[Mike_Young]

Read the Crystal downs thread.  The "interpretation" of golf architect resumes has been a problem for years.  Today it is almost a joke.
Even today this website has people posing as architects lsiting work on courses where they may have seen a bunker and asked if they could write a report and list it on their resume.  They pay their own expenses to the club and never charge a dime for the "report"....just list it on their resume.
I have seen club committees tell me that a particular person "restored" this championship venue etc but upon careful examination of the resume, the person may have made one trip to see one tee and written one report.
As more and more guys decide they are "architects" it is becoming a bigger problem.....some of these guys are retired or have TFB situations and just want to "play".
IMHO it is nothing more than MISREPRESENTATION.....
If I go to a club for a day and write a report..odds are it never goes on my list.....but that is me.....
Hyping a resume is to be expected in most cases but where do you draw the line.

[Tom_Doak]

Mike:

We're in agreement on this.  I've always kept my name from being mentioned in the top 100 lists at the courses we consult, and I've finally had some success in getting them to stop giving active designers credit for the classics, unless they really totally revamped a course.

But, it's not a new phenomenon.  In the old days, Dr. MacKenzie credited himself with a "redesign" for every course he looked at.  Back then, it was partly true ... clubs did not see any wisdom in retaining the architect to supervise construction, so in many cases, MacKenzie only made one or two visits and the course was completely changed based on that brief input.  In fact, he designed a lot of them the same way.

[Mike_Young]

Tom,
You say :
"But, it's not a new phenomenon.  In the old days, Dr. MacKenzie credited himself with a "redesign" for every course he looked at.  Back then, it was partly true ... clubs did not see any wisdom in retaining the architect to supervise construction, so in many cases, MacKenzie only made one or two visits and the course was completely changed based on that brief input.  In fact, he designed a lot of them the same way."

didn't another guy do about 350 that same way?

[wsmorrison]

It does seem to be especially egregious in your industry, Mike.  

I know of an architect that was trying to get a job on a Flynn course that mentioned his restoration experience at another Flynn course.  It so happens that architect submitted a master plan that was not accepted yet he still credited himself for doing a Flynn restoration and it was a factor in swaying the club.  The architect proclaimed to this same club that they had the original green drawings and they were using them to restore the golf course in a manner sympathetic to Flynn.  Well, I supplied them what original course drawings existed and there were no green drawings.  The work they did was not based on original designs and ultimately bore no resemblance to Flynn.  It was looked just like one of many of his modern designs.  

I blame the architect for misrepresenting his resume and  the work he intended to do.  However, I blame the club even more so for not conducting a better due diligence and being ultimately responsible for what happens.  This was a very expensive project that took much longer and had excessive cost overruns.  The committee and executive board really fell asleep at the wheel and did not serve the membership well.  

[Yannick Pilon]

As I was browsing through Brad Klein's book on Donald Ross, I was amazed to see how many courses he had designed....

Just for fun, I counted all the courses he had designed that officially opened in 1923.  The number astounded me.

27 courses designed in one year, all credited to the same man!  You could also take any year in that decade, and the number would probably be similar!

While I would not dare criticize anything about this incredible man, I find numbers like this to be downright laughable!

We are three associates in my firm working for two architects, and we have a tough time to keep track of everything when we have a few courses under construction during any given year, with computers and today's mean of transportation....

Am I the only one who thinks there is something weird here?  

YP

[Mike_Young]

Wayne,
Master Plan submission is one of the most obvious misrepresentations.  And committees rarely pickup on it.  
I have heard talk on here for a year of a masterplan at a particular well known course out west.....and the guy isn't even in the running.....
I think sometimes that architecture is going the way of some of the Florida Senior Tours where a guy can say he is playing the tour .....but all he is really doing is paying fees to play golf and can't break 75 or 80.  OH the glamour of the golf business.....

[Yannick Pilon]

30 courses in 1927!!!

Wow!  

[Mike_Young]

Yannick,
Why would you not dare criticize DR???   IMHO that is half the problem here.
Mike

[Joe Hancock]

Why would you not dare criticize DR???   IMHO that is half the problem here.

What's the other half?

Joe

[Yannick Pilon]

I don't know much about him, and I have not played any of his courses, so I can't say much....

But he does seem to have left a pretty good legacy of courses, even with the crazy numbers and the interrogations they raise in me.

YP

[Mike_Young]

Joe,
the other half?
Donald Ross Psychics....seeing things he never knew existed.....simply amazing.....

[Doug Bolls]

I recently played 2 Donald Ross Courses - Wellshire G.C. in Denver and Shawnee C.C. in Topeka - I can't find any evidence that Donald Ross ever set foot on either of these properties - my guess is that he "designed" them from topos and sent the plans to the crew on sight for construction.
I would be happy to hear from anyone who can tell me I am wrong about this.
DB

[Tom_Doak]

Doug:

I don't know the specifics of the two courses you mentioned, but clearly, Ross did a great number of courses where he did a routing and maybe some greens plans based on a topo map, and saw the course one or less times during its construction.

Still, a lot of them turned out to be pretty good.  A good routing is a great head start for somebody to build a golf course.

In truth, I don't think Mike intends (as he states) to criticize Donald Ross.  He was maybe one step removed from a saint, and he did more than almost anybody to popularize the game of golf in America.

Mike just hates the mythology that surrounds Ross's legacy, and the attempt by architects and quasi-architects to cash in on his legacy by declaring every one of his 400 designs sacred and therefore worthy of extensive restoration.  Or am I misreading you Mike?  Hopefully, you're not like that guy from Australia who insists that MacKenzie was an overrated hack with an illegitimate family who screwed over Alex Russell?

[Mike_Young]

TD,
You are correct.....I have much respect for Donald ross the architect and not as much for DR the myth and zero for his DR Society....
As you say many of these places he saw once were good...

[Jeff_Brauer]

I recently played 2 Donald Ross Courses - Wellshire G.C. in Denver and Shawnee C.C. in Topeka - I can't find any evidence that Donald Ross ever set foot on either of these properties - my guess is that he "designed" them from topos and sent the plans to the crew on sight for construction.
I would be happy to hear from anyone who can tell me I am wrong about this.
DB

Doug,

If I recall a conversation with Brad Klein correctly, Ross didn't do anything at Topeka CC, even though they have claimed it for years.  He has Ross train schedules, and his train went through Topeka once, late at night, on the way to the Broadmoor, but didn't stop.  That is, unless some enterprising club members in bandanas held up the train and dragged him down to the course for a quick visit.

It seemed to me that every time a house burned down around Chicago, someone claimed it "May have been a Frank Lloyd Wright house" even with no documentation at all.  The same probably happens with Ross and other famous designers.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike and Tom,

While there are examples of resume padding in our profession, I doubt that it is a regular occurence.  Maybe I just don't want to believe it.

I could be wrong, as I recall a Golf Magazine article on JN and his design business in 1980 touting his "40 design contracts" when he had just a few courses open.  I figured if JN felt the need to pad, there must be pressure!

It seems to me that taking a chance on claiming work not really done is more likely to backfire than to succeed in securing work.  And if it backfires, it could affect not only that job, but many others in the future.  

Just my two cents.

PS, while golf club atlas credits me with 3619 posts, I believe that is a padded number.  On hundreds of posts, I only copy other comments, post lame jokes, or leave it blank just to build my post total.  If you went by actual meaningful posts, my count would be about 56.  I hope this revelation doesn't hurt my future chances at making posts.......

[Tim_Cronin]

I mentioned this in passing on the Harbor Shores thread. What's the real criteria for architect of record these days? To me, it should be the guy who does the real work: routing, designing green complexes, etc. That's not always the big name associated with the project.
I mention it again because Ed Seay didn't always get the credit he deserved for designing Arnold Palmer signature courses.
As a reporter and golf history nut, I'd want to know who really did the work to give proper credit, contract between course and architectural firm aside.

[David_Elvins]

Mike,

I think that the transient committee nature of Golf Clubs makes getting away with a bit of exaggerating too easy.

I saw one application where the architect had listed on his resume, the club he was applying to, despite not having done any work there, among other exaggerations.  It was easily checked and counted against him, despite an excellent overall presentation.

I think the important thing is for committees to realise they need to investigate a potential architect's previous work, dodgy resume or not.  If they make the effort to visit an architect's other work, the exagerated resume falls apart fairly quickly.

[Mike_Young]

Jeff,
I dont mind someone placing such work on a resume if it is explained by subtitles such as new work, masterplans, renovations, consulting etc but often I see it where it is not broken down so that the resume looks like much more has been done  AND as David Elvins says above...the transient nature of clubs doesnt know the difference....

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

At least my 2007 course list for renovations is broken down as you suggest, citing master plan only, if no work got done, or drainage, consulting, cart paths, tee leveling, rebuild 3 greens, etc. I hope others do the same.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,
Neither you nor Tom Doak, and others no doubt, belong to the ASGCA.

There is no 'test' needed before you can call yourself a GCA, yet there are certain criteria you must meet to join the ASGCA. Do you feel that greater participation in the association would help to make it harder for 'fake' architects to practice?

How much resume padding is done by ASGCA members and how much by those not so affiliated?

 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim K,

In general, new firms need to pad the resume with work from other firms. Whether that new gca is a former member of an ASGCA firm or not, probably doesn't matter.  Its obvious why that happens.

What Mike talks about, where a fledgling consultant, with no experience other than participation on golf club atlas and reading a few books, is truly a new one on me.  I can't even concieve of that one and it smacks of desparation.

On the other hand, didn't Faz reduce or eliminate fees on some select clubs to build his remodeling resume?  Working pro bono to boost your resume is not unethical, but claiming that making an unsolicited proposal to a club that wasn't selected constitutes work is beyond the pale, and truly desperate.  

I can't think of a working gca who has benefitted long term from those practices, even if a few clubs have suffered short term.  And, for that matter, they usually don't pick those newbies because of their impressive resume - they pick them based on their low fee.

[Dan Kelly]

PS, while golf club atlas credits me with 3619 posts, I believe that is a padded number.  On hundreds of posts, I only copy other comments, post lame jokes, or leave it blank just to build my post total.  If you went by actual meaningful posts, my count would be about 56.  I hope this revelation doesn't hurt my future chances at making posts.......

Jeff --

I've done the heavy lifting. I've gone through every one of your posts, and I am prepared to credit you with 53 actual meaningful posts.

Had to disqualify the three posts you made about "Best Halfway House Food." Sorry, big guy.

Dan

[Jeff_Brauer]

Dan,

I must quibble.  I think the coiled bratwurst are a contributing factor to the ambiance of the Quarry. Just MHO......

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,
Neither you nor Tom Doak, and others no doubt, belong to the ASGCA.

There is no 'test' needed before you can call yourself a GCA, yet there are certain criteria you must meet to join the ASGCA. Do you feel that greater participation in the association would help to make it harder for 'fake' architects to practice?

How much resume padding is done by ASGCA members and how much by those not so affiliated?

 

Jim,

BTW, to answer your question more succinctly, I know that the possibility of the annual meeting seating chart or golf pairings possibly placing you next to a member whose work you have inappropriately taken credit for is generally a good persuader to be honest.

Like dead bolts and home security systems, I guess that wouldn't stop the real pro.  That's why we try to weed those out in the membership process.  I have never said that ASGCA members have 100% exemplary conduct, but most are at 99%.  As one member noted, "Hey, I guess we all have one incident or moment we aren't too proud of."

But, this thread should in no way be another ASGCA bash thread. I think Mike was pointing out that so many people try to get in this glamorous biz that some non traditional things happen in the hiring process.  

Those of us who come up through the ranks more traditionally find writers, historians, and general hangers on getting any (or bigger) roles in a renovation or design somewhat distasteful, or at least, disrespectful of what it really takes to do a successful renovation, like knowing how to translate ideas into actual designs, and designs into actual construction that works.  

If you look at the pay scale for gca work, the idea side (preliminary design) is about 10%, whereas construction docs and observation makes up more.  It reflects what is really valuble to the client.  After all, everyone has an idea about architecture.

But I digress.  The fact that some have been able to translate a few choice quotes from books into a consulting career is amazing to me, as is anyone who buys their supposed expertise.  As I summed up in one of my "Trends" presentation:

Old criteria for hiring gca for renovation: "Must have written five spec books"

New Criteria: "Must have read three gca history books"

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()