[RJ_Daley]

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_Burroughs]

Dick,

The Golf Plus insert from Sports Illustrated on June 17, 2002 listed their rankings of the top 6 architect family trees, and listed all architects in each tree.  Also listed were the top 10 coruses produced by anyone under each tree.  The rankings were based on GM's Top 100 in the world.  The message I received said I was not allowed to reproduce it in any way to copy it here.

Geoffrey Cornish did a lot of the work (as his book did), and others contributed to the list as well, one of which was Mark Studer, who occasionally posts here.

I even thought of some architects that were missing from the trees.

Dye's tree was ranked 4th.

[RJ_Daley]

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.

[Dan Kelly]

Instead of "tree," maybe we could substitute "native grasses"?

[Jeff_Brauer]

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.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Dick,

That was pop culture atrophy....but as to remember the info above, it's not memory from June of 2002, but I received the article via e-mail from SI a month ago and I just referred to it - I was about to copy and paste until I saw the copyright statement at the end.  I don't subscribe to SI.  Right now, Links is the only golf mag I get - ads and all.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Jeff,

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

[Michael Dugger]

I thought Strantz cut his teeth under Fazio?  This seems fairly easy to map.

[ian]

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.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Michael,

When I said "far from the tree" I meant Faz and Strantz' polar difference in design styles.

[Tom_Doak]

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.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Tom,

Calling Strantz and Fazio similar by saying they both move a lot of earth is like comparing George Harrison and Jimi Hendrix by saying they both play guitar.  They are about as polar in final results as anything.  Strantz moves earth (not as much as it looks, according to him), but the finished products are strategic gems, with plenty of width and options for all, looking intimidating, but actually playing easier than they look.  Then there's Fazio, who has his share of good courses, but too much pretty vanilla.

I know I love Strantz and Fazio is OK.  Fazio's best that I've seen?  World Woods (PB), which isn't as good as Tobacco Road, IMO.

[Lou_Duran]

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?

[Mike Hendren]

Tom Doak,

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

Mike

[Michael Dugger]

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

[RJ_Daley]

Lou, I'm hoping to get to the issue of architectural lineage and progeny.  Whose tree did Fazio drop out of anyway? As big as Fazio is, does he have his own tree, and who is ripening on that tree, and who has already fallen out of the Fazio tree?  Does his tree bear any fruit?

You ask who does Dye well.  I only saw one course by Weed, but I believe the Stone Ridge course in the twin cities area exhibits Dye's influence on Weed.  I haven't played enough Dye or Fazio to describe the comparative range of both men's full body of work, from good to bad.

But, I am still more interested in the forward looking issue.  Who is still ripening on the vine on one of these architectural trees and is ready to drop off?  What traits of design philosophy or construction technique will they carry with them?  Which ones have been cross pollinated having been influenced by multiple GCA firms in their career development?

[Scott_Burroughs]

Dick,

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

[RJ_Daley]

Scott, I guess I will have to go back and reference C&Ws book.  I knew of Uncle George's tutelege, but which architectural tradition did they come out of, Wilson?  Who besides Strantz has been spawned out of the Fazio tree?  

Likewise, Nicklaus's organization has had enough associates over the years to have droped a few apples.  Check out the below link and here is a fellow that says he reveres Ross from growing up in Ross country, worked for Von Hegge, and rose to top of Nicklaus organization.  Read his quotes, particularly on green contour philosophy and one can see he dropped out of someone's tree!  

http://www.travelgolf.com/departments/interviews/architects/rick-robbins.htm

[Scott_Burroughs]

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.

[RJ_Daley]

Scott, thanks for mentioning the list of apples coming off of the Nicklaus tree.  I wonder however, if Nicklaus shouldn't have a bit of root springing from the wild seed, Des Muirhead.  Mainly because of the work and study of design Des did with housing integration.  Wasn't the integrated housing more of Des's pioneering than Dye's?

[Lou_Duran]

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.  

[RJ_Daley]

Lou, of course an understudy would naturally want to reach into different design concepts and establish their own unique identity.  But, I think that there are schools of thought, conventional wisdom, learned techniques, and impressions that stay with anyone that understudies with an established 'master'.  I think it takes a very independent minded and well travelled person who has seriously studied the broad spectrum of GCA from the early through the late eras to be able to truly establish an individual identity as the go along.  Also, it takes several individual project efforts.  Perhaps understudies look more like their mentors on their first few solo projects before defining themselves with confidence.  Perhaps a learned approach to routing, or phazing the construction operation methodology, or how to do and/or direct hand work becomes part of the craft that is past down and begins to look like it is from one school or another.

Reading some of the interviews of the construction people that are supporting cast for the established GCA firms, one gets the idea of how much is attributed to learned craft and associate-mentor relationships.  Don't you think you can look at a course and get a sense from which tree the golf course designer/architect dropped or at least was influenced?

I think that many of the construction craftsman in the field can see various design features and say, "oh, that looks like so and so's work".  

[Jim Thompson]

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

[Tom_Doak]

Mike Strantz is as good at "framing" as anyone who ever lived.  He just makes his frames out of different stuff than his mentor.

Speaking for myself, I would not want to try and imitate Pete Dye's style in designing a golf course of my own.  It would be an insult to what I learned from him, and I really don't think anyone can outdo Pete at what he does.  

When I spoke of how we both "engage the player," I was talking about the visual and psychological tricks we think about as we're building a golf course, and also of how we want to treat the Tour player differently than the 12-handicap.  I think Pete's approach to these issues is different than any designer of ten or twenty years ago, and I learned a ton from him in those aspects of design.  It goes a lot deeper than strategic bunkering; it's about how players think and what makes them uncertain or uncomfortable.

[Joe Hancock]

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

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()