Nicklaus and Architect Recognition

[Adam_F_Collins]

In the forward to "Nicklaus by Design", Pete Dye writes that:

"For the first 70 years that golf was played in the United States, a course was just a place to play golf, and the architect was no better known or regarded than the greenkeeper...Jack changed all that. His mere presence in the business lended credibility to us all...Only after Jack gave birth to the notion of tying a name to a course did veteran, retired, and even deceased designers begin to get the credit due them."

Do we now recognize the names of Ross, MacKenzie, Colt, Dye and Doak largely because Nicklaus entered the design business?

[Steve_ Shaffer]

I think RTJ made quite a name for himself in the 1950s and 1960s. He was in demand here and internationally.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tilly made a comeback of sorts when the USGA Journal did an article on him in 1974 when majors were being held on a couple of his courses. I think HWW did a GD article on Ross in 1966, which brought him back into the limelight.  There was always some interest in gca's, but I have no doubt that JN accelerated it greatly, as did Pete Dye himself.

[Tom_Doak]

Adam:

No doubt that Jack's entry into the profession helped make it more visible than it used to be.  But there were at least two other significant factors involved:

1.  The Cornish and Whitten book which reminded many older clubs who had built their courses (published 1982); and

2.  The 1980's boom in golf course construction, which led to a boom in golf course MARKETING, which fell back on architect's names to differentiate the courses (even if the architect wasn't famous).

The previous posters are correct that Trent Jones, Tillinghast, Donald Ross, and others had made a name for themselves back in the day, but that didn't carry over for all other architects the way it did in the 1980's.

[Mike_Young]

I don't know who the specific person would be but the person that really brought out architect recognition was the developer that decided using a Jack Nicklaus would benefit his development.  And this unknown person ( it might have been Charles Frazier at Sea Pines) initiated the use of the "signature" architect.  And the question I continue to ponder is ...how much would golf have grown in the last 20 years if there were no housing developments?  We know that growth in courses does not have to mean growth in the game.....would the golf market be healthy today if  it's playing field had never been recognized as a means to turn marginal development property into upscale developments?  Hmmmm.....

[Chip Gaskins]

Mike-

Wasn't it Trammel Crow that did Sea Pines back in the early 70s?  I have a really good friend (mentor) that cut his teeth at Sea Pine right out of business school that later went on to be CEO of a major public REIT.  The concept of using golf courses to sell swamp land really started to take off then and all the MBA types that were helping Trammel Crow turn Hilton Head from swamps into nice places to live and play all got spread out into other real estate developments across the country and the movement was born....

Chip

[Peter Pallotta]

Adam -

I think Pete Dye's right in this sense: with Jack's entry into golf course architecture, the casual (and even not so casual) golfer was reminded that someone actually DESIGNS our fields of play.  I can't think of anyone except for Bobby Jones at Augusta who might've had that same effect -- i.e. that 'basic', but that widespread

Peter

[Rich Goodale]

Chip

It was Charlie Frasier who founded and drove Sea Pines, which BTW, was the largest employer of HBS graduates in 1972 (possibly why it eventually went belly up....).  If Trammel Crow was ever involved it was many years after that.  Frasier also had the idea of hiring Nickalus to add his skill and name to Pete Dye's work at Harbourtown.  I think that this was a very successful tactic (supported by PR and the "free" advertising of the annual pro tournament) and agree that it boosted the idea of there being such a thing as the "architect" of a golf course.  I disagree with Tom Doak about the influence of C&W's book in the early 80's.  I doubt if anybody but GCAs and Ran Morrissett bought that book when it first came out, and we geeks had already got the general idea through Hannigan, Golf Journal, et. al. well before that

Rich

[Jeff_Brauer]

Rich,

That book has sold over 100,000 copies in its various forms and printings.  Obviously, the first printing had to sell pretty well to generate the second.  It couldn't have been just the gca's buying 1000 copies each!

My understanding is that the typical golf architecture book sells less than 5000 copies but this one did very, very well.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Why should the architect be better known or regarded than the greenkeeper?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Don,

Well part of it is the marketing dollars spent.  I know GCSAA has spent some marketing dollars to counteract the Carl Spackler image, but you guys are more like the left tackle, while gca's are like the QB.  Your names only get called when you make a mistake!

In reality, supers may be better off being unsung heros, but those of us in the gca biz do appreciate what you do, even if the average club member doesn't.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Jeff,
Actually at a lot of golf courses around the world I'll bet the average golfer can name the supt before the GCA.
I don't have a problem with the better known comment as GCAs spend a lot of time and money marketing themselves. Its the nature of being self-employed and selling yourself.
I'm not a big fan of the "better...regarded" comment.

That's just Pete's ego talking.
I might think the I'm better than the guy who picks up my trash, but when he goes on strike, I sure do miss him.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Don,

There are many gca's who have a different perspective on "menial jobs" these days, since many are out of work and happy to take those jobs.  With many gca's making the Maytag repairman look busy, "Starbucks every day" has changed meaning from yuppie consumption to possible job prospects for many!

I agree supers should be better regarded as they do have more to do with the golfers enjoyment than anyone, including gca's and certainly the head pro.  Sadly, I think the supers biggest PR battle has historically been with them.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Jeff,
I think your right about the PR deal. Our association seems to be very uncomfortable with anything like a "greenkeeper" image. It's who we really are, at least most of us, but our goals as a group seem to be all about recognition and achieving GM like roles. I think you'll find that the vast majority of supers are fine with being...supers.

I think Pete is mostly correct with his Nicklaus comment. But, I question whether it was good for the profession. Yes, it sure helped Pete and a few others make a boat load of money. But, Nicklaus also opened doors that should have never been opened, IMO.
Could you imagine a tour pro or other type of trained professional suddenly thinking they are a supt and seeking employment at a top 100 club as a supt? They'd have no chance. But those same people think they can seek contracts as architects. Is that really good for you guys?
Nicklaus might have driven up fees and exposure, but just imagine how much better your profession might be if it had a lot less notoriety and was regarded like other professions.
Developers don't hire race car drivers to do their road engineering.
Supers may not have the recognition that Dye talks about, but even though competition for jobs is fierce, we don't have to worry about good golfers applying for our positions. Or, trust fund babies, or other succesful professionals seeking career changes, who think they can do our jobs. They might give us grief in board rooms, but they can't truly go after our jobs without paying their dues.

[Tom_Doak]

Don:

I think you are right on with your last comments ... expensive architect fees begat expensive construction budgets begat expensive maintenance budgets, until the whole thing became unsustainable.  It worked for as long as those developers were happy to build the course as a loss leader, but those days are over now ... and most all of the business has gone with them.

We wouldn't have gotten to that point if it had just been me and Brauer and Mike Young.  Of course, we might never have gotten anything going at all ...