[Mike_Young]

I don't know how many can detect it but over the last 15 years I have seen many courses where the shaper took control of the job and designed/shaped as he chose and the architect ,for whatever reason, allowed it.  Now I'm not talking about collaboration of a team of designers as TD often mentions.  I'm talking projects where the little artistic vision and he allowed a shaper to do his thing.    The RJ topic made me think of this because it is so prevalent with professional golfer architects.  In recent years it got to the point where some of the bigger names would hire a particular contractor because he could build the architect's course without him even showing up.  And then when some big professional golfer came along and started his own firm all he had to do was hire the guy and stand back. 

Often you can also detect where one shaper might be shaping greens or bunkers etc on particular holes and another shaper doing the same on other holes. 
Can any of you tell which shaper or company might have built  particular course for any of the "signatures".  I think some of us can and I think this is one of the primary reasons we have issues that arise a places like Gog Hill etc.  Not saying it's wrong but it definitely produces a less unique product.

[Tom_Doak]

Mike:

I don't know many of those dominant shapers very well, because I stick to my own crew, but I suspect you are right.  I guarantee you that I could tell which of Jack Nicklaus' courses were shaped by Jerame Miller, who worked with us on a couple of projects (Lost Dunes and Stone Eagle).

I don't think you can attribute the whole thing to shaper ego, though.  When the business was booming ten years ago, some of the big contractors were not above telling architects they would handle it all for them and be sure it turned out good, so you the architect didn't need to come out too often and get in their way too much.  The contractor didn't have to waste time with field changes, and the architect could collect more fees somewhere else.

[David_Elvins]

Mike,

Surely 90%+ of shapers are going to have a style that will dominate their work and this style is going to be noticable to the keen eye. 

When operating machinery, people get used to moving their hands in certain ways to get to an end result.  Also, certain shapes fit their eye. 

I would imagine that changing the way you shape a bunker would be not much different from changing your handwriting.

[Tony Ristola]

Shapers come with habits, but they can be directed, and sometimes it means leaving the work fat so a randomness can be achieved from the rough work. It also means someone with authority to make changes in real-time has to be there on the lookout.

Not many builders want to leave the work fat (messy), and shapers tend to pride themselves on being clean (even if they know it gets ripped up by the irrigation and drainage crews and has to be put back again; sometimes by someone else). Instead they prefer to get everything perfect so the work is approved... so the architect has difficulty making changes during his infrequent site-visits. Much gets lost during those gaps between visits.

Modern construction as defined above is the homogeneous prefabrication of design, where the builder will provide the product, the architect won't sweat generating detail or guide the process, and the builder, to show how "expert" they are will likely over-polish the product because that's how quality has been defined. Looking at the works many here admire, there is a roughness and even an unfinishedness to them that can't be drawn on paper, hasn't been polished to a glass-like perfection, and reflects Nature. Someone really cared, spent the time, followed the process closely, and it shows. It's an organic, vs. prefab process.

The organic process, the individual love that makes works timeless, that gives the feeling of "Nature" is usually lost in "Shaper Domination"... in the name of efficiency and profit. Sometimes a builder left on his own might produce something with soul, but how often?

[Niall C]

Mike:

I don't know many of those dominant shapers very well, because I stick to my own crew, but I suspect you are right.  I guarantee you that I could tell which of Jack Nicklaus' courses were shaped by Jerame Miller, who worked with us on a couple of projects (Lost Dunes and Stone Eagle).

I don't think you can attribute the whole thing to shaper ego, though.  When the business was booming ten years ago, some of the big contractors were not above telling architects they would handle it all for them and be sure it turned out good, so you the architect didn't need to come out too often and get in their way too much.  The contractor didn't have to waste time with field changes, and the architect could collect more fees somewhere else.

Tom

Is this not how a lot of the ODG worked, working with someone they trusted and knew what they wanted. Just like any other business really. If you can trust staff to do a job the way you want it, it allows you to spend more time on other work and therefore makes them more valuable.

Niall

[Jeff_Brauer]

And then what is the real difference between a Ross using shapers he trusted and a JN using shapers he trusted?  That JN didn't want the risk of starting a construction company when so many qualified people were already out there?  Seems like the same thing to me.

There is also the advantage that the shapers in a big construction company can also be very good and allowing them some freedom helps the gca vary his style somewhat.  I can recall seeing features from other gca's that look similar to stuff I put in, and crediting that to the knowledge transfer of shapers from one job/archie to the other.

For that matter, I recall sharing some pix with a big name gca for an ASGCA project and seeing "my green" show up on one of their courses a bit later.  So, steal from shapers, steal from archies, what's the big diff?  Assuming no one steals the BAD ideas from others, maybe architecture got better faster than it would with everyone sticking to their own people, so its two sides of the coin.

Lastly, even within a firm that uses its own crew, there are changeovers in personell.  TD or Pete Dye had to train new people constantly (or from time to time) because of natural turnover.  It would follow that the quality of the course is partly dependent on how good a trainer they are, as opposed to how good a designer they are.  I doubt the big boys get too many new personell when they hire Wadsworth, or whoever, to build a job.  Heck, I rarely seemed to get new guys from the big contractors and when I did, every once in a while they turned out to be real gems.

Short version - I have never been convinced that the contractural relationship of the archie to the shaper is as important as the personal relationship.  As Mike notes, if the only relationship between the two is a 24 x 36 plan, then yes, the shaper has to build something and will build what it is he thinks the plan says, always trying to improve it with his own touches. 

But, I have rarely seen shapers move bunkers, etc.  so it really is the finishing touches that show the shapers skill and presumably, the basic design concept is the archies.  Of course, the devil is always in the detail, so I am not discounting those "touches" in the difference between a green, a good green and a great green.

[Mike_Young]

Mike:

I don't know many of those dominant shapers very well, because I stick to my own crew, but I suspect you are right.  I guarantee you that I could tell which of Jack Nicklaus' courses were shaped by Jerame Miller, who worked with us on a couple of projects (Lost Dunes and Stone Eagle).

I don't think you can attribute the whole thing to shaper ego, though.  When the business was booming ten years ago, some of the big contractors were not above telling architects they would handle it all for them and be sure it turned out good, so you the architect didn't need to come out too often and get in their way too much.  The contractor didn't have to waste time with field changes, and the architect could collect more fees somewhere else.

You stated above what I was trying to say.
I don't think the average person understand how a contractor can take a region like wildfire and all the courses look basically the same with different architects.  All it takes is one signature architect limiting his contractor bid list to two or three and pushing for one of those.  The supts at clubs in an area decide particular contractor/shaper is the greatest thing since sliced bread and whamo.  One shaper shapes the bunkers on the front, another shapes the bunkers on the back and you see a huge difference but the club can't tell.  Same for greens etc.   
Do you agree with this?  Seems to me most "signature contractor shapers like to "tie-in" from outside the greens and they usually run noses or tiers off of these features.  I haven't see one build good internal contours.  I'm sure they are there but they must be rare.

[Tony Ristola]

Mike:

I don't know many of those dominant shapers very well, because I stick to my own crew, but I suspect you are right.  I guarantee you that I could tell which of Jack Nicklaus' courses were shaped by Jerame Miller, who worked with us on a couple of projects (Lost Dunes and Stone Eagle).

I don't think you can attribute the whole thing to shaper ego, though.  When the business was booming ten years ago, some of the big contractors were not above telling architects they would handle it all for them and be sure it turned out good, so you the architect didn't need to come out too often and get in their way too much.  The contractor didn't have to waste time with field changes, and the architect could collect more fees somewhere else.

You stated above what I was trying to say.
I don't think the average person understand how a contractor can take a region like wildfire and all the courses look basically the same with different architects.  All it takes is one signature architect limiting his contractor bid list to two or three and pushing for one of those.  The supts at clubs in an area decide particular contractor/shaper is the greatest thing since sliced bread and whamo.  One shaper shapes the bunkers on the front, another shapes the bunkers on the back and you see a huge difference but the club can't tell.  Same for greens etc.   
Do you agree with this?  Seems to me most "signature contractor shapers like to "tie-in" from outside the greens and they usually run noses or tiers off of these features.  I haven't see one build good internal contours.  I'm sure they are there but they must be rare.

It's logical.

Excerpted from a blog a several years ago:
And a living lesson about builders and architects.

The developers used two different builders. One for the front-9, another for the back-9, and the contrast between the two are noticeable, if not stark. The builders interpreted the architect’s plans wholly differently. That’s not surprising. We’re all human and shaped by our experiences. No two people will interpret plans identically. Only the architect knows exactly what he wants...

This course can serve as a laboratory for developers to learn from. The Lessons: Though a known architect was selected, the end product clearly illustrates the influence of the builder...
http://sandvalleygolf.blogspot.com/search?q=different

The 9-holes themselves were chalk full of repetition; from how the greens were shaped and "tied into" the surrounds and their bunker styles.

.

[Niall C]

As an aside, on the Trumptown project in Aberdeen, a recent magazine article suggested that different shapers had been used on every single hole with the stated intent that every hole would look different. Setting aside that this could be duff information put out by the Trump PR machine, it seems to acknowledge that the shapers have more of an effect on the "look" of the final product than the architect.

Anyway, 18 different shapers on one course, how likely is that ?

Niall

[MikeJones]

Architects will sometimes give credit to an outside construction crew when things go well but they will rarely take the blame when things go wrong, they will say it was 'developer interference' or the construction crew who 'didn't understand' the concept"

There are shapers out there who are trusted by the architects to 'fill in the blanks' in their plans when they are not on site and it's often the small detail stuff that makes things great. I'm sure guys like Doak, C&C etc who often work with the same crew know their value and don't feel the need to micromanage all of the bunker or green construction themselves.

[Mike_Young]

Architects will sometimes give credit to an outside construction crew when things go well but they will rarely take the blame when things go wrong, they will say it was 'developer interference' or the construction crew who 'didn't understand' the concept"

There are shapers out there who are trusted by the architects to 'fill in the blanks' in their plans when they are not on site and it's often the small detail stuff that makes things great. I'm sure guys like Doak, C&C etc who often work with the same crew know their value and don't feel the need to micromanage all of the bunker or green construction themselves.

Mike,
Agree.  Are you Jeff's brother?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()