Apples don't fall far from the tree.  We all know that Doak, Coore, Hanse, Weed, Liddy, fell out of the Dye tree.  Now, who is going to fall out of your trees?

We have a bunch of little worker bees that have cross pollinated with many of these GCA organizations.  DeVreis with Doak, and workers like Schneider, Proctor, Whitmann and Drella with both of the Dye offshoots - Coore and Doak. There are a lot of them going back and forth between Doak and C&C, and maybe even Hanse. Also, there is the Chicago tree, and the Carolina tree, etc.  

I got to thinking about how many family trees there are, going right back to TEPaul's Godfather thread speculating on the 1900 decade, and Mark Chalfant's article on Langford and what tree he fell out of.  Then, there is R.B. Harris and his Chicago posse.  One might even say that there is the Nicklaus family tree that doesn't fork...(just kidding, couldn't resist)

Perhaps this isn't all that interesting and is more of a logical study in organizational relationships.  Are they all inbred, or does creativity simply run in somewhat naturally defined circles?

I'd most like to hear from the archies about these relationships with their associates and where they think the next seeds will take root, or which apples are going to drop?  Perhaps archies aren't going to say who their favorites are for internal harmonious relationships within their work crews, but perhaps from what they know of the associates already declared intentions, whose up next?

Scott, did you say on some other thread that your mind was begining to atrophy?  Psshaw...

I am still more interested in the current worker bees, and it would be interesting to take that tree you have from SI and update it to include the newest courses and who worked on them, and draw lines from each individual to the other trees they were cross pollinated from.  I think it would be a real mishmash of line crossings.

RJ,

Your theory isn't too far off, IMHO, in that most people tend to hire - and keep - people similar to themselves.  Of course, for Dye to get Doak, Coore, etc. he went through a lot of other interns we have never heard of - for good reason!  I can't think of too many cross pollinated architects - who started on bulldozers and went over to a plan type firm, or vice versa.

Similarly, the RB Harris clan probably hired architects of similar inclinations, in this case, to draw plans rather than run bulldozers.  In many ways, I think my office is organized a lot like K and N, even with differences on computer, etc.  

I expect most offices are the same in this regard.  Hence, many design characteristics are also carried from generation to generation in each tree, even given that someone who leaves an office says they are trying to be wholly different than their mentors.  But the initial ideas are pretty well ingrained as to what works, and what doesn't.

Jeff,

One apple that fell FAR (the farthest?) from the tree was Mike Strantz.

My connection would read:

Carrick-CE Robinson-Stanley Thompson.

I think he would be proud of my ladies tees expansion all in his spirit!

Of note: Nicol Thompson, George Cumming (the first pro at Toronto) and Stanley Thompson all visited and watched Colt build the Toronto Golf Club (1912). They also watched him build Hamilton too (1914) this while embarking in their own careers. Stanley was origionally the junior man at Thompson Cumming and Thompson, till he became the architect we know starting in 1921 (when most, but not all, routings are his own). So does Stan go to Cumming who was the first architect of the group, or possibly to Colt who definately was an influence; or is it just Stan as the root?

And while many claim to be connected, not one architect on his tree has shown themselves to be his equal.

I don't think Mike Strantz is the opposite of Tom Fazio at all.  Both are willing to totally rearrange the landscape if necessary to create their own complete image of a golf hole ... it's just that their preference for what that image should look like is quite different.

Likewise, someone from the Fazio camp might believe that Bill Coore and I are the opposite of Pete Dye, because we don't move much earth ... but I don't think my philosophy of engaging the player is that much different than Bill's, and I know I learned a lot of mine from Pete.

Interesting topic R.J.

The little Doak that I've seen doesn't remind me at all of Pete Dye's work.  The same of RTJ and what I've played/read about of Stanley Thompson.

Dye does seem to have a very large tree.  Yet with the exception of P.B., I really can't think of others who do Dye well.    

In reading on this site about Fazio, it seems that a better thread heading for him and his ilk might be "whose turnip truck did you fall out of".  Just like Bush, no matter what he does, the man can't catch a break.  It is a scary thought, but there is probably a Martin Sheen born every minute.

Doesn't Pete Dye have a much wider range of very good to quite bad product than Tom Fazio?

Tom Doak,

Please elaborate on "engaging the player."  Thank you.

Mike

While certainly not putting words into the man's mouth, but if it takes a while for him to respond and you, Mike_Hendren, are truly unsure what he means.........I'd say it has to do with building strategic golf courses.  "Engage" the player in that you force them to think, not just stripe it down the middle of the fairway and then hit to the middle of the green.

Strategic golf courses

Dick,

T. Fazio fell out of his uncle George's tree.  20-25 years ago, the phrase "a Fazio course", meant George, not Tom.

From the SI article I mentioned above, George Fazio was his own tree.  Other than the Fazio family members, Jim, Tom, and Tommy, others include Dana Fry and Mike Strantz.  The rest are mostly still in Fazio's design group, Banfield, Marzolf, etc.

It's a small tree, due mostly to it not being planted in the early part of the century.


Nicklaus falls under the Dye tree, due to Harbour Town.  Under Nicklaus, the most prominent name is Bob Cupp.  Others include Fought, Jack II, Rick Jacobsen, Scott Miller, and GCA contributor Jim Lipe.

Dick,

It's my understanding that Fazio has some very loyal, well-paid, happy associates who've been with him for a long time.  As I've heard mentioned before, perhaps it is time for Tom to start putting a slash or hyphen after his late name and share the design credit.

I've also only played one Weed course, Spanish Oaks near Austin, and it did not resemble any of the numerous Dye courses I've played.  He did angle some greens and fairways, but the course is not nearly as punitive.  Dye's Austin CC may be one of the most difficult courses I've ever played.

It seems to me that today's young architects are fairly eclectic.  With the possible exception of Keith Foster who I think creates quirk and difficulty where not needed, playability, variety, aesthetics, engineering (drainage), and maintenance are the design themes currently popular.  Even the large earth movers extol the virtues of taking advantages of natural characteristics, and when not possilbe, masking the artificial as to not to look that way.

Don't you think that those who leave their mentors really prefer to establish their own identities?  I've never heard of an architect boasting that he designs just like Fazio or Nicklaus but for a lot less.  In fact, I know a couple of guys who go out of their way to differentiate themselves.  

A very interesting topic is close to being discovered here...

I can't help but notice how many times in the discussion of architecture and/or architects and/or style we see two very different “views” of what the essence of those terms means.  I notice that the architects (generalization) tend to relate to the form, structure, and modification of the dirt or feature in their definition of these terms, while the rater / player crowd is drawn to the grassing, plantings, and maintenance plan.

How many of you architects feel that the most beautiful a course can be is that moment just before seeding vs. the day it opens?  For those of you fanatics who haven’t had the privilege of seeing the bare contouring of a course before the grass grows – it may very well be a religious experience for you.

Perhaps a better way to pose the question:  Is the art in the chassis and body or is it in the paint job?

BTW "a blend of each" would be the non-answer of the century.

Cheers!

JT

Jim,

Since I know the position your course archie would have on this, I should be contrarian and take an opposite stance. But, it would require a lie on my part.

I can't answer without saying the years of course construction have changed my opinion. In fact, before ever working the dirt, I could have cared less what it looked like before grass. Now, though, I have to say that the phase of a courses life right after the seed is planted is when it is most beautiful. You see the golf course without countour lines artificially determined by anyone. You see what the ground is really doing. There are no cart tire tracks or artistic renditions with mower striping.

Glad you had the dirt experience too....

Joe