Architectural "shapers" and "detail men" supreme

[TEPaul]

The more I look at GeoffShac's book on "Cypress Point" the more stunned I am by the extreme beauty, the extreme detail, the extreme "natural look" of the architecture, particularly the bunkering at Cypress Point the day it opened for play. It seems unusual that a course of that era would look so "mature" and "natural" the day it opened. Merion, by contrast, took a few decades to develop such "natural looking" architecture, particularly the bunkering!

I've talked a bit to GeoffShac, and some others about this and it appears that although much credit for Cypress surely goes to MacKenzie, Hunter, Morse and Hollins that much credit for the extreme beauty of the architectural features and their detail should go to a group of "shapers" and "detail men" from Europe, particularly Ireland, that were well known to MacKenzie.

They are particularly Paddy Cole (credited with the final shaping of the hazards), Dan Gormley and his first cousin Jack Fleming as supervisors, and preliminary earthmoving work by Michael McDonagh. These men seem to have worked on Cypress and Pebble.

John Bernhardt also recently sent off some old correspondence between MacKenzie and Morse over the inability of the Pebble superindendent to work to some of  MacKenzie's specifications. MacKenzie was obviously very demanding about his detail specifications of construction and was in no way beating around the bush in his detailed letter to Morse over his dissatisfaction with the Pebble superindentent! Was it these MacKenzie "shapers" and "detail men" the Pebble super was having a hard time working with?

I must say from what I can see from early photos of Cypress, Pebble and some of the other "Monterey School" courses that I've never seen architecture so otherworldly beautiful and "natural looking" in such a detailed sense! Frankly, I've never seen any architecture, particularly on opening, that's even remotely close to what they did in the so-called "Monterey School" of architecture!

So who were these "shapers" and "detail men" supreme? Where did MacKenzie find them in Europe and what did they work with him on over there? Who else did Paddy Cole et al work with and what are some of the other courses this group worked on? They had to have developed a "style" before coming to California, but maybe not! Maybe they were just very site specific and very good at imitating the "nature" of wherever they worked?

Basically they were the best I've ever seen!

[Tom Doak]

The people to ask about this would be John Fleming, the ex-super of Olympic, or Bob Beck, the historian at Pasatiempo.

John Fleming spoke of all the people you mentioned as drinking buddies of his dad's, who spent much time around the family house in his youth.  Most of them came from Ireland with Fleming in 1927 to do the construction work at The Meadow Club.  Before that they had apparently been working on MacKenzie's courses for a few years, not just in Ireland [Little Island, Lahinch] but in England as well, under Charles MacKenzie's construction company.

Bob Beck has been trying to find out more information about these guys for a few years now.

Frankly, though, I don't think that those guys were any better at finish shaping than Coore and Crenshaw's crew, or my own.  Maybe they just got better instruction.  Or maybe they didn't do as much at Cypress Point as you think -- just like you can't really tell what of Pacific Dunes is shaped and what isn't.

[TEPaul]

TomD:

Thanks for the info. Maybe some of the California contributors on here know how to get in touch with those you mentioned for more information on those MacKenzie guys.

I agree with you that the detailed finish work they did is not better than the detailed bunker work done by you, Coore & Crenshaw or Gil Hanse's company. It is different to me in its look though--that doesn't mean better--just different.

I disagree, however, that you cannot see what they did. Because some of the pre-construction and post construction photos are so good you can see exactly what they did and didn't do in minute detail. Hole #9 is the absolute best example. If those photos were not available, however, I, for one, would have little idea of what was built and what wasn't.

You can clearly see that the entire hole (#9) was almost "laid on" the entire natural shape of the preconstruction land. You can see where they built some bunkers and where they used for other bunkers most of the dunsy sand formations just as they were and basically just finished the edges in very fine, almost "lacy" style. That's what's so striking to me--those miniscule "lacy" little edges, some of which seem even an  inch or two in dimension!

I don't think I would say that the look of the bunkering at the opening of Cypress is necessarily MORE natural looking than some of the detailed bunker work you did at Pacific Dunes--probably less so. The work you did seems far more rugged and consequently probably more natural looking than even the original bunkers of Cypress. Cypress's are absolutely beautiful though in that fine and random "lacy" look. They look so fine and "lacy" it seems hard to believe they could have lasted long in that look for a variety of reasons!

But your bunkering is certainly as beautiful but in its rugged look and I would definitely have a harder time figuring out what was natural and what was built at Pacific Dunes than I would have at the opening of Cypress. Again, the only way I could do it at Pacific Dunes (as anyone could) would be with really good pre and post construction photos!

For instance, I never would have figured out that some of the short bunkering on #11 at Pacific Dunes was made by you. I can't even see that some of it would come into play for anyone and for that I like the fact not only of how it looks but also that you put it there anyway as it "ties in" the bunkering that does come into play well in a general sense and look throughout the overall course.

Some mighty call putting bunkers in some of the places you did at Pacific Dunes that might never come into play using bunkering as "eye candy". I wouldn't say that about Pacific Dunes at all, although I might on another course where all the bunkering is clearly made by the constructors.

I make that distinction because clearly much of the dunsy bunkering at PD is completely natural and probably was never touched by you and the fact that what you did do is actually indistinguishable from what is natural is to me the ultimate goal apparently hoped for by some of the Golden Agers to almost totally hide their architectural hand--at least with bunkering.

Obviously this can be done more easily at a site like Pacific Dunes that did have a plethora of natural dunsy sand formations preconstruction and naturally, as did Cypress Point. But I even like the way Hanse did it at Applebrook by randomly putting bunkering in places that never do come into play and tying the look of it all together throughout the site. Same with a lot of what was done at Easthampton and Friar's Head and also Rustic Canyon!

[Bob_Huntley]

TEPaul:

I am going out to play Cypress in about ninety minutes and will be chatting with Jim Langley before teeing off. I'll ask about the Irish contingent. Do let me know if I can pose some other questions to him that come to mind.

Bob

[TEPaul]

Bob;

I believe I heard somewhere that Jim Langley really knows his stuff about Cypress and all its history.

Actually there is one thing I wish you would ask him about, although it might not really be something particularly answerable. That is that the "look" of Cypress, on opening, and particularly those incredibly detailed, fine and lacy bunkers that seemed unusually "low profiled" in certain parts of them, seem to me to be something that didn't have much chance of surviving in how they were originally created!

To me the massive amounts of sand in close proximity to the fairways and greens seemed destined to be quickly pummeled by wind and weather and to basically blow right onto the greens and fairway areas!!

As beautiful as the massive amounts of bunkering was that's what they looked in danger of to me. I wonder if Jim Langley might know something about that?

[TEPaul]

Bob:

Another reason I say that is the unique "imitation sand dunes" of Pebble apparently were also very difficult to maintain and eventually were changed apparently for that reason. They had some of the same low profile and fragile look to them that some of the bunkering of Cypress had in the beginning. Also did Paddy Cole and the other Irish guys work on the bunkering of Pebble for Mackenzie or I guess eventually Chandler Egan?

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Doak:

Much as I love Geoff Shackelford's CP book (and appreciate Mackenzie's effort to document his work), I am, naturally, hoping your Pacific Dunes book will even surpass it.

It particular, I'm hoping you will opt for a greater quantity of pre-construction photos.  The best Mackenzie did was with #9.  I'm guessing that there would be many interesting examples for Pacific Dunes, including:

#1 Green
#3 Green (viewed from 100-150 yards)
#6 (from the tee area)
#7 Green (viewed from 100-150 yards)
#11 (from the tee)
#13 (as much as possible)
#14 (from the tee or the hill above the tee)
#16 (fairway landing area)
#17 (from the tee)
#18 (from the back tee)

And, probably several you figured out that I missed.

Let us know if there is an update on publication date.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Paul:

I can't offer anything on the guys Mackenzie used, but I am curious how many real "artists" you think exist today.

Does the list go much beyond:

C&C's boys
TD's people
Gil & Co
Mike DeVries

[TEPaul]

Tim:

At this point the list doesn't go much beyond those that you mentioned but that doesn't mean it doesn't. It only means that's the only ones I actually know of that consistently seem to build that kind of bunkering and such! There might be lot more out there, I just don't know who they are. I guess certainly Procter and Axland.

Even some of the bunkering at Galloway by Fazio is quite amazing! Why? I have no real idea! I guess the client wanted it that way and the client, not so much the actual architecture seems to be the priority to Tom Fazio--at least that's what he's said and written! But at least I know he CAN do it if he wants to or if someone wants him to!

[TEPaul]

I should add at Fazio's Galloway not all the bunkers are natural looking to me--just some of them! Why it's that way I have no idea--maybe he believes in complete randomness of look! I think I can buy into complete randomness in "playability" in a sense but maybe not in "look".

[Jim_Kennedy]

TEPaul,
Do you think it may have had something to do with the locale in which they worked? Once you get away from the sea or the sand hills bunkers  have an unnatural look. Even when they mature there is a small lie going on every time one is used inland, no?  Perhaps it's more honest to not try and create bunkers that look natural or have a sprung-from-the-earth look when building away from the sea.

[Mike O'Neill]

We should be careful to be inclusive when we start deciding who and who is not an "artist". There are far more than listed above. There is probably some 19 year-old kid out there right now with a shovel and a rake in his/her hand creating something special even as I type. We just don't know it.

And as for art, it is the act of creating. Just because someone has a predisposition toward a certain form or look, does not mean that other forms or styles or looks are not artistic. And when you look at it that way, the number of "artists" has to go way, way up.

[Tim_Weiman]

Mike O'Neill:

I hope what you are saying is true.  Can you you cite another 5-10 names and the specific work they have done?

[Mike_Young]

Tim,
This is definitely not an inclusive topic.
As Mike O'Neil says :: "There are far more out there that are as good as the ones you mention."  I don't care to mention the 5 or 10 that you ask but just out of memory I will tell you of one.

I used a shaper/builder/finisher for several years named Craig Metz.  He shaped for Fazio in Fazio's early years as well as several other prominent names but he would rather be with someone that would give him his creativity and then reign it in.  Some thought him Eccentric and crazy at best; but aren't we all.

Craig always had his own crew of helpers and was so damned particular that he would only place gravel in a green trench with a 5 gallon bucket. Many task that are now done with machines he would only do by hand because that is the way the old guys did it.  ..SLOW... He kept his crew together for years. I...If he didn't like what you did ; he would not work.... Most of the guys were from Mexico and he would have them doing calesthentics at 5:30 am every morning.  He would have a diiferent one cooking lunch each day.  And they all knew there job.
On days off; Craig would be at some older course with a camera ; taking shots from all angles; talking to the old members or pro and just being totally absorbed in the golf experience.
Craig was almost 58 year when he was found dead in his quarters after he did not show up for work one day a couple of years back.  

You may have heard the name Metz before.  His father was Hogan's running mate and was the pro at Shady Oaks Country Club before his death and at Westchester b4 that..  He finished 2nd or 3rd in the Masters one year and he used to travel with Hogan during the Fla, stretch.  

Craig caddied for Hogan (He actually let me meet Hogan when Craig's father died) Craig was an All American Golfer at East Texas and was inducted into their Sports Hall of Fame. Worked some at Westchester CC as an asst . He played the tour for several years and actually won the Riviera Open at Riviera Beach in S. Fla some years back.  This man was a true addict to golf course features.  He never stopped. He was still an active PGA member when he died.   I still have some of his collection of photos etc. including the famed "Baders Bible" of Pine Valley fame.  FYI  "Baders Bible" was an essay on how to prepare a course for tournament play written by a past supt at PV named Bader.  
This man went from excellent player to shaper and did this for over 25 years.  I can promise you he was at the top.  

Mike

[Tim_Weiman]

Mike Young:

Thank you for your enjoyable post.  I seem to recall that Brad Klein has encouraged us to appreciate the contribution made by "the boys", i.e., the work done by shapers and detail men.  I agree with Brad.

Are there many "artists" practicing today?  Mike ONeill seems to think so.  I don't know.  I cited the ones I was aware of hoping to encourage other names and the projects they worked on to be identified.

Let's hope Mike O'Neill can offer 5-10 examples and other people can do so as well.

[TEPaul]

For really good detail men out there, let's just say great bunkermen, that maybe haven't been mentioned much here, I'm totally certain that Mike O'Neil is right!

When I mentioned the usual few companies generally mentioned on here I sure didn't mean to imply there were only a handful of these guys out there! I, for one, just don't know them all, that's for sure.

But just some of those I do know that may not have been mentioned much before (and again just the limited number I happen to know). The interesting thing is when you do mention some of these guys as having a great eye and/or having real talent to construct, inevitably some of the architects will respond; "Yeah, but you shouldn't really mention them because they really haven't paid their "dues" the way some of the architects have."

Well, I don't care so much about "dues" but I'm real certain many of these guys have at least a real "eye" to catch the distinctions and fine nuances between many things that are created that look natural about architecture and many things that are created that don't!

Some of them are real young too! All of them have at least a great eye and others the talent to create natural looking architecture too, particularly bunkering!

I'll just list a bunch of them that all have great eyes and many the talent to create too (the list should be at least 10-15).

Kye Goalby
Brian Schneider
Jeff Mingay
Rod Whitman
Axland and Proctor
Jim Craig
Jeff Bradley!!!
Bill Kittleman!!
Rodney Hine
Jim Wagner
Geoff Shackelford
A few of Doak's boys whose work I've seen but names I don't know well.
James Duncan
A young man whose name I can't remember who a really respected architect (from another company) on here said is just an awesome natural bunker talent!
Etc, etc!

Those are just some I've heard of and seen the work of or know, there's obviously a good deal more I've never heard of!

Mike Young:

That was a nice story about Metz!

[Peter Galea]

I'll nominate two shapers I got to know well during construction at HMB Ocean, Gary Fredrick and Scott Hall.
Both could "paint" with the blade. Gary is an artistic finisher, while not the fastest, he has real vision from plans or verbal instructions. I've lost touch with Scott, but Gary will be the man at my project. Along with his wife Keiko (his grade setter) they make a great team.

[SPDB]

I remember reading an article about/or by Randy Trull (sp?), who shaped for a number of years for Fazio. He was the shaper on Shadow Creek.

I'd be interested to hear his story about shaping a totally featureless, dead flate property.

Anybody else know this guy?

[Peter Galea]

Randy was the project manager at HMB Ocean, he helped me immensely and guided the project to completion. I will call him and see if he'll contribute. He's got some great stories.

[Mike O'Neill]

Tim,

I reacted to the word "real" in your post and that is where my post came from. I do not know why the word was in quotes but I just wanted to throw in my two cents worth. Occasionally there are posts on this website that suggest something is "real"--"real" artists, more "natural" golf features, "real" golf as opposed to golf played with a cart, etc. I don't know his or her name, but I promise you there is someone (many someones in fact) out there doing good shaping and finish work. I would even start with anyone that can tie a course together so that it drains properly--no birdbaths, for example. Somewhere out there is someone who is following some computer generated "Arnold Palmer" design who is simply matching grade stakes. But if that same individual was given a chance, he or she would be creating something directly in the field. I am willing to bet that most major cities have one or two construction companies with the potential for artistic dirtwork.

Not to focus on race, but let's give the Hispanic workers that populate the golf construction industry a serious nod. Not to forget everyone else who deserves credit, but I have to say that I have met many an Hispanic individual who has an uncanny knack for finishwork. I have met individuals who I would swear have levels in there brains somehow. They totally have a feel for gravity as it relates to dirtwork. I have seen individuals who can work a shovel and a rake and a backhoe as well as a bulldozer with the skill of an artist.

Again, I just didn't want this thread to forget the little guys/gals, the forgotten ones and the never-given-credit ones here on this website---whoever they are. And I think the thread has moved in that direction. I like it!

[TEPaul]

Bulldozer artists? OK, OK, OK!

But for really fine "detail work" how about some really good handwork like on bunkering and the edges! No can do with a bulldozer artist.

On the other side of the coin if anyone can name a single person at superpopular MacDonald & Co. that has any idea how to do really good handwork or even cares to try I'd frankly be really shocked!

[Tim_Weiman]

Mike O'Neill,

It certainly was not my intent to denigrate the forgotten souls who contribute so much to golf projects, i.e., the shapers and detail men.

Rather, I was interested in hearing opinions about how many really talented people there were in this area.  The guys I cited were those I am familiar with.  If there truly are many more, I am delighted to hear that.

Also, if Tom Paul was trying to suggest that certain projects deserve real "artists", than I agree with Tom completely.

[Doug Wright]

Last November I was visiting my parents near Wilmington NC and we went out to a new course called Castle Bay owned and designed by a fellow named Randy Hampton. I understood it was his first and only design, kind of his labour of love, etc. so I was skeptical. So when I went in to register I spoke with the assistant about the course, Randy, etc., and his primary comment was "Randy had really good shapers!" I took this thought out to the course, and you know that assistant was right! Many of the greens and surrounds were really well thought out and added a lot of fun and interest to what could have been a rather mundane course. In particular I remember a par 3 on the front side that had a fallaway back pin position that was just incredible, and a green on a par 5 on the back that Doak and his Pacific Dunes shapers could have created. Who were they? Who knows! But it just goes to show that there are many talented individulas out there in GCA-land working hard to get it right.

All The Best,

[Tom Doak]

For the record, the list of my crew whose names Tom Paul can't remember include Jim Urbina, Bruce Hepner, Brian Slawnik, Don Placek, and Eric Iverson.  Jim, Brian, and Eric are all here now at Texas Tech, along with Kye Goalby and Jack Dredla, who's on sabbatical from Coore & Crenshaw.

Tom's list was pretty short-sighted, because he's only familiar with three or four design firms.  I know a lot of the guys he listed and what they can do, and some are way more accomplished than others, IMHO.

There are a lot of talented people out there.  We've got a trackhoe operator from Golf Works on the job in Lubbock who's doing some terrific-looking stuff, now that Jim Urbina got him on track and loosened up; but I guarantee he's never done anything like this before.

The shaper Chip Macdonald had for us in Atlantic City, Wayne [sorry, but I've spaced his last name for the moment], also did outstanding work, although he didn't take it down to the hand-work level.  In fact, we didn't try to put that kind of detail into Atlantic City, because we were convinced that the client wouldn't appreciate it and the contractor would have a hard time building it.

Jerame Miller, who shaped Lost Dunes for Landscapes Unlimited, was one of the most creative guys I've ever worked with -- again, a great operator who'd never had a chance to go out on a limb before and build something really cool.  He took to it in no time.

Mike Strantz has some great guys who work for him, including a couple who worked with me and Gil at The Legends ten years ago.  And Bruce Grant in Australia has managed to put together some guys who can build Sand Belt quality bunkers all day long.

I'm not sure that Mike O'Neill is right that every town has a couple of contractors who could do superb work -- my experience is that there's one shaper out of every five who's got some creative talent, who could be a star if you spent a couple of years with him teaching him about golf and showing him good stuff.  

By the same token, you could take a guy with the golf and design background and probably have a one in five chance of teaching him how to be a great equipment operator in the same two-year period.  [Three of the five would be "above" the bulldozer-operator lifestyle, and the other just wouldn't be able to run the machinery.]  

We used to do that all the time in the Dye organization, but it's tougher for me to do it now, because none of our clients ever wants to let us train a guy -- they want the best guys we have, right away.  And when you're building on properties like Pacific Dunes, no way we're letting someone freelance and take a chance on destroying what's already there.

[RTrull]

Gentlemen,
Pete Galea called and invited me to respond to a question asked earlier in this forum on shaping a flat, featureless site such as we had at Shadow Creek. It's true it doesn't get much more bland than the Shadow Creek site. We had 400 acres of land with about 4 ft of fall across it and the tallest thing growing on the site was about knee-high.

It's my opinion that a flat site presents any architect with the greatest design challenge in golf. Fazio (and I have to mention his field rep, Andy Banfield, here because I believe Andy is among the most talented designers in the country and he receives very little recognition) was able to overcome that at SC because he had an unlimited budget. We moved millions of CY of material there, digging 40 ft deep "canyons" in the desert floor and placing all the excavated material between each of the fairways.

Actually, the shaping at Shadow Creek wasn't all that much of a challenge. The most difficult thing was to get used to working on such "massive" land forms. One of the cardinal rules in shaping is that you do not create straight lines in the contours. But when working on such a big scale, it feels like you're creating straight lines when, in reality, you aren't. If we had shaped the slopes like we normally would on most projects, the slopes would have looked "chopped up" and unnatural in that setting.

I don't know that I would say SC is the most natural looking GC. But I would say that it's as natural looking as you can get on a site where virtually every sf of the property was created artificially.

It was a blast to work on that project, every morning it looked like we were mobilizing an army with all the equipment we had rolling out of the yard. We had so many pieces of equipment there that fuel trucks filled, greased and maintained the equipment literally all night every night.

Steve Wynn was great to work with, he never compromised on anything. In fact, in order to make sure each hole was what he and Fazio envisioned, after shaping and before we installed drainage and irrigation, we "painted" each hole with paper hydromulch (no seed). The fairways were "painted" with a lighter mix and the rough areas with a heavier mix in order to achieve  the right colors. The bunkers were outlined and left the natural white of the caliche we were working with. This was an incredibly expensive process just to see what a hole would look like once it was grassed!

It's been some time now since I shaped a golf hole, but having trained a number of shapers, I'll say this, it has always amazed me that you can take a great dozer operator, a guy that can unbutton your shirt with dozer blade, but very few seem to have the ability to shape a golf course.  I think this is because most operators learn their trade on projects that demand straight, angular, linear thinking, such as road or site development projects. It's difficult to let go of that mind-set. Of course, the first order of business is to make it function as a golf course, keeping in mind playability, drainage and maintenance concerns. But then, you've got to make it move, to make it look like mother nature simply created those contours over the years by the process of erosion.  A truly great shaper just has a natural ability to achieve this. You can teach it to some degree, but it is difficult to find the guy that has that "eye", and the operating talent to realize that vision.

I think it takes years to reach that level, and it requires working with a number of different designers. Each designer has specific things they place an emphasis on...with some it may be hiding the cart paths (a necessary evil imposed by economics, the gc owner has to make a profit... we all suffer with each course that fails financially), for others, it may be horizon lines, or ease of maintenance, or shadows, etc, etc. But a great shaper will take the values learned from one architect, and apply that knowledge to the next project by a different designer.

I hope I haven't rambled on too much, and I appreciate you letting me put my "2-cents" in regarding shapers...they are the unsung heroes of golf course design and it's refreshing to hear others acknowledge that fact.

Thank you,
Randy Trull