Selling out?

« **on:** May 08, 2007, 04:58:48 PM »

I just read this

“How many golf professionals today take credit for the design when they can hardly find their way to the property, let alone work on it? How many modern architects work on a routing, yet curiously allow a golfer to take credit for the overall project, seemingly selling their soul for the almighty buck?”

I think this is at the heart of the problem with modern ‘Signature’ courses. Surely it’s the former not the latter who have made the Faustian pact? The words were written by a practicing GCA, but I feel he’s too hard on his peers whilst giving their “clients” an easier ride. If the course is marketed around someone who has sold his soul then what kind of product can we expect?

I’d like to make it clear that I am thinking of the kind of Professional who has several courses to his name each with a different design firm doing the work and not those who set up their own firm to carry out work under their name.

« **Reply #1 on:** May 08, 2007, 05:16:45 PM »

Tony,

Who said it and where did you read it?

« **Reply #2 on:** May 08, 2007, 05:54:53 PM »

Quote from: John Kavanaugh on May 08, 2007, 05:16:45 PM

Tony,

Who said it and where did you read it?

Sorry John the answers are really not relevant to what I'm getting at.

Why should we not revile hypocrits and accept those who produce honest labour?
(an attempt at the authentic Jakka B style

« **Reply #3 on:** May 08, 2007, 05:58:00 PM »

Tony,

How can you know if a Tom Lehman spent more time on site than a Tom Fazio?

« **Reply #4 on:** May 08, 2007, 07:19:12 PM »

Tony,

that sounds like something that has been written on this website many times

maybe jk is trying to remember if he wrote it

« **Reply #5 on:** May 08, 2007, 08:18:58 PM »

"How can you know if a Tom Lehman has spent more time on site than a Tom Fazio?"

That's a good question, John, and I'm sure most people don't know the answer. Do you have any idea how many days Tom Fazio spent at Victoria National?

On the other hand, I think that it's possible to get too caught up in how many days someone spent on site, when the real question is what they accomplished when they were there. Plus, Tom Fazio most likely trained all the guys who picked up any slack for him on his courses, whereas Tom Lehman probably didn't train any of the guys who work on courses under his name.

« **Reply #6 on:** May 08, 2007, 08:29:55 PM »

Tom,

I thought I had crafted a good riddle. You got me...nice.

As far as Fazio goes at Victoria National, the owner who I truly loved and recenty passed away was convinced that Fazio spent much more time than usual due to their deep friendship. I believe it but don't know if that matters any more then having the good fortune of Andy being the lead associate.

« **Reply #7 on:** May 08, 2007, 11:13:04 PM »

We all have heard stories about a player/architect asking where the first tee is. I suspect that some of the stories may be true but they still have to talk responsibility for the course. I think most of them have enough competitvie spirit to really know what is going on even if they have not had many site visits.

« **Reply #8 on:** May 09, 2007, 12:48:30 AM »

Tommy,

And you also believe in the easter bunny, I presume?

« **Reply #9 on:** May 09, 2007, 02:40:10 AM »

Tommy I've been mulling on this all year ever since I was told first hand how little input many of the top players make into "their" courses. I'm a little sore at how naive I was.

The thing I found interesting is that a GCA feels the architect has sold his soul when he gets involved in such a process. It makes you wonder who really 'designs' the concept of these courses? The tour guys manager or someone in marketing working for the developer?

If the GCA is told par 72, water holes, signature bunkers with white sand, mounding, “make it look like a PGA tour stop”, is he betraying himself to ignore the lay of the land or what he would do if given a free hand? No as long as he tries to produce the best routing and course he can with those constraints (s)he’s got nothing to be ashamed of.

I would have more respect for the Tour Professional as a group if one of their members would speak out about who is selling out here. It is interesting that this is a perk only available to those at the very top of the pile.

I think these off the production line high end resort courses are having a harmful effect on golf and these guys are just trousering fat cheques with not a thought for Golf.

John, this is Golf's Dirty Little Secret and no-one is going to expose it.

« **Reply #10 on:** May 09, 2007, 08:41:12 AM »

Tony,
It is not uncommon to have a tour player manager call and ask if you can use him and what $$$$ could you get his "guy" for a project?
BUT this has been going on for years......AND it also goes on in other ways...look how common it is for a club to try and exploit the "old dead guy" that came by their place one day 75 years ago and now his name is on the course when really it was 75 years of maturity with a club that had some money and a good supt......
American golfers need a logo whethe rit is a shirt, bag or course.
Mike

« **Reply #11 on:** May 09, 2007, 08:50:47 AM »

Yep, I can just see it now---a massive ad campaign under the banner of truth in advertizing stating:

"This is one of the best to date of Nicklaus signature golf courses but the reality is Jack only spent four hours and fifteen minutes here over the last three years and most all the great work on this golf course was done by a bunch of people who work for him you've never heard of."

« **Reply #12 on:** May 09, 2007, 09:16:18 AM »

Quote from: Tony Muldoon on May 08, 2007, 04:58:48 PM

How many modern architects work on a routing, yet curiously allow a golfer to take credit for the overall project, seemingly selling their soul for the almighty buck?”

Tony,

Just an opinion, but supplying for your family seems like a higher purpose to me. GC Architecture seems like a tough business to me right now. I root for the small business guy as one myself.

« **Reply #13 on:** May 09, 2007, 02:46:11 PM »

Quote from: Mike Sweeney on May 09, 2007, 09:16:18 AM

Quote from: Tony Muldoon on May 08, 2007, 04:58:48 PM
How many modern architects work on a routing, yet curiously allow a golfer to take credit for the overall project, seemingly selling their soul for the almighty buck?”

Tony,

Just an opinion, but supplying for your family seems like a higher purpose to me. GC Architecture seems like a tough business to me right now. I root for the small business guy as one myself.

Mike, I agree.

My wife and I have a peculiar hobby in that we collect books on architecture (residential)and design. I see something by Luytens or Robert Stern and I would like to own it. However,
if I was not at the pinnacle of my career and a client wanted a house that I would not be seen dead in, but the rent and school fees were due, I would design it with as much effort as something I loved.

Somehow, I always thought that being a starving artist living in a garret was overdone, it seems that some GCA'ers have a different take on the matter.

Bob

« **Reply #14 on:** May 09, 2007, 03:06:16 PM »

I would tend to agree with the last two posts. Its a tad more difficult to turn something down with bills to pay and mouths to feed. Even if this wasn't the case, isn't the course supposed to be about what the customer wants who is putting up the money?

I understand one can try to persuade them otherwise to something more along the lines that many in here would like to see. But at the end of the day, if they want what they want, is it that much of a conflict of interest to go ahead and take the job?

« **Reply #15 on:** May 09, 2007, 04:35:29 PM »

I've got to agree with the last three posters. For most people in the business, the main job is just to stay in the business, and they should not feel the least bit compromised in taking jobs they aren't thrilled about.

On the other hand, if they honestly feel as though they would be selling out, then they would be, and they shouldn't do that job.

The only people who qualify for "selling out" are those who have made a very good living out of golf already, but somehow feel the need to make a few more million dollars putting their name on courses and letting somebody else do most of the work. That isn't restricted to Tour pros, but certainly there are some of them in the mix.

« **Reply #16 on:** May 10, 2007, 02:10:04 AM »

Quote from: Bob_Huntley on May 09, 2007, 02:46:11 PM

Mike, I agree.

My wife and I have a peculiar hobby in that we collect books on architecture (residential)and design. I see something by Luytens or Robert Stern and I would like to own it. However,
if I was not at the pinnacle of my career and a client wanted a house that I would not be seen dead in, but the rent and school fees were due, I would design it with as much effort as something I loved.

Somehow, I always thought that being a starving artist living in a garret was overdone, it seems that some GCA'ers have a different take on the matter.

Bob

Bob,

That is fair enough but would you then allow anyone to just put their name on YOUR design for cash?

You are selling out if an architect designs something and then lies and allows someone else to put their name on the design. That is selling out.

A person is also selling out if they take money and then lie to the public by saying that he or she has designed a golf course even though that person may have only seen the site once or twice and not designed one thing apart from maybe one bunker that is in his her driving line.

« **Reply #17 on:** May 10, 2007, 02:38:56 AM »

I wrote a bit on this for Paul Daley's Golf Architecture, A Worldwide Perspective Vol.1 Titled: Institutionalized Fraud, Prostituting the Royal and Ancient Game.

There is a divorce between the game of golf and golf architecture. In the game, you call penalties on yourself...even if nobody notices. You know. It's about integrity and honor. Get caught cheating, the penalties and public humiliation are great, and should be. Golf has no room for cheaters.

In golf architecture, many bump the ball around thinking nobody notices, I think that's obvious. There is a divorce between golf the game and golf architecture...and those who are responsible for upholding the honor, for setting the example and passing it on to the rest of the game...golf professionals...have sold out.

Tom:

I'll agree with your last statement fully.

When I read the last line of the following one...I thought...wow...tour pro's really must have a huge appetite! Perhaps you meant to exclude tour pro's as signature architects...when I read it my brain didn't compute it that way.

"Signature" architects get the big bucks. Clients use their names to sell lots, memberships, everything. Of course, the famous architect might not have as much to do with the design of the golf course as the owners and promoters imply; some are very involved, but some just sign off on other people's work. But on the whole, I'm OK with these projects. We all have to eat.
http://golfdigest.com/features/index.ssf?/features/gd200510myshot.html

« **Reply #18 on:** May 10, 2007, 03:42:01 AM »

Brian and Tony let me get this straight. You believe an Architect who works undercover like this is selling out because he’s involved with a fraud?

I find that too strong. Lets give the public some credit they don’t believe the name does all the work and a craftsman can work honestly behind the scenes. Yes they do have to go along with the whole selling of the package but you’ve got to have high ideals indeed to see the architect as a fraudster.

(Tom Paul. Nicklaus has a studio and that kind of operation is not what this thread was intended to be about unless you think a large Golf Course Architecture practice is by definition a sell out.)

The conversation I had that openend my eyes to all this was something like.

Me
“So you were the actual architect behind the “X” Course supposedly by (famous player). What was he like to work with?”
GCA
“Why ask me, I’ve never met or spoken with him.

”

« **Reply #19 on:** May 10, 2007, 05:54:45 AM »

Tony,

I think a fine number of pro's are involved in fraud with the architect(s) playing along. Clear, simple fraud.

Guys who take credit for work that really isn't theirs is fraud. If not, I've got a couple Renoir's, Picasso's and Monet's to sell you.

« **Reply #20 on:** May 10, 2007, 06:33:03 AM »

Quote from: Brian Phillips on May 10, 2007, 02:10:04 AM

That is fair enough but would you then allow anyone to just put their name on YOUR design for cash?

You are selling out if an architect designs something and then lies and allows someone else to put their name on the design. That is selling out.

A person is also selling out if they take money and then lie to the public by saying that he or she has designed a golf course even though that person may have only seen the site once or twice and not designed one thing apart from maybe one bunker that is in his her driving line.

Brian,

Only Geoff Shaq would find this, and only a couple of handfulls of people read his website:
_________________________
TIGER'S DESIGN: Among those watching Tiger Woods at the Wachovia Championship last week was Beau Welling, who used to be the top designer for Tom Fazio and played a big role in the redesign of Quail Hollow.

But his presence had more to do with the future.

Woods has hired Welling to do the work on Al Ruwaya in Dubai, the first golf course for Tiger Woods Design. The golf course is supposed to be done by September 2009.

Woods said Bryon Bell, whom he hired as president of Tiger Woods Design, found Welling after looking at the philosophies of various design companies.

"Beau fit what we wanted to have happen," Woods said.

Dubai is the only course in which Woods is involved, and he did not say whether he would continue to use Welling for other projects.

Welling now has his own company, and golf course design is not his only interest. He recently was appointed president of the U.S. Curling Association.
_____________________________________

I never heard of Beau and for sure no one in Dubai will know his name after this project with Tiger. However it would appear to be a great opportunity and the money is probably better than what he is getting today.

Let's go to the other extreme, John Daly. Even the everyday golfer realizes that old John probably did a walk through one time with a six pack prior to the opening. It might even be a fraud if he did do the work. I mean what or who is JD selling out at this point?

I am reading this with Calvin Klein glasses, my guess is it is a license to CK that gets style approval from a second level manager at CK. Fraud or good business?

Mark O'Meara did not do all the work at his course in Ireland, and the Irish were just trying to market his Irish American connection? Still don't see the problem. Now if Bill Clinton does a redesign at Ballybunion where he is loved, then I can see your issue!! (We have not had a good political fight here is months!)

I have been on site only a few times, but the constructions guys make lots of decisions in the field, why do they not demand partial credit for the design? Because the market does not support it, right or wrong.

At the end of the day, if Tiger's course is Dubai is a Doak 0, it is Tiger who will take the heat, and if a John Daly ends up being a 0, the developer should take the heat for being stupid enough to hire John Daly and his ghost architect.

Go over to Bombsquad and ask if any will not play the Tiger course because Beau is doing the work.

« **Reply #21 on:** May 10, 2007, 07:33:23 AM »

Quote from: Mike Sweeney on May 10, 2007, 06:33:03 AM

Quote from: Brian Phillips on May 10, 2007, 02:10:04 AM

That is fair enough but would you then allow anyone to just put their name on YOUR design for cash?

You are selling out if an architect designs something and then lies and allows someone else to put their name on the design. That is selling out.

A person is also selling out if they take money and then lie to the public by saying that he or she has designed a golf course even though that person may have only seen the site once or twice and not designed one thing apart from maybe one bunker that is in his her driving line.

Brian,

Only Geoff Shaq would find this, and only a couple of handfulls of people read his website:
_________________________
TIGER'S DESIGN: Among those watching Tiger Woods at the Wachovia Championship last week was Beau Welling, who used to be the top designer for Tom Fazio and played a big role in the redesign of Quail Hollow.

But his presence had more to do with the future.

Woods has hired Welling to do the work on Al Ruwaya in Dubai, the first golf course for Tiger Woods Design. The golf course is supposed to be done by September 2009.

Woods said Bryon Bell, whom he hired as president of Tiger Woods Design, found Welling after looking at the philosophies of various design companies.

"Beau fit what we wanted to have happen," Woods said.

Dubai is the only course in which Woods is involved, and he did not say whether he would continue to use Welling for other projects.

Welling now has his own company, and golf course design is not his only interest. He recently was appointed president of the U.S. Curling Association.
_____________________________________

I never heard of Beau and for sure no one in Dubai will know his name after this project with Tiger. However it would appear to be a great opportunity and the money is probably better than what he is getting today.

Let's go to the other extreme, John Daly. Even the everyday golfer realizes that old John probably did a walk through one time with a six pack prior to the opening. It might even be a fraud if he did do the work. I mean what or who is JD selling out at this point?

I am reading this with Calvin Klein glasses, my guess is it is a license to CK that gets style approval from a second level manager at CK. Fraud or good business?

Mark O'Meara did not do all the work at his course in Ireland, and the Irish were just trying to market his Irish American connection? Still don't see the problem. Now if Bill Clinton does a redesign at Ballybunion where he is loved, then I can see your issue!! (We have not had a good political fight here is months!)

I have been on site only a few times, but the constructions guys make lots of decisions in the field, why do they not demand partial credit for the design? Because the market does not support it, right or wrong.

At the end of the day, if Tiger's course is Dubai is a Doak 0, it is Tiger who will take the heat, and if a John Daly ends up being a 0, the developer should take the heat for being stupid enough to hire John Daly and his ghost architect.

Go over to Bombsquad and ask if any will not play the Tiger course because Beau is doing the work.

Mike
I could easily be incorrect here but I think BW was in marketing etc with Fazio.....I am not sure he was a designer....but could have been....JB or someone may know more.
Mike

« **Reply #22 on:** May 10, 2007, 08:33:47 AM »

In the situation Tony laid out, I don't think the architect is selling out. That better describes the pro who takes credit for the design he didn't do.

Selling out might be betraying your design principles, in serious ways, for the sake of a job. But we're not talking about world hunger here. Unless you are one of the few architects who can pick and choose his/her projects, work is a good thing.

Did Jack Nicklaus design the golf clubs (equipment) that bear his name? Other than Ben Hogan, what about the other pro's? Seems to me a pretty common thing in the sporting world, and not one that bothers me.

« **Reply #23 on:** May 10, 2007, 09:46:29 AM »

On a related note...

Did Michael Jordan design the shoes or various other products that bear his name?

Did Elizabeth Taylor design the perfume?

Did the President or CEO test and design the specific features that I've worked on for our companies products?

This sort of thing exists everywhere, not just limited to the GCA business.

« **Reply #24 on:** May 10, 2007, 09:54:16 AM »

Quote from: Kalen Braley on May 10, 2007, 09:46:29 AM

On a related note...

Did Michael Jordan design the shoes or various other products that bear his name?

Did Elizabeth Taylor design the perfume?

Did the President or CEO test and design the specific features that I've worked on for our companies products?

This sort of thing exists everywhere, not just limited to the GCA business.

Kalen with respect, did Michael Jordan or Liz ever claim they did 'design' it?

News:

Tony_Muldoon

John Kavanaugh

Tony_Muldoon

John Kavanaugh

Garland Bayley

Tom_Doak

John Kavanaugh

Tommy Williamsen

Jeff_Brauer

Tony_Muldoon

Mike_Young

TEPaul

Mike Sweeney

Bob_Huntley

Kalen Braley

Tom_Doak

Brian Phillips

Tony Ristola

Tony_Muldoon

Tony Ristola

Mike Sweeney

Mike_Young

Jim Nugent

Kalen Braley

Tony_Muldoon