[TEPaul]

On the recent thread entitled “Should the United States Golf Association…..” the last two questions were:

“……do you think they (the USGA) should attempt to send a message on the preservation of golf course architecture?

”If you think the USGA should do that, why do you think so and how do you think they should attempt to do that?”



For the sake of discussion, lets transpose “golf architect” for the USGA.

Do you think golf architects should attempt to send a message on the preservation of golf course architecture?

If you think golf architects should do that, why do you think so and how do you think they should attempt to do that?

[wsmorrison]

Wow, that's a tough one, Tom.  This starts treading on conflicts of interest.  Architects with their payrolls and families need to work and get the cash flowing in their direction.  Only a very few with the highest integrity will come to a club and say, "Change nothing.  Do nothing."  

However, I think architects should bear in mind the history and capabilities of the membership.  This is a particularly difficult period of economics for golf courses.  They have to make the right decisions as the margin for error is so slight.  To make the right decisions, they need to be informed.  Architects, superintendents and historians need to work together to present an unbiased report to the club after a process of determining what the club's wants and needs are (they can vary) and ought to be.  Sure, if you interchange a superintendent and especially an architect, you will get a different report but I hope the constancy provided by an historian (in the club if possible) levels the field quite a bit.

[Doug Ralston]

Are not the contractors going to say "Hey, I hired you to design/build our club. You're done. Move on down the road!"?

This is something you all know far more than I. What IS the relationship between the GCA and the Club? I assume it differs. Is it more likely to be more intimate if the Archi has a large reputation? How much pull does Tom Doak have? Jack Nicklaus? Michael Hurdzan? Tim Liddy? etc.

This is an interesting question to me, who is not really directly involved at all; because it helps me understand how things really work in the wider World.

Doug

[John Kavanaugh]

Only a very few with the highest integrity will come to a club and say, "Change nothing.  Do nothing."  I think we know who they are.

Who are they Wayne?  You can no longer put Doak in that camp after he reduced the slopes on the greens at Pasa.  

[wsmorrison]

John,

I am hesitant to reply or endorse anyone on this site.  I'll IM you an answer if you really want me to and keep it to yourself.  If I mention one name, it may appear that I am excluding others.  If so, it could be because I am not completely informed and/or an inadvertent overlook.

[TEPaul]

"Wow, that's a tough one, Tom.  This starts treading on conflicts of interest.  Architects with their payrolls and families need to work and get the cash flowing in their direction.  Only a very few with the highest integrity will come to a club and say, "Change nothing.  Do nothing."  I think we know who they are."


Hmm, interesting Wayno.

Are you implying that most architects are inherent and natural born meddlers unto architecture boiling down to automatic redesigning and such? Are you saying they just can't resist making architectural work for themselves even if it ain't necessary just to prevent their babies at home from starving? Are you saying that architects are inherently unethical when it comes to preserving courses and architecture?

Don't freak out now, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, these are just questions.

On the other hand, I dare you to say yes. Go ahead, I dare you, I DARE YOU!

For some odd reason I'd really like to see some fur fly on here this morning and you're just the guy to be the pot-stirer or pilot.

[JESII]

Wayne,


I didn't realize your blessing was so powerful as to only be accessed through the IM portal...I'll be down to kiss the ring this afternoon...

[TEPaul]

Wayne:

I don't think it's a great idea to simply cast some architect who may've told a club to do nothing or change nothing as some indication of some higher integrity.

But I see nothing wrong with asking if any architects have actually done this and also asking who they are. In that case, it's not cast in the context of some value judgment, it would just be the presentation of a fact.  

[John Kavanaugh]

John,

I am hesitant to reply or endorse anyone on this site.  I'll IM you an answer if you really want me to and keep it to yourself.  If I mention one name, it may appear that I am excluding others.  If so, it could be because I am not completely informed and/or an inadvertent overlook.

Wayne,

I can't handle another secret in my life.  I will say that there is not an architect working today with more integrity than Ken Kavanaugh.  He has always put the game ahead of his bank account.  In so many respects he is everything I am not so getting an IM with any name but his is likely just to start me out on another bad day.

Coore and Crenshaw are the Andre Agassi of GCA....Image is everything but the career results back up the hype.

[wsmorrison]

"
I didn't realize your blessing was so powerful as to only be accessed through the IM portal...I'll be down to kiss the ring this afternoon..."

Sully, you're pretty darn good at stirring the pot.  You sure you need me to?    By the way, I don't wear a ring.  I lost my wedding ring after a couple of years after my marriage.  But I have something else you can kiss  

I'm glad I said that I am not totally informed and could leave out people that fit the qualifications.  Whew    

I'm not saying most architects are, "inherent and natural born meddlers unto architecture boiling down to automatic redesigning and such."  But some are.  I do think some make work that isn't necessary and of course some make work that is necessary but don't always do a good job of it.  Some architects don't see the point in preserving courses and feel they can improve upon what is there.  In some cases they are right, in others they are wrong.

"I don't think it's a great idea to simply cast some architect who may've told a club to do nothing or change nothing as some indication of some higher integrity.

But I see nothing wrong with asking if any architects have actually done this and also asking who they are. In that case, it's not cast in the context of some value judgment, it would just be the presentation of a fact."

Tom P,
I agree whole-heartedly.  Do I still have to sit in the trunk?  

[John Kavanaugh]

If I read some of you correctly you guys think that GCA is the one occupation where the most famous and successful participants also have the most integrity.  These guys don't get contracts when an owner sees white smoke.  Of course, unless it is the same smoke that was just blown up his ass.

[Mike_Cirba]

I'm not saying most architects are, "inherent and natural born meddlers unto architecture boiling down to automatic redesigning and such."  But some are.  I do think some make work that isn't necessary and of course some make work that is necessary but don't always do a good job of it.  Some architects don't see the point in preserving courses and feel they can improve upon what is there.  In some cases they are right, in others they are wrong.

Case in point...

How could someone look at the 4th hole at Bethpage Black and say to themselves, "yes...what this hole needs is a bunker up the left side?"

Tom Paul,

I still don't see how it can work both ways, unfortunately.

I completely understand the goals of the architectural archives, etc., and fully support that.

However, as long as the USGA hand-picks "Open Doctors", whether they are Rees Jones or Tom Fazio, to go in and make changes to classic courses to suit their whimsy of the daysy, then those ACTIONS, and those results are going to speak much more loudly to MILLIONS of viewers worldwide than any reactive message apologetically whispered to clubs after the fact essentially saying, "we really didn't mean it...we just had to protect par".

Even if a course is put back for the members, the image of what a "Championship" challenging course looks like and plays like for top players is already forever imprinted into the collective public consciousness.

Would that public even know if the new bunker on 4 at Bethpage was removed afterwards?   I think they might feel that they were being patronized, frankly.

It's even worse when you start talking about green(s) changes.   How exactly do you "put back" levelling changes to greens?   Who would do that work and how would they ensure that they got it right?   Also, that often also would affect greenside bunkering, and built up lips....would they be levelled as well, and then built back up after?

I can't see it.

[John Kavanaugh]

You can not go blaming the USGA and not include owners and architects who bring on unqualified consultants or dual designers in the name of architectural hype.  Bandon IV is the most recent example as it follows the mucked of footsteps of Sebonack and Erin Hills.  

[wsmorrison]

"If I read some of you correctly you guys think that GCA is the one occupation where the most famous and successful participants also have the most integrity.  "

I've never disclosed who I think in golf architecture has the most integrity let alone thought only the most famous and successful participants have the most integrity.  I don't remember anyone else doing so, but they may have.  By definition, some of the most successful (success is open to interpretation) have done the most work and thus have changed the most golf courses.  So I cannot recall evidence that leads you to your conclusion.

I do agree that the USGA does not bear the full blame and not even a majority of it.  The final responsiblity for all actions lies with the clubs themselves.  That is why it is vital that they make informed decisions.

[John Kirk]

Interesting exchange.

Each architect has their own set of values.  What constitutes a good golf course?  How important is it to preserve existing architecture, or to restore the original architect's design?  Finally, does the architect compromise his golf architecture values for financial gain?

I have to believe the primary thought for each architect who looks at someone else's course is "Well, this is what I'd have done differently."  It must be very difficult to say, "No, it's fine the way it is.", regardless of pedigree.

[Peter Pallotta]

John Kirk - good post. That makes a lot of sense. The "should" question/debate is a real hard one, in any area of life. But working architects are working architects because they work; theorists/critics do a different kind of work. The transition from one kind of work to the other is a tough and complicated one. Film critic Roger Ebert (who could tell you about every frame of  'Citizen Kane') got a chance to write a screenplay once; he wrote "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls".

Peter

[John Kirk]

John Kirk - good post. That makes a lot of sense. The "should" question/debate is a real hard one, in any area of life. But working architects are working architects because they work; theorists/critics do a different kind of work. The transition from one kind of work to the other is a tough and complicated one. Film critic Roger Ebert (who could tell you about every frame of  'Citizen Kane') got a chance to write a screenplay once; he wrote "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls".

Peter

...which I rented a few years back.  I watched it for two big reasons.  One was my desire to check out Mr. Ebert's screenplay writing skills.  That movie is way out there.

[TEPaul]

Peter:

Although I'd love to know I have never figured out what goes on IN the Valley of the Dolls. Despite that should I find out what goes on BEYOND the Valley of the Dolls?

Or should I just forget about it all? You know I really am just an ordinary man, a sensitive man, who never could and never would.....

[JESII]

There is also the architects dilemna of...well, if the club has decided to do some work on their course would I want XXX to do it, or should I do it myself to better preserve what is or was there?

I think Tom Doak mentioned this as a possible explanation for some restoration work a "high integrity" GCA might do that he might otherwise not search out. I do not have any examples, or the quote from Tom, just a blinking memory of conversations here.

Tom, correct me if I am wrong on this...

[Ted Kramer]

I'm not saying most architects are, "inherent and natural born meddlers unto architecture boiling down to automatic redesigning and such."  But some are.  I do think some make work that isn't necessary and of course some make work that is necessary but don't always do a good job of it.  Some architects don't see the point in preserving courses and feel they can improve upon what is there.  In some cases they are right, in others they are wrong.

Case in point...

How could someone look at the 4th hole at Bethpage Black and say to themselves, "yes...what this hole needs is a bunker up the left side?"

Tom Paul,

I still don't see how it can work both ways, unfortunately.

I completely understand the goals of the architectural archives, etc., and fully support that.

However, as long as the USGA hand-picks "Open Doctors", whether they are Rees Jones or Tom Fazio, to go in and make changes to classic courses to suit their whimsy of the daysy, then those ACTIONS, and those results are going to speak much more loudly to MILLIONS of viewers worldwide than any reactive message apologetically whispered to clubs after the fact essentially saying, "we really didn't mean it...we just had to protect par".

Even if a course is put back for the members, the image of what a "Championship" challenging course looks like and plays like for top players is already forever imprinted into the collective public consciousness.

Would that public even know if the new bunker on 4 at Bethpage was removed afterwards?   I think they might feel that they were being patronized, frankly.

It's even worse when you start talking about green(s) changes.   How exactly do you "put back" levelling changes to greens?   Who would do that work and how would they ensure that they got it right?   Also, that often also would affect greenside bunkering, and built up lips....would they be levelled as well, and then built back up after?

I can't see it.

Did someone suggest or put a new bunker on the left side of BPB #4?

-Ted

[Sean_A]

Man, there are some wierd threads floating around today.  

John K - I am not sure what your questions have to do with the topic because I don't really understand the topic.  Your question concerning sacrificing archie values stuck out.  I am not sure how deep you consider these values to be, but I would be surprised if any archie hasn't sacrificed (compromise?) some value to get/keep a job.  Afterall, some values aren't so important as others and we all have to eat.

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom P

I'm not sure I can believe you there; I think you're just being modest and discrete.  But as a general rule of thumb, I'd say yes, go BEYOND; that way, you'll get the IN part too, automatically. I think that's what Max Behr understood; but then again, golf course architecture is such a more safe and simple little world than the valley of the dolls....

Peter

[John Kavanaugh]

Man, there are some wierd threads floating around today.  

John K - I am not sure what your questions have to do with the topic because I don't really understand the topic.  Your question concerning sacrificing archie values stuck out.  I am not sure how deep you consider these values to be, but I would be surprised if any archie hasn't sacrificed (compromise?) some value to get/keep a job.  Afterall, some values aren't so important as others and we all have to eat.

Ciao

What got me was when Wayne said to the effect that we all know who the proper acting architects are.  I am saying that implies that the architects are popular, or how else would we all know?

[Sean_A]

Man, there are some wierd threads floating around today.  

John K - I am not sure what your questions have to do with the topic because I don't really understand the topic.  Your question concerning sacrificing archie values stuck out.  I am not sure how deep you consider these values to be, but I would be surprised if any archie hasn't sacrificed (compromise?) some value to get/keep a job.  Afterall, some values aren't so important as others and we all have to eat.

Ciao

What got me was when Wayne said to the effect that we all know who the proper acting architects are.  I am saying that implies that the architects are popular, or how else would we all know?

John

You could be right, I don't know.  I don't have any clue about archies and their business/ethics/value code - to be honest I don't care enough to find out.  Perhaps when I decide to bankroll a course I will ask some questions.  Its a dog eat dog world which doesn't make provisions for the ill-treated.  

One thing that always bothers me is when people blame the archie for "destroying" courses when all the archie has done is give the client what he wants.  Many on this site like to blame archies and the USGA for mucking about.  The finger pointing should be aimed at the memberships.  On the other hand, is it really anybody's business what a club does to their course?

Ciao

[John Kirk]

Man, there are some wierd threads floating around today.  

John K - I am not sure what your questions have to do with the topic because I don't really understand the topic.  Your question concerning sacrificing archie values stuck out.  I am not sure how deep you consider these values to be, but I would be surprised if any archie hasn't sacrificed (compromise?) some value to get/keep a job.  Afterall, some values aren't so important as others and we all have to eat.

Ciao

Sean,

I will reluctantly answer your question, because I fear I will perceived as pontificating or condescending.

My most important value: I never compromise my other values in order to achieve financial gain.  It is cardinal sin #1 in my book, and I perceive this to be a major problem in modern society.  I swear I'd rather go hungry than lie to make money.

I think that's what JK is saying about Ken Kavanaugh.  He's a man of integrity.

Believe me, I've got a considerable list of character defects that I try to improve upon.  That isn't one of them.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()