Do great golfers become great golf course designer/architects?

[Ben Stephens]

A comment in the St Enodoc thread re: course changes by a great amateur golfer had made me think whether a top player can be a great golf course designer/architect? and how many are there?

I could only name a few but it was way before the golden age but the only present one I can think of is Ben Crenshaw. The following great players who I think have proved to be good golf course designers - Tom Morris, Harry Vardon and James Braid. 

Most of the best golf course architects learned their trade as professional or top amateur golfers would with theirs. IF there was an order of merit for golf course architects you would see the likes of Jones, Dye, Coore, Doak, Hanse etc at the top but would a top player be near the top?
   

[cary lichtenstein]

Just curious re: Crenshaw comment, is it Crenshaw or Coore whois the dominant force?

I sought of got the impression that Crenshaw brings in the client, Coore does the majorityof the work and Crenshaw consults and does actual in field work on the greens.

Can anyone make a more learned comment on this please?

[Ben Stephens]

Cary,

I would be interested who does the most of the design work/ideas/construction. I agree with your comments and I would assume that Coore is the dominant force in the designs/ideas/construction and Crenshaw from a marketing point of view and by being a 'good' golfer.

I hear that Coore is working on the 2nd course at Barmbougle Dunes - is it all himself alone? or is it under the C+C 'brand'?

You need a team to build a golf course. I had the ideas of what every green should shape like at Rutland Water but the contractor built it and implemented a few of his ideas to the shaping.

Tom Doak mentioned that he leaves the greens shaping to Jim Urbina at Old MacDonald. Does that mean it should be 'Doak and Urbina' that should be classified as the 'designers' of the course? with Doak and the layout/ideas designer and Urbina as the greens ideas/shaper designer

[Phil_the_Author]

C.B. Macdonald...

[TEPaul]

No, the best way to become known as a great architect is to just sit there quietly with your thumb up your ass while your club considers a new site for about a year and a half and then about sixteen months into the project brings Charlie Macdonald and Hank Whigam in from New York for a day to route and design the course, and then hands you that design and asks you to come to Long Island for two days so they can explain to you how to BUILD it.

That's the way you become a great golf architect and the cool thing is you really don't have to do much.

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that pro from GCGC. What was his name? Well, no matter even though some expert researchers claim he might have been the second best architect in America at the time even though he was just the pro at GCGC. But it's important to continue to sit there with your thumb up your ass and not go near him because you might learn something too early that could screw up your two day meteoric learning curve to come.

[TEPaul]

"Just curious re: Crenshaw comment, is it Crenshaw or Coore whois the dominant force?"



I could tell you cary but I might have to kill you.

[Tom_Doak]

Ben:

There is no good answer to your question.  I don't think being a great player precludes becoming a great architect, but it is certainly no guarantee.

To correct you, Jim Urbina is not designing all of the greens at Old Macdonald -- he and Tony Russell did do the fifth green which is the only one we've discussed here.  Several of my associates are doing the shaping work and I tell them what I think is important for any particular green, and let them run from there.  Many of the concepts came from C.B. Macdonald -- or more correctly from the holes which inspired him to begin with.  And I've had my share of input, too. 

I believe Bill Coore will be the only name on the new course at Barnbougle, although he is certainly going to employ several of his own people in the construction.  Ben just doesn't want to commit to international projects; but he might go down and have a look at some point.

[Tim Gerrish]

Being a good/great player sure could help, but it also might hinder your creative juices as you could design with only your style game in mind.

Also, so many of the elements that are considered in designing a course are not play related.  I'm wondering how much Tiger knows about drainage.

[Dan Herrmann]

I'd keep my eyes on Davis Love III's work.   I sense real potential here.

[RJ_Daley]

In our modern era, how many tour pros really could or would put in the time to become real GCAs, not signatories to a plan?  If you are a great tour player today, it seems to me that you are just that, with no time for other studious pursuits.  The actual study, as a fellow like Mr. Crenshaw has undertaken, is too time consuming for most, I'd bet. 

Maybe a guy like Tiger has a real GCA or even a very good CAD guy come in and tutor him, for his first two projects, in his down time.  A great (and wealthy) tour player might hire tudors to significantly speed up their learning curve.  But, I'll bet they aren't burning the midnight oil, going laboriously over topos, routings, budget docs, and phazing or staging construction plans.   

Finally, I'll generalize that the great modern players become signatories to great architectural efforts most often- consultants in the field for tweaking great plans, and sell the work via name association, rather than exceptional architectural work that they themselves do. 

I'd also go so far as to say that most good to great real architects are pretty good am players, just not all that good to compete at any significant am or pro level. 

(Unless you are Tom Doak, and get to play in celeb pro-ams with the likes of Catherine Zeta Jones!!!)  Now that is greatness! 

[Bob_Huntley]

After his association with Moorish, does not Tom Weiskopf have some claim to being an accomplished architect?

Bob

[Mark Pearce]

No, the best way to become known as a great architect is to just sit there quietly with your thumb up your ass while your club considers a new site for about a year and a half and then about sixteen months into the project brings Charlie Macdonald and Hank Whigam in from New York for a day to route and design the course, and then hands you that design and asks you to come to Long Island for two days so they can explain to you how to BUILD it.

That's the way you become a great golf architect and the cool thing is you really don't have to do much.

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that pro from GCGC. What was his name? Well, no matter even though some expert researchers claim he might have been the second best architect in America at the time even though he was just the pro at GCGC. But it's important to continue to sit there with your thumb up your ass and not go near him because you might learn something too early that could screw up your two day meteoric learning curve to come.

Let.  It. Go.

Please. 

[BVince]

YES.  Why can't a professional golfer be a great golf course designer?

Think about it.  They have played most of the best courses in the world.  They understand more aspects and angles of golf courses that most people.  They are creative and can pull off shots from troubled situations.  They spend the most time on golf courses. 

I do not think you have to be a great golfer to be a great designer, but certainly the potential is there.  I think the major problem with great golfers as architects is they may try to immitate things they like in golf courses versus being as creative as possible with the land.  Lastly, most really successful golfers will think of GCA as more as a business versus a passion, thus leaving most of their work to a partner/associate and only having a minor say in the entire process. 

[Tom_Doak]

Bryon:

I think the one trouble with professional golfers is that their understanding of risk and reward does not apply well down the food chain.

Someone like Jack Nicklaus thinks it's a great idea to have a bunker at 285 yards with a downslope behind it, so that the player who just carries the bunker will be rewarded with extra roll over the opponent who plays wide of the bunker.

And that's true -- if 285 yards is your definition of a good drive.  The problem is, some guys only carry it 265 [or 165!], so they're always at a disadvantage.  And the guys who carry it 300 yards aren't rewarded; in fact the 285-hitter gets to be even with them.

It's the same for green targets -- Tom Weiskopf wants to build a green which rewards a good 7-iron or a good 3-iron approach, but the rest of us don't have those clubs in our hand for that approach, nor do we hit a 3-iron with as much height and stopping power as Tom Weiskopf does.

Now, if you had bunkers like this set up at 225 on one hole and 265 the next and 285 the hole after that, no problem.  But the great golfer doesn't think a 225-yard drive should be rewarded, period.  And that's why most pros have a hard time building courses that the other 99% of us can relate to.

[Drew Standley]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that being a great golf most certainly does not give you license to be a great architect.  Steve Elkington anyone?  Great golfer, mediocre architect.

:Houston point of view:

-Drew

[Matthew Delahunty]

Tom,

Further to your point, do you see many courses designed by pros which have a bias in favour of golfers who draw the ball (being most pros' stock shot)?

[Tom_Doak]

Matthew:

I think every designer subconsciously designs around his own game, because we are trying to visualize golf shots and the easiest shots to visualize are our own.

However, I don't believe that the majority of Tour pros hit a draw.  Crenshaw, yes.  Bobby Jones, yes -- that's why Augusta has so many "hook" tee shots even though MacKenzie favored a fade.  However, Nicklaus and Norman both hit a fade, and you can see that in their work as well, although I know Jack really tries to be conscious of not overdoing it.

Don't forget that some of the other "Tour pro architects" are not much responsible for their own designs, so these may not reflect their own games.

[Mike_Young]

I think the great players becoming great architects is directly proportionate to what they put into it.....from what I have seen for so many of these "tour player architects" it is their agent more than themselves who has the interest in design.....he see the $$$$ signs and pushes the name.....so many of these guys don't have much input at all as to how their design turns out.....
BUT the sad thing for golf is that the notoriety of  the "tour pro architect signature" attracts the client with the money which is so critical in making so many projects work in the long run.....
AND last...there are many more great players than there are TOTAL architects......I would think most of the great ones would rather fish or hunt.....not everyone is into the architecture stuff

[Gerry B]

messr Fownes was a pretty good golfer in his day and his lone contribution to architecture -  Oakmont speaks for itself

walter travis would also qualify imho - he did win the us amateur

[Adrian_Stiff]

No reason why they cant make great architects, but I think the only advantage pro's have is that they see lots of different courses, plenty on this site see lots of courses or study photos of course.
I think a Superintendent has the greatest advantage to convert into a good architect, they understand how it all works and certainly have a lot of the skills that a tour pro would not understand. The named designers employ teams with skills rather than do it themselves of course.

[James Boon]

When we say great golfers are we only talking about Nicklaus, Faldo and Tiger or any professional or amateaur with a decent career? I'd say that the courses I've played or have read about, by professional golfers have not been anything special. I've played courses by Peter Alliss, Jack Nicklaus, Peter Jacobsen and Steve Elkington amongst others, and not rated any of them.

However, Pete Dye had a good state amateur career and he isn't bad at designing courses...

As Ben Stephens suggested originally perhaps Crenshaw is an exception to this amongst modern professional golfers? (though I can't comment on how much his input is and probably don't want to know if its on penalty of death...) Though I've not played a Coore and Crenshaw course, my theory would be that Crenshaw is not a long hitter but he is a great putter and therefore doesn't base the design around needing to boom 300 yard plus drives all the time, while creating interesting putting greens. Therefore like most other professionals who try designing courses he is designing to his strengths, its just that those strengths make for more interesting courses for a wider standard of player?

[Mike Bowline]

Making a golf course playable by ALL levels of players would seem to me to be the hurdle a tour pro would have to overcome. Playability does not just come from less length, but also fewer (if any) forced carries, open-front greens, options for the lesser-skilled player, etc.

[C. Squier]

However, Nicklaus and Norman both hit a fade, and you can see that in their work as well, although I know Jack really tries to be conscious of not overdoing it.

Maybe not on tee shots, but Nicklaus certainly shows his favor of a fade with his greens.  His shallow depth greens most definitely favor a high fade.  One of his greatest strengths as a player was controlling his distances and he rewards that in his designs.  Especially from his early works.  Just my opinion.

CPS

[Pete Lavallee]

I'd keep my eyes on Davis Love III's work.   I sense real potential here.

Did Paul Cowley just receive a backhanded compliment?