Amateur Architects, where are the modern day Crump's & Fownes's ?

[TEPaul]

TomD:
In response to your post #22:

You said:

“I think what it indicates is that neither the professionals nor the amateurs were very well practiced at the CRAFT of building golf courses back then, and that only the handful of amateurs who really got dirt under their fingernails could be as successful as the professionals.”

I think that’s true but for the sake of discussion what is meant by ‘who really got dirt under their fingernails’ probably needs more specific clarification. Would the idea that they simply put the time in on-site to get their vision across be something you’d agree with? I ask that because I don’t know how many shovels and bunkers and such Ross, Flynn, Mackenzie, Colt, RTJ et al, or Macdonald, Wilson, Crump, Thomas, Fownes et al----or even you----ever really wielded and dug on the courses that are under those names, including yours.

You said:

“This is what bothers me about all of the arguments we've had here over the years on this very subject. I am perfectly willing to admit that there are people who could be better than myself at the "theory" of architecture and strategizing of golf holes.”

Well, that’s interesting. Would you care to mention who those people might be? And if not, why not? I remind you that you said that there ARE people who COULD be better than you are at the “theory” of architecture and strategizing of golf holes. You didn’t exactly say “there COULD BE…..”

You said:

“However, those ideas need to be implemented along with a lot of practical considerations if they are going to work as intended. If the great strategists such as Geoff Shackelford need to rely on Gil Hanse's talents or my talents to get their ideas in the ground, then what are they except pretenders? And why would we bother puffing up their egos instead of our own?”

Of course those ideas need to be implemented along with a lot of practical considerations if they are going to work as intended. If a great strategist, a great conceptual strategist, or a great conceptual designer, be it C&C or Fazio or Jones or Geoff Shackelford or anyone else, needs to rely on a Gil Hanse’s talents or your talents for his strategic or conceptual ideas then obviously he’s not a great architectural strategist or architectural conceptualizer. But is a Geoff Shackelford relying on a Gil Hanse for his strategic or conceptual ideas on architecture? That is a pretty important question to both ask and certainly answer!

If a Gil Hanse or you or someone else tells a Shackelford or someone like him that his strategies and concepts are to some degree a “no can do” for legitimate and practical reasons then obviously you are teaching him something and that would tell me you are probably a more accomplished architect at the craft of design than he is. But what if his strategic concepts are as good or better than yours and they get on the ground as conceptualized and that’s shown over the years as it apparently has been by the likes of Leeds and Fownes and Macdonald and Wilson and Crump and Thomas etc----amateur architects all?

These men did not shape the greens and fairways and dig the bunkers and such and seed and grow the grass and neither do you. They found people who could do it and do it to their specific over-all vision as you do. So, what’s the difference really?

 “Being really good at architecture is about learning the craft, whether you are a professional or an amateur.”

Of course it is. I think I’ve just shown above that a good architect figures out how to get his vision on the ground and the fact that he’s getting paid to do that or not has nothing to do with it.

“I just don't have time for the people who think they are great without having taken the time to learn the craft. Tour pros are one such subset of people (with notable exceptions). Golf Club Atlas posters are another (with exceptions also).”

I don’t blame you for thinking you don’t have the time for those people who haven’t proven they can produce great strategic and design concept and get it on the ground. I think anyone needs to do it before it can be proven they are capable of doing it. The fact is the likes of Leeds, Fownes, Crump, Wilson, Thomas et al proved they could do it, and they were all amateur and “sportsmen“ golf course architects.

I sure hope that you, like some of what I consider to be misguided golf architecture analysts, aren’t saying or implying that they didn’t really do it, and that some who no one is heretofore been aware of REALLY did it all for them!



 

[TEPaul]

Sorry, TomD, I guess my "tomorrow is another day" post turned into a tonight's post.

If you're anywhere around Philly you have got to see my new office attached to the barn. This place could inspire some wonderful golf course architectural concept almost by itself! It's got the atmosphere.

[Greg Murphy]

I'm no Crump or Fownes or Neville or Wlson. But I entered the ranks of amateur architect a decade ago. I've been meaning to talk a bit about the experience in an article for My Home Course but just haven't got around to it. Maybe a few questions here could get me started. Any questions?

[Tom_Doak]

Greg:

Sorry, but I'm unfamiliar with where and how you did your amateur architecture, so that would be a good place to start.

Tom P:

I'll answer your three parts one at a time, may take me a while to get to them all because I've got family in town this weekend.

The first part is simplest.  "Dirt under the fingernails" is not an absolute requirement for learning how to build golf courses that work, but it is certainly the quickest way to learn.  I suppose someone can learn that by observation, too, but I am guessing that like Crump or Fownes, it would take a few years to really understand.  That's why most professional architects have worked at least a few years for somebody else before they hang out a shingle.

I am convinced that my own work is considerably better because I did shaping work for a few years, including shaping the greens at my first three courses.  P.B. Dye told me a long time ago that it would improve my ability to communicate with the shapers from there on out, and he was right about that.  Just as importantly, though, I have the respect of the guys that work for me that I can (and did at one time) do their jobs, and that I place a lot of value on their contributions.

I would love to know how many of the greats you mentioned had some real physical experience with construction themselves.  I would guess that Old Tom Morris and Donald Ross did not place themselves above picking up a shovel or a rake, early in their careers.  And I know for a fact that Pete Dye was never above it.

[Greg Murphy]

Tom,

It's called Katepwa Beach Golf Club. I'd be happy to give further details here but it might be easier for you to browse the website which is golfkatepwa.com because it has some photos there and some history of the Club. There's also a "hole by hole" blow by blow which should give you a feel for how the course plays. As well, there is a "designer's blog" which should probably be called designer's bog as I got stuck up to the axles very, very early on. Writing's a lot tougher than it looks.

Everything about the place is amateur, from the web site to the photography to the logo to the course design, but obviously various professionals/contractors were hired along the way to produce the end result.

[TEPaul]

TomD:

Regarding your post #29 and those amateur architects such as Leeds, Fownes, Macdonald, Wilson, Thomas et al, it would be my best guess that they were not the types who actually got in the dirt and did things themselves but that they learned by observing others do it for them.

Obviously it is Crump and the creation of Pine Valley I'm most familar with probably followed by Merion.

In the case of Pine Valley it is definitely true to say that Crump probably made a number of logistical mistakes due to his inexperience.

However, he certainly took the time on site to see that corrections were made and had he lived the course would probably not be exactly as it turned out. But even despite that one sure can't say he didn't do a great job in the end anyway.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Tom D.,

Over the past seven years or so, Rod Whitman's given me the same advice you received from P.B.

I still do a lot of shaping these days. As I progress as a designer/builder Rod says "You'll probably not be doing a lot of this stuff the rest of your life, but you're going to be a better designer for it." Who knows better than Rod, after shaping the past 30 years on his own projects, and with Dye, Coore and Crenshaw, and a few others?

Funny, I spoke with an established name designer over past summer. Point blank, he told me it doesn't impress him much that I - an upcoming designer with some potential to work with him in the future - have the ability to operate heavy equipment and shape golf features.

Needless to say, his approach to the CRAFT is different than Whitman's.

[Willie_Dow]

The true learning curve is being able to work together on projects.

One learns from another's ability to perform.  When I think of Jim Wagner working with Bill Kittleman when Gil Hanse came into the picture from Stonewall, where he worked with Rodney Hines - this is where the modern day archies develop as did Wilson, Flynn, Thomas, Doak and Dye.

I think it is still in the works, Pat.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom D sounds like Mike Young this morning!  I agree with whoever wrote post #22, though!

Let's face it - for about 1400 members of this site, their deepest desire is to believe that they could design a golf course, given a chance.  Justify it any way you want, but in my mind, being a good theorist just isn't enough.  And the vast majority of amateur designed courses just plain stink, as do many early efforts of gca's who go on to moderate or even wildly successful careers.

It has been touched on, but to answer Pat's original question, all of those successful amateur architects have had help.  

Second, its not just a technical question like permitting that holds amateurs back.  It is a question of really understanding both the land, the scale, and the artistic elements that really make that theoretical design work. (Basic landscape design and art theory)

I will use Stonelick as an example. While it appears to have a lot of fine elements, it strikes me that the bunkering could be better. In general, its what I call "2-D" bunkering and doesn't have enough depth or 3-D movement to be great. So, if one of those holes has great strategy in theory, but the bunker is so shallow its not a deterrent, being good in theory doesn't translate into a good hole, because golf architecture is so much more than theory.

To be fair, I have said similar things about Pete Dye's early bunkering. I could say the same about my own.  Compare that to some of Pete, Tom's or my later bunkering and you will see the hard to quantify difference.  But, its there.  

Knowing how to use or shape the land is both an innate artistic skill, and a learned one, and requires being taught (usually as an apprenctice) and still requires time to refine once you are the head guy.

I am still learning after 50 courses, and while the principles of art and composition, etc. remain constant, its rare that any two sites are alike in order to apply that theory the same.  I think Tom, the Mikes and others would tell you the same thing.

But, if you do enough courses, and learn from enough mistakes to probably get good at gca, at what point are you no longer an amateur?  And, if you couldn't reproduce the results on some different site, would you be considered a golf course architect?

[TEPaul]

So Jeff, are you saying that amateur architects such as Leeds, Fownes, Macdonald, Wilson, Crump, Thomas et al really didn't design the courses they're given credit for and that others did, or are you saying, in your opinion, courses they've been given credit for really aren't very good architecture?

If you don't think they designed those courses why don't you tell us who you think did?

[Jeff_Brauer]

TEPaul,

Some of those guys went on to be professional gca's, in workload if not payments owing to their wealth.  While Thomas didn't get a fee, for example, I am sure that Billy Bell got paid for his work.  

Crump had what I presume was paid help.  Fownes tweaked forever as he learned and may be a true amateur gca.  

In one sense, all the early guys in America were experimenting, adapting gca to new conditions.  So, they were all amateurs early on.

We don't really know, except in a few cases what qualities of greatness were added post original designs.  In any case, it stands to reason that all of those guys made the courses better with each change, and corrected their early mistakes.

I'm not saying that there haven't been or won't be any more exceptions to the rule, but agree with Tom D that you keep citing a few good ones (partial good ones, given all the changes over time) when there must be literally thousands of amateur designed courses that should just be blown up.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:

I'll address that by going back to your original question.

All of those architects had a fair share of help, as does any architect who is designing a course today.  As Bill Coore says, the lead architect always gets more credit than he deserves.  

Back in the day, it was easier to put together that help because it didn't have to be so specialized -- a lot of the work was done by hand labor, requiring supervision but not much technique.  MacKenzie did it in Australia by finding a guy who seemed to have an eye for construction (Mick Morcom) and a guy who understood his concepts about golf (Alex Russell) and leaving them to it.  And I am sure MacKenzie gets too much of the credit for it all, but you also have to take into account that neither Morcom nor Russell had created ANY great courses before they met Dr. MacKenzie.

Likewise, George Thomas got a lot better at design when he moved to California and started working with Billy Bell, and I've gotten better not just with practice but by working with each of my various associates.

Now, to contrast this with the modern situation of Ken Bakst or Eric Bergstol or Greg Murphy -- the difference is that the business is a lot more specialized today.  They need to find heavy earthmoving guys and shapers, in addition to the guys MacKenzie found.  Some do try to put that team together themselves, but it doesn't always work out so well, for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that they have more variables they have to get right.  The smart ones GENERALLY go to an architect who has these other pieces already in place.

Please note that I am not agreeing with Jeff here -- I just think the modern practice of golf architecture is harder to get right than it was in the Golden Age.  On the other hand, I think (and you might agree) that a lot of "professional" architects have overcomplicated the business in order to keep the amateurs at bay, and in the process, they've put a lot of impediments to success in their OWN way.  That's really what minimalism has always been about -- simplifying the process to the point where a small talented crew could succeed.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Tom D.,

Seems to me there's much, much more pressure to create courses that come out of the gate "perfect" today than 70 years ago. Royal Melbourne, Oakmont, Merion, Pine Valley... it took time for these great courses to evolve - through natural processes and tweaking over a period of many years - into their present forms.

The modern world isn't so patient it seems. In other words, I imagine you had to get Pacific Dunes, for example, pretty much set in stone by the time it was ready to open rather than spend the next decade and more tweaking the design.

This modern expectation of "perfection" can make or break a course; and, undoubtedly, makes the business more complex today than it was for Crump and Fownes for example.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Not quite on topic, but it should be noted that golf course construction is a lot more sophisticated now than it was in the Golden Age.

Until Wadsworth invented the idea of a professional golf course contractor in the 1950's all courses were built like Pete Dye kind of builds them - the gca or owner would hire a clearing contractor, an earthmover, (I presume that there were earthmoving contractors back then, even if they used horse and scoop) some labor for picking rocks, and seeding, etc.  The early sprinkler companies probably provided design and may have installed it, etc.

Jeff is right (and I think Tom D alluded to it) that its just harder today because of expectations, greater costs brought on by sophistication, etc.) to get it done right and done quickly.

Tom D,

I can't think of a modern gca who tries to make it more complicated than it needs to be outside the marketing realm, where we all tend to talk as if design concepts are handed down at the right hand of God.  If that's what you mean, then I agree that we all send the message that its just complicated enough that the kids at home shouldn't be trying it!  But, in truth, it is, and usually, they shouldn't.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff M:

Of course I've heard that argument a lot -- it's also been used to argue AGAINST restoration, since many great courses were improved upon in their start-up phase.  I may even have used it here sometime if you look back through enough threads.

But, I'm not sure it applies here.  Presumably Crump or Fownes or even Jerry Rich could afford not to care what the public thinks on opening day, even today.  But that would only make sense on the premise that they would IMPROVE on the course later based on observation and experience.

How many courses have actually done so in the past 20 years?  I guess Friar's Head is one -- and there are more where trees which can't be touched during construction disappear a couple of years later.

But, I think it's really ARCHITECTS that don't want the reputation of having to come back and make improvements later, even more than owners.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff B:

I think architects have overcomplicated things A LOT.  I think the trend toward big earthmoving was in part to separate the professionals (and those with big bucks) from the rest of the pack who couldn't afford it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

Well, I admit I don't want the reputation of having to come back later to get it right.  But, I'm not sure that's because I feel the Owner's wouldn't hire me if I had that rep, so its a chicken or egg question.

And, there is always the question of course image (and disrupting course revenue) to the customer if its constantly being torn up and rebuilt. Generally, golfers like a full 18 holes (in green!) and unless its a periphery element - like adding back tees for length, like they did at Sand Hills, or the occaional new bunker changes can have negative impacts on a courses business plan and image.

Actually, I when I read your "gca's make it more complicated" comment, I was thinking that you were thinking about things like plans, computer renderings, etc.  I think most would agree that all those things aren't necessary, but that they come with a cost of uncertainty.  For example, its possible to build a 7500 SF green without a plan by measuring in the field, but it makes just as much sense to draw something close out before hand.  And, in some cases, the fancy pictures we can do with computers now help the club in visualising what will come, justifying their existence.  Some don't accept waiting until completion to see what they will get.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

What I don't like about the computer renderings is the false sense of security they provide.  They give the impression that you know how much greens mix you'll use to the nearest cubic yard -- but you and I both know that for quantities we just multiply an average green size times twenty, so we have some leeway to build what we want in the field.

If you really plan out the course exactly beforehand, that's great, except you are limited to what you dreamed up in the office.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

I don't think its an all or nothing thing. I think having some predetermined quantities is a better sense of security, not a false one.  

That said, most of us do build in a cushion of a few thousand sf to the bill of quantities for field changes and no great or even very good design ever got built perfectly off the computer or drafting boards.

And that said, if we accept that the design process evolves, to the point that courses change with better ideas years later, then I think we have to accept that starting the feature design process pre construction on paper is a good thing.  It means it has been given some thought, both for that green or tee site, and in context of the rest of the course.

Then, during construction we get to think about it again, on site, perhaps at a different time of year or day to see shadows, etc. and with other people around who may have a completely different take.  The second idea - or refinement of the original idea is usually better.   So, if we don't think about it until actual construction, the final product might not be as good if we limit ourselves to only what we can dream up in the field.

As always, there are exceptions.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Tom D.,

I agree that contemporary architects, in general, probably don't want to develop a reputation of having to come back to their courses to make improvements after opening day. Which makes it very ironic that many of the great courses of the world were created on this same premise.

Perhaps, comparatively, this is one reason why fewer truly great courses have been built in the post-WWII era?  

If you're willing to answer, Tom: How many times have you revisited one of your golf courses designs, after the course opened for play, to make changes? Not necessary changes warranted by an error of any kind, either. Simply changes.

How about you, too, Jeff B.?

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

Other than additional clearing or landscaping, which we've done on a lot of courses after the fact, we've done the following:

1.  a few changes to drainage swales around the greens at Stonewall (the original 18 -- we were under time pressure to finish, and not so gifted at working with topsoil yet)

2.  a couple of bunker renovations at Beechtree, prompted by washouts

3.  a couple of rebuilt greens at The Village Club of Sands Point (dead greens which we discovered were the result of the contractor not putting the greens mix in evenly, or even close)

4.  rebuilding the 16th green at Sebonack (using a piece of property the owner had reserved for a home at the start, and making the finish longer per his wishes)

Those are the only significant changes I can remember.  I'm sure we will do more in years to come, but generally speaking, I've spent a lot of time on every hole by the time it's planted, so we are not so inclined to want to make changes soon after opening.

[Willie_Dow]

So where are you Patrick ?  This is your discussion, and I think it is a good reply !

[TEPaul]

I don't believe it's a smart idea to suggest or expect a professional architect to keep coming back to some course to get it right or take the many years to make it better the way each and every one of those great early amateurs did---eg Myopia's Leeds, Oakmont's Fownes, NGLA's Macdonald, Merion's Wilson and Pine Valley's Crump.

Did all or any of those guys take all that time or intend to going into their projects? Of course not, why would they want to do that if they understood how to get it right the first time?

On the other hand, there is a passage in a couple of letters between Wilson and Piper where it is mentioned that doing it this way is something of an ideal albeit a luxury that most clubs and clients just don't have or perhaps even want.

One of the real selling points in advertizing with some of the Golden Age professional architects was that they knew how to not only get things right the first time but doing things that way ended up costing the club a whole lot less money and time.

Those early professionals were definitely not hiding the fact that using their services versus depending on amateurs was very much a cost effiency thing in both time and money. The ones who plied that fact and in advertizing were very much Mackenzie and Flynn and Ross and numerous other professionals of that time too. They even mentioned that this included everything from site selections, to routing to the more specific design aspects of golf course architecture.

Flynn did mention that it would probably be ideal if a golf course could experience a year or more in play before the bunkering schemes were worked out but I think this was a result of Flynn's experiences at Merion and I think he understood that although perhaps ideal it wouldn't be particularly pratical on most projects.

On the other hand, and in this way, Flynn may've actually convinced numerous of his clients that this was ideal as there were an inordinate amount of his projects where he most certainly did keep coming back and changing things over quite a lot of time mostly including what he mentioned in the first place---ie bunkering.

[archie_struthers]

 


hey guys, couldn't the daunting task of environmental  and regulatory issues that didn't exost in the Golden Age put a lot of would be "amateurs" out. The task is so esceptionally difficult today that most people would have to have their head examined before trying to develop a course. Hence, my explanation for my aberrant behavior.

Most professional architects are well aware of all their designs that never got past the initial permitting phase ...and all the hard work laying in bins in the closet...never to be built.

Crump would never have been able to build Pine Valley today in NJ.... just too many hurdles .Eric Bergstol
is probably the closest thing to a modern day Crump that  I have met. Very few people have the various expertises and financial wherewithal, and tenacity that  Eric has, and both Pine Hill and now Bayonne prove this.

(note Tom Fazio was the architect at Pine Hill)

[Greg Murphy]

I agree there seems to be a lot of pressure now to get it right for the big opening day. As Jeff M has noted, stumbling out of the gate can dig a hole that's difficult to climb out of, especially since course reputations seem to have become so dependent upon opening reviews. I'm assuming opening reviews were not as big a deal in decades gone by as they are now. Does anyone know how big a deal they were in days gone by?

Also, loss of revenue caused by poor grow in, failed greens, etc., can be crippling financially. One of the most significant costs in new course construction is the grow in phase, when you have lots of operational costs, financing costs, no return on capital and no revenues. It can become a house of cards if you're farting around for the first few years to get things right.

Now for a little GCA confessional, which I'm sure the professional architects like Tom D and Jeff B and Jeff M would love to see published, as it's kind of a "kids, don't try this at home" or "professional driver on closed course" kind of message. Did we get it right on opening day at Katepwa? Not even close. Some major green shaping blunders were made, even though we hired our superintendent from the outset before construction began and we hired an experienced shaper, and one very significant irrigation blunder was narrowly avoided and all kinds of chances were taken, which would not likely be excusable for a professional without major disclaimers on the work at the outset. But first, before the confessional, a little context.

The site was truly one which allowed a very minimalist approach. First it has primarily sandy soils and sloping terrain so drainage was not nearly the construction issue it would normally be. Second, the natural features of the site allowed holes to be found rather than constructed, i.e., I was able in most cases to find natural promontories for teeing grounds, large and playable fairway areas requiring nothing but clearing and seeding, as well as naturally draining green sites with appealing surrounds that the greens simply needed to be fitted within.

(Note: A professional architect did a routing some years before I did mine but there is not a single hole remotely the same if you compare the two. I have no idea what natural features he was trying to highlight or incorporate, if any. To me, it's like it was drawn from a topo in an office somewhere.)

Our shaper (working with one Cat, a couple dump trucks, a skid steer and miscellaneous smaller equipment) and his crew got many, many things right. In particular, on the only fairway we had to do some shaping I think he got what I asked him to do (in about a fifteen minute conversation) just about perfect, softening a left-to-right side slope and creating an imperceptible high side plateau extending out from the green that really makes the hole from a strategic point of view. But his seat-of-the pants feel, in that particular environment with very significant valley fall everywhere, failed him on a few of the greens. Three had to be significantly re-built, one completely. A fourth, to this day, I consider too severe although if kept to a stimp of 10 or less, it is manageable in spots and as a par 5, many (on this site anyway) would deem the difficulty of the green justifiable.

We were fortunate that our greens were not USGA strata style (most don't even have drainage tile). Original greenmix was created on site by our shaper with sand found on site. A couple of the greens we were able to fix simply by adding material to build up the low side. On one hole, which had a beautiful lay of the land green, I was disappointed in the resulting look—it had been so totally natural looking before and once re-done it had a bit of a fall off created to one side. But from a shot making point of view, the green now has far more interest because if you miss to that side, particularly if you're short-sided, it is a much more challenging shot than before. If I was a professional architect, I bet I'd be trying to incorporate the result of this "mistake" in subsequent designs (just not as a re-do).

We were also fortunate that our members had such modest expectations going in and overall the course experience so far exceeded their expectations, not a peep of complaint was heard from the membership while we stumbled around getting things right. As well, we were flying so far below the public radar, we didn't suffer any sort of irreparable blow to our reputation. The course's reputation didn't really start to build until people started discovering it five or six years after it was built.