News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Ian Andrew

Re:Time and Talent
« Reply #75 on: December 02, 2007, 09:44:47 AM »
Ray Richard:

They are all dry cleaners at heart.

Tom,

I haven't laughed out loud on here for a long time.


To all,

This has been an excellent read - I appreciate all the comments very much. It's an excellent example of why I still come to GolfClubAtlas after eight years.
 

Peter Pallotta

Re:Time and Talent
« Reply #76 on: December 02, 2007, 10:05:29 AM »
Ray, Tom

That is another way to look at it. But that's also one of the reasons I've tried to use the term 'quality' instead of the term 'perfection'.

I think there are ambitions and there are aspirations; one tends to lead to the foolish search for perfection, the other to a personal vision of Quality.

Dylan recorded quick; Bird created masterpieces on the spot. Time is money. The Navajo purposely weaved a mistake into their wonderful blankets, to let the devil out.

I think intention is all; aspiring to Quality takes time, or not.

Peter  

J_ Crisham

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Time and Talent
« Reply #77 on: December 02, 2007, 10:14:12 AM »
Counterpoint: Did the continual "tinkering" by Ross at Pinehurst 2 or Mackenzie at Pasatiempo detract from their original designs?

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Time and Talent
« Reply #78 on: December 02, 2007, 10:28:09 AM »
I am beginning to feel that golf course sites that have little naturally to offer, ones where you have to build alot to create something of interest...can be the ones that require less thought, or thought of a different kind....as opposed to a really great natural site....one which has more existing good qualities to offer.

The better sites require a different kind of attention, and time spent.
The process is different than starting something from scratch....mainly because you have to spend the time to explore what is there, and then join up with, and adapt your new thoughts into a work that for the most part is already in progress.

Its probably analogous to writing....and the difference and challenge one would face with having to insert a new chapter into a good existing work....versus the freedom to just start something new.

To insert something, you have to take the time to read whats already been written.......but I should leave all the writing analogies to others who have that talent.

As for time and speed spent while designing, it can really work in a variety of ways.
Sometimes solutions reveal themselves only through a slower process.....or sometimes the pressure of having to design on the run can be effective and invigorating.

I also like to ignore certain holes at times....I call them "stepchildren"....until their time is right. I don't ignore them completely, and I am always aware of their presence, but they are for whatever reason not of the more favored status.

I am always surprised when one these "stepchildren" becomes one of the better holes on a course..... and it happens quite often.
Maybe its because they incubate longer....... I really don't know. :)


« Last Edit: December 03, 2007, 05:45:12 AM by paul cowley »
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

Ray Richard

Re:Time and Talent
« Reply #79 on: December 02, 2007, 11:58:43 AM »
Tom D-I too like that dry cleaner quote. That’s a good one!

 My premise is that the time invested in build a golf feature is not related to the aesthetic quality of that feature. Here is a story from the field passed along from a cohort.

 A name restoration architect sends his eager number two guy in on a fairway and bunker restoration. He is flown in and goes through all the usual preliminaries with club contacts. The bunker is complete and approved very quickly then the whole production stops while the architect and shaper go through a 3 hour session based on the creation of a raised fairway-rough feature-it looks like a bloated starfish-ten feet by eight feet and several feet tall. The feature was sketched,then a minature version was built using clay spoils, then the shaper had to go through about 5 versions of the feature (albeit with a 3 foot excavator bucket). Then a fine grading crew was brought in and the thing got tweaked again. Finally, the feature was approved and sodded.

 OK, everybody is entitled to make a living but did this feature require the time and expense to create it, particularly when it is essentially hidden by the 2” bluegrass covering it? Did Ross, or his foreman build them this way?

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Time and Talent
« Reply #80 on: December 02, 2007, 12:08:09 PM »
Ray.....I have never seen anything that remotely resembles the scenario you just described. It makes me cringe that stories like that get passed along....usually to sympathetic listeners who add more spin upon its re telling.
 
« Last Edit: December 02, 2007, 12:48:53 PM by paul cowley »
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

Peter Pallotta

Re:Time and Talent
« Reply #81 on: December 02, 2007, 12:28:20 PM »
Ray
I think I understand better now what you're suggesting. I'd say (as a guess) that it takes more time and thought to understand the nuances and potential nuances of fairway wrinkles and humps and bumps, and the potential playability of those natural features in all their glory and subtlety, than it does to try to create a 'perfect' feature from scratch. (Maybe this is what Paul is saying...but I defer to him.) The dry cleaners have a certain goal in mind; and that's fine and sometimes even admirable and wonderful....but they're not usually spending the time on a site the way I mean the word/concept. Others are spending more time....I'm just trying to explore what happens if you extend that time out, over years.

Peter

George_Bahto

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Time and Talent
« Reply #82 on: December 02, 2007, 12:53:44 PM »
This is one of the more interesting threads in a while ....(regardless of the dry cleaning analogy :P ... hah: occasionally I have a nightmare - dreaming I was back in the dry cleaning business - +/- 50 years was enuf)
If a player insists on playing his maximum power on his tee-shot, it is not the architect's intention to allow him an overly wide target to hit to but rather should be allowed this privilege of maximum power except under conditions of exceptional skill.
   Wethered & Simpson

Tony Ristola

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Time and Talent
« Reply #83 on: December 02, 2007, 02:42:23 PM »
...I'm just trying to explore what happens if you extend that time out, over years.
You can (help) guide the post-construction vision. After the course is built the superintendent can do it justice or do otherwise. This is where writing a book is helpful (it doesn't have to be a mass market book, but something for the club and it current and future members). Future members, board members, superintendents can look and learn about why their course was built as it was. The direction it should be maintained. In the ensuing years the architect can add an addendum (or three-teen) after seeing the course evolve. But these efforts take a lot of time too. If a guy has a handful of projects on the go, he doesn't have a lot of time for this stuff.

To think how much better off some courses would be if they had some written guidance? A little insight into the architect's thoughts. Might have saved a few (tree planting-green reconstruction-bunker removal) problems.

That said, I think every club should have a big board, like some have for club champion's, and every alteration made to the course should be recorded on the board for posterity. Getting your name up there will allow the membership to focus either praise or blame on said party. It would be interesting to have the  board write briefs in support (justifying said changes) or dissent and read them years later. Maybe some clubs have such detailed minutes of their meetings.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2007, 02:44:41 PM by Tony Ristola »

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re:Time and Talent
« Reply #84 on: December 02, 2007, 02:44:15 PM »
Paul:

You bring up another reason why I don't like to use contractors -- it's about timing and CONTROL.

I have never thought of them as stepchildren, but on any project, there are holes where I'm not so certain of what I want to build, and sometimes when I'm on site I'd just rather skip them and get the other holes done and give myself more time to think about the ones I haven't solved yet.  

When we control the construction timetable ourselves, we can do this.  But, there have been a couple of occasions where a g.c. INSISTED we finish a certain hole before we were ready because it was supposedly essential to the progress of construction.  And I knew they could have just as easily figured out a way around it for a few days while we were working on our problem hole.

The 18th at Stonewall was one of those holes it took me an inordinate amount of time to figure out, and it turned out to be one of the best holes I've worked on.

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Time and Talent
« Reply #85 on: December 02, 2007, 03:22:10 PM »
Tom....well, I never thought of gc contractors as "dry cleaners" either ;).....and if you had posted your well written description of golf hole design sequencing first....well, I wouldn't have had to...and as a consequence probably wouldn't leave some readers here scratching their heads thinking "stepchildren?....what the hell is he talking about"

....its good to know you know though ;).


I am jealous that you have had the ability to put together your own crew....and I also realize it just didn't happen without hard work.

As you know I have been working in Mexico of late, and it has been quite an experience...among other things I figure I have to go there twice as much to get half as much done....or really suffer worse consequences.

....at least we had a few gringo shapers.

Now we are trying to grass and do finish work and I have to co ordinate with about 40 persons, and only a few have rudimentary ingles ....they all know how to use tools, but most don't understand golf at all.

Its kind of like having trained musicians with different pieces who can't really communicate with the conductor and are just playing away whatever they think the song should be.

It reminds me of Professor Harold Hill's band in the great musical, the Music Man, and his "think method". ;D

Did I mention I was jealous? :)
« Last Edit: December 03, 2007, 05:34:23 AM by paul cowley »
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

Lloyd_Cole

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Time and Talent
« Reply #86 on: December 02, 2007, 03:34:59 PM »
Sorry for the interruption, but ...

Who says the Golden Age of GCA.com is dead and gone?

We now return you to an excellent discussion. Thank you, gentlemen.

In case anyone missed this post. I'd like to second it's sentiment. It's been a rough time around here recently, and this thread is a godsend.

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Time and Talent
« Reply #87 on: December 02, 2007, 04:33:22 PM »
Tom,
I trust you mean the 18th on the original course at Stonewall which is an outstanding golf hole!!  The other 18th hole might have needed a little more time  ;)

I was going to put up a separate post about "shapers" and the fact that that I think today they are underrated, but it fits with this time and talent thread.  I know one thing, when you find a good one, you’d like to lock them up and keep them just for yourself!  Some architects are fortunate enough to be able to do that.  

I wonder how many designers today rely on key shapers to make their golf courses come alive.  I recall for example, spending a day with Paul Kimber, the golf architect on-site during construction for the Castle Course at St. Andrews.  There was no detailed design for that golf course.  He explained to me that they determined roughly where they wanted the greens and the tees and then just let the shapers do their magic.  Paul was on-site for regular inspections, but he was just amazed at what these guys could do!  The one shaper was Mick McShane who is a true artist on a D5N dozer, and the other was Conor Walsh who could probably peel an orange with his Excavator 312.  

I don’t think Donald Ross or Tillie or Mackenzie, the list goes on, relied as much if at all on certain shapers the way architects do today to get their ideas into the dirt.  Can anyone post a photo or state a name of the "A team" shaper for some Golden Age architect?  Wasn’t it Mackenzie that said some of his best greens were shaped by the town fool.  I’m sure he was being facetious, but it may not have been far off from the truth.  Maybe this all has something to do with time and talent  ;)

« Last Edit: December 02, 2007, 04:54:32 PM by Mark_Fine »

Lloyd_Cole

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Time and Talent
« Reply #88 on: December 02, 2007, 05:09:50 PM »
I recently read 'Blink' by Malcolm Gladwell. It's a study of rapid congition and it's positive and negative impacts upon our lives. I recommend it to anyone who tends to overthink decisions. Well, the first half of the book anyway.

One of the key points is his assertion that experts in a given field are able to make split second decisons, judgements, without thinking things over, or reasoning logically. And they tend to be right. His best example is a statue purchased by Getty Museum. Extensive testing was done to prove it's authenticity. And yet when certain experts in the field saw it they simply smelt a rat - it just 'looked wrong'. More tests were conducted, and ultimately it was exposed as a very well constructed fake.

I suspect that when Tom D looks at shaping work on one of his projects, he immediately sees it as right or wrong. What takes time is the process of establishing the guilty element(s) at work and then imparting this perspective to the shaper so that it makes sense. He can do this because he has studied, has experience, AND he knows and trusts his own aesthetic.

On the other hand, the routing of a course is not something that can be done on instinct alone. Sure, he may walk a property and instantly 'see' a hole, or a green site,  and this may turn out to be fantastic. But this hunch, this feeling, needs to be assimilated and filed away with others, and the routing must ultimately come from a slow cognitive process which evaluates multiple pros and cons.

So the importance of time is not a constant. There will be instances where a deadline forces a mental state upon the architect which is ultimately beneficial, he may be forced to choose A over B with no other reasoning beyond gut feeling. Another architect, less sure of his own aesthetic, may not do so well in this situation.

In my field, I see some parallels. Writing a song can take 5 minutes, or 5 years. I see no correlation, in my work, between the songs which have ultinmately proved strongest, and the time taken to compose. I know of a Leonard Cohen song that he spoke of in interviews for many years - I think it took ten years to complete - I don't rate it as one of his better songs by any stretch.

On the other hand, taking 20 songs and choosing 10 or 12 to make a 45 minute album requires a process closer to routing. Some songs must be sacrificed to make the whole better. The 'big' song, need not always lead the way, in fact, more often than not, it will diminish the whole if it does (but many artists and record companies still insist upon it, as some developers still want their signature hole to dictate the routing). Ultimately the best lead off song is one which makes you want to keep listening, and doesn't make the song following it seem weak, or slow.. this cannot be done by front loading an album. Establishing the ideal running order is not something which can be done with rapid cognition. Knowing the lead off track may be, but putting the pieces together is time consuming.

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Time and Talent
« Reply #89 on: December 02, 2007, 05:20:54 PM »
Lloyd,
I have read the book Blink and it is a good one.  If some of your reasoning is correct about time, then why do for example, some people complain about those who make strong judgments about golf courses after only one quick visit.  Time and careful study wouldn't really yield much more insight would it  ;)  

Isn't there almost always a correlation between time and talent.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2007, 08:00:23 PM by Mark_Fine »

Lloyd_Cole

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Time and Talent
« Reply #90 on: December 02, 2007, 05:42:52 PM »
Lloyd,
I have read the book Blink and it is a good one.  If some of your reasoning is correct about time, then why do for example, some people complain about those who make strong judgments about golf courses after only one quick visit.  Time and careful study wouldn't really yield much more insight would it  ;)

Mark, Creative endeavour and criticism are quite different beasts, I think.

I'm 99% sure that I only need to listen to the first 20 seconds of a recorded song to know if it worth listening to any more.

Sure, if I give it the thumbs up I listen on, if not, I turn it off. I trust my istincts, I have to, I can't be listening to bad music. Repeated listening does not improve bad music. However, it does reveal the complexity of some good music.

I'm not a gca expert, but there are plenty here. When they make these judgements, they are thin slicing. Often they will be right, but you remember the chapter about racism and preconceived ideas, right?

I'm in no way ashamed to say that if I see too many fountains and waterfalls at a course, I'm out of there. I don't care if the shot values and hole strategies are great. I'm against fountains and waterfalls. I think they are in bad taste, and that bad taste suggests a general aesthetic I don't like. Should I give such a course a chance? Why? There are too many courses out there that I'd love to see...

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Time and Talent
« Reply #91 on: December 02, 2007, 05:52:28 PM »
Lloyd,
I just thought it is interesting to think about things in reverse.  If a particular course didn't take much time for an architect to figure out the design, would it take much time to assess how good it is after it has been built?  Is there a correlation?

« Last Edit: December 02, 2007, 08:02:30 PM by Mark_Fine »

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Time and Talent
« Reply #92 on: December 02, 2007, 06:00:23 PM »
"On the other hand, taking 20 songs and choosing 10 or 12 to make a 45 minute album requires a process closer to routing. Some songs must be sacrificed to make the whole better. The 'big' song, need not always lead the way, in fact, more often than not, it will diminish the whole if it does (but many artists and record companies still insist upon it, as some developers still want their signature hole to dictate the routing). Ultimately the best lead off song is one which makes you want to keep listening, and doesn't make the song following it seem weak, or slow.. this cannot be done by front loading an album. Establishing the ideal running order is not something which can be done with rapid cognition. Knowing the lead off track may be, but putting the pieces together is time consuming."

Great analogy between a golf routing and the song sequencing of a record album....until now I had not appreciated the parallels.

I don't perceive that the time it takes to successfully achieve either is a constant one.

Really brilliant routings can come fast....some of the best do....just as too much study can overcook anything.

Sometimes you have to put your brain in a gear that is part of the fight or flight mentality....I call it designing on the run [mentioned previously]....hunter or hunted.


 
 
« Last Edit: December 03, 2007, 05:42:01 AM by paul cowley »
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

Peter Pallotta

Re:Time and Talent
« Reply #93 on: December 02, 2007, 07:00:52 PM »
Lloyd
excellent post, and like Paul says a good analogy re: routing.

I tend to look for gca parallels in music and writing etc, but I think in this case there is a difference.

That is, the golf course architect has to contend with the land/site as it presents itself (and as Paul suggests, that's a harder thing to do on a great site than a poor one); while the writer or painter or musician usually has to contend only with himself, and with the blankness of the page/canvas staring back at him.

I think "time" might play out differently because of that. The golf course architect's art and craft is inseperable from the land as it is given him. Yes, he may see the routing and certain holes very quickly, almost intuitively. But 100 or 200 or 500 acres of land is a lot of land, and it lives and has features and subtleties even in and of itself, let alone in the context of creating a field of play for the game of golf.

It just seems to me that the longer he stares at it, the more it feeds itself and reveals itself back to him.

Peter
« Last Edit: December 02, 2007, 07:02:21 PM by Peter Pallotta »

Lloyd_Cole

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Time and Talent
« Reply #94 on: December 02, 2007, 07:15:07 PM »
I tend to look for gca parallels in music and writing etc, but I think in this case there is a difference.

That is, the golf course architect has to contend with the land/site as it presents itself (and as Paul suggests, that's a harder thing to do on a great site than a poor one); while the writer or painter or musician usually has to contend only with himself, and with the blankness of the page/canvas staring back at him.

Peter, Of course. A loose parallel only. I hope I didn't suggest more.

Bill Brightly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Time and Talent
« Reply #95 on: December 02, 2007, 07:23:11 PM »


It just seems to me that the longer he stares at it, the more it feeds itself and reveals itself back to him.


Quote

Peter,

I have no doubt this true. (Very well written, by the way.)
But let's sat a great green complex has revealed itself to the architect. How does he know if its a par 3, 4 or 5 green?

Or maybe that does not matter, maybe the routing takes care of that?

Peter Pallotta

Re:Time and Talent
« Reply #96 on: December 02, 2007, 07:39:19 PM »
Bill - I think that's where the "talent" part comes in, with its intuition and experience and intangible qualities. (And also the routing). But as others have pointed out, perhaps taking too much time here can just as easily confuse as enlighten.

Lloyd - no, you didn't. Those were just some thoughts that came to mind because of your post, so I tied them together.

Peter  

JC Urbina

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Time and Talent
« Reply #97 on: December 02, 2007, 10:51:56 PM »
Lloyd- Peter
This topic has intrigued me for 25 years.
 On one hand I believe that your gut instinct should prevail but I also believe that letting a thought slowly cook has some value.
 On the other hand I let TIME factor into many decisions.
Here is one example.
I served as the unofficial TIME keeper of Pac dunes.
During the construction of Pacific Dunes I was walking from the 8th hole towards the 15th hole marking areas to be cleared.  In between the two holes is hole # 2.  Standing in front of the green looking at the shapes of two bunkers on the right side of the green three of Toms associates were debating how the bunkers should look.  Tom was standing nearby listening to everyones 2 cents.  So while the rain was coming down  I stood for a few minutes and heard all of the pros and cons of the style of bunker they were trying to shape.
After about 10 minutes I turned and said to everyone " at this rate will be done with the golf course in about three years,  I hope you hurry up and decide because we have seventeen other holes to create".  I continued on my walk to # 15 to finish marking the clearing.

A lot of Talent with very good input but with only so much TIME to ponder.

Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Time and Talent
« Reply #98 on: December 02, 2007, 11:37:25 PM »
Jim,

That sounds like Don Mahaffey....  ;D

Cheers
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Time and Talent
« Reply #99 on: December 02, 2007, 11:45:44 PM »
Lloyd,
I'm in agreement with you.
The instance in Blink I liked the most was the marrige therapist who can tell with just a few snippets (seconds) of interraction between couples he could determine with over 95% confidence if they would be married in a 5 years.

He knew what to look for after studying thousands of hours of interraction between couples.

He looked for condesention and probably invalidation - and he know how to recognize it in many subtle forms.
He broke down something extremely complex into the most important variables.

I think that is applicable when Tom Doak looks at a golf course and renders an opinion - even after seeing just a photo or one hole.  He knows what to look for.

It definately isn't the same as the design process.
There are so many variables that make a great course - if you chose the wrong one to focus on, you might not wind up with a great course.

Cheers


« Last Edit: December 03, 2007, 12:11:48 AM by Mike Nuzzo »
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.