Tour pro's contributions to design team's courses.

[Frank Giordano]

Ronald Montesano's observation about Arnold Palmer as course designer raises an issue I've long thought about, without necessarily limiting it to any one player-designer:

How invested was Arnie in the design process? Did he ever get dirty in the field? Did he learn about irrigation, drainage and other elements of the biz as others must?

Golf course architects have long understood the value of having a successful playing pro on their team, but Montresano's questions imply that the pros might not be fully legitimate architects.  My own thinking is that an architectural firm must have people capable of understanding construction and engineering and aesthetics, design.  And selling!  Achieving a successful golf course requires both formal and functional capacities of its designers.  That the playing pro might not possess formal training in the design and building of a course might not disqualify him or her as an essential part of the team, nor diminish the importance of the roles they do play in producing a course.  On-the-job training over years of involvement in a complex process can be very productive.  Some might say equally productive to the attainment of a certificate or academic degree.

Still, it would be well to know which of the great players who've achieved successes as course architects or designers genuinely steeped themselves in construction and engineering issues, to the extent they were more that marketers, brand-builders, or deal-makers.  To such people, I think,  we owe more, rather than less admiration, while we still admire the work the rest of their teams perform.

[Jim Nugent]

Frank, I think I read here on GCA that the first time Arnie saw Tralee was during the inaugural round. 

Your question has been discussed a number of times.  Quick answer: many (most?) pro's do little to nothing in the actual design.  Their names are used for marketing only.  I think that's mostly true of Arnie.  It's obviously not true of Jack Nicklaus, though even the signature designs only get a few days of his time.  I think Crenshaw does more as well, though Coore is the driving force behind the C&C design work.   

[Robert Thompson]

While I think that's true of Palmer, I know Mike Weir was involved with Ian Andrew at Laval, and that Tom Lehman made more visits while working with Tom McBroom at the Raven at Lora Bay than McBroom expected. Lehman and I once exchanged lengthy emails on his role there and he said he always felt the need to compensate for the perception that he didn't do much work and was simply a name that was involved.

However, there are examples like Curtis Strange (who was the architect, initially on King Valley north of Toronto) who was on site once when the project was complete, or Palmer, who I met at a site in Virginia for an opening and it was clear he'd never seen it previously. My favourite is John Daly at an awful course in Niagara Falls announcing how pleased he was to meet "his architect." And this was at the opening.

There are lots of examples of pros being involved -- but it is still largely a marketing ploy. The ones that are involved -- Weiskopf, Crenshaw, Nicklaus, Norman (one some projects) -- do bring their experience, good and bad, to projects.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I think that every pro is different.

However, one thing is sure – if that pro still has an active playing career, then he doesn’t have a very large input in to the design process.

I usually divide these signatures in to two types – those that have their own business and actually employ the design staff that do the course… And those that have their own business only as a masthead to work in conjunction with another design firm… All the pros that work with EGD fall in to the latter category but I’m sure the guys there would tell you that even those differ wildly in their involvement.