as saying the worst MBA is a superior business person to every person with merely a college degree. It is preposterous that someone could think that. (I do, however, see how someone could think you had to be an ASGCA member to design a golf course, as if it was some kind of licensing like an M.D. or D.D.S. has. This would only last until someone told them it isn't like that and then it wouldn't come up again.)
I don't see how you can blame an organization for how it is perceived if it has not done things to warrant that perception. But, but, but.... Ben, there's really no systemic problem here that is crippling golf. Tom Doak gets work. Mike Young gets work. Tons of guys that are ASGCA members are struggling as a result of the domestic slowdown in course starts.
I don't see a polarizing issue at all. Most golfers don't care. The architects that question the value of ASGCA are the ones that aren't members. This is no different than in the financial services industry with the CFP designation. Folks without it tell clients they don't need it, and those that do say it is proof they meet certain standards and are qualified to recommend investments. Have you already been on a quixotic crusade to right that perceived wrong, or is that your next target once you've cured ASGCA? Honestly, your endeavor here makes no sense. And please spare us the, "I'm just curious about something I've never understood..." talk because your curiosity has only recently been piqued when you were made aware of the inner workings of the Society. I find your whole approach disingenuous.
You think the process for admission is flawed. In all of these posts on the thread you will find people that explain why the process is what it is and why it is likely to remain that way, or at least so similar it is essentially the same. What I don't think you'll find much of (if at all), and I'm not going back to read all the comments, are people telling you that you aren't allowed to think it is flawed. To borrow an overused cliche from five years ago, "it is what it is."
-
John,
Okay. You cured me! All it took was that post. I now believe the ASGCA to be the standard bearer for all things golf architecture related. Their process to become a member is as perfect getting into a service academy. It wasn't any of the great posts by Jeff or Forrest that explained the processes or how they operate, it was you John!!
Your "crusade" to tell me I'm wrong for even wanting to discuss this subject is just as odd and disingenuous as my desire to begin the discussion in the first place. Why are you so threatened by this thread? Jeff and others certainly took it in a good direction, which is more than I can say for your latest post.
-
Not threatened at all. I couldn't care less. Not sure why anyone would be this concerned about a group. Are you?
I'm confused at how I'm disingenous. I've pointed out the folly of objecting to a group's reason for existence and right to choose its membership. Disingenuous? I don't have a dog in this fight. I've played golf with Jeff and I'll play with Mike if we ever get that set up. Their association with ASGCA means as much to me as their religious affiliation or choice of grocery store.
-
Ian,
With all due respect, the GCSAA hardly has minimal standards. Could I write a check and put the initials behind my name? I think not. How many years of verifiable employment as a head superintendent are required? How many courses (education) must be completed? And if the code of ethics are taken seriously, the universe of applicants is automatically reduced by probably half. The GCSAA might have fewer barriers to entry than the ASGCA, but I bet the gca profession would argue that theirs is a very different occupation (a thread that I don't wish to pursue).
And BTW, I have HUGE respect for the qualified people in your profession. They have the ability to make a fairly unexciting golf course from a design standpoint into something very enjoyable. I think their impact on the game for most golfers is crucial, more so than that of the architect (let the shots begin!).
-
I think their impact on the game for most golfers is crucial, more so than that of the architect (let the shots begin!).
I was thinking the same thing a couple of weeks ago when I played in a golf outing with my father-in-law. It was a resort course on mountainous terrain and IMO not a very good one and in some instances very dangerous.
At the dinner afterwards, everyone thought it was a 'great course.' Why? It was in great condition. It's as simple as that. Does the lipstick on a pig analogy work here?
Not sure if that was what you were implying Lou, but that's how I interpreted it. Sorry to threadjack. Probably deserves a thread of its own.
-
Lou,
The GCSAA is pretty much the antithesis of the ASGCA for the most part. It has numerous class levels at which one can become a member.
- Super Class A
- Super Class B
- Super Class C
- Associate Member
- Affiliate Member
Affiliate Individual - $320.00 -- To qualify for Affiliate Individual membership, an applicant must be interested in golf course management and/or in the growing or production of fine turfgrass and who does not qualify for membership in any other classification. Affiliate Individual members shall have all the privileges of the Association, except that of voting and holding office.
- Educator
- Student
All you really need to do is have an interest and hand the check over (ie Affiliate). The other classes there is obviously some criteria to meet but all that means is that you have to be working for a Class A or B Super to sign off on you, with the check of course.
Getting the Certified Golf Course Superintendent status.....
Certification Process
The certification process begins with meeting the eligibility requirements, grandfathered or non-grandfathered to apply, which are based on your level of post secondary education. This defines the number of years of experience and continuing education required of you before becoming an applicant in the program.
When you meet the requirements to apply to the program, you will request the educational requirement worksheet and if you haven’t already done so, have an official copy of your college transcript sent to us. Upon verification of eligibility, GCSAA will send you the certification application form to complete and submit with the $200 member application fee and your portfolio. Upon approval of your application, you will have one year to successfully complete the examination and the attesting of your golf facility.
Becoming certified means validating your competencies. This is accomplished through three different assessment methods.
* A portfolio, which must be turned in with your initial application to the program. This can and should be started at any time in your career.
* A closed-book multiple choice examination. The exam is given to you after you become an applicant in the program. You will have one year to successfully complete the exam.
* The attesting of your golf course facility. The attesting is also conducted after you become an applicant in the program.
I want to go on record by saying I dont disagree with what or how the ASGCA does its thing. I understand it and Jeff Brauer has done an excellent job explaining things. I really do understand and agree with 99% of it.
But my whole point was that I cant say enough about the education and networking I have gained because the GCSAA motive is to open its doors to everyone and be a resource of education and career guidance. To be the entity that can bring together the membership and MENTOR them in a way.
You know its funny, I go to the national conference every year. And one of the things I always see is the guy in jeans and a flannel shirt with his bag of goodies and badge around his neck. I met a guy like this one year who was a superintendent in Montana out in the middle of nowhere. He didnt have a dozen other courses with supers around him nor did he have regional chapter meetings that were close enough to ever go to. GCSAA and their outreach was the biggest thing in this supers career to keep him up to speed and with the times, as well as continuing education and networking once a year at the conference. And I appreciate that.
So lets relate that to any young guys taking the golf course architecture route. Where do they go? Who do they have? Just the architect that they are working for? What if that architect has no time and is a shitty mentor? Its possible and probably pretty common.
I appreciate the ASGCA and agree with pretty much everything theyre about. But its just my personal opinion that I would like to see them open their doors just a little bit and embrace that mentoring mentality for the young guys coming up instead of the "holding the carrot stick out in front of the donkey" mentality. If they never change and keep the doors closed to a large number of individuals who share the same passion and work just as hard as they do, I think a genuine ARCHITECTURE ASSOCIATION (not a society) should be formed that embraces the same spirit of the GCSAA......and MIke Young or Mike Nuzzo should be the first Presidents......;)
-
Michael Blake,
Precisely my gist. Give golfers good greens, fairly flat tees, and some mown grass on semi--dry fairways and many will be very satisfied. A tastefully appointed, well-coiffed pig is often more attractive than a superior, but sloven beast.
Ian Larson,
The "antithesis" is a bit strong don't you think? I can see the networking aspects and the ease of continuing education resulting from associating at the lower levels, but isn't the main benefit the privilige to put the initials behind your name and the employment and renumeration advantages that this provides? Aren't there college level curriculums available outside the Association?
As to the ASGCA, do they restrict who gets trained? Are Society members prevented or discouraged from hiring, training, and developing non-members? Do they limit their educational services and seminars to only their members? Does Mike Nuzzo have a bigger bullseye on his back by virtue of being a non-member than Jeff Brauer's when competing with other Society members for a project?
We agree completely on the notion that if the ASGCA keeps its door closed to qualified architects it could invite a competing professional organization. If belonging to a widely recognized, reputable professional group is as important as I think it might be, and if the ASGCA is as unfairly exclusive as some here seem to think it is, then this is likely to happen. I doubt that one will sprout any time soon, but I am hardly an industry expert.
-
Lou,
Is it your opinion that a super having CGCS after his name is different than an archie having ASGCS after his name, in their respective fields?
To answer myself, I dont think so. Its four letters after a name that demand a little more respect and credibility towards the respective profession, to set oneself apart from the bigger field. There are going to be owners who prefer an ASGCA archie, and there will be a club who prefers a CGCS super. Theres no denying that this happens and gives a leg up on competition in the job market. Not always though, actually not alot to be realistic. But when put in that situation when it would matter, its nice to have it.
My point with that is the GCSAA has that "fraternal" type of society to it with the CGCS, which in my mind is very similar in purpose to ASGCA. The big difference between the two organizations is that GCSAA has its doors open so that it can educate, guide and network EVERYONE in the industry in hopes of progressing the industry. ASGCA, to me, is what the GCSAA is except it is only the CGCS guys. And the thousands of people in the industry below them are closed out from all of the benefits available. Follow me?
Could it be said that it would be better for the game or industry if doors could be opened just a little so that the up and comers have a professional organization to benefit from? And Im not saying it should be opened up to the extent of the GCSAA is. IMHO I dont see the harm in allowing Design Associates and Architects in the organization to some extent without giving the right and priviledge of putting ASGCA behind their name. I would never put CGCS behind mine, and I dont think others would put ASGCA behind theirs if they havent filled the requirements. (and by the way I think a five course requirement is right on the money). And I dont think that by doing this it would dilute and lessen the importance of striving to become an ASGCA.
"The "antithesis" is a bit strong don't you think?"
Yeah it is, but I think the GCSAA does an outstanding job with education, career guidance and networking by embracing everyone. Spreading knowledge through research and experience to the industry is priceless, it can only make todays supers and tomorrows better. And that is better for the game of golf.
"I can see the networking aspects and the ease of continuing education resulting from associating at the lower levels, but isn't the main benefit the privilige to put the initials behind your name and the employment and renumeration advantages that this provides?"
Absolutely a benefit is putting the letters after your name for all the reasons I and others have mentioned. But to go back to my last response I think the ASGCA could take something from the GCSAA and embrace the spirit of educating their contemporary architects even more while also educating the architects of tomorrow. This can only make for a better architect and better for the game of golf.
"Aren't there college level curriculums available outside the Association?"
Yes, but lets use myself as an example. Im finishing an Auto Cad course now as we speak. Part of the course is doing Cad for HVAC designs. I have zero interest in doing HVAC designs but I realize its not what Im designing its the techniques Im learning. I keep thinking how cool it would be if there were courses out there that were taught by real golf guys that utilize this in real situations. To compare to GCSAA, imagine if ASGCA offered Auto Cad podcasts online to guys who want to learn Auto Cad for golf course design.
Then there is the classes I will be taking at UCLA. Im enrolled in the Landscape Architecture certificate program. Im going to be doing alot of gardens and residential landscape stuff. Again, its not what Im actually designing or calculating for its all about the techniques. But imagine if I could be paying the same money for golf specific courses that were sanctioned by the ASGCA.
Ive been in the industry for 14 years now, my biggest asset has been my experince in golf course management and more importantly golf course construction and grow-in. But I dont think I can rely only on my experience to set me apart from the competition, especially in this economy.
"As to the ASGCA, do they restrict who gets trained? Are Society members prevented or discouraged from hiring, training, and developing non-members?"
No, absolutely not. But they certainly are not going facilitate somebody doing it who is not in their society. To put it another way....they dont give 2 shits about me. The young guy busting my ass to get into the industry. And no theyre not prevented from hiring, training or developing non members. But its only up to luck whether or not myself or others get brought on by a ASGCA member to do so.
"Do they limit their educational services and seminars to only their members?"
The only thing I can say to this is that there are only ever a sprinkling of seminars presented by ASGCA members at the national GCSAA conference. They fill up quick, usually the more expensive ones, only available to those who can take a week off to attend the conference etc etc etc. I would say no but there are many limiting factors to what they do offer.
"Does Mike Nuzzo have a bigger bullseye on his back by virtue of being a non-member than Jeff Brauer's when competing with other Society members for a project?"
I dont know. I seriously dont know. I think it is very specific to the what the owner wants in a certain situation. Sometimes I think Nuzzo does have a bullseye on his back and sometimes he wouldnt. Im not really in position to say.
-
Lou,
Hope you are well.
Your logic is understandable at first glance and therein lies the problem for me. As I have stated over and over and really did not mean to comment again.....I have no problem with individual ASGCA members. It is not my place to judge their abilities as golf architects....the ASGCA has written requirements that they supposedly have submitted and met the minimum number of courses. No problem there with me....but make it the same for any architect that has shown such. To keep it simple..you have to have a vote of 9 peole on the board...that's it.
If the public perceives the ASGCA as some type of organization that you could use to aid in selecting an architect, yet the membership is determined by a vote of a board of governors after meeting the objective requirements of the organization......then IMHO it is flawed.... And it is because of your chain of logic above that I always argue this point....
Come to GA sometime soon.
Mike
Mike,
First of all, I am generally aware of your troubles with the Society. Though not entirely analogous, I know an individual who was black-balled at a Top Five golf club by a member who was a business competitor and apparently did it (opposed my acquaintance's nomination) to protect his financial interests. The spurned candidate was asked some years later to resubmit his application, but his pride or sense of having been slighted wouldn't allow it. I think it is his loss, and hope that you will not make the same mistake (he would say that it is not).
Second, I think you and all other architects have every right to question the Society and its policies. To the extent their requirements are arbitrary and capriciously or politically applied, the Society would be "acting stupidly" if it refused to change. Being that it is an organization made of imperfect humans, mistakes will be made. I don't sense that the problems are institutional or systemic, but I can see how personality and other non-performance/qualification issues might crop up from time to time.
Any organization that precludes qualified members from joining for competitive reasons risks losing its stature and encourages those unfairly rejected qualified candidates to form their own competitive professional organization. However, an organization that has very minimal standards and offers membership to anyone willing to write a check probably is of very little benefit to its members.
Lastly, my "chain of logic" is really not how I think about architects and other professionals, but how the world generally works. The interests of those buying architectural services are often not the same as of those wanting to do the work. A developer may wish name recognition to sell memberships and/or lots. A city manager may want a "credentialed" individual he can sell to his political superiors with minimal opposition. A consultant advising a lender and a developer has little to gain going with a lesser known architect, particularly when the professional design fees are not a major component of the overall project costs. To the extent that the list contains qulified providers, the main concern- the success of the project- is satisfied. That some deserving candidates failed to make the list is at most an opportunity cost to the client.
I suspect that a primary objective of those seeking membership is that it helps them to differentiate themselves from the competition. It is an additional credential, maybe a tie-breaker in a few rare instances. Perhaps being a member leads to referrals. Maybe some business is simply generated by a potential client perusing the ASGCA website and finding a local member which he then proceeds to contact and develop personal rapport.
There are excellent architects who are not Society members. Wyatt mentioned three that I know. Some people are simply not joiners. Others like you have had an unfortunate experience. A number have not had the opportunity to develop their resume. There is also reason to believe that like with every other profession, some do not have the "necessities" to qualify. Though the market for the foreseeable future appears unfavorable, the one upside is that the ASGCA stamp of approval is not a requirement to be hired. Hopefully the barriers to entry will be kept to a minimum, though I have to believe that the current yearning for government regulation in most aspects of our lives may seep into this as well. Hopefully the Society will not lobby for licensing under its auspices as a condition of employment. If it does, get the pitchforks out.
See you at the Dixie Cup?
P.S.- why doesn't your partner do Jim Thorpe impressions on the Golf Channel? You'd think he'd throw you a bone once in awhile. BTW, I think you're much funnier.
P.S.2- did I tell you that my member friend at Reynolds brought his large group out to LS and they were all blown away? I think he said that with a maintenance budget approaching one of theirs, LS would be far better than anything at the Plantation. And that ain't benign, feigned praise!
Lou,
Thx for the kind remarks re Longshadow...glad your Reynolds buddies liked it....I hope the owners will try a little harder to keep up the maintenance....it could be really good....
Yep Charlie is humming with the Golf channel...and just one Jim Thorpe story and he could be out of there...
As for all this ASGCA stuff.....I think I have read everything on here....and really have not many issues other than the "jury of your peers" part. As Ian mentions the CGCS requirements...I think that is the way it should be. They pass the written requirements and they are CGCS....there is just to much room for supposition when a small competitive group let's it enter the picture....other than that and I don't see much problem....
I think the issue that is being overlooked here as to letting in associates and students etc is the size of the business ....THE BUSINESS IS SO SMALL and THERE WOULD BE NO JOBS FOR ALL OF THOSE THAT TRAINED..we are seeing that now....or look a the PGA a few years ago.....guys were working for $15000. I am all for training guys but there is just not that much room.....so can't blame anyone for that.....I just don't think the peer review works.....the owners and evaluators give a much better picture and a value you can measure....
I think Abe Lincoln was once asked by a group about some suppositions etc regarding someone...Lincoln asked the group..."See that sheep over there...suppose we decided to call his tail a leg.....how many legs would he have?" the group said "five"..Lincoln said "no..he would have 4..just because we say it is a leg doesn't make it a leg".....so once you have owners that accept the work, evalautors that have seen the work and you have the required number...then peer review is subject to just such issues.....That's my only gripe. Unless they begin to ask vendors that I support and spec to subsidize their group as sponsors etc....then .....that's a different story....I don't think Titleist expects Tiger to play their ball..do you?
see you soon.
Mike
-
Ian,
Let me see if I can help you with some thoughts on some of your points concerning you efforts to get "edumacated" as Jeff says in the wonderful craft of golf course design.
1. first, congratulations on puting forth the commitment you mention thus far with autocad clases and landscape architecture at UCLA. (UCLA sucks..Go Wildcats!)
2. I think you will find that a majority of us in the ASGCA went through pretty much what you are going through early on. Getting all sorts of training is what you have to do and as you are finding much of it does not directly aply to what we do or how we use it. It is still frustrasting once you are in the business and want to learn autocad what you have to do to do so. In fact, at the GCSAA annual GIS show in Anaheim a couple years ago now I remember Jeff Brauer leaving in the evenings to go get autoCAD "educamated" somewhre there in LA - even though he lives in TX. I too have an LA Bachelor Degree but worked in Golf Construction and Maintenance (my dada is a 40 plus year GCSAA member and superintendent) on my off time and summers to round out my background because it was obvious to me even at that time that it would be a hard profession to break into.
3. My first real exposure to the ASGCA was with a summer internship job with RTJII after my Jr. year. I learned a lot that summer and all of the guys were great to me. At that time it was Don Knott, Bruce Charlton, Gary Linn, and Kyle Phillips. Of course Bobby too. My dad had worked on a project with Gary at some point so that helped with an introduction but that is all I had as far as any help. At the time I was young enough not to realize how fortunate it was that iI had that opportunity.
4. To make sure I got even more exposure to the business because I was ssrting to get the impression that just about every firm approached how they did thing differently, I applied and got another internship for the following summer with Bob Cupp. (Yep, it took me 4.5 years to graduate!) I again learned a bunch of real world application of what they were only touching on at school.
5. You can see there is nothing formal that I went thorogu that anyone was offering to help me get edumacated other than rolling up my sleves and getting the experience by working.
6. You can also see that several ASGCA members were very helpful to me in those early years and by me being around them an hearing first hand about theor experiences and about other architects it made be set a goal to be member someday. I also realized that these guys had a whole lot more knowledge than I and that I had a long way to go befoer that would even make any sense.
7. While there may be little to no formal educational offerings for non-members through the Society, I believe you will find that many of our members will be very helpful to you when they can. I got plenty of great advice when I contacted members early on about things. Now that I am a member I get similar calls and requests from young guys all the time asking for advice. I can almost guarantee every architect on here would say the same thing and can recall how they were helped too by other members of the time.
8. Other than the fact that there is more competition for the few jobs that might exist inthe profession out there right now I think it is easier now than it was when I was coming up to get edumacated in all things related to the profession. There are so many sources now available just on the internet that we didn't have access to before. We had a relatively small collection of books and libraries to tap into for all the historical stuff that is so readily available today. All the young guys now have the chance of knowing more on historical aspects than my generation ever did and I am only 43!
9. The ASGCA does have a fair amount of free publications available to anyone that wants them and we are continuously working on more it seems. Remember we don't even have 200 members so the resources are just not there to provide information to the masses. Also, what we do at so many levels is not black and white and therefore it may be difficult to publish a bunch of stuff without. Hell we would g broke anyway! Many of the publications we do provide were put together by individual or groups of members on their own time.
10. Be on the look for our members speaking at regional or state meetings of the various GCSAA chapters, USGA Green Section Meetings and the like. Forest tried to put together our seminar on restoration "Restoration University" to coincide with a recent Golf Inc conference last year that I was to speak at and we barely got enough attendees to even have it. Even if we are not speaking many of us do attend GCSAA Chapter meetings and are available at those all the time.
11. I bet if you called an architect that you know has a project under construction in your area to see if you could come out and spend a little time with them on the property for the day they would be all for it as long as they didn't have the "dog and pony" thing to do that day. I still do it myself with other architects.
12. I do not think there is a Bullseye on anyones back. I got into the Society the same way Lester did, with all my own work as examples. going that route took me longer but I am pleased I had the patience to go that way. With that in mind, I had to get those projects on my own without being a member just so I could become one. Does the ASGCA thing give us a little favor at times? Probably, rarely, but remember for every one good non-member out there there are several others that we all would agree that have absolutely no place trying to convince some unknowing owner to use them because they played on the tour for a year and know somebody they know etc.. Of course that owner can go that route but the ASGCA designation is at least a aknowledgement that there is something professional about designing a golf course worth considering. While this doesn't happen here in the US much any more, it is more common internationaly.
13. I also know several very high end and successful superintendents that have not made themselves go through the certification process that are just as or in many cases more capable than some that are certified so it happens there too.
BTW I believe Gil and Geoff will be in LA quite a bit for LACC so your being at UCLA is a great thing indeed!
DbD
-
Sorry, but I think that the vetting and/or due diligence for an architect should be based solely on their qualifications.
Isn't it?
Ben,
If an organization has a stated mission of furthering the profession, upholding traditions, etc., (which you can find on the web page) are you saying that ethics is not a valid qualification for membership? That is your real question here, isn't it?
Also, do you think a group can uphold traditions of the profession by accepting just everyone?
As to the suggestion of various classes of membership, why would you need to be a member of ASGCA to learn stuff? As noted, there is a lot of info on our websites. However, to further our mission of educating our members, in reality, spending our time answering questions of newbies, wannabes, etc., rather than learning ourseleves wouldn't fulfill onr of our missions.
One reason I bristle a little bit at this thread is the apparent presumption by many that ASGCA as a matter of course gets its membership acceptance policies wrong, its missions wrong, etc. I could turn it around and say that 99% of the guys who should be members are, indicating that we get it right most of the time.
Is it so hard to believe that maybe, just maybe, we know a little something about what we are doing and how we do it?
Sorry, but I just had to ask the impolite question!
The question of categories has come up numerous times and after long debates, turned down, mostly for the reasons I stated.
-
However, to further our mission of educating our members, in reality, spending our time answering questions of newbies, wannabes, etc., rather than learning ourseleves wouldn't fulfill onr of our missions.
Is it so hard to believe that maybe, just maybe, we know a little something about what we are doing and how we do it?
Jeff,
As to the first sentence. There is a reason that on a dozen or so occasions just in the past two years, I've stood out in the summer sun in a nomex flight suit answering questions like, "how fast does it go?" and, "what does this button do?" It's because those people pay my salary and maybe, just maybe, one of every 800 kids that I talk to will decide to go through the years of training and ass pain to do what we do. I would hope that your society would understand the value in doing the same. It sure seems as though the GCSAA does, as Ian noted above.
As for the second sentence I quoted. You're 100% right. And I know when I'm outgunned. It's been made blatantly clear by John and Lou that this thread is pointless, and now you say the magic words. It's your society. You guys are members and architects, I am neither. It is not incumbent upon me to question the motives and processes of a society that I will probably never be involved with. You won't hear a peep out of me regarding ASGCA ever again.
I still appreciate your candor and involvement. You seemed to approach my questions with gentlemanly vigor, which is commendable considering my inflammatory statements. That you were subdued in regards to something you are so passionate about shows wisdom that I have yet to gain.
Cheers,
Ben
-
Ben,
Aw Shucks!
I didn't think the thread was pointless. At the same time, as David and others pointed out, it is quite possible for yungins to get in the biz.
One of the reasons I am so passionate about ASGCA is that as a 15 year old who just played his first round of golf (at Medinah No. 3, no less) and went home to announce I was going to be a gca, my father happened to see a news blip in the Tribune that something called ASGCA had moved HQ to Chicago from Washington DC. He wrote for and then obtained all the info they had on becoming a gca, including xeroxes of the Wind article, a good one by Joe Finger on how he became a gca, the NGF "Planning and Building the Golf Course" book (which I later re-wrote for them) etc. I spent many a night getting the basics on being a gca. I even wrote RTJ and got a very nice letter back (probably from Roger Rulewich as it turns out, but I was impressed nonetheless.
I try to pass on that same courtesy to any aspiring young gca because of my experience. You will find the same story both inside and outside ASGCA among architects. So many tried to talk me out of my dream (starting with my mother that night I came home from Medinah....."That's nice dear, but why don't you do something where you use your brain?"....that I tend to believe that the first requirement of being a gca is being too stubborn and stupid to know you might fail at it. ASGCA is no greater than the quality of its individual members, and if a youngin is going to get help along the way, 90% of it will come from one or more individual members.
Cheers!
-
Thanks Lou, John and David for taking up where Jeff has left off....I'm hoping he off is working someplace making money and doesn't have the time to spend here.
ASGCA is foremost an organization of peers....but it is also an organization of competitors that swim in an extremely small fishbowl, and as such aren't that excited about mentoring a large group of future competitors....but we do that anyways, and this one of the most efficient ways of gaining membership....mentoring under a design firm and then getting qualified with enough course experience and then starting out on ones own.
The ASGCA family tree shows this in spades.
Mentoring is alive and well in the Society.
I followed a different path that was generally off the radar until I showed up wearing a skirt at my first conclave.
Mike will make it if he makes the extra effort....his not being here is becoming an issue for many of us.
Tom D's stubborness in joining is probably denying many of his associates membership.... he is a great mentor and has qualified designers working with/under him that probably have all the prerequisites for membership.
I doubt there are 300 people world wide that make a full time living in this profession.
-
"1. first, congratulations on puting forth the commitment you mention thus far with autocad clases"
David & Ian
I think autocad is overkill and too cumbersome with irregular lines for designing a golf course - although it would probably help you get a position with a firm.
I've imagined the ASGCA getting together and discussing technology - at least a little - and from hearing members describe how they use cad - and having seen them use it first hand - they would be much better off with bringing in young talent.
-
I was reading the comments about how Supes have categories of membership and the ASGCA does not. It hit me that you really don't need to 'grow' the number of architects because there will always be enough to absorb the work. You definitely need to grow the number of golf pros and supes because every course needs those people on a go forward basis.
Course design is a one-time deal and then you move on to another.
-
Mike,
Agreed on the AutoCAD thing. I hate it and do not do any of the actual artistic design work with it. It took me years to get to the point I was happy with my "irregular line drawing". It is an art form that is really hard to duplicate in autoCAD. Eventually my stuff goes into autocad format and there are others far more efficient and effective that do that for me for a much smaller fee than I could do it for internally. I am sure some will debate me on this but it really in most aspects is a production tool more so than a design tool. It does well at many levels though too as a communication tool when mixed with a bunch of other slick digital applications - but only by those that really know how to use it. I do use it to do layouts and make modifications of needed. It is also slick for measuring stuff which believe it or not is a big part of our work.
What many don't understand is that manipulating and using AutoCad to its fullest is almost a full time job in itself.
With that said, I fully would recommend to any youngling looking to formally edumacate his or herself as a step towards being a designer is to go ahead and from day one use it. It is much easier that way and at some point you will still be able to ween yourself off of it if you get to the point that you want to strictly focus on the other aspects of the process. I would imagine most existing architects looking to hire someone is doing so to get that skilled help. I doubt the schools do it otherwise any way.
Careful though younglings. Spending days and hours in the basement of the RTJII office in Palo Alto as an intern in the summer of 87 and calculating cut and fill quantities the old fashioned way with a planimeter and red and blue pencils really is what taught me early on to feel the contours and get really good at estimating quantities just by knowing what I now draw or just by looking at it. You don't get that when you let the computer spit out the numbers.
Paul,
Interesting thought on Tom D's associates. I too am not sure why he wouldn't want to apply. The opportunity to enjoy some camaraderie among his peers that have the same passion as he does is what he is missing out on. Go for it Tom before more time goes by!
This site is so much about the history of the games playing fields and the beauty of the game when it is played over wonderfully crafted courses. That is pretty much what we all discuss amongst each other when we get together the one or two times a year. As a younger member it is fantastic to hear all the stories from the past. Some from distant past with characters that have meant so much to the profession and to the game! Maybe in some way the ASGCA is where a lot of that history and more importantly background information will be passed down to the future guys. In my mind that alone puts great value on the society in a way most on this site could appreciate.
-
David,
Well said on all points!!
Lester