[Adam_F_Collins]

I'm thinking about the modern Architect vs. some of the Golden Age Designers...

Is it more difficult for modern Architects to create truly 'great' work in this increasingly budget-tight and money-minded environment?

How much time does an Architect spend on a course (on average)?

How much would their work be improved if they were allowed the endless "tweaking" time enjoyed by people like Donald Ross at Pinehurst, or Crump at Pine Valley?

We often hear of the club doing things with an architect's work after the course opens - things that the archie disagrees with - often resulting in a kind of 'disowning' of the work. In these cases, the architect's time of involvement has been effectively cut short, while the club continues to sell memberships in the architect's name.

How has time pressure affected GCA - if at all?

[Bob_Huntley]

I would imagine that Crump at Pine Valley and Strantz at MPCC would hold the overtime hours record.

Bob

[Ed_Baker]

Leeds spent 35 years tweaking Myopia and pissing off President Taft!

[Tyler Kearns]

Adam,

I think a "great" course is more dependent on site conditions than budget. The amount of time spent on-site can be a juggling act between other projects and comitments, and the proximity of said site to one's home base, but if one possesses the desire to be on-site often, they will find a way.

We are currently building a nine-hole course which is a 3.5 hour drive from home, which is pretty close, relatively speaking. To date, I (associate) have been on-site 29 of 52 construction days, while the lead architect has been there approximately 20 days. Combined, our office has been on site about 36 days (70%). If you were to compare our initial plan to the as-built, you would see substantial changes that could only be made in the field, as the nuances of the site revealed themselves.

TK

[Jeff_Brauer]

Adam,

Given travel and even digital photograpy, it is easier for designers to visit courses, if only virtually than ever.  I gather the modern gca visits his projects far more than the old guys, and checks in even more often.

As far a budgets, they probably have always been tight in 90% of the cases.  Maybe only 80% in the 20's and 90's.  Your comment reminds me of my grandmother who used to say it got harder to get by every year.  By her figuring, it would be impossible in another so many years, and yet we do manage to hang in somehow. Some things get cheaper and just as good, some corners get cut, and the Owner pays incrementally over the years but doesn't know it, etc.

Endless tweaking time would help the architecture of any course. It remains to be seen as to whether that would help the bottom line. Most often, it wouldn't, so it doesn't get done.

The disowning of courses by GCA's is probably pretty rare.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:  I agree that "disowning" would be pretty rare.

However, isn't it equally rare nowadays for any well-known golf architect to actually go back and play one of his own courses on a regular basis?  That came up the other day when Mike Davis and I were e-mailing back and forth about hole locations for the Curtis Cup -- he wondered if some other architects would even be able to remember the subtleties of different choices.

Of the courses you opened five years ago, how many times have you been back to play them since the grand opening?

Personally, I've been back to Pacific Dunes pretty often (twice a year, but I played it a lot the first year when we were tinkering around with The Sheep Ranch).  But I've only been back to play Stonewall North two times since the opening ... The Rawls Course once ... Cape Kidnappers twice.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom, you wrote, "That came up the other day when Mike Davis and I were e-mailing back and forth about hole locations for the Curtis Cup..."

Don't you find Mike's attitude and approach to course set-up a harbinger of much better times ahead for the USGA?

 

[TEPaul]

"Don't you find Mike's attitude and approach to course set-up a harbinger of much better times ahead for the USGA?"

Philip:

That very well may be the understatement of the year.

But of greater importance is to what extent those he actually works for will understand fully some of his ideas, how to impliment them and then go ahead and actually impliment them?

Bobby Jones sometimes mentioned that he thought playing against "Old Man Par" was the thing to do in golf to be successful. It appears the USGA still feels that the US Open winner should pretty much feel the same thing these days that BobbyJ did.  

I'm aware of an architect who actually wrote a letter to a golf club asking them to take his name off the course. It was RTJ and The London Hunt Club, in London Ontario.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

I agree that we don't get back to play our courses often enough.  I seem to find a way back to my best ones, though.  That perhaps would be a telling tale as to how good a gca thinks his courses are, even though we are honor bound to say we love all our designs!

My most embarrassing example is in California, where they changed the hole numbers sometime after opening and I had to admit in a gca post I didn't know what the heck the poster was talking about! And Centennial in Atlanta didn't even invite me to the grand opening (I guess Larry Nelson didn't want to share the credit) and I actually NEVER played the course, and now its closed.

I think if a major tourney were held on my courses, I would go back and look again at the cup positions they were considering.  Funny thing though - courses like the Champions in Omaha which hosts a Nationwide tour event only call me back to look for back tee areas......

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()