[mike_malone]

recently i have come to believe that our old flynn course would benefit from having a long term relationship with an architect.over the past ten to 15 years we have had several projects and in each instance either a different architect was used or only the contractor with green cmte.does it make sense to choose one to marry?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sam,

I think your club would benefit from retaining an architect for all future work, and perhaps to correct and/or restore.

I would suggest that you seek an architect familiar with and sympathetic to restorations.  There are many good ones.

An individual on this site is doing some research on Flynn and Flynn courses, he might be an ideal contact to narrow down your choice of architects.

What is the "mood" of the club and the committee with respect to past and future work ?
Is there political stability at the club ?

Good Luck

[mike_malone]

patrick mucci    as to mood membership loves their course so will do almost anything but always opposes everything initially.so,i think we need a good communicator  as well as good flynn restorer.politics seems always to make faint of heart give up easily,but that will never change.

[wsmorrison]

Mr. Malone

I am in absolute agreement with you that there should be a continuity in vision for an outstanding course so that it can prevail against the shifting winds of changing committees.  This demands that the decision be a sound one in choosing the architectural group.  As Tom Doak has told me, many modern architects profess to an in-depth understanding of the mind and tendencies of classic architects but most are blowing smoke.  There are however some excellent men to put in such an important position.  Part of their job is to educate and persuade.  It is incumbant on the membership and especially the committee members to make fully informed un-biased decisions not ones based on their own pretensions of knowledge and their individual games.  We are fortunate not to have to overcome overwhelming hurdles in this regard at our course.

We walked with such a man this Tuesday.  Luckily we have a membership that cares deeply for the course and I am sure we will make the refinements necessary to achieve the full greatness of the course.

MM---found my swing that I so completely lost on Tues., hopefully I won't lose it again for a while.

Pat:
We spoke awhile ago regarding my book project on the courses of william flynn.  I have not made any significant progress with creek, glen head, and tuxedo.  I tried to contact two of the gentlemen you recommended, I forget their names as of now.  Any contacts at Metro Golf Assoc that you know?  I left msgs with course supers, no reply as yet.  I moved on to other areas but need to revisit.  Any help would be appreciated.

Regards,
Wayne Morrison

[Mike_Cirba]

I totally agree with Patrick and Wayne, although I do find it very surprising that Patrick stated what he did.  

"I would suggest that you seek an architect familiar with and sympathetic to restorations."  


In the past, he's argued vehemently that with the right club leadership, any old architect or hired help will do.  

We continue to disagree on that point, but I'm not sure if he agrees with that position or the one he espouses here.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

You can't replace truely great leadership, sub-contractors are interchangeable.  

One only has to look back at all the classical golf courses that were disfigured over the years to understand the importance of truely great leadership, or what happens to a golf course when it's lacking.

We wouldn't be having half the discussion we're having if clubs hadn't changed, scarred, and disfigured their golf courses over the years, and the process continues, unabated.
For every restoration we hear about it seems that some classic club is about to demolish forever, the design integrity of their course.

Leaders and visionaries are the key components,
subcontractors are interchangeable  

WSM.

Jay Matolla, exec dir of the MGA can help you at Tuxedo
I may be able to help you with Glen head
Tom Doak is the consulting architect at The Creek

[wsmorrison]

Pat,

Thanks so much for the info.  Will follow up.
Regards,
Wayne

[Brad Klein]

Master Plan or die -  a slow, withering death.

You need to hire someone and get it out of the hands of this or that committeman. Look for someone who

-is not famous
-who loves architecture
-has spent lots of time abroad
-is willing to work hard on the ground
-can be diplomatic in (appearing to be) listening
-has a keen sense of politics
-really loves what they are doing

[Craig Rokke]

You often hear about certain architects having a niche with
Ross courses, for instance. Is there anyone who has done creditable work on a number of Flynn courses?

[Craig Disher]

Mr. malone,
Sounds like we have a similar problem. If you care to, send me an email so we can continue this discussion off line.

Brad Klein's summary of the qualities you should look for is spot on. Strong political instincts can't be overvalued. Given clubs' resistance to change or to spend money, someone who could lay on LBJ's "treatment" might be the essential component in getting the membership - and the greens committee - to go forward with a restoration.

Craig R, Ron Prichard's work at Huntingdon Valley qualifies him as someone who can do more than creditable work on a Flynn course - and I believe he's mostly recognized for working on Ross designs. I think an architect who consistently has done successful restorations of classic courses wouldn't have great difficulty adapting to Flynn.

[Craig Rokke]

Good point, Craig D. Perhaps a Prichard or Hanse would be excellent candidates, especially if the course is one of the many Phila. Flynn courses, which I suspect it is. The proximity
of those two would be key, plus their restoration reputations
are strong.

[Tom Doak]

Craig R:  Personally, I think that it isn't that important to have a Flynn or Ross self-proclaimed "expert."  Someone tried to ace us out of the consulting job at SFGC because we hadn't worked on a Tillinghast course before.

I answered that by saying we're trying to restore SFGC, not Tillinghast.  SFGC doesn't really look much like his other courses, anyway ... you sure wouldn't want to try and put some Winged Foot bunkers in there.

The "Ross expert" stuff is just marketing.

The truth is that a lot of the guys who are really good at this work are way too busy with it already.

[John_D._Bernhardt]

Brad and Tom, Well said on this point.

[R. C.]

Mr. Rokke: In response to your query regarding the restoration of Flynn courses, Hanse did a nice job at Lancaster in the late 90's.  

[TEPaul]

Those that have done good work on Flynn courses--Forse, Hanse, Prichard.

Ron Prichard has done good work on Ross courses too. Hanse has done good work on Ross Courses (Plainfield) and he better do good work on my Ross course or I'll put the whammy on him! Hanse is doing good work on Raynor's Fishers Island.

Silva seems to be into Raynor these days but has done some good Ross restoration work. Bobby Weed has done good Ross work I hear. Doak can probably do any architect's course but it would seem MacKenzie would be the real one for him.

I'd put Coore and Crenshaw onto ANGC. They should sign a retainer with Ben and Bill to take the course back to something like what it once was by signing them both to a retainer for the remainder of their lives.

Rees did a good restoration at Brookline, didn't he, and didn't he do a good job at East Lake?

Actually Rees is the perfect guy to restore RTJ but most of the RTJ redesign work is coming out these days and Rees may not think that's a good idea. Rees might be doing some light work on Maidstone too.

Rees and Fazio have been onto some Tillinghast, Thomas courses and got saddled with the ubiquitous MacDonald & Co bunker contractors who I hear are the absolute best in the world at their specialty of restoring and copying really good Art Hills bunkers!

Their "style" inventory also includes having perfected the "puffy and upholstered" bunker look too and that's showing up on classic courses all over America. That ''look" is now being referred to as the much sought after "USGA/Fazio/MacDonald comfortable furniture" bunker look/style!

But Pat Mucci thinks he can work with MacDonald & Co if he had to and as long as he gives them the correct "marching orders" they can do EXACTLY what he wants them to.

I wouldn't recommend that Pat Mucci pursue that at GCGC unless he wants to have the Emmett/Travis course's bunkers look like "comfortable sunken armchairs"! But who knows maybe that's part of GCGC's "mission statement" and the membership will be completely comfortable in it (excuse me--with it).

"Golf and golf architecture is a great big world and there something in it for everyone!"

BTW, Mayday Malone is the absolute best name I've heard to date--even beats Slag Bandoon!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Early in history:
When you take the King's shillling, you do the King's bidding !
Recently:
When you take the job from Tony Soprano, you finish the job correctly or he finishes you.

These are time tested axioms.

Why do you question their efficiency ?  

Were Henry VIII and Robert Blake students of golf architecture
who understood this principle and just applied it to other areas of their life ?  

Irrespective of the project, cart paths, bunkers, tees, greens,
marriage, if the sub-contractor isn't performing and/or completing the job according to specific written instructions and understanding, they either redo it until they get it right, or they don't get paid, and are replaced.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Now we're on the same page! If Tony Soprano told Fazio or MacDonald & Co. that he wanted Merion to have some really well restored Wilson/Flynn bunkers, Tom and Chip better damn well give him what he asked for even if it means calling Ben and Bill and begging them to lend Jeff Bradley to them for the project!

Tony Soprano and his guys would be great for classic golf anyway. They'd be real preservationists!

Remember that episode last year when Christopher and Paulie Walnuts thought they killed that Russian guy and they took him down in the trunk to South Jersey to the Pine Barrens and when they opened the trunk the Russian guy got out and escaped and they lost him out in the Pine Barrens.

So Paulie calls Tony on the cell phone and asks him what to do and Tony told Paulie by cell phone which was breaking up that the Russian guy was an assasin who worked for the Russian Interior Ministry and had killed 17 Chechnians and that Paulie better f... find the guy and kill him again and bury him out there or Paulie should not f.... bother coming back to North Jersey!

Paulie misunderstood Tony about the Russian guy and Paulie tells Chrisopher that they'd better find this guy and kill him again fast because he's some kind of crazy Russian Interior decorator who has killed 17 Checkoslovakians with his bare hands!

Well Paulie and Christopher never did find the Russian guy out in the Pine Barrens although they did get lost out there and almost froze to death before Tony came down and got them.

But I think I recall them saying that they should build a bunch of golf courses out in the Pine Barrens because once the architecture was done it would never ever change and it would therefore be a great place to bury people!

But you're right--if Tony gives you marching orders you better figure out a way to do what he asks! Maybe I should call up Tony and recommend MacDonald & Co to him.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

You didn't answer me about Huge (Puffy) Wilson!

Do you like really good Philadelphia golf architectural rap music or maybe you don't know about that either?

I'll bring some "Puffy" Wilson CDs up to NYC with me--I think you'll like it!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I find Philadephia architectual rap music distateful, unless performed by BIG MAC-D.

[TEPaul]

See! You just can't get any FACTS straight! BIG MAC-D doesn't perform Philadelphia architectural rap music, all he can do is build "puffy" looking bunkers because unlike you, he doesn't find Philadelphia architectural rap music distasteful, actually loves it, and his Merion bunkers were a tribute to Huge "Puffy" Wilson more than anything else!

The club told him to make bunkers that were a tribute to Hugh Wilson but he must have misunderstood them and he did a bunker tribute to "Puffy" Wilson instead--Hugh's illegit... Oh, Never Mind!

[Tom Doak]

Tom P:  Actually, we are on retainer for far more courses by Macdonald and Raynor than by MacKenzie.  But I do think we could restore about anything by anyone, if we chose to.

I think there are about a dozen other architects who could do the same, if they wanted to.

I didn't mention it before, but I think a "retainer" arrangement is the ideal situation for architect and club.  The architect isn't tempted [or pressured] to make "master plan" suggestions to justify his fee; the club pays for what it needs; and the architect is free to pursue other projects until the club schedules some work.

A lot of master plan suggestions are filler material:  silly little changes to justify the fee.  You wouldn't believe how much of that stuff we've removed from courses.

[Robert "Cliff" Stanfield]

Doak,

When you speak of being on a retainer are you paid during a year where no changes etc are recomended or services rendered?  If not then would this just be like ala carte but that the club guarantees to contact you first?

It does make total sense because you see Scotland as a perfect example.  Many of even the great clubs there do not have the finances etc nor membership willing to consult a expensive "Bigname"(whatever that means) architect.

Instead they do changes in house with the super doing most or club secretary.  In the US I have played more golf clubs that have had trouble maintaing a golf course and large clubhouse than the super private clubs.

What I have noticed is that some of these golf courses have been subjected to changes due to financial constraints and because many of the supers didnt understand golf because they were ex-farmers and decided to fill in bunkers etc.

I think there should be a level of "welfare design" for many of these little clubs.  Kinda like giving different clubs per financial abilities the chance to revive their courses without needing to float a major loan to accomplish the changes and continue into debt and place the golf course into total danger of shut down.

Just an idea...Is there anybody out there like a Thomas or Simpson who have been designing courses for free or seriously reduced rates...when was the last time a course was designed for free and I know about First Tee...something on a less organized scale would be neat to know.

[TEPaul]

TomD:

I think I agree with you about a golf club having an architect on retainer. I would ask what RC did though regarding what that means as a financial arrangement.

From the perspective of a club member though the better way to do it in, in my opinion, is to have some mechanism within the club itself that they simply do not make chances without consulting with their architect first, whether he's on retainer or not.

In effect I hope that's the way our new master plan works. On the one hand it's a restoration plan but on the other hand it's supposed to be a plan that prevents willy nilly tampering in the future which happened in the past. If someone wants to do something now there's a process that must be followed and that includes calling our architect first for advice.

I'm sure you'd rather not do it but would you mind mentioning who those dozen or so restoration architects are in your opinion?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I would agree 1000 % with Tom Doak.

I think the retainer method removes most pressures to
justify master plan fees, with some forced master plans often resulting in a disfiguring of the golf course, rather than restoring or enhancing it.

The retainer would probably be the best money the club could spend, and would place the club and the architect in a partnership arrangement, a working hand in glove approach.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I don't see a master plan and an architect on retainer as being mutually exclusive.

Logically a club should consult the proper architect for them and discuss what may need to be done to the course for the forseeable future. If that becomes a master plan, so be it. Master plans are generally synonymous with restoration plans anyway.

But once the restoration is done the master plan is apt to get lost in a drawer somewhere and the club could slide back into the old habit of willy nilly tampering unless prevented from doing that by the dictates of a master plan (the flip side of a master plan is an anti-tampering mechanism don't forget).

And if the master plan stays front and center for the foreseeable future that's when THE architect on retainer (who logically created the master plan and did the restoration) can come into play. I don't know whether this should even be called "a retainer" anyway. The Architect's telephone number is at your fingertips and before considering doing anything to the course it should be mandatory to call him and consult.

The other benefit of having AN architect at your fingertips is it can prevent the problem of calling any old architect expecting that he will do the same thing as any other architect. One architect, the right archtiect, with a track record at your club can insure consistency in design and everything else--a not unimportant matter!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()