Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Thomas Dai on September 03, 2020, 02:27:50 PM
-
How important (or not) has ego been, still is maybe, within golf?
Would the game be what it is now without it?
What would be examples where ego has maybe made the game better or worse?
All aspects of the game but especially architecture.
Thoughts?
atb
-
How important (or not) has ego been, still is maybe, within golf?
Would the game be what it is now without it?
What would be examples where ego has maybe made the game better or worse?
All aspects of the game but especially architecture.
Thoughts?
atb
Do you refer to the ego of the architect or the golfer, or all egos involved in golf as a game?
We can't escape ego no matter what we do.As an example of my ego in golf: my ego prefers to see as low a handicap as possible, so I have a tendency to not post a higher than typical score, thereby rendering me a reverse sandbagger. My ego cares less about winning a few bucks in a competition that involves a net score. Whether that's bad in golf, it's only bad for my Mens Club partner. The handicap system is, in a sense, a way to stroke the ego of golfers who dont play as well as other, and that's fine too.
I think the ego of the GCA who makes a golf course overly penal, as they try to challenge only the best of golfers, without regard for the casual golfers fronting 80% of the play, that's bad for golf. I can imagine many of the top golf course deigns wouldnt be so spectacular if the architect didnt have his/her ego at play in the design process.So I say the ego is good for golf. Without it, golf wouldn't exist as we know it, and it wouldnt be better.
-
How important (or not) has ego been, still is maybe, within golf?
Would the game be what it is now without it?
What would be examples where ego has maybe made the game better or worse?
All aspects of the game but especially architecture.
Thoughts?
atb
C.B. Macdonald fully believed that he was doing what he needed to do to spread the gospel of St. Andrews to golf in America. But he also had a huge ego to believe HE could do that, and the result is that we have a lot of great golf courses to show for it.
At another level, the golfer's ego is crucial to the idea of strategic golf design. The whole idea is to tempt a player to take a risk he shouldn't take, because his ego says he is better than he is. If everyone played totally within themselves, golf would just be an outdoor version of darts.
-
How important (or not) has ego been, still is maybe, within golf?
Would the game be what it is now without it?
What would be examples where ego has maybe made the game better or worse?
All aspects of the game but especially architecture.
Thoughts?
atb
Do you refer to the ego of the architect or the golfer, or all egos involved in golf as a game?
We can't escape ego no matter what we do.As an example of my ego in golf: my ego prefers to see as low a handicap as possible, so I have a tendency to not post a higher than typical score, thereby rendering me a reverse sandbagger. My ego cares less about winning a few bucks in a competition that involves a net score. Whether that's bad in golf, it's only bad for my Mens Club partner. The handicap system is, in a sense, a way to stroke the ego of golfers who dont play as well as other, and that's fine too.
I think the ego of the GCA who makes a golf course overly penal, as they try to challenge only the best of golfers, without regard for the casual golfers fronting 80% of the play, that's bad for golf. I can imagine many of the top golf course deigns wouldnt be so spectacular if the architect didnt have his/her ego at play in the design process.So I say the ego is good for golf. Without it, golf wouldn't exist as we know it, and it wouldnt be better.
I can’t take your choice of the use of color seriously.
-
Thomas -
it's difficult to answer because the word is fraught with baggage and is defined/understood in so many different ways. But, re: architects, do you think the following artist-craftsman was working from his 'ego' or not?
The Prince, marveling at the beauty and perfection of the musical stand he'd just finished, asked Ch'ing, the chief carpenter, about the mystery & secret of his art. And Ch'ing replied: "No mystery, Your Highness. When I am about to make a stand, I guard against any diminution of my essential powers. I first bring my mind into a state of absolute quiet. After 3 days in this state I become oblivious to any possible reward or gain. After 5 days, I become oblivious to any fame I might achieve. After 7 days, I become unconscious of my limbs and physical frame. Only then, when there is no thought of you or the Court in my mind, the skills I have become concentrated and all disturbing elements from without are gone. And only then do I enter some mountain forest, and I begin my search for a suitable tree. That tree already contains within it the form required, which I afterwards elaborate. I see the musical stand in my mind's eye, and then set to work. Beyond that there is nothing: I simply bring my own native capacity into relationship with that of the wood. What is suspected to be of supernatural execution in my work is due solely to this."
-
Thomas,
Over ten years ago an intern with RGD was riding in the back seat of the truck as we drove out to Old Mac during construction. His eagerness was evident and couldn't wait to ask a few questions as we drove out.
The first question was, what is the most important thing you need to become a successful architect?
My immediate answer was, you have to have an EGO!!
and then laughed as soon as the words came out of my mouth.
I still aspire to have "Confidence with Class"
-
How important (or not) has ego been, still is maybe, within golf?
Would the game be what it is now without it?
What would be examples where ego has maybe made the game better or worse?
All aspects of the game but especially architecture.
Thoughts?
atb
Do you refer to the ego of the architect or the golfer, or all egos involved in golf as a game?
We can't escape ego no matter what we do.As an example of my ego in golf: my ego prefers to see as low a handicap as possible, so I have a tendency to not post a higher than typical score, thereby rendering me a reverse sandbagger. My ego cares less about winning a few bucks in a competition that involves a net score. Whether that's bad in golf, it's only bad for my Mens Club partner. The handicap system is, in a sense, a way to stroke the ego of golfers who dont play as well as other, and that's fine too.
I think the ego of the GCA who makes a golf course overly penal, as they try to challenge only the best of golfers, without regard for the casual golfers fronting 80% of the play, that's bad for golf. I can imagine many of the top golf course deigns wouldnt be so spectacular if the architect didnt have his/her ego at play in the design process.So I say the ego is good for golf. Without it, golf wouldn't exist as we know it, and it wouldnt be better.
I can’t take your choice of the use of color seriously.
:D This is my ego’s choice of color.
-
I think Jim kinda nailed it. If you don’t have some sort of confidence or ego in whatever it is that you do you might now be as successful in that endeavor. In the same breath, you can be confident, have an ego, maybe even a bit cocky, and still not be a douchebag. The #1 rule in my life....don’t be an asshole. This makes all the difference
-
A few chuckles above. :)
And there’s also ego’s close friend ... vanity.
Atb
-
Which is what Tom Doak rightly tries to play to in his designs...
From a designers perspective, I'd assume we really only know much about the top performers in the architecture world and to achieve that level in any endeavor, you must believe you can.
-
Jim -
have you heard the story John Daly tells about Tiger Woods? I've heard him tell it 2 or 3 different times, and I can hear how much it means to him and the deep satisfaction he got (and still gets) from the exchange. Here it is:
Over the course of the season, after practice rounds or on pro-am days, and whenever JD would bump into TW, he'd invite him to come have a beer or two with him in the clubhouse -- but TW always made an excuse and/or said no and/or had to be somewhere else, usually the range or the putting green to put in some practice. One day, JD is sitting in the clubhouse with a couple of other golfers and TW walks in. And JD says: "Tiger, come on -- come sit down and have a beer with us". TW says he can't; JD presses "Come on, man, just have one -- loosen up, how can it hurt?" And Tiger says: "Not today, I gotta get to the range and work on a couple of things." And JD answers: "Ah man, what do have to work on? You're already the best in the world". And Tiger replied: "If I was as talented as you are, John, I wouldn't have to practice either."
And, as I say, JD always beams at the memory of that, i.e. of TW complimenting him like that, and suggesting that it was all the hard work he put it -- and not a JD-level of talent -- that brought him so much success.
You're a very fine player and have some knowledge of that world. Who would you say had the bigger "ego" or was operating/living out of his ego -- the guy who worked hard all the time or the guy who basked in the belief that he was very talented (and *more* talented than others)?
-
Thomas,
Great question here.
First thing that comes to mind is the famous Steve Jobs quote on the crazy ones. http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/38357.html. While I think that's true more or less, the problem is when you look at history, the ones who have had a massive impact on the world have been for both very good and very bad. So is ego important? Yes critically so, but is that a good thing? Well it depends.
P.S. Pete - Interesting JD/Tiger story...however I interpret the ending entirely different than how JD took it..
-
In my now long career, I have had the good fortune to know achievers at the highest levels of sports, law, politics, business, and government. Every single one of them has a healthy what we are calling an ego. A small subset are not also insecure. I find that group the most intriguing because they satisfy their ego without needing assurance from others or being critical of competitors. On the other hand, with a few exceptions they might not drive themselves as hard to impose their will on the world.
Ira
-
K - yes, I know what you're saying: perhaps TW didn't mean it in exactly the way JD took it, but it does still highlight the many faces of "ego".
Here's another interesting one, re the golfer and ego. I find it fascinating: Jackie Burke talking recently about Ben Hogan. Elkington asks what Hogan would do after a win and how he felt. And Jackie says: 'well, he'd feel good about it on Sunday night, and we'd go out and have a drink to celebrate, but then on Monday Ben would immediately go back to insecurity. Ben was an insecure person anyway, but also he didn't want to feel secure [italics, mine]. He believed that it was the insecurity that brought him success and the win, and he didn't like feeling secure -- he thought nothing good came out of feeling secure. So he'd let himself have a drink and enjoy the win and feel secure for one night, and then he'd go right back to that insecure place on Monday".
I haven't captured exactly what Jackie said, but that's the gist of it -- and as I say, I can't stop thinking about it, especially in the context of this question. I find it fascinating.
-
K - yes, I know what you're saying: perhaps TW didn't mean it in exactly the way JD took it, but it does still highlight the many faces of "ego".
Here's another interesting one, re the golfer and ego. I find it fascinating: Jackie Burke talking recently about Ben Hogan. Elkington asks what Hogan would do after a win and how he felt. And Jackie says: 'well, he'd feel good about it on Sunday night, and we'd go out and have a drink to celebrate, but then on Monday Ben would immediately go back to insecurity. Ben was an insecure person anyway, but also he didn't want to feel secure [italics, mine]. He believed that it was the insecurity that brought him success and the win, and he didn't like feeling secure -- he thought nothing good came out of feeling secure. So he'd let himself have a drink and enjoy the win and feel secure for one night, and then he'd go right back to that insecure place on Monday".
I haven't captured exactly what Jackie said, but that's the gist of it -- and as I say, I can't stop thinking about it, especially in the context of this question. I find it fascinating.
It would take a very big ego to think that at some point you could stop doing all the work that had made you successful, and just coast from there.
But it's different in different fields. In golf architecture (or fashion or many orher businesses), you might be able to coast by relying more on the people you've taught, as long as they are not coasting. An athlete does not have that luxury!
-
Tom - yes, that's one of the reasons I thought the story applied here. With the way we tend to define ego, many might say -- given his personality and great accomplishments -- that Ben Hogan had "the biggest ego of his generation'. And yet, that same man actively & purposely denied himself many of the sought-for qualities and ostensible benefits of ego -- ie the self satisfaction, the pride of individual success, the sense of security, the pleasure of having 'made it', the belief that one is better/more talented than others etc. In a way, I can't really see the difference between that and ego's opposite, i.e. humility. Anyway, I do find it fascinating.
-
Tom - yes, that's one of the reasons I thought the story applied here. With the way we tend to define ego, many might say -- given his personality and great accomplishments -- that Ben Hogan had "the biggest ego of his generation'. And yet, that same man actively & purposely denied himself many of the sought-for qualities and ostensible benefits of ego -- ie the self satisfaction, the pride of individual success, the sense of security, the pleasure of having 'made it', the belief that one is better/more talented than others etc. In a way, I can't really see the difference between that and ego's opposite, i.e. humility. Anyway, I do find it fascinating.
Well, a lot of top athletes are like that. Nobody is more confident than Michael Jordan, or Tiger Woods, yet they constantly looked for little slights or something to get themselves fired up. I never really got to see Hogan, but what I've read suggests he was different . . . I think the little slights might have been coming from within, for him.
There is a huge difference between getting to the top of one's game, and trying to stay there for years.
-
Tom - yes, that's one of the reasons I thought the story applied here. With the way we tend to define ego, many might say -- given his personality and great accomplishments -- that Ben Hogan had "the biggest ego of his generation'. And yet, that same man actively & purposely denied himself many of the sought-for qualities and ostensible benefits of ego -- ie the self satisfaction, the pride of individual success, the sense of security, the pleasure of having 'made it', the belief that one is better/more talented than others etc. In a way, I can't really see the difference between that and ego's opposite, i.e. humility. Anyway, I do find it fascinating.
In my experience, ego and humility are not opposites so much as arrogance and humility might be. I have seen many with large egos who are actually quite humble. Never have met an arrogant person who also is humble.
Ira
-
Tom Doak:
I like the line ......."The whole idea is to tempt a player to take a risk he shouldn't take, because his ego says he is better than he is. If everyone played totally within themselves, golf would just be an outdoor version of darts."
[/size][/color]
[/size]I like to thin of golf as a good refreshing game of chess or pool played outdoors; thinking through moves and trying to be in position to be several moves ahead of the opponent or be in position to run the table by leaving yourself the cue ball in the correct place to play the next shot.[/color]
[/size]As Sam Snead and Ted Williams once ........." [/color][/size]argued whether it was harder to hit a golf ball or a baseball, until Snead said: “Ted, you don’t have to go up in the stands and play your foul balls. I do.”[/color]
[/size][/color]
[/size]Unfortunately I have to play my fouls and they're more frequent than Sam's ever were.[/color]
-
The most dangerous ego I see in from the design side is the board member or owner that doesn't know what he doesn't know and he wants an architect that will do what he wants more than what the architect knows he should do. That ego has ruined many a classic course in recent years. JMO
-
John,
Your summary is just about right, don't be a downer That goes for the shapers and finishers that I have worked with in the past. You need to have confidence to create ideas in the field and you have to be able to convey your opinions when asked upon. Just don't let your ego get the best of the situation.
Ira,
You couldn't have said that any better!
Peter,
I had not heard of that story, but it rings true of our profession as well. We all want to be the best, some just go about it different than others. Some have natural Talent, Some have to work hard to get it.
I had dinner with a young artist a few weeks back, I asked him if you have to be obsessed to be the best, he said YES!. I looked at some of his artistry and was so impressed with his vision and yet I didn't see that ego in him that drives someone to be better than his peers.
As driven as Pete Dye was to create some of the best golf courses in the last 30 years, he always had time to put his hand on your shoulder and just talk, or kneel down in the dirt with you and create ideas. Maybe his EGO was off the charts, I never felt it.
If I could go back in time, I would have loved to been a part of a walk around with Macdonald, Raynor, Mackenzie, Tillinghast, Maxwell, Etc.
I wonder who I would have enjoyed being around the most and who I would have shied away from?
-
JC,
I think MacK would have been at the top of my list for that. If the discussion about golf architecture every got stale, not that it would have, after a few swigs off the flask he would have been dishing on anything you wanted to know! ;D
-
John,
Your summary is just about right, don't be a downer That goes for the shapers and finishers that I have worked with in the past. You need to have confidence to create ideas in the field and you have to be able to convey your opinions when asked upon. Just don't let your ego get the best of the situation.
Ira,
You couldn't have said that any better!
Peter,
I had not heard of that story, but it rings true of our profession as well. We all want to be the best, some just go about it different than others. Some have natural Talent, Some have to work hard to get it.
I had dinner with a young artist a few weeks back, I asked him if you have to be obsessed to be the best, he said YES!. I looked at some of his artistry and was so impressed with his vision and yet I didn't see that ego in him that drives someone to be better than his peers.
As driven as Pete Dye was to create some of the best golf courses in the last 30 years, he always had time to put his hand on your shoulder and just talk, or kneel down in the dirt with you and create ideas. Maybe his EGO was off the charts, I never felt it.
If I could go back in time, I would have loved to been a part of a walk around with Macdonald, Raynor, Mackenzie, Tillinghast, Maxwell, Etc.
I wonder who I would have enjoyed being around the most and who I would have shied away from?
Jim,
Geoff Shackelford’s Cypress Point book screams “I wish I could have walked CP with Mackenzie”, especially the picture of him looking back down 18, probably my favorite picture in golf.
-
Something is amiss when we're called 'consumers' instead of 'customers', and when we strive for a 'lifestyle' instead of a 'life' -- and when golf represents something other than itself, a game. Golf courses are best when they don't mean anything except what they actually are, fields of play. But I don't think the human "ego" likes things that simple.
-
Something is amiss when we're called 'consumers' instead of 'customers', and when we strive for a 'lifestyle' instead of a 'life' -- and when golf represents something other than itself, a game. Golf courses are best when they don't mean anything except what they actually are, fields of play. But I don't think the human "ego" likes things that simple.
Awesome post.
Ciao
-
K - yes, I know what you're saying: perhaps TW didn't mean it in exactly the way JD took it, but it does still highlight the many faces of "ego".
Here's another interesting one, re the golfer and ego. I find it fascinating: Jackie Burke talking recently about Ben Hogan. Elkington asks what Hogan would do after a win and how he felt. And Jackie says: 'well, he'd feel good about it on Sunday night, and we'd go out and have a drink to celebrate, but then on Monday Ben would immediately go back to insecurity. Ben was an insecure person anyway, but also he didn't want to feel secure [italics, mine]. He believed that it was the insecurity that brought him success and the win, and he didn't like feeling secure -- he thought nothing good came out of feeling secure. So he'd let himself have a drink and enjoy the win and feel secure for one night, and then he'd go right back to that insecure place on Monday".
I haven't captured exactly what Jackie said, but that's the gist of it -- and as I say, I can't stop thinking about it, especially in the context of this question. I find it fascinating.
It would take a very big ego to think that at some point you could stop doing all the work that had made you successful, and just coast from there.
But it's different in different fields. In golf architecture (or fashion or many orher businesses), you might be able to coast by relying more on the people you've taught, as long as they are not coasting. An athlete does not have that luxury!
This is 100% truth in my industry. As long as the associates are doing the work as trained and the creator/entrepreneur maintains oversight of the brand he/she created, it works.
How to train the egos of the associates to be of the mindset of the culture is more challenging. You dismiss those that don’t, and you golden handcuff those that do.
-
Tom - yes, that's one of the reasons I thought the story applied here. With the way we tend to define ego, many might say -- given his personality and great accomplishments -- that Ben Hogan had "the biggest ego of his generation'. And yet, that same man actively & purposely denied himself many of the sought-for qualities and ostensible benefits of ego -- ie the self satisfaction, the pride of individual success, the sense of security, the pleasure of having 'made it', the belief that one is better/more talented than others etc. In a way, I can't really see the difference between that and ego's opposite, i.e. humility. Anyway, I do find it fascinating.
Well, a lot of top athletes are like that. Nobody is more confident than Michael Jordan, or Tiger Woods, yet they constantly looked for little slights or something to get themselves fired up. I never really got to see Hogan, but what I've read suggests he was different . . . I think the little slights might have been coming from within, for him.
There is a huge difference between getting to the top of one's game, and trying to stay there for years.
The very best of the best in any field never grow complacent. They are always looking to get better and to achieve the next goal. Whether that is a function of ego or some other characteristic, the will to reach and stay at the top is what distinguishes the very best of the best. I think one interesting question is whether one can develop that will or you either have it or don’t.
Ira
-
Something is amiss when we're called 'consumers' instead of 'customers', and when we strive for a 'lifestyle' instead of a 'life' -- and when golf represents something other than itself, a game. Golf courses are best when they don't mean anything except what they actually are, fields of play. But I don't think the human "ego" likes things that simple.
I am struggling to think of a single golf course architect who ever thought they were building something *more* than a field of play. Maybe late-stage Desmond Muirhead, but even that was probably just p.r. babble.
-
The very best of the best in any field never grow complacent. They are always looking to get better and to achieve the next goal. Whether that is a function of ego or some other characteristic, the will to reach and stay at the top is what distinguishes the very best of the best. I think one interesting question is whether one can develop that will or you either have it or don’t.
I certainly had a period where I had a hard time identifying more goals.
Again, in business this is different than in sports -- in business, staying at the top means $$$$, in sports it just adds to your legacy for bar-room arguments.
But I don't know the answer to your last question. Tiger Woods was always the best for his age from the time he was five or six [or maybe even before that]; Michael Jordan wasn't until his last year in college, so it's harder to imagine he always had that in him. But both of them were completely consumed with beating their opponent on the day, even when their supremacy was unquestioned -- that "chip on the shoulder" thing. Many people would attribute that to insecurity, but it is hard to think of either of those two as insecure!
-
The very best of the best in any field never grow complacent. They are always looking to get better and to achieve the next goal. Whether that is a function of ego or some other characteristic, the will to reach and stay at the top is what distinguishes the very best of the best. I think one interesting question is whether one can develop that will or you either have it or don’t.
I certainly had a period where I had a hard time identifying more goals.
Again, in business this is different than in sports -- in business, staying at the top means $$$$, in sports it just adds to your legacy for bar-room arguments.
But I don't know the answer to your last question. Tiger Woods was always the best for his age from the time he was five or six [or maybe even before that]; Michael Jordan wasn't until his last year in college, so it's harder to imagine he always had that in him. But both of them were completely consumed with beating their opponent on the day, even when their supremacy was unquestioned -- that "chip on the shoulder" thing. Many people would attribute that to insecurity, but it is hard to think of either of those two as insecure!
I have a different take on a few points.
The very best of the best athletes that I have met are not motivated by debates that fans may have in bar rooms or even by what the media says about them. They care about three things: Championships, how they stack up against their peers and predecessors, and most importantly how they perform relative to their own standard of excellence.
I also have found that the very best of the best in business view money as just a quantitative way to measure their success, but care much more about if they are the most dominant and most prominent and once again that they live up to their own standards. I remember a conversation 25 years ago with perhaps the most successful Venture Capital investor when I asked him why he worked 18 hours a day with unbelievable focus even though he already had more money than most of us combined. His answer was simple: it is who I am and what I like to do. I have heard variations of the same from several others.
I do not know any golf course architects, but my guess is that they are not all that different. Financial success and what we golfers think are far less important than how they stack up against their peers and predecessors and how close they have come to designing their standard of the best course.
Ira
-
I have a different take on a few points.
The very best of the best athletes that I have met are not motivated by debates that fans may have in bar rooms or even by what the media says about them. They care about three things: Championships, how they stack up against their peers and predecessors, and most importantly how they perform relative to their own standard of excellence.
I also have found that the very best of the best in business view money as just a quantitative way to measure their success, but care much more about if they are the most dominant and most prominent and once again that they live up to their own standards. I remember a conversation 25 years ago with perhaps the most successful Venture Capital investor when I asked him why he worked 18 hours a day with unbelievable focus even though he already had more money than most of us combined. His answer was simple: it is who I am and what I like to do. I have heard variations of the same from several others.
I do not know any golf course architects, but my guess is that they are not all that different. Financial success and what we golfers think are far less important than how they stack up against their peers and predecessors and how close they have come to designing their standard of the best course.
I guess I agree with most of what you've said.
My standard has always been whether I could build golf courses of the same quality as the older courses I love. I never thought much about competing against my peers; I just figured if I could build courses to that standard, the business side would take care of itself.