The Rubbish of "Pro Golfer Designers"

[Forrest Richardson]

I recall telling David something to such as, "What exactly do you plan to do when you become an ASGCA member." He had good answers, and has been a productive Associate Member. I am appreciative.

[Ryan Chin]

Last year I played a tournament with some young kid whose quiet, heavily accented father was caddying for him. At some point in making conversation, I asked the father what he did - to which he replied he was a golf course architect.

I couldn't imagine how that could be, since when I asked how he got into it the answer I received was in somewhat garbled English but the content mostly not what I expected. It certainly didn't involve a degree in landscape architecture.

Probably thinking I believed him to be a fraud, he named a few courses he had done - all mid-priced, mostly highly regarded courses I knew to be newish in the GTA. Then he says: "You know Thundering Waters, that 'John Daly' designed course? Yeah, that was me too." Spoken no less, with fingers held up in the air quote pose and a roll of his eyes.

So there you have it, an example of a ghost architect's contempt for the marketing, and yet his understanding of the situation where the celebrity name affords the architect his opportunity.

[Mike_Young]

A couple of comments:
1.  Golf is probably much safer with the Tour Type designers working with an architect than the other alternative....And that alternative, which I know is being presented to a few by one or two GCBAA members....is to just hire the builder and he will give them a product that will work.... their agents really like this and will go for it.....

2.  I think that a few of the legit Signature tour types such as JN now have a price point in their organizations that makes them more attractive than a "one night stand" type of signature.   Say Stuart Appleby ( for argument sake) gives a fee of $700,000 for a design.....well he might be higher than one of the fee structures at the other office  PLUS some of these guys try to set up their office and end up subsidizing it.....they see that they can get $100 grand or more for a monday outing yet they have this design office where they have to make say 4 site visits and if they apply the same rate then nothing is left for the expense of the office.....
The BIG BOYS are running most of the one time signature pros out of the business

[Forrest Richardson]

Any more lies? I an reverting to my original question — what other "monty-like" accounts are out there?

[Robert Thompson]

Sounds like Boris Danoff. He's the guy behind Thundering Waters. I believe John Daly said at the press conference that he was finally pleased to meet his designer. But there's nothing really hidden there. You'd have to be a fool to think Daly did the work.

That said, the work isn't very good, so maybe Danoff can blame Daly!

Last year I played a tournament with some young kid whose quiet, heavily accented father was caddying for him. At some point in making conversation, I asked the father what he did - to which he replied he was a golf course architect.

I couldn't imagine how that could be, since when I asked how he got into it the answer I received was in somewhat garbled English but the content mostly not what I expected. It certainly didn't involve a degree in landscape architecture.

Probably thinking I believed him to be a fraud, he named a few courses he had done - all mid-priced, mostly highly regarded courses I knew to be newish in the GTA. Then he says: "You know Thundering Waters, that 'John Daly' designed course? Yeah, that was me too." Spoken no less, with fingers held up in the air quote pose and a roll of his eyes.

So there you have it, an example of a ghost architect's contempt for the marketing, and yet his understanding of the situation where the celebrity name affords the architect his opportunity.

[Ryan Chin]

Robert,

Yep, that was him.

[J_McKenzie]

Lumping all "Pro Golf Designers" together is painting with a pretty wide brush.  Each designer/project should be looked at based upon its own merits.  Longevity and the size of a portfolio may be the best indicator of how involved a player is in the business.

By the way, why doesn't anybody ever ask about the design associate's name on courses that don't turn out so well?  The "name designers", whether it's Nicklaus, Palmer, Love, Fazio, Jones, Doak, etc., get all the credit when things are good and all the blame when things are bad.   Seems like an even trade to me.....

[Forrest Richardson]

J — I think a read back through the thread will show that no one is lumping all professional designers into one category. In fact, a lot of the discussion has been about the differences. And, to the point of associates, there are several comments about that relationship.

The essence here is to discuss the "rubbish" that is at play when something similar to the Monty story unfolds in golf design.

[Tom_Doak]

J --

I understand your sensitivity to this issue, and you're right.

However, analysis of each project based on its own merits just doesn't happen in this business ... that's the whole point of this thread.  In the press these different associations between professional golfers and architectural professionals are all treated pretty much the same, even though they are far from equal.  The problem is that nobody ever calls bullshit on anything.

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom D — You seem to have a relatively "free" Friday, too.   

Except here (on GCA), Tom — I think there are a lot of good "calls" being discussed. That point you make is spot on: It rarely gets reported because the writers are often "in the tank" about golf and sports writing. Who wants to write something ugly about PGA player ______________ ? Certainly not the day-to-day golf writer.

I believe the account written about Monty was an investigative reporter of sorts. At least that is how Desmond described him — not a golf/sports writer.

[Lester George]

J,

Based on your theory of longevity and portfolio size....Gary Player is one of the best??

Lester

[Bill_McBride]

By the way, why doesn't anybody ever ask about the design associate's name on courses that don't turn out so well?  The "name designers", whether it's Nicklaus, Palmer, Love, Fazio, Jones, Doak, etc., get all the credit when things are good and all the blame when things are bad.   Seems like an even trade to me.....

The captain must go down with the ship!  The company owner always takes the ultimate credit no matter what the business, good or bad.  The good ones know how to share the credit and mitigate the blame if warranted.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Forrest

I think your topic is very interesting and I believe that the underlining problem is clearly identifying the guy who designed the course. His identity is important not just for this one course but for posterity if he continues to design courses like Colt, Mackenzie etc.

However the problem, manifested in the modern approach of have companies with large numbers of associates who appear to do more that just contribute to the overall package which is then signed off by the ‘Named’ Owner of the design company just confuses the whole issue.

Who is the Designer:-
 
a) The owner just because he is responsible and signed off the design, but in reality had little to do with it apart from monitoring progress?
b) The Associate who undertook most of the co-ordination or was project leader?

In fact we could continue the list incorporating numerous combinations, but alas I feel we still will not get a clear picture of who was the actual designer.

I feel as I mentioned previously, we need to define what we all understand as the interpretation of the word ‘Designer’. To do this we must separate the construction or Project Management from this process and concentrate purely on the Design content of the project. Once we understand what we all mean then I feel it would be rather simple to acknowledge who was the real designer of the course time after time.

Accreditation can and should go the Company employing the Designer, as well as identifying Team Leader and Team Members. The Celebrity Pro can get his name mentioned as Co–Designer (whatever his input).  As for the owner and guy responsible, his name is associated with that of his company and he gets the credit with the foresight to have employed an excellent professional team.  The Designer(s), who in my humble opinion are the guy(s) who are responsible for the routing and probably the general location of the greens, should get the deserved recognition albeit under the umbrella of the Company and Design Team.

We do need to credit the right guy for the Design, if you disagree with my interpretation of the word design, then please submit an alternative, suggesting why.

Melvyn 

[Forrest Richardson]

Isn't there a major difference in having the name of the principal of a golf course architectural firm being represented as "The Designer" versus a professional golfer who in some cases has nothing at all to do with the design, being represented as "The Designer" ?

I cannot think of any professional golf architects who do not acknowledge the work of their associates. But, as in the case of the Monty story, here is a professional golfer who represents that he is "The Designer" and goes on to say that he is looking forward to more work as "A Designer."

[Melvyn Morrow]

Forrest

As for the Monty story, I must first say that if it is indeed true I am shocked with Monty as I believe him to be an open and honest player.

So taking the case at face value I would say that it is totally wrong to take credit for work undertaken by others. As a designer, I would expect that my work be recognised and I would not take kindly to others deliberately taken the credit.

There is however another potential explanation not mentioned or at least I have not noticed. It is that Monty was asked to review the whole plan and make his formal opinion or proposal of it and if he did modify the design then he would be able to take credit for that part, albeit he would have changed the original design and therefore legally be taken as responsible for the new modified one, thus releasing in law the previous designers liabilities. But I do not know the story or what actually happened but I will still say it is very important to have the names of the original designer and others who modified the design or course clearly mentioned including the changes.

Melvyn

[Tom_Doak]

Melvyn:

I don't know Colin Montgomerie at all, but I can ASSURE you that his agent would NEVER, ever let him officially change the design of a golf course and sign off on the liability for it.

As to your questions about what part of the job constitutes the "design" of the course, that is a topic worthy of its own thread.  Some would say it's who does the routing of the holes; some would say it's who administrates the design in the field and deals with the contractors and suppliers; some (pros) would say it's who decides how the individual holes play. 

The only way to be sure to get credit is to do all of the above ... but if you are going to design more than one golf course per year you'll probably have to share the workload on at least some of these aspects.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Melvyn,

No knock on Monty as a person, parent, or player, but 'Monty' as GCA seems a tad generous. He appears to be little more than a brand name, a product handled by Aberdeen Asset Management, as a quick run through of his website points outs.

Sentences like: "Colin made his first visit to the course on July 25th", are the norm, and reading Monty's own words is revealing: "I can only speak for myself. It’s like golf – I’m only in control of one ball, which is mine, and I can’t control anyone else’s. I’m not playing tennis here where it’s against each other. I can only control what I do and so I can’t speak for anybody else. If a golf course was named after you, or your father’s surname as we have, you’d want it to be as good as it could be, right? So what I try and do is when I have contractual days to come and visit, it’s a must. There’s a lot of work done on this golf course behind the scenes which you might not be able to see - it’s on computers and stuff within our Singapore office and our office back in London as well. So although, this is the first time I’ve visited the site as such, I’ve seen this golf course, do you know what I mean?"

Excuse me a moment while I gag,  ,  there, that's better.

 

[Tom_Doak]

Jeez, I have got to copy that for my web site!

[Forrest Richardson]

Sorry Tom, I already did!

[Jim_Kennedy]

Neither of you can have the "..it’s on computers and stuff"... line, my kids copywrote that many years ago when I'd ask them where their homework was.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tom

You perhaps missed my point, he does not have to sign off on the design, as long as it can be proven that he modified the original, liability is no longer with the original designer. 

Its proving the involvement which I believe is part and parcel of this thread.

Melvyn

[Mike_Young]

I think that maybe...just maybe...these professional golfers, low handicap green chairs and others don't mean to sound like they come off...they just have no idea what the process entails and therefore think that they do know more about what is happening on a golf course than they really do.....and so we get the Monty type of Statements.  At my home course we have a very arrogant low handicap green chair that has zero clue but will tell everyone they have no idea of what is happening.....and that he does.....same goes for many of the pros...what it really boils down to is a lack of respect for the business of golf architecture and the value an architect lends to the project......to be a tour player it takes hours of practice yet they would think they could design a golf course with probably less than an hour a week in the overall process......JMO

[Tom_Doak]

Mike:

Part of the problem with pro golfers is that most believe their success (or a significant part of it, anyway) is due to natural talent rather than loads of practice.

[Mike_Young]

Mike:

Part of the problem with pro golfers is that most believe their success (or a significant part of it, anyway) is due to natural talent rather than loads of practice.

TD..that's good   raw talent unleashed

[Kirk Gill]

Coming at this issue from the point of view of a "consumer" of golf architecture, I am personally dubious about the value of a pro's name being associated with a course. Historically it MUST have made a difference, or folks wouldn't have continued to do it, right? But to me, other than the truly huge names like JN or TW, the name of a pro does not necessarily fill me with a desire to play their associated course. I might be curious about whether or not they can "do it," but in some way I must not be in the demographic of the people that these marketing geniuses feel are going to be swayed by pro golfer involvement. And if it's JUST for marketing purposes, then why does there need to be this playact that the pro actually designed the course? If the consumers are just sheep as all of this seems to indicate, would they really be less likely to play a course or be a member of a course that just associates the course with the player's name, without design credit? Like going to eat at Elway's restaurant? If the pro has an interest in it, and a desire for it, who am I to be against using their good name as an entree into the business? But if it's really just a mutual money-grab, are people REALLY that interested? It strikes me as odd. Of course, pictures of food on menus strikes me as odd. The pictures make promises the actual food never keeps. Are some pro golfers, by taking design credit for golf courses where they had minimal involvement, doing the same thing?