[Tom_Doak]

Mike:

I'll take GOLF Magazine panelists at 35:1.  Not all of them know their stuff, but there are at least a dozen architects out of 100 people on that panel, and a mix of the other categories as well.

Peter:

Those "big dreams" have a much better chance of fitting in and working out iif you have a good vocabulary and command of the language (writing).  And the equivalent in golf architecture is having some knowledge of construction.  The problem is that most people won't admit that; they think it's all about golf when it is only maybe 25% about golf.

[mike_beene]

There are probably people you have never heard of and that have no titles who know a lot and some experts who don't. Appearances can fool you, but sometimes they don't.

[Mike McGuire]

Mike:

I'll take GOLF Magazine panelists at 35:1.  Not all of them know their stuff, but there are at least a dozen architects out of 100 people on that panel, and a mix of the other categories as well.

Tom-

You'r down for Golf mag but your a big shooter so you did move the line

My odds on who would know more about golf design:

Hall of fame golf pro        5-1
Published golf writer      25-1
Super top 100 course    15-1
Course rater Golfweek    20-1
Course rater Golf Digest 25-1
Course rater Golf Mag     22-1
GCA poster 5000 posts     8-1

[TEPaul]

Peter:

Well, I'll be damned and go to hell.

Your last post may be one of the most interesting to every appear on this website, even if, admittedly, it's sort of just for those who consider themselves to be something like philosophers on here, and I guess just philosophers in the realm of art.

There is no question in my mind---none---that what Doak said in that quote of his you used at  the beginning of your post is true--really true. But I don't even think non-golf architects need to spend six months on a golf architecture project to figure out pretty quickly what he means. A week might do it, but then again a novice does need to see the various phases of a golf architecture project from routing to what I call "designing up" and all the problems involved in those various phases and all that sure as hell takes a lot more than a week. 

But in a real sense you are challenging what he says in that vein. You're essentially saying that a writer should stick to his purity or idealism and not get bogged down in or corrupted by all the little pettinesses of production in taking writing into a movie or play or whatever.

But again, Peter, don't we always need to come back to the "medium" in various art  forms and how fundamentally different they can be and how fundamentally different that makes various art forms?

What's your "medium" as a writer who produces the words and their arrangements for a movie or a play?

Your medium is words and the arrangement of words, right? If that's your medium you pretty much can be the master of that medium, right?

But what's the medium of golf course architecture? It's the earth, right? Who's really the master over the earth? Is it the architecture or nature?

There's nothing in the art  form of writing that can destroy your words like wind and water can destroy earthforms, is there?

There might be a ton of production pettiness getting a writer's script to production finalization in a movie or play or even a book but I don't think anyone would say things like drainage realities could ever be considered petty. And I've never seen a golf architecture novice, even one who seems to be really talented conceptually but who's never been on a project site, understand drainage realities and what that does to architectural concept anywhere near as well as an experienced golf course architect.

It seems to me, Peter, whenever we compare art forms when one of the art forms being compared is golf architecture we always have to remember the importance of golf architecture's "medium"----eg  earth!. Without that unique medium it can't be golf architecture and it can't create golf.

Fundamentally, these discussions attempting to compare art forms may be as difficult as trying to compare paint, or musical notes or words to earth.

In my mind they can never be easy comparisons for that reason. 
 

[Peter Pallotta]

TE -

You're right, and Tom Doak is right. And I think that in different ways you're both trying to correct general misconceptions, which is important. But a general misconception doesn't preclude that possibility that any one person might bring more to the table than that. 

Speaking just from my experience with television writing, I'd say that I saw my craft as being both about the words AND the medium. That is, I didn't approach my work and the subject at hand in the same way I would have if I was writing an essay or a novel or a play; I approached it knowing that I was writing for television and for a specific television programme that, for example, had commercial breaks at the 4, 14, 26, 37, and 47, and 56 minute marks; knowing that no individual segment of voice over would be more than about 10 seconds long; and knowing that any great clip from a 'talking head' would wipe out any bit of writing I'd done, and that I'd have to re-write it in order to support this clip etc. In short, I knew at least a little about the 'production' side, and the medium.

My concern then was that I wasn't so sure that the knowledge about the medium made the actual writing, the IDEAS, any better; I think it limited them.  And I think when a writer limits his ideas, he lets everyone else 'off the hook' as it were, i.e. directors, editors, producers know exactly what's being asked of them because it fits right into the comfortable and established norm. That's fine - good work gets produced that way. 

But maybe if the writer knew less about the medium and just wrote the very best ideas he could, the other production people would be forced to find new and imaginative ways of making that writing work for the medium; they'd be asked to come up with more than ever before, and the envelope of what would for ever more be thought of as possible and ideal would thus be expanded.

Of course, they'd only feel 'forced' to find new ways of doing things if the writer was a very important person/writer, or if they otherwise felt they needed to keep him very happy.
Is any architect in that position?
 
Peter

[TEPaul]

Peter:

Sorry about that, I got kind of waylaid.

Your post #29 actually underscores everything that was so cool about your post #23.

I think Doak is right that novices, even ones who may have some dynamite conceptual ideas on architecture don't know much about what goes on out there on project sites.

But what goes on out there on project sites that novices don't know?

A lot of reality stuff goes on out there that kind of falls into the category of compromise like lack of time to really get things right or perfect them---eg you know what I mean---gotta catch a plane or the crew is over there or it might be unpopular or the client doesn't understand it or whatever the excuse is.

Do I think some novices have some conceptual ideas that might make some golf architecture a whole lot better and more interesting and exciting? You bet I do and I think you've been hearing me say that for years.

Is a guy like Doak or most any other architects going to say that's bullshit and I have no idea what I'm talking about (or you're talking about)? Of  course they are. They always do. It's important to the profession that the perception be maintained that they're the only ones who have good ideas!

That's why I like your posts and your analogies to your writing and the compromises the production end forces on it when they may not have to.

Could golf architects incorporate some of our idealistic ideas despite the realities and compromises that generally go on out there in the field? Of course they could even if it might be harder to do. But they'll continue to throw everything they can think of at us including "what have you ever done?" 

Tomorrow I'm going to be the most unpopular guy on here for saying these things but I really believe it. I'm calling those guys out and I think you are too.

One thing they can't deny is a guy like Crump was a novice too when he began his course, but he didn't have anyone telling him he couldn't pull off his concepts and he didn't demure at all from them and look what  that did for his project and his golf course---it made it what's considered to be the best golf course in the world!

[Jim Nugent]

Tom D said:

"If any one of them had spent six months on a construction project somewhere watching a course get built, he would most likely understand more than the rest of them put together."

When it comes to matters relating to golf course architecture, I'll defer to Tom Doak every single time, obviously. But I will say this:

In my past life as a sometime writer for television biographies/documentaries, I spent six months in a series of rooms taking part in the making of a one hour sports biography, from pre-production to shooting to rough editing to client approvals to recording voice over to the final cut.  In terms of my writing, it turned out pretty well, i.e. I was nominated for a Gemini, our equivalent of the Emmy. In terms of the project as a whole, I saw how every single day and almost ever single minute is about facing and overcoming challenges (technical and otherwise) and coming to hard-won compromises and sometimes difficult decisions.

It was a great and important experience (and one that a writer rarely gets, mostly because most producers don't want another pest in the room). But you know what? I'm not sure it's an experience that made me a better writer, or a better 'conceptualizer' of ideas. I'm actually almost sure that it made me worse, in my eyes at least.

And I'm not so sure that writers should be 'exposed' to all those challenges/compromises -- first off, I could've intuited most of them beforehand; secondly, there's one place and one stage only during which a project can at least try to reach some ideal/pure form...and that's in the writing and the writing stage.

In short, I think that it's best if the writing stage can at least allow for the possibility of dreaming big dreams and of seeking perfection....while knowing full well that only a small fraction of the ideal might survive the 'production phase'.

There's an old saying - "In matters of virtue experience is a vice."
 
Peter

It seems to me you have angled away from the original question and Doak's post about it.  The question , at least as raised by JK and Doak, is not whether your experience made you a better writer.  It is if the experience made you better understand the production process.   Sounds like it did, by a whole lot. 

[Philippe Binette]

Any people who believe that golf course design is about mainly about golf doesn't know golf course design...

[George Pazin]

Any people who believe that golf course design is about mainly about golf doesn't know golf course design...

The same can be said about every business.

So what are the things we wouldn't think of.

[Mike_Young]

I have always assumed that most on this site define golf design as mostly hole strategy.  And if that is the case, I don't know who would have the upper hand.  Because as TD says so much is about construction knowledge.  The danger lies in the fact that so many now get in the business with some strategic ideas and tell a builder what they want and the builder gets it done.....and most builders are very capaple of such.....but it has to be scary for the "designer" not knowing when one is being Bull shitted.....and of course the cost savings disappear in this scenario.

[Philippe Binette]

George

you just said it all: the same can be said about every business...

Golf course design is about (this list is no way complete due to my limited experience)
A) Getting a project
B) Getting a budget for a project
C) Developping a relation with a client based on trust and confidence
D) Understanding your client
E) Trying to incoporate your client ideas or trying to convince him that another idea can be put forward
F) Reglementations, regulations, and legal issues
G) Technical issues
H) Organisation and structure
I) you can keep going with this.....


R) think about a routing
S) figuring out and following construction


.....

Z) strategy

ZZZ) bunker style

and back to the principal task: trying to deliver a satisfying project on budget and on time

[Tom_Doak]

I'd like to clarify what I meant, and second what Mike Young said.

I have no problem with the idea that someone from outside the world of golf architecture can have great conceptual ideas about golf course design.  Someday, I'll prove it by working with somebody who REALLY shatters the glass ceiling, but I haven't met them yet.

Anyway, great ideas in golf architecture can come from two places:

1.  They can come from seeing what's on the ground and figuring out a creative way to use it, or

2.  They can come out of thin air, but then you have to have the knowledge of how to get them onto the ground and the sense not to try to force a square peg into a round hole.

For either approach, if you don't have an understanding of golf construction, you are going to come up short.  It's possible that sometimes a cool new design concept would just work wherever somebody happened to try it ... just like it's possible that if you caught a supermodel in the right mood and the right situation, you'd get lucky.  But the odds are about the same in both cases.

There is no doubt that Tom Paul is also right -- that most modern golf architects are overwhelmed by all of the business aspects which Philippe just listed, and don't spend as much time as they should (or as they would LIKE TO) thinking more deeply about design ideas instead of going with something that's worked before.  That is the shame of the business. 

But, when an amateur volunteers that's the part they could do -- why should THEY be the one to get lucky with the supermodel?  Why shouldn't the amateur expert get me projects and figure out budgets while I spend more time thinking about the design?

That's why architects have associates ... both to help contribute little ideas in the field to make the project better, and to take on enough of the workload that we have time to go back to just thinking about design.

[George Pazin]

Philippe -

The toughest thing about my business will always be your item A.

Tom -

I thought you had associates so you could spend more time with the supermodels.

[Philippe Binette]

if the question is about, (it was probably the original sense of it) who would be best suited to comment about golf course architecture?

I think someone who understand:

golf played at its best... (you don't need to be a Tour pro, but if you spend time with them and have caddied for some serious pro golfers: PGA, Nationwide, Champions, Canadian, Australian, Japan, South African etc... Tour)

golf played at its worst...

construction aspects...

theories on golf architecture...

understanding of landscapes, landform and history...

3-d visualisation ability

[Adam Sherer]

Let's look at it this way:

Hall of Fame Golf Pro - knows about golf design from the back tees, and only on championship courses

Published Golf Writer - knows about writing about golf course design

Superintendent Top 100 Course - knows about the golf design of his/her own course

Course Rater Golf (-week, -Digest, -Mag) - knows about the aesthetics of hundreds of golf courses, not necessarily anything about the design

GCA 5000 poster - knows how to make other people (people with less than 5000 posts) feel inferior about their own knowledge of golf course design




I think its a toss-up. But in a pinch I would go for the GCA member with 5000 posts. How many of you are there by the way?

[Joe Hancock]

Adam(and others),

I think your analysis generalizes too much and makes too many assumptions.

I also think this is an impossible question, as each category will have exceptions to the rule and therefore remains unanswerable.

Anyone willing to question what Ben Crenshaw knows about architecture, compared to our 5000+ club?

Me either....

Joe

[Sean_A]

Peter:

Sorry about that, I got kind of waylaid.

Your post #29 actually underscores everything that was so cool about your post #23.

I think Doak is right that novices, even ones who may have some dynamite conceptual ideas on architecture don't know much about what goes on out there on project sites.

But what goes on out there on project sites that novices don't know?

A lot of reality stuff goes on out there that kind of falls into the category of compromise like lack of time to really get things right or perfect them---eg you know what I mean---gotta catch a plane or the crew is over there or it might be unpopular or the client doesn't understand it or whatever the excuse is.

Do I think some novices have some conceptual ideas that might make some golf architecture a whole lot better and more interesting and exciting? You bet I do and I think you've been hearing me say that for years.

Is a guy like Doak or most any other architects going to say that's bullshit and I have no idea what I'm talking about (or you're talking about)? Of  course they are. They always do. It's important to the profession that the perception be maintained that they're the only ones who have good ideas!

That's why I like your posts and your analogies to your writing and the compromises the production end forces on it when they may not have to.

Could golf architects incorporate some of our idealistic ideas despite the realities and compromises that generally go on out there in the field? Of course they could even if it might be harder to do. But they'll continue to throw everything they can think of at us including "what have you ever done?" 

Tomorrow I'm going to be the most unpopular guy on here for saying these things but I really believe it. I'm calling those guys out and I think you are too.

One thing they can't deny is a guy like Crump was a novice too when he began his course, but he didn't have anyone telling him he couldn't pull off his concepts and he didn't demure at all from them and look what  that did for his project and his golf course---it made it what's considered to be the best golf course in the world!

TomP

It is possible that Crump's course could have been just a good, perhaps better, built quicker and cheaper if he had used an archie in the normal way.  Of course we shall never know.  However, I do take your point that anybody can come up with good ideas, but it may be wise to have an archie on hand to make it work or at least tell you you its gonna cost a bomb to make it work or even say that its a great idea, but there is another way to go that is cheaper, quicker and perhaps just as good.  I also take your point that anybody can build a good course with enough money and time.  When one views some of the stuff archies turn out Lord knows these guys don't have the market of good ideas covered.   

Ciao

[Don_Mahaffey]

Any people who believe that golf course design is about mainly about golf doesn't know golf course design...

I think golf design is all about golf.
Running a golf design business? No. Building a great golf course? Yes.
Ok, you could argue that applying the proper technology has nothing to do with golf, but I'll counter that using technology properly is all about incorporating it in such a way that the golf is the best it can be.
All the other stuff will be forgotten shortly after the course is built. Getting the golf to fit perfectly within the site is lasting; all the other stuff is busy work.

[Peter Pallotta]

Don - nice post, especially coming from you.

Jim N - re your post #31, you might be right that I veered off topic. But what I was trying to say there and in other posts was simply this:

That while I gained something by learning the ropes of production, I think I also lost something; what I lost was the "Beginner's Mind". (I'm probably using that Zen-eastern term wrong, but I hope you know what I mean).

Now please understand - no one else thought I'd lost something; from what the professionals told me, I was getting to be a better television writer all the time. I disagreed; which is one of the reasons I stopped writing professionally about 5 years ago.

I don't blame the system or other professionals or the medium; I blame myself - I couldn't figure out a way to keep that Beginner's Mind amidst the hustle and bustle of production.

But I still believe that "Beginner's Mind" is of great value; I've experienced it once or twice. How to recapture it while gaining 'experience' is the great magic trick.

In short, I think the rare amateur in golf course architecture might bring with him that "Beginner's Mind".  I also believe that the professional architect can have it; but if he's anything like I was as a professional writer, it gets harder and harder to tap into the more you know and learn. 

All you end up seeing are the limits instead of the possibilities. But again, that was just my experience.

Peter

 

[Philippe Binette]

Don Mahaffey,

when I said it's not about golf I meant that...

a golf course is the result of a combination of factors. Many of the factors that basically should have nothing to do about golf (client relationship, money, regulations etc...) have a big impact on the end result: the golf course.

Example: Tom Doak stated that the client at Sebonack wanted a par 5 finisher... Did that produce the best possible hole? I don't know, haven't seen the course... but on many occasions, a request like that could forced you to change the IDEAL 18th, which also might implies to shorten a great 17th hole... and there you go you just lost 2 points on the Doak scale...

Contrary to other type of work like engineering where you can cheat on physics and client acknowledge that they don't know enough to challenge your decisions, golf course design is a world where nobody is right and nobody is wrong and where clients think they know enough to challenge the architect a bit... dealing with people is a big issue and it does influence the end result.

One of the reasons Barnbougle Dunes is as good as it is, is the fact that the owner didn't know golf a let the architect do his job (Mr Sattler did followed the budget)

Once all the other issues are a done deal, then the architect and his team can focused on figuring way to adapt the compromises on the land.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Philippe,
When I started in golf, on the maintenance side, I thought anything was possible. That belief didn't last long as soon it seemed like I was enveloped by a never ending whine of constraints from bad design, (functionally) to not enough money, to bad weather, or fill in the blank.
That phase lasted quite awhile as it’s a common lament among supers.
But, eventually I started to see that some supers who had fewer resources somehow managed to do just fine and some guys could never have enough money. Other guys seemed to get through tough weather year after year while others always seemed to suffer major setbacks due to "bad weather". I've finally come to believe that some just have the talent, and most importantly the attitude, to succeed, while others just focus on finding a way to justify failure.
Some focus on the opportunity and some focus on the constraints.

I’m guessing Doak saw the opportunity at Sebonack and focused on that more than the constraints presented by his co-designer and the owner.

[Philippe Binette]

Don,

you're right about the attitude you have to have against adversity and you have to make the most out of every situation, that's where you have to be creative.

on the other side, I just want to make clear that, although building golf courses is a cool job, it's not the 'glamourous world of golf design' as a lot of people believe.

and sometimes we have to go easy on the criticism until you know the full story.

[JohnH]

I'm still trying to figure out what post number has to do with anything.....

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()