Anonymous No Longer

[Peter Pallotta]

This has probably been asked before, but I wouldn't know where to look.

I've read here that what hasn't survived the golden age of golf course architecture are the names of the many construction foremen and shapers who helped build the classic old courses. I'm assuming the reason those men are anonymous now is that they were pretty anonymous back then too; they were just the blue collar guys in a very white collar world. But those courses (and the work they did) turned out very well.

Today, architects are rightfully more respectful of the people who help bring their designs to life. The construction teams and shapers and associates are no longer so anonymous, and the best of them are well known and well regarded within the industry, and have independent careers of their own. The designs they work on have also turned out well.  

My question is, in terms of the golf courses only, has anything been gained or lost or altered now that the anonymous ones are no longer anonymous?

Thanks
Peter    

[wsmorrison]

Peter,

Flynn's construction foremen were pretty well documented for each project.  Red Lawrence and William Gordon were both foremen for Flynn and went on to become fairly highly regarded architects.  In time, the best of the lot was probably Dick Wilson, although he was never a construction foreman for Flynn but rather a second in charge under either Lawrence or Gordon.

Flynn had a loyal construction crew under the Toomey and Flynn Contracting Engineers company.  Flynn gave many of them room and board on a farm he owned during the Depression when there was little work.  According to Flynn's daughter, they held Flynn in high personal and professional esteem.

[Peter Pallotta]

Wayne - thanks for that; you reminded me of the specifics I had somewhere in the back of my mind, and that had probably come from you in the first place. But what was also in the back of my mind was that Lawrence and Gordon were the exception that proved the rule.

Also, since I really don't have any pre-conceived notions about where this discussion might lead, I'd appreciate if you could speculate on what you think Flynn's (unique?) relationship with his foremen might've meant to his finished product? Something that you think might explain what sets that product apart from the work of others?

Thanks
Peter

[Mark Bourgeois]

Does it come down to notions of "intellectual property" or "intellectual capital," and how the public, clients, and industry accredit the contributions of everyone from drawing board / computer screen to finished product?

FWIW and continuing to not answer your question, MacKenzie in his writings was very generous in praising his crew, pointing out how critical they were to bringing in a course that met both design standards and budget.

Of course, the head of the construction company was named Charles MacKenzie.

Mark

[David Stamm]

Although he became a excellent architect in his own right, Billy Bell was Thomas' foreman for many of his jobs as well as being given credit for co-designing those projects. Bell was the one who got right in there and got his hands dirty as it were and wasn't afraid to do so, as his background was a super.  William Johnson was on Bell sr's crew after serving on Watson's. He later went on to design on his own.


MacKenzie's crew consisted of Jack Fleming, who later went on to become a designer himself, Dan Gormley, Paddy Cole and Michael McDonagh. They were the Dave Axland and Dan Proctors of their day. Of course, Robert Hunter served as his supervisor on CPC as well as Valley Club.

[TEPaul]

Peter:

I don't think those guys on those crews who may've had a lot more influence on how things turn out were any more in the background back then than they are today.

I think it's basically the nature of the business and doesn't have much of anything to do with a "sign of the times", as it were.

A pretty good number of those kinds of people got as much recognition back then as their counterparts do today.

Some of the best examples from the past I'm aware of are:

1. Pine Valley's Jim Govan (Crump's foreman).
2. Perry Maxwell's "The Forgotten Man" (the Wood Bros).
3. Merion's Fred Pickering (construction foreman)
4. Fownes' Emil Loeffler (Oakmont's super and construction man).
5. Ross' foremen (Hatch, McGovern and Maples).
6. Mackenzie's Monterrey School associate Robert Hunter.

The only one I can think of who really does need more recognition, and deserves waaaay more recognition for his influence on golf architecture and various projects is of course none other than ME! And of course if some of these expert researchers on here want to dig even deeper they should probably give a lot more credit to my constant pissboy, Wayno Morrison.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, gents. I stand, as they say, corrected. I thought there was something in that question that might've led somewhere interesting, but I was misinformed.

TE - ha, ha.  I'm sure later researchers will determine that you held Wayno Morrison in the highest regard, and speculate that 'pissboy' was a common term of endearment in the early years of the 21st century.

Peter

[Tom_Doak]

David Stamm:

Those were MacKenzie's men in California, but in Australia, or South America, or at Crystal Downs or Augusta, it was different guys.

Peter P:  The problem with crediting people on down the line is that what gets out is VERY uneven and therefore somewhat misleading.  By the time someone earns "lead associate" status and gets some credit, he may be spreading his time between multiple jobs, and the next guy down in the chain of command is actually doing a lot of the creative stuff on a particular job, but getting no credit for it himself.

My own associates were bothered that Gil Hanse got more credit for Stonewall than they got for doing the same things he did on other courses ... and he got that extra bit of credit in part because he'd left the firm.  I never had a problem with it because Gil deserved some credit for the design work, yet it did mislead some people into believing that he did it all and I wasn't there much, because typically that's the only way an associate gets any credit.

It does make it harder to run a business if clients insist on having a certain associate be the lead associate for their job -- they may have heard that Jim Urbina was in the lead at Pacific Dunes, so they want him.  But he can't be everywhere, and it's just random that they didn't get Brian Schneider's name for Barnbougle or Bruce Hepner's name for Ballyneal instead.  That's the real reason architects don't want to start sharing credit too deep.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, Tom - I appreciate the insight/nuance of that, all new to me. The extra layer of complexity in the running of a modern-day design firm seems clear, but judging from the other posts that doesn't seem to be a factor in distinguishing the finished products of today from those of yesteryear.

Peter  

[TEPaul]

TomD:

Did anyone ever think to credit Tom Fazio for the routing of the original Stonewall? He did route that course, didn't he?  

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:

I have no idea whether it was Tom Fazio or one of his many associates who did the routing for the original Stonewall course.  We did change the routing of the 3rd, 9th, 10th and 18th from their plan.

One of the nice things about getting to build the second 18 at Stonewall was getting to route that course myself.  We moved 50,000 cubic yards of earth on the North course, as opposed to 300,000 on the original 18.

[TEPaul]

TomD:

Thanks. I guess it'd be instructive for the website to explain why you had to stick with some of the Fazio Co routing on the original Stonewall. Didn't it have something to do with a gas line?

Also, if you rerouted the 3rd hole when did the idea of mimicing the 1st green at Crystal Downs pop into your head?

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:

Not sure anybody but you and I are reading this thread anymore, but I will explain anyway.

Mostly, we were asked to stick with Fazio's routing because they had already gotten erosion control permits based on that routing, and they did not want to go through an 18-month process to change them all around.  That, and most of his routing was pretty good considering the parameters ... having the existing clubhouse site, and the driveway into the club splitting the property lengthwise, made for a limited number of routing solutions.

The one major change I made was to Fazio's tenth and 18th holes.  His tenth would have played up the hill backwards on the current 18th, but the mystery to me was that his 18th was a dogleg left par-5 playing from today's tenth green down toward the 9th green, then around the pond toward #9 tee.  I did not understand how that was going to work, in particular why people wouldn't just play down their tenth fairway on the more direct route.

I explained my thought when I interviewed for the job (having seen a model of the routing for about an hour beforehand) and apparently none of the founders had really thought about it before and it got them thinking.  They asked me how to fix it and I said it was a triangle so it needed to be three holes ... we reversed the holes (gaining a hole in the process) and that allowed me to change Fazio's #3 and to eliminate a downhill par-3 between todays third and fourth holes.

The gas line crosses the other end of the golf course (across the crest of the fairways on #2, 12, 13, 14 and 16) so it was impossible to make cuts there, which explains why those holes are all of the "up and over" variety.

[Bob_Huntley]

Tom Paul,

Please note that Monterey in California has just one R.

Bob

[David Stamm]

David Stamm:

Those were MacKenzie's men in California, but in Australia, or South America, or at Crystal Downs or Augusta, it was different guys.

 

I understand, Tom. I wasn't inferring otherwise. I only know the Cal guys.