Tony,

I have no trouble envisioning a "280 yard perfetly shaped shot," by other people, even if I do have trouble envisioning myself hitting it.....

I guess the big question is whether that tour pro who envisions it can envision what the ground may have to do to help it, hurt it, or accept it, reject it, etc.  Even then, shot values is only a minute component of the entire work to do to make a design practical.

Most tour pros can't envision that shot on a particular peice of ground until its 90% roughed in anyway.  For that matter,  most tour pros can't imagine that there should be a penalty of any kind for an imperfectly shaped 280 yard shot....

What was the question again?

For the most part, they bring a recognizable name to stamp on the brochures to help sell memberships and property.

There are exceptions of course.  Tour pros like Crenshaw and Davis Love III have a passion for it and it comes through with the time they spend on a project.  

Logically, it seems that the Pro would definitely be able to bring a whole new vision and perspective to a project.  That is really what makes the collaboration of Doak and Nicklaus so intriguing at Sebonack.  

The quote from Cook comes as justification for Tour pro's being involved with designs, and specifically about the one they are playing this week; David Toms was the consultant.

I'd go back to what Mackenzie said about an architect being able to put himself in the shoes of all classes of players. If he cannot...

Quote:
"Logically, it seems that the Pro would definitely be able to bring a whole new vision and perspective to a project."
END
A whole new vision? Perhaps, but I highly doubt it.

Generally, I would guess that most tour pros wouldn't have a lot to add, except perhaps to give the architect some perspective on how a tour pro would see and play the course.  This might be enligtening to some architects; it might not be to others.  

The courses I've played designed by tour pros (Nicklaus, Weiskopf) tend to be unimaginative and formulaic.  There's too much of an emphasis on fairness and too little on uniqueness.  Not to disparage Sebonack (I haven't seen it), but I'd rather play a pure Doak course than a Doak/Nicklaus course.  

Jimmy: I agree with your statement about the brochures perspective.

The Mark Love interview doesn't reveal Davis Love's passion as you indicate.

Quote from the ML interview:
"I have the opportunity to spend more time on site with one of our projects than Davis, obviously with the schedule he has, and it’s nice to know that he now feels confident that I can go out there and get things done. Then when I call him and say, 'Hey, number 2, 3, and 4 are rough shaped and they look fabulous and I love them and here’s what they look like,' he doesn’t feel like he has to jump on a plane to come see them before they get final approval. He knows that if I’m telling him that, then he’s going to like it when he comes in."

Phillip:
No misquote.
I typed it in seconds after hearing it.

How much of an imagination do you have to have to be able to imagine a 280 yard perfectly shaped shot?

Not a whole heckuva lot.

But this does illustrate the problem many pros - and amateurs - have with design: an ability to separate their game from the design.

A certain wise architect who contributes quite frequently to this board told the story to us about a consulting pro who complained that you couldn't get up and down from a certain greenside bunker. This architect responded with something along the lines of (paraphrasing here), that's why it's a hazard to be avoided. The pro hated it nonetheless, and I can't remember what the outcome was.

Do we ask athletes to design stadiums? Office workers to design office buildings? Factory workers to design factories?

Apples and oranges to me.

Mackenzie was a mediocre golfer, Raynor didn't play much at all, yet MacDonald, Ross, and Pete Dye were all very good to excellent golfers. What does all that mean? That playing skill doesn't necessarily mean a whole lot. It can be a great help, or it can be a real obstacle to overcome.

I'd still hire a real architect - sans golf pro - to design a course I owned.

I think the first thing that tour players bring to a design is marketability....
As Jeff says ..there is no way they have time to be a competitive tour player and have time left to devote to a project...
now having said that...I do think some of them have taken the time to compile a team and that they can compliment a team.
They play a game with which most of us are not familar and so when they define shot values they have a completely different set of values than most of us on this site.
So they can and do bring something to a design but in most cases the biggest thing is brand and marketability.

George, with all due respect it sounds like your wife would be a great candidate for American Idol....but combine that with her being able to write music....well, I would think that would put you two in business .

...you know, I have been able to break par on many an occasion .....how does that rate me as a golf course  designer?
If I break par more or less, does that make me a better designer more or less?

I'd like for someone to explain to me what golf writers bring to designs...From what I hear, it's all good.  What does a writer bring to the table that a pro can't...

Mark....do you really mean it when you say "Many bring a lack of understanding and empathy of what the average player endures during a round of golf"?....because if so, I think it sounds kind of jealous and unaware.  

Some or most might play them first for the 'name', but rarely return unless there is a 'game'....cute eh?

John,
Weren't most of the early courses Nicklaus built only playable for someone like Jack.  Desert Highlands among others comes to mind.  You need to get off your computer and get out a bit more    Once Jack learned that average golfers need to be able to play his courses, his designs started to improve but that took years.  Did you ever play a course by J. Miller?  Tell me the average golfer has fun on some of those designs?  

When you refer to golf writers, let's not forget Mr. Doak wrote a golf book and did a lot of golf writing very early on in his career.  What do you think he brings to golf course design?  

Paul,
I'm not jealous and unaware at all (though I admitt, I would like to play as well as they do   ).  It is just an observation.  I take it you disagree?  Of course not all tour pros sees things this way but don't you think some touring pros design courses around their perception of how the game should be played?  Again look at Nicklaus' early designs and tell me I am missing something.

By the way, I've been to dozens and dozens of professional tournaments over the years and I think it is very important to understand how the touring pros play the game.  At one point a group of us had a string of about 8 or 9 U.S. Opens in a row along with the Masters, the PGA and the British Open so I do know how these guys play the game on great golf courses.  As you know, it is very different game than the rest of us play and I was at one point scratch and still felt that way.