[TEPaul]

.....passed through the ranks of greenskeeping and superintendency on there way to becoming architects?

What do you suppose that did for their abilities or styles or techniques in golf course architecture?

Obviously there were a ton of them that came up through that route particularly in the old days. I'll name just a few:

From antiquity in architecture:

Alan Robertson and Old Tom Morris

From the Golden Age:

William Flynn who the Wilsons said in the teens was the most efficient greenskeeper in America, particularly in his cost accounting and economic efficiencies. His daughter and others said he always loved everything about grasses, trees etc. I wonder if that was why most of Flynn's bunkering was supposed to take on character over time through random growing and evolution.

From the modern era:

Pete Dye and Bill Coore, and I think my old buddy Paul Cowley.


There're tons of others, I'm sure, and I wonder what some of them think coming up through greenkeeping and superintendency did for their outlook on golf course architecture.

[RJ_Daley]

Perhaps one of the best known modern is Dr. Michael Hurdzan.  I think plenty of other modern archies worked on golf course crews or studied turf.  Mike DeVries was on the crew of Crystal Downs as a student, I think.  

The Foulis Bros., were heavily into greenskeeping, as was Wm Diddel back in the days.

One question about this idea of being indoctrinated in golf course maintenance first might be;  is being too sympathetic to the maintenance issues an inhibiting factor in creative design?  There might be a certain balance to be struck between the two disciplines.

[Scott Witter]

Tom:

I spent 9 years in the bizz of greenskeeping and it has had a considerable influence on my design thoughts and my ability to further understand the game from many points of skill.  During my tenure, I was very fortunate to work at private, public and resort courses, which IMO, gave me further insight into the relationship between design and maintenance and the philosophies of ownership to support the designs, or not, to bring about the intent as it was meant to be.

To be very honest, I loved this work and as a teenager and even into my early twentys, I was convinced it was the best job and young man could have.  Furthermore, this is where my true passion and love for the game and architecture developed within.  It gave me the perfect opportunity to really "see" the landscape and understand key relationships between it, design and how golfers responded.

I could go on, but I have a meeting later today and a concept still to develop.

[A_Clay_Man]

While not a super, I believe our own Mike Young got his ears wet learning from supers, being in the turf equiptment and/or grass business.

Even my buddy Edward would never have attempted the construction of Little Diamond had he not been working on the course everyday.

Tom Paul, Ask Adam Messix about the Little Diamond. He was a recent visitor while travelling through the area.

[John Yerger]

Emil "Dutch"Loeffer rose from the caddy ranks at Oakmont to head superintendent in 1919 and served in that capacity until 1948. He also was head professional at Oakmont from 1927 through 1948. He and John MCGlynn, who preceded him as superintendent at Oakmont, established there own design and construction business.He was also a very fine player. He won several Pennsylvania Open and West Penn Open titles.

[Tom_Doak]

Bobby Weed was a superintendent for several years before setting out as an architect.

[Ron Farris]

TEPaul - My father was a greenskeeper in the Sandhills of Nebraska.  Oddly enough everyone wanted a parkland golf course and they planted trees.  At the age of 12 I watched my first British Open on TV and realized that everyone was foolish.  I had hoped to be a second generation superintendent and I attended the School of Golf Operations in Florida.  I interned with Bobby Weed at Long Cove and fell in love with GC construction.  I also worked under Cal Roth(Director of Maintenance for TPC courses) in Colorado before jumping from maintenance to construction. I never really had an intention of being a GC designer, but after following the Pete Dye family around the world playing in the dirt I was thrown into golf course design in Japan where I managed to get a couple golf courses finished at the end of their golf boom.  Returning to the states I have been fortunate enough to continue to dabble in design.

Maintenance plays a huge part of the work that I do.  
 
 

[TEPaul]

"Maintenance plays a huge part of the work that I do."

Ron:

Could you supply us with some examples that effected you most that way.

Thanks for the post.  

[Jeff_Mingay]

Little known fact: Rod Whitman spent time working as a greenkeeper in Alberta before designing and building his first golf course.

[Ron Farris]

While working on Dye golf courses we often built steep grades that had to be mowed by hand - the dreaded flymow.  As for design and maintenance I have tried to concenrate on having similar lines and angles that I learned from Dye to create shot values.  These areas have hazards such as bunkers or water. All other area that surround greens or fairway bunkers must be mowable with a riding unit.  At the Red Rock golf club we went with a native look for bunkers that were grassed with native grasses (bluestem, etc.) and what vertical that exists is sand that is raked once a week or so.  The maintenance budget at RR is much less than $400,000.  

I am not sure what the maintenance budget is at Pete Dye's Plum Creek in Castle Rock, CO,(a reasonabe course to compare)  but I would imagine it is near $800,000.  

[JESII]

Tom,

Perhaps a question that could/should go along with this thread is....How much influence does a superintendent have in the design process? Obviously this could only occur when the developer has chosen a super early enough in the process, but I think that may more prevalent now than in the past. I believe Mike Nuzzo's project in Texas is benefiting from Don Mahaffey being on site now (just info I have surmised from recent discussions on here, if I'm wrong please let me know). The architects on here could certainly chime in with real knowledge.

My opinion is that if ongoing maintenance concerns are not at the forefront of the architects mind throughout the construction process the course is destined to suffer in one way or another.

[Kevin Atkinson]

I can tell you that I worked on a maintenance crew at a private club for almost 2 years.  Not to mention the work at a private club pro shop (1 year), bag room (1 year), playing competitive jr golf and amateur golf on a state level (10 years) and working with a Landscapes Unlimited (golf contractor) for a few years before I became a golf architect.  I can say from my point of view that working in every one of these different jobs within the golf industry significantly influences my approach to design.

[Tony_Muldoon]

In 1851 at the age of 30 Willie Dunn was appointed 'Keeper of the Green' at Blackheath. In 1854 he was joined by his brother Jamie.

1851-4 Old Tom Morris was the first 'Keeper of the Green' at Prestwick and then later at St Andrews.

It seems there is something of a tradition.  Are there any earlier examples? It seems to me at this point the role of Keeper of the Green and Architect were one and the same, as the courses were evolving and being changed in response to the surge in popularity in golf following the introduction gutta in 1948.

[Stuart Hallett]

I've received formal education for both greenkeeping and GCA, but nothing can replace the YEARS of daily observation on the ground as a greenkeeper. You establish a very good understanding of landforms, invaluable when contouring designs. Literature on design guidelines tends to be understandably conservative, but when a number of parameters allow, severe shaping can still be maintained with ride-on machines, if intelligently built. I've paced out and even surveyed hundreds of slopes, humps and hollows before the golfers have digested their breafast.  

Other benefits are too long to list, but simply digging holes or trenches teaches you a lot about soil structures and the movement of water, paramount for agronomic success.

I sense a common belief that greenkeepers dilute designs for maintenance reasons, I disagree. I simply believe that we are realists, and have the necessary knowledge to push the limits without going overboard. I am not suggesting that greenkeeping experience is compulsory for good design, but it is certainly helping me with my humble beginnings as a GCA.

[ForkaB]

As usual, Donald Ross is forgotten.....

[TEPaul]

"I sense a common belief that greenkeepers dilute designs for maintenance reasons, I disagree. I simply believe that we are realists, and have the necessary knowledge to push the limits without going overboard."

Stuart;

That just could be the most valuable remark on here by far. I wouldn't say let the superintendent get involved in designing a course but I think one could be on hand with the on-going advice of "Can do, no can do, or can do and here's what it'll cost". If that kind of collaboration is completely non-existence things may be done that aren't going to last that long anyway for obvious reasons (difficulty of maintenance).

[Sean_A]

As usual, Donald Ross is forgotten.....

Poor old Donald.  Perhaps Jaka B is correct.  Maybe the ghost of Donald needs to hibernate until the temperatures are more welcoming.

Ciao

Sean

[Mark_Fine]

Willie Watson was another one who worked as a greenkeeper.  Does anyone see a pattern with many of these guys.  I know Stuart to some extent might disagree but wasn't ongoing maintenance of their courses at the forefront of their thinking when it came to many of their designs.  Weren't they more conservative in their work compared to a Mackenzie or a Thomas?  My feeling is a definite yes in many of the cases.  If they didn't think it could be maintained or might be difficult to maintain, they often didn't try it.  Sometimes that approach worked fine, others times opportunities might be lost for something more dramatic and unique.  This is not at all surprising if you think about it.

[Sean_A]

Mark

I have long believed that guys who designed courses in the old days kept maintenance at the forefront of their thoughts.  They also had much less of a budget to design with.  It is a miracle that there are some surviving holes from the 1800s.  These holes should serve as a testiment to the talents of the old boys rather than reasons for denigrating their design principles.

Ciao

Sean

[Mark_Fine]

Sean,
It is nothing denigrating, it is just an observation.  Both sides have pros and cons.  For example, would some of those guys do things different today around their greens because you need 8 to 10 feet to turn a triplex riding mower?  Maybe they would?

[Sean_A]

Mark

I didn't mean to imply that you were denigrating the old boys.  Just that the old boys are often derided for their designs when in fact some of these holes have yet to be bettered even today.  I have no doubt that the old boys would have joined the machinery band wagon to some degree or another.  However, I doubt they would often have allowed machinery to dictate design.

Ciao

Sean

[Stuart Hallett]

Mark,

I understand perfectly your comments, and in some cases this may be true.

I believe that honesty and greenkeeping experience helps the architect identify areas of what I call "Luxury maintenance" and communicate solutions to GK or client.

Every greenkeeper allocates X hours for luxury maintenance, often flymo or strimmer work. And if the architect can justify this work, then maintenance staff usually accepts it. Greenkeeping experience makes this justification easier and credible. This factor favours unique and dramatic design features that maybe other GCA's would not negotiate so well.

I had an example last week at a prestigious club with a big budget. The machine operator asked if he could cut off a nose I had designed on a bunker, to save flymo work. After comparing labour costs versus aesthethic appeal, he agreed with me and did a very good shaping job.

[Mark_Fine]

Here is an exception as I believe Bill Coore spent some time working as a Superintendent.



But there aren't too many guys from this group of architects that might build a bunker complex like this.  Does this look like something you would see at your local Donald Ross layout?    

[Mark_Fine]

Stuart,
I have the upmost respect for Superintendents and actually have arrangements with several for supporting consultation work on many of my projects.  Their expertise is invaluable!!  I'm happy to say that our book on hazards is already being used and evaluated at turf grass schools as the more training these guys can get in golf architecture, the better Superintendents they will be.  At least that is the way I feel about it.  I assume you would agree.
Mark

[Stuart Hallett]

Mark,

Absolutely !

It was a small introduction to GCA during my greenkeeping studies that sparked my interest.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()