Time and Talent

[Peter Pallotta]

I think that in many of the creative arts, the only thing that can make up for a limited talent is time.

If we're talkng only about the quality of the art itself, I see it this way: great talent needs nothing else; a complete lack of talent can't be helped; and a limited talent is best bolstered by taking more time, as much time as it needs.

In golf course architecture, about the only example of this that I'm familiar with is Mr. Crump at Pine Valley; but I'm sure you gents have more examples.

My question is: What exactly is it that time gives to a golf course architect? How does time work to bolster his talent, i.e. the quality of the finished product/work/art?

In writing, for example, the answer is fairly easy. Since most of writing is re-writing, time gives an author the chance -- if he's wise enough to take it -- to re-write his work. (Hemmingway's famous advice was something like: "Write your story, and when you're finished take out your best scene/paragraph, and if the story no longer works it means you didn't have a story in the first place".)

What's the equivalent in golf course architecture? Does time (i.e. time to tinker and change) give the architect of limited talent a better grasp of, for example, his course's strategic strengths and weakness? of how it plays day to day? of what the public/members think of it?

How does the passage of time relate to the process of creating quality golf course architecture?

Peter  


   

[Joe Hancock]

Another matter might be the less confident architect having too much time to change his/ her mind, allowing the original idea to stray further off base than if he/ she had gone with their first instinct.

Posting almost immediately after I typed this,

Joe

 

[Mark_Fine]

Peter,
I don't have time for a long post but you might ask this question to a guy like Bill Coore.  He seems to only handle one or two projects for a reason or maybe he is just not that talented to handle any more  I wonder what Ross would say about this.  Seems most of his best courses were the ones he spent the most time on and tinkered with.  

Pine Valley was not the only course that took time to design.  Fownes and Loeffler were working on Oakmont for years and years.  Guys like Flynn for example, often didn't add all his bunkers until the course was played for several years.  He needed time to see how it was played.  Many (not all) of the greatest courses are a result of time and I'm not sure there is a way to equate this to talent, or lack there of  
Mark

[Jim_Kennedy]

Peter,
H.S. Colt wrote: " I never visit a course which I have designed
without seeing where improvements could be made in the constructional work".
Pretty remarkable, a man who knows his best efforts of the moment are more than likely subject to some self-editing in the future.
I believe that having talent is mandatory and immediate, otherwise the architect won't be able to create what you said Hemingway called the 'best scene/paragraph' in the first place, and therefore the total 'work' will never become a best-seller.
No amount of time can overcome a lack of talent.

*I may edit this at a later date, if I feel that it needs work.  
 

[Willie_Dow]

Peter - The most creative moment is the time of conception.

[RJ_Daley]

I think that the more time spent in the planning, routing, and learning all the nuances of the land, is the best time spent.  However, that only applies to interesting land with some character to begin with.  If you have 260 acres of dead flat nothing, then the time is better spent in the construction and drainage to make the engineering work.  But, on a good piece of land, I think an archie and developer should observe it for seasons to learn how the land works including the soil varieties before final routing and commencement of construction.  The more time the archie can take to blend a great routing with what makes sense on the ground, the better the end product should be.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Here is how time helped us -- (I do not consider myself without or of lesser talent):

It is easier to see and remark on every aspect
It was easier for Don to manage every element
(we had two sets of eyes discuss every element before construction and during the rough shaping phase).

We had one "A" shaper finish shape the entire course - contributed to a cohesiveness
One small finish crew acted in the same manner

Time allowed us (mostly Don) to train non-golf labor.
It often produced suprisingly good results.
{They didn't know where the greens or tees were -- they made everything blend together.}

We didn't move anything once rough shaped -- especially not irrigated.  
[Peter - FYI - moving holes after grassed isn't so uncommon on some projects.]

I had an alternative routing plan for the 16th & 17th holes - which were 2 of the last holes built.  When the time came it was clear which pair of holes to build - and not coincidentally they were much easier to build.

The 7th hole was the last hole built - and it was redesigned significantly just prior to starting - and not coincidentally it was much easier to build.  The reason for the redesign was that it was reminding me too much of another hole.
(Don commented last week that not a single hole reminds him of any other hole)  

Time allows for optimal construction techniques - the time to think through all the details.

Time allows the compaction of all trenches
Time allows the elimination of all puddles
Time helped get all the technical details correct - drainage and irrigation and agronomic and grassing

Time allowed me to spend some time on the Dozer rough shaping which is a much better learning tool than watching

[Mark_F]

If we're talkng only about the quality of the art itself, I see it this way: great talent needs nothing else;

Peter,

Not quite true; they also need humility, since all great artists have produced some ordinary work too, and humility is the sign of truly great artists, since ego is always lurking in the artist...

It's an interesting question.  Maybe time allows for another mind or two to fine tune a course. Artists can all too often get caught up in their creations - you must know the saying "killing your darlings?"

If artists start second guessing much of their original act of creativity,then all sorts of horrible things can start happening to the mind...

Many of the very best courses had more than one person throw ideas into the pot, didn't they? Crump had a who's who at Pine Valley, RCD came about in various ways, Royal Melbourne had Russell and Morcom, Muirfield had Colt and Simpson, Cypress had Hollins - and Raynor?? - Pebble had MacKenzie as well.

The one that intrigues me is Merion.  Did Hugh Wilson get this course right off the bat?

[TEPaul]

Peter:

You're something else!

Man, this thread's overall subject just might hit the mother lode or basis of much of what we think about and discuss on this website!

If it happens to be continued well, and discussed well, it also might be very revolutionary in that it just may better get at some of the relationships between the talent ranges of professional architects and the talent ranges of the so-called "conceptual amateur" mind in architecture.

You said:

“I think that in many of the creative arts, the only thing that can make up for a limited talent is time.
If we're talkng only about the quality of the art itself, I see it this way: great talent needs nothing else;”

To which Mark Ferguson said:

“Not quite true; they also need humility, since all great artists have produced some ordinary work too, and humility is the sign of truly great artists, since ego is always lurking in the artist...”

I look at this subject a little different than both of those remarks.

Even though I realize Mark is intentionally using humility in perhaps another context, I feel Mark is right if humility means a golf architect’s ability to maximally use and use really well what any site has given him in natural aspects, and certainly if those natural aspects aren’t particularly obvious at first.

This would be the type of architect one might call a “naturalist”---eg one who really does appreciate and respect natural land and natural landforms and such and figures out to some maximum extent how they can be used well on any site for golf.

On the other hand, there are architects who tend not to pay much attention to the natural aspects of sites because they believe and perhaps have a talent to CREATE (actually make) things pretty special simply via their ability to imagine things that can be create through the art of “manufacturing”. Fazio might be one of the best examples of that.

But vis-a-vis your remark, I think all architects and certainly even those with extreme talent need time to show it, it’s just that some need less and some need more time to show it.

If that’s true, and I think it is, we may even tend to admire more those architects who may be labeled “quick studies”. I think Mackenzie may’ve been a remarkably “quick study” and I’ve read that Herbert Fowler was too. Tom Doak apparently is as well.

But does that really matter in the end if some other architect who is not such a “quick study” bothers to take the time necessary for him to get to something as good? I don’t think so. The best that may be said for an architect who is really a “quick study” is that ability may allow him to be more productive in the over-all sense of quantity.

I guess a reasonable question to ask would be does it matter if someone is a quick reader or a slow reader when it comes to eventually understanding something?

Personally, I don’t think it does matter so long as they devote the time necessary for them to come to what they feel is some point of understanding.

The example of George Crump is an excellent one for many reasons, in my opinion.

In another post I’ll try to tell you in as much detail as seems appropriate, from what I know about him, where he began this process, the resources he used, and how a man like Crump (a first time architect) eventually came to deliver such a remarkable product, such a remarkable golf course.

The truly niggling question, to me at least, is, had Crump lived a normally long life would Pine Valley have turned out even better than it did, why and how?  

[Tom_Doak]

This is a much more complicated question than it seems.

"More time" isn't always better.  At a minimum, building a golf course takes a few months, and some take a few years.  It is very difficult to keep a creative "flow" going for months on end, and to keep all of the people who are responsible for carrying out the vision interested and motivated until the end.  Indeed, a lot of projects probably go south right at the end, when the detail of finish work needs to be done but some of the crew are already thinking down the road to the next project (or to some time off).

When we built Pacific Dunes we had eleven holes finished when we had to take a break for the summer months, because it's just about impossible in the dry season to keep the sand in place long enough to get a hole grassed.  We were really on a roll, and we were very concerned whether we would be able to get back on it after a five-month break.  As it turned out, it was a good break ... I saw a couple of courses that summer that gave me some perspective on where we stood, and when we got back to work we could actually play the holes we'd already built -- which got us excited again and back in the flow.

By contrast, St. Andrews Beach was built in just over four months, and I think it's just as good of an example of what we do.

The same goes for routing a course -- sometimes it can take a long time, and for that reason, it's good to have an extended period to think it over.  But once you've found the right solution, you generally know it, and spending months second-guessing yourself is not a very productive use of time -- especially if you could be figuring out another piece of property instead.  

[Tony Ristola]

My question is: What exactly is it that time gives to a golf course architect? How does time work to bolster his talent, i.e. the quality of the finished product/work/art?

How does the passage of time relate to the process of creating quality golf course architecture?

Time is the greatest asset any architect can bring to his work.
Why?
Massive canvas, and the architect is the visionary for it all. Time allows for communication of his vision, all the details, to see it from all angles, monitor progress and adjust. It's not just adjusting that one green, bunker form, bunker position, fairway or entrance contour, but how it fits with everything else that has and will go on. (No mention of engineering). One adjustment may require another elsewhere on the course so holes don't look or play similar. Stuff just emerges too, and if the architect isn't there to seize the moment, it will most likely be gone forever. Opportunities do not appear according to "site-visits", and no builder will risk deviating much. Opportunities are raw materials, but there is no way to measure their value or loss because they don't show up on any sheet for measurement.

Most architects don't have a constant crew adept at varying styles, and ten different builders will build ten different projects. So if the architect wants to get the maximum, wants to achieve his vision and more he needs to invest lots of time. More is better. Otherwise the investor is playing roulette with big bucks...and many have. Especially in pioneering golf countries.

It's also more important today than ever before, because construction is lightening fast.

[Tom_Doak]

Tony:

You just described what's different about our work, in fact I think I'm going to steal it for my web site.

I don't think I'm "the visionary for it all".  I need good help, and I've got it.  Where a builder may not risk deviating much from the original plan, my associates know that's what they are there for.

[TEPaul]

"Stuff just emerges too, and if the architect isn't there to seize the moment, it will most likely be gone forever. Opportunities do not appear according to "site-visits", and no builder will risk deviating much. Opportunities are raw materials, but there is no way to measure their value or loss because they don't show up on any sheet for measurement."

Tony:

That's just a remarkable statement, in my opinion, and not because it's some new and revolutionary thought but because it's just so generally true. But does the layman know it? Not at all.

While spending some time on sites during the creative or conceptual process I really see this. An architect or a group is on site and really getting into some great brainstorming and some wonderful stuff together and then it begins to rain or the day is at an end or the site visit is over and it can be so hard to pick it up again when the whole process of earth moving or construction or conceptualizing moves on to another place, even on site.

This whole new phenomenon probably generated by permitting or even environmental considerations known as "phases" really scares me in how much it may shut down on or truncate the creative process. You theoretically or even actually button up on a "phase" and go on to the next phase. But is the phase you just buttoned up been given all the thought and attention it deserves to be the best it can be?

Guys like Crump or Hugh Wilson or Fownes or Macdonald at NGLA or even Ross at Pinehurst were generally under no such limitations or strictures with their time and with those sites and projects. And, in my opinion, it shows bigtime.

They were all on those sites mostly all the time and the conceptual and creative flow just continued on and on and on without ever being severed and without some great opportunities lost forever!

[Mark_Fine]

Wouldn’t most of us think that if Jack Nicklaus (or anyone else that has a sizable design firm) chimed in, he would say something different about “time” than someone like C&C who only take on a project or two a year?  I just can’t imagine Nicklaus telling his client that if he had a little more time to be on-site, he’d have delivered a better golf course.  He'll argue that between himself and his team, they got everything they could out of the site.  

In almost anything, there is a law of diminishing returns.  No question some are quicker studies than others, but it is not like there is only one answer to every golf architecture problem.  Sometimes time and closer study can yield a better solution.  There are many great examples out there to prove it (some are listed above).  

Furthermore, we’ve probably all seen architects knock out master plans for improvements to existing courses in very short periods of time (maybe they are that good but honestly I think they have to because they have so many other projects going on at the same time).  They don’t have time for detailed analysis and study.  There is little question in my mind that time is required on most restorations/renovations but how much will always be a matter of debate.  Maybe the lack of time and/or willingness to spend it is one of the reasons some work, be it restorations/renovations or new construction, have not always turned out too well.  

[Jerry Kluger]

To me, this immediately brings Augusta to mind.  Can someone give some insight on how the colloboration worked at ANGC and how much time they spent tweaking the course?  

[Tom_Doak]

Tom P:

Your comment about "phased" construction is on the mark.

I told my associates last week that when I worked for Mr. Dye, he resisted the idea of getting any hole ready to plant until he had shaped them all.  He was worried that he would get to #17 and find that the concept he'd used for #2 fit better there, and he wanted to be able to go back and change #2 instead of being stuck using a second-rate idea for #17.

That's an extreme example and "production schedules" make it almost impossible to consider in the modern era of design and construction, but it's an interesting perspective.

Mark F:  Mr. Nicklaus often asked Mr. Urbina and myself why we wanted to take so much time to make decisions out at Sebonack.  He finally decided that it was okay if we really enjoyed it, but someday we would want to be more productive.  Don't forget that Jack got to where he is by sizing up a golf shot for 30 seconds (though he had studied the course and made a plan of attack in advance), making a choice, and committing himself to it.

Jerry K:  Dr. MacKenzie was not on site much at all for the construction of Augusta National, just for a single visit after doing the original layout.  By the same token, I don't know how much time Bob Jones spent out there during construction, either; he was a pretty busy guy in those days, too.

[wsmorrison]

Tom P,

Now if you showed up for lunch with Ruben Gur that day instead of attending to contractors at your barn renovation, you would be able to include a discussion of analytical versus holistic processes in a discussion of time.  Left or right brained approaches.  But no, you had to make sure the flat screen TV and new supercomputer were installed in your office.

Building architects have twice the number of left-handers (~20%) in their population than the general population (~10%).  How many golf architects that contribute to this site are left handed?  What would you guess is the overall percentage?  

The ability to walk a property and come up with a final routing plan is an interesting scenario to consider.  Flynn was a very quick study.  He routed the Cascades course in a single day.  That project involved a tremendous amount of engineering to pull off.  However his designing up of the holes themselves would sometimes took a long time complete.

Today's work with all of the permitting, regulations and compliance components makes it hard to compare across decades.  Architects that manufacture a significant amount of their concepts and have the budget to do what they like (Fazio for instance) aren't tested in the same way as those that utilize the land as much as possible.  I find the routing process of the latter scenario to be the most interesting design phase.

[Rich Goodale]

Good thread and a lot of good answers, but they tend to focus on the "time" that an architect gets to build a course.  To me, that is a factor, but far less important than how the course is designed and built to accomodate the longer term effects of time.

Part of these effects are human--changes in technologies, in agronomic understanding, in social-political-economic realities.  Others, however, are beyond human control--weather, geomorphology, the law of unintended consequences.

Many (most?) of the great old courses are great because they had caretakers who nurtured and ameliorated the bare bones of design through decades of change.  They look fresh today golf-wise not because some great man (or woman) was so prescient as to predict and build in responses to all that might happen in the future, but because they were looked after by people who had the vision and understanding to know that adding a bunker or moving a greensite was not "putting a moustache on the Mona Lisa" but giving a grande old dame a new lease on life.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark,

Some thoughts......

First, I wonder whether the time committment in the Master Plan phase is as valuble as field time during construction?  I understand your approach to finding out what was there and applaud that.  Still, no matter how much work I put in on a master plan, it still seems that the questions come up again, and being in the field when its actually getting done is the time best spent.

Then, I wonder if different gca's would think differently about what to look for when using field time.   Using your example of CC and JN, perhaps the JN design emphasis is on the bigger picture items like green angles, size of greens etc., because of the aerial way JN plays the game and designs, whereas CC may spend time to debate whether a little ridge ought to be six inches high or eight  because they feel those kind of things are very important to their design style.  

I think that the original phrasing of "Time and Talent" is signifgantly different than "Time or Talent."  No amount of time makes a gca more inherently talented, but more time for a talented gca always results in a better product, IMHO.

From personal experience, which I have related here, I don't think its any coincidence that some of my greatest successes have come when I spent the most field time.  I had sixty hotel nights at Giants Ridge, for example, translating to probably 80 days of field time, mostly devoted to field enhancements of the design, and I think it showed.

That raises an interesting counterpoint to Tony's full time construction argument.  Using a good contractor actually allowed me to spend time on design items, rather than worry about the day to day related items of construction equipment breakdowns, irrigation issues, etc.  At least for me, if more time was spent on site, but it spent worrying about things like that (which I think it would) I am not sure I would produce a better design.

Lastly, quality committment is as important as time. There have been design contracts requiring the gca have a full time field guy, but if that guy has personal problems, or is just tired of his job (hard as that is to believe) its entirely possible that all those opportunities Tony speaks of still go wasted.

I think the approximate order of importance for great design is

Design talent,
Committment to do something great,
Experience,
Time committment equal to quality committment
Talented support cast, no matter what the contract arrangements for that cast are. (As Tom D notes, the last two are somewhat related, since if you have a familiar cast who knows what you want, your time committment can reduce, etc.)

I am not 100% sure about that order, and am trying to think of examples where each has worked, or not worked, despite different orders.  For example, MacKenzie's Australia work had to depend on his talent and the crew he trained and left behind.  So, greatness can happen any number of ways, but I thought I would throw that out there.......

[Tom_Doak]

Rich G:

I agree with your thoughts about the long-term care of courses being a significant part of their greatness -- Pine Valley, Merion, and Royal Melbourne are all great examples of that.  But you stretch the point a bit; the last time anybody moved a green on one of those courses was about 1932.

Jeff B:

I would agree with your order of importance, except that I would put the talent of the support cast a bit higher ... either that or I am overpaying the help.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom D,

Would you put it higher than experience?  I debated that, considering the romantic notions of Crump doing Pine Valley in his first outing, but also having help, etc.

I also wonder if, for example, Pac Dunes would have turned out as well if it was offered as your first commission?  In my case, I think, as much as I would have denied it when younger, that I wouldn't have been ready for some of the bigger commissions had they come my way earlier and I think thats true of most gca's.  Of course, having a great site still ranks higher than a lot of those things or at least is still essential to greatness.

I guess its all related.  In the real world, I guess an abundance of one quality can offset the lack of another on any particular project.

[Peter Pallotta]

Gents - a group of very fine answers/posts; thanks much. Your posts got thoughts/questions popping in and out of my head. A couple of random ones:

It seems to me that when the end-goal is clear and simple, time is not as important a factor.  For the architect seeking to build, say, a tried-and-true shot-testing Par 3, and willing to move dirt around, time wouldn't be a big part of creating a good Redan Hole; given the concept/template, execution is all.

But what about all the more subtle aspects and end-goals of an entire 18 hole course, e.g. routing and flow and the natural use of topography and varying strategic interest/options and fun etc. etc. Presumably someone like Mr. Crump thought he could make all of that better with time, as do all architects then and today who value time on a site and time for reflection.  But "better" by what standard?

What (to me) elusive vision of Quality drives someone like Crump to take so much time?

An archer who takes the time to practice every day has a clear and simple intention, i.e. to be able to hit the target. But in golf course architecture, how does time help you to hit the 'target' if you don't have a very clear target in mind to begin with?

Otherwise, it would seem to me that time could be a very  doubled-edge sword, as in:

"....Time for you and time for me,
And time yet for a hundred indecisions,
And for a hundred visions and revisions,
Before the taking of a toast and tea..."

Peter

I hope this doesn't kill all this thread's good momentum/direction; I'm not sure myself WHAT I'm trying to get to here.

[Rich Goodale]

Rich G:

I agree with your thoughts about the long-term care of courses being a significant part of their greatness -- Pine Valley, Merion, and Royal Melbourne are all great examples of that.  But you stretch the point a bit; the last time anybody moved a green on one of those courses was about 1932.

Tom, you are of course right about those courses (and many others), but let us not forget that there was a huge amount of course redevelopment in the decade previous (the Roaring Twenties) and the fact that renovation seemed to stagnate in the 1932-1946 period could possibly have been due to the fact that this period encompassed the Great Depression and World War II.

Since 1946 there have in fact been some significant movements of greens on great courses.  Dornoch, of course created 5 new greens and one revised one in 1946.  Royal County Down built a new 16th green fairly recently.  Hoylake rebuilt 17 and 18 (or 1 and 2, depending on your view of the routing).  Pebble Beach has a new 5th.  Portmarnock a new 18th.  This is just off the top of my head.  Of course, these are all outside of the USA, but, so what?

Is it not ironic that UK courses seem far more comfortable with fiddling with great designs, IF they think they can create a better golfing experience?  I've asked you this question before, Tom, but do you really believe that, say, Pacific Dunes is so great now that it can't be improved over time, possibly by others?  Maybe it shouldn't (certainly from your point of view) but that is not really the question, now, is it?

Rich

[Mike Nuzzo]

Fortunately for me Don and his crew have not sufferered any burn out, in fact that have gotten better.  The construction crew is going to be the maintenance crew so seeing grass mature in spots has inspired them also.

Time has helped us be way more economical as we planned more and changed less.

We also had the rainiest year ever in the countys history - or at least its 106 year recorded history.  That certainly extended out time.  If we had grassed everything by the spring I don't see how any grass would have survived the July we had - no sun and 20" of rain.
It was more of a luck type of issue but in our case the time helped us avoid regrassing the entire course.

Grass is like a financial investment - do it all at once or over time.  In our case we didn't expose our entire portfolio to the recession (rain).

[RJ_Daley]

Congratulations Peter on drawing out some very practical comments from some of the archies and construction guys that make the magic happen.

I guess when Jeff talks about 'experience' it is really just another component or concept of time.  A guy like Crump got all his experience in his shortened time on this earth, yet took as much time as he needed to get it done (or almost done) before punching out.  He would have applied the time he took to learn or master what he encountered in the process as 'experience' only had he lived to go on to build other courses.  So, his time is viewed more in context of all the time he took on one project, not experience from that time to have been able to produce more.

Phasing is just another measure or description of time.  Talent seems to come into play in how the phasing is managed, and the time well spent in each phase or the time to re-step back into a phase (when possible) to adjust something.  Tom give great credit to his team and I'm not sure who he would point to as the top site manager to manage phases.  But, I'm sure it would be the fellow that has the most knack to get everything in terms of raw materials, sub contractors, leasing equipment efficiently, etc.  An associate like that give the lead archie the time to make the creative and intelligent decisions, even on the fly as phases go forward.  I believe the C&C enterprise might point to Axeland as one of their most talented associates to make the time and phases mesh together efficiently, so the rest of the team at Bill and Ben's direction can do the creative features and strategy stuff.

I guess I look at an architect who is just getting his own first project, perhaps as a top associate still in a design firm, or going out on his own from a larger firm, as a fellow at the crossroads.  He either puts in an inordinate amount of time to tend to all the details, and thus get credible experience to apply on the next thing, or he fades away.  It takes time to grow, learn, and excel.  

I don't think you can say any amount of talent can overcome time.  What is talent if not application to learn and experience things to get better than the last time.  

You say you know a shaper with 'natural talent' to operate the machine and interpret ideas into land forms.  Well, maybe he can shape it faster and to the specifications of the ideal, but don't tell me it didn't take a component of time.  Faster is still a measure of time, with talent.  Or, faster is a measure of time with no talent and poor results, needing more time to fix.

Can't a so-so shaper take time to become a better one?  

Time, that's the ticket.