Caroline and Gentlemen,
I considered a reply to the thread title "Touring Pros as Architects", but declined, recalling that my earlier "expose" was labeled as a "Brave Post" by many here. And I have never posted anonomously... Well, I intended to once, but accidentally signed it anyway out of habit!
But to refresh memories, the instances where I have collaborated or "ghost designed" a course for a pro usually went something like this....
The pro signs on for use of his name and likeness in advertising, and a specified number of site visits, usually at his going rate for daily outings - $15,000 to I imagine $150,000 for Tiger. The number of visits is usually between 2-7, with 4 average. Of course, the pro retains the right to come more often, but can rarely fit it in his schedule.
Before the project begins, they usually throw in a free day, giving general direction and philosophy, like "make it playable for all" and "I like a traditional courses". While I can't say that any of those comments have ever helped me design a specific feature, I have learned lots about how our best players play the game.
The pros will usually look over the first feature designs, and often offer some insightful comments. Sometimes, they are really good, others, they are along the lines of "Last week I played a great hole at "X" club, and we should have one like that." Then, then, after we do the construction plans, it's on to construction.
One visit is for groundbreaking, one is grand opening, and two to five for actual construction visits. However, during these visits, the media is always present, and we ferry them around, and even I have little time to review the course that day, much less the pro. He may feel like he is offending me by suggesting something in front of the press that is too drastic a change, so he may not say anything. Sometimes, we would stage some field changes for the pro. We would tell him that we have already decided to move a green, etc. and then let him suggest it in front of the adoring press!
Another real problem is if he suggests too much - something that is either technically or budgetarily impossible, given project conditions. Sometimes, a bright press guy will know when he is off base, and I am left in a delicate position of diagreeing with a celebrity, or at least discussing private business in a very public setting!
This is not to suggest that these guys are egotistical or frivoulous. In fact, if they have done any consulting work at all, they ususally are very practical, and can tell what fits into a given construction contract without change orders, etc. If all goes well, he makes a few good suggestions each trip and they are incorporated easily.
As I have said, pure design is about 10% of getting a course built. If the pros 4 days are as valuble as the 40 site days I put in (not to mention the 140 days we may spend drawing the plans, his contribution is from 2-10% of the pure design, which means about .2-1% of the total contribution to the project.....
Once he says "We need a fairway bunker here" and walks away, we have to decide:
How deep should it be?
How should it angle to fit the contours?
Can we make it:
Visible?
Drainable?
Buildable out of, say, rock, or fill?
And so on. If Nick Faldo really goes out and takes pictures of classic courses, I think he is a leg up on most of the others. I don't know about you, but the claim of "seeing the worlds best courses" is more substantial to me if he has photos! Photographic film is always better than "photographic memory" in my book!
Not quite on topic, but most of you would cringe, I assume, at what tour pros have taught me about how they play courses at the highest level.....and how design should acccomodate their games! It's amazing how they factor in everything before playing a shot to maximize chances for success. As a corrollary, they want the course to help them, where possible.
They generally want total visibility, receptivity, few carry bunkers, more flanking bunkers, even more "save bunkers", no humps/bunkers in the middle of the fairway (the middle is the safe shot) and no humps in the middle of the green (see above). If I was that skilled, and playing for that much money, I suppose I would want to reduce the amount of luck involved in any given shot as well.
I played a grand opening with Steve Elkington in South Texas once, after he had assisted with a few consulting visits. Really a nice guy, and also knew a bit about architecture. The sixth hole had a reverse slope with a lower deck, and I was curious to see how he would play it. On the tee, he even commented on the reverse contours. From his position in the fairway, he played it perfectly just right and short of the hole and ran it up. I learned the subtle features don't fool these guys! They really notice things most don't.
I know there are many factors that shape the evolution of golf architecture, but I have to believe the influence of tour pros is one of the biggies. So is marketing. While I sympathize with Tony, the money guys call the shots, and if they feel that names sell memberships and/or tee times, they will use a name.
However, in the Dallas Morning News last week was an article on the demise of the new Westin Hotel by the Texas Motor Speedway. It was foreclosed in a record 45 days, the earliest ever for a hotel to default on its debt.
The article noted that September 11 had an effect, but the real culprit was that it was cross collaterized with the Greg Norman Signature Course, which brought the whole development down!
Now, I'm not saying any other course would have fared better or worse, and Norman's minimalist style was not expensive to build, so cost wasn't the issue. But word from those who know is that Norman insisted on keeping several trees that shaded greens, and leavng greens at "ground level" despite being in the floodplain and adjacent to fast running creeks, and apparently no one with more architectural or agronomic expertise talked him out of it.
When I saw these greens, I knew they would wash away some day, and unluckily for the Westin, it happened the first year, so the course opened with several temporary greens, and many other suffering from shade. Play dissapeared. No name is enough to overcome a 13 Green/18 Hole golf course, so more experience/less marketing may have paid dividends in that design! Hard to believe racing fans would care if they played a Greg Norman or a Moe Norman...as long as it had 18 greens!
Arhcitects, historians and architecture buffs like accurate credit, and it's frustrating to think of pros getting more credit than they deserve. One guy who tried to stem this was Ron Whitten. He looks for who really does the work, and I am grateful for that.
Jeff