Don't be afraid to Tinker

[Peter Pallotta]

Just a thought, for anyone involved in any capacity in the design and creation of a golf course.

Don't be afraid to tinker.

It doesn't mean you've failed if you don't get it right/the best it can be the first time around.

It's been that way in all the arts-crafts for a long, long time.

Big company or small, populist work or niche-brand - you all get a pass from me if you decide you need to tinker.

In writing, they say it's not writing it's re-writing.

In acting, it's not acting it's re-acting.

In a jazz solo, Earl Hines used to smile even bigger/brighter when he'd lost his way - knowing that if he kept his cool he was only a half-tone away from finding the resolution.

There is not a great course I have ever read about that wasn't tinkered with (for better....or worse).  

The great architects were great because in their best work they didn't settle for anything less....and didn't let ego/pride get in the way of accepting that the course needed more work to be the best it could.

We're in a hyper-competitive environment, in every sense of the word. The pressure is on.

Don't let the pressure make you feel trapped into thinking that a course will be perfect the first time out.

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

But the good, accepted uneasily (and too quickly) is the enemy of the better.

Go ahead and tnker with your golf courses, and be proud (and never embarrassed) that you're doing so.

Just make sure you are tinking for the right reason, i.e. because YOU believe the course can be better -- and that includes believing so because golfers whose opinions you respect have had criticisms.

Tinker away.  You won't hear a snide remark coming from me.

Peter      

PS - Oh, needless to say, thoughts?
 

 

[Mike Cirba]

Peter,

I really enjoy your posts.    You're a very interesting tinke...er...thinker. 

I would only qualify your thoughts with the idea that it's usually best when the tinkerer is the original author.

[Charlie Goerges]

Not much to add, except that I would consider any architect willing to tinker to be the "Bell of the Ball" so to speak. As such, I'd shorten it to "Tinkerbell".

[Tom_Doak]

Peter:

I learned your lesson from Pete Dye, many years ago.

Until the architect says a hole is done, it is all just tinkering in the dirt.  And the nice part about being out in the dirt is that you can shape things up and take a good hard look at them, and then decide if something needs to be toned down or not.

I don't think it's as easy to do that when you draw everything out in detail, because you don't want to take the chance of something you drew being too severe ... so you draw it plain and then maybe you try to spice it up at the end.  It's easier to tone it down.

The thing is, when we build everything in the dirt that way, there is seldom the need to tinker with it again later, because we've already gone through that process.

[Kyle Harris]

Who is paying for all the tinkering?

[/buzzkill]

[Tom_Doak]

Kyle:

Tinkering in the dirt is not very expensive.  It's a bit more fuel, or maybe another month for the dozer ($6,000) and operator ($5,000 to $10,000).  On a two million dollar course, that's not much, really.

Tinkering once there is irrigation in the ground and grass already growing is at least 2-3 times as expensive as tinkering in the dirt.  That's why I can't believe there are so many advocates for it here.

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle:

Tinkering in the dirt is not very expensive.  It's a bit more fuel, or maybe another month for the dozer ($6,000) and operator ($5,000 to $10,000).  On a two million dollar course, that's not much, really.

Tinkering once there is irrigation in the ground and grass already growing is at least 2-3 times as expensive as tinkering in the dirt.  That's why I can't believe there are so many advocates for it here.

Thanks Tom.

What are your tinkering thresholds? When do you say enough is enough and what are the sorts of limiting factors?

I'll hesitate to ask if you ever put something you weren't comfortable with in the ground, but if you're comfortable with stating it please do.

[Tom_Doak]

The main limiting factor for us is the schedule for irrigation installation [which is driven, of course, by the schedule for planting].  As long as we are well ahead of the irrigation guys, we have room to tinker.  

They don't usually start the irrigation system until there are nine holes shaped and ready [so they won't catch up to us and have to stop], therefore we have a bit more license to tinker around early in the project, when we are trying to get the style of the course sorted out.  After that, there may just be a couple of holes where we're not sure what we want to do, and we will keep tinkering around ... we don't do it on every hole.

I have put things in the ground many times that I wasn't entirely comfortable with.  On a couple of occasions, it was because I had to be away at some other project, and the contractor INSISTED that the hole be planted before I could get back because it was going to wreck their whole schedule ... funny how that never happens except when outside golf contractors are involved.  

On others, I knew that we were building a green or feature that would be controversial, or borderline unworkable.  Out of maybe a dozen of those, I've actually had to go back and rebuild part of a green three times ... one was absolutely not working, and the other two really was passable but the members just didn't like it.  Still, I would consider those errors on my part, and I don't like making errors, so I get a bit more conservative as I go along.  But not too conservative, as anyone who has played Old Macdonald would freely attest.

I should say that we are quite fortunate that we haven't done many jobs where the budget was so tight that there was no room to tinker.  Frankly, since any new course is costing in the millions, I think it's crazy that anyone would be building a course where they couldn't spend a few thousand tinkering around to make it better.  Nowadays it is seldom an issue for me because we are usually doing all of the shaping ourselves, and if there is any question about the cost of tinkering, I am happy to absorb the extra cost in order to get the hole as I want it.

[John Moore II]

Tom-Has it even crossed your mind to have a course that you tinkered with for a long period of time such as Ross did with Pinehurst #2? Or, with irriagtion, complex green construction, and such, is that not really possible today?

And hasn't Mr. Dye done a lot of work to Crooked Stick over the years?

[Tom_Doak]

Tom-Has it even crossed your mind to have a course that you tinkered with for a long period of time such as Ross did with Pinehurst #2? Or, with irriagtion, complex green construction, and such, is that not really possible today?

And hasn't Mr. Dye done a lot of work to Crooked Stick over the years?

John:

No one has ever offered to pay me to tinker with their course for 20+ years to come.  And, as you suggest, it's much harder to do with complex greens construction and with irrigation pipe and control systems underground everywhere you turn.  [I don't think Mr. Ross had to worry about hitting the central control wire when he decided to add a bunker at #2.]  Tinkering is just way more expensive after opening day.

Really, most of the courses which are famous for being tinkered with are courses that had pretty modest beginnings.  Pinehurst #2 didn't even have grass greens its first 30 years of existence.  Oakmont was built from native soil and had little irrigation.  Muirfield just mowed out the native grasses and seeded fescues into them.  Rarely are there projects which start that way anymore, aside from the mom-and-pop variety.  Now, if I were my own client, that approach might be feasible, but not many designers would approach it that way ... we sure aren't describing The Bear's Club here.

Mr. Dye has indeed made many changes at Crooked Stick over the years.  The biggest changes were made in the summer and fall of 1986, when the Toronto creeping bentgrass on the greens just went away, and forced the complete renovation of the greens ... he took that as an excuse to do a lot of other things while the course had to be closed.  But, he's made many other renovations before and after that, too ... and to be honest, I've heard it is a bit of a sore subject at Crooked Stick, which is a members' club.  The members all know that there wouldn't be a golf course there if it wasn't for Pete, but they don't necessarily want to pay for all the changes he's made, and they don't know how to tell him to stop.  So that's probably not the best example.

Do you have any idea how much money Augusta National has spent in the last 15 years of tinkering?  I'd bet they have spent $10 million, easily.  And most of these restorations we keep hearing about on Golf Club Atlas are $2 million or $3 million jobs.  It is hard to justify that in any economy, but especially now.

[John Moore II]

Tom-Has it even crossed your mind to have a course that you tinkered with for a long period of time such as Ross did with Pinehurst #2? Or, with irriagtion, complex green construction, and such, is that not really possible today?

And hasn't Mr. Dye done a lot of work to Crooked Stick over the years?

John:

No one has ever offered to pay me to tinker with their course for 20+ years to come.  And, as you suggest, it's much harder to do with complex greens construction and with irrigation pipe and control systems underground everywhere you turn.  [I don't think Mr. Ross had to worry about hitting the central control wire when he decided to add a bunker at #2.]  Tinkering is just way more expensive after opening day.

Really, most of the courses which are famous for being tinkered with are courses that had pretty modest beginnings.  Pinehurst #2 didn't even have grass greens its first 30 years of existence.  Oakmont was built from native soil and had little irrigation.  Muirfield just mowed out the native grasses and seeded fescues into them.  Rarely are there projects which start that way anymore, aside from the mom-and-pop variety.  Now, if I were my own client, that approach might be feasible, but not many designers would approach it that way ... we sure aren't describing The Bear's Club here.

Mr. Dye has indeed made many changes at Crooked Stick over the years.  The biggest changes were made in the summer and fall of 1986, when the Toronto creeping bentgrass on the greens just went away, and forced the complete renovation of the greens ... he took that as an excuse to do a lot of other things while the course had to be closed.  But, he's made many other renovations before and after that, too ... and to be honest, I've heard it is a bit of a sore subject at Crooked Stick, which is a members' club.  The members all know that there wouldn't be a golf course there if it wasn't for Pete, but they don't necessarily want to pay for all the changes he's made, and they don't know how to tell him to stop.  So that's probably not the best example.

Do you have any idea how much money Augusta National has spent in the last 15 years of tinkering?  I'd bet they have spent $10 million, easily.  And most of these restorations we keep hearing about on Golf Club Atlas are $2 million or $3 million jobs.  It is hard to justify that in any economy, but especially now.

Tom
Thanks for the response. A few things though: I'm not quite sure I would call the work at Augusta 'tinkering.' Perhaps more like full scale re-working.

And I wasn't aware about what the deal was at Crooked Stick; I only knew that I had heard from a few places that Mr. Dye had done some additional work to the place over the years and fairly often.

[Tom_Doak]

John:

I agree with you that Augusta has done way more than "tinker" but it is the example that some people use of how tinkering is a good and necessary thing.  And, just like its maintenance practices, the standard they have set for reconstruction on a regular basis is absolutely unworkable for any members' club that doesn't take in $10m+ annually from a little tournament they host.

[John Moore II]

John:

I agree with you that Augusta has done way more than "tinker" but it is the example that some people use of how tinkering is a good and necessary thing.  And, just like its maintenance practices, the standard they have set for reconstruction on a regular basis is absolutely unworkable for any members' club that doesn't take in $10m+ annually from a little tournament they host.

I actually think a lot more could be done by a course if they were perhaps willing to use a portable water sprinkler on a new tee box. Or at least just branch out from the main line or something like that. But total repositioning of fairways like that showed on #6 at Pebble is crazy for most clubs. It might make 6 a better hole, but certainly not an option for most clubs.

When I think tinkering, I just think of small scale projects done a little at a time. Nothing like what they do at Augusta. Tinkering is good, I think, but what Augusta does is not.

[Ronald Montesano]

Quick, someone ask Tom another question, so that he can give us more insight...don't make it stop!!!!

[Peter Pallotta]

Yes, Ron - thinking the same thing. (Thanks for the really good Q and A, gents). I don't have a good question for Tom, except to note (off the mention of Pete Dye) the seemingly unique confluence of client-architect-course that is TPC Sawgrass.  PD had to go back  and change the greens and move around bunkers -- and it seems without much personal rancour (on PD's part) or anything 'sticking' to Pete, and with the course being made better.  But from the liittle I know of him, PD seems like a unique and likable fellow - a committed, opinionated and strong-willed professional who at the same time keeps his own counsel and doesn't take praise or ciriticism seriously.  

Peter

[Ally Mcintosh]

Tom,

Thanks for your responses on this thread... Whilst I'm happy that my design theories / philosophies are developing nicely, it's this kind of practical insight that I find priceless...

Ally

[Tom_Doak]

Peter:

I don't remember Mr. Dye being all that thrilled with the changes he had to make at the TPC at Sawgrass ... nor was Commissioner Beman.  I do remember the Commissioner at one point telling someone on the Tour staff to let all the players write down all their comments, and if three or more guys actually agreed on something they would consider changing it, but I'm pretty sure that was out of frustration.

I have to catch a flight now but will try to remember to get back to that topic.

[Greg Tallman]

I agree that tinkering, if one can afford it, is not a bad thing or a sign of a bad original product.

The Ocean Course at Cabo del Sol has seen subtle chages to no less than 5 holes with plans for major changes at 2 more holes. After watching the open this week and seeing the fairway shifts on the ocean holes we just might be inlcined to ask Jack if such a shift might improve our 18th.

I think would agree that he has been lucky to have some awfully good, perhaps even visionary, clients versus many that "want to see the plans" as is/WAS the case for most courses.

[John Moore II]

Peter:

I don't remember Mr. Dye being all that thrilled with the changes he had to make at the TPC at Sawgrass ... nor was Commissioner Beman.  I do remember the Commissioner at one point telling someone on the Tour staff to let all the players write down all their comments, and if three or more guys actually agreed on something they would consider changing it, but I'm pretty sure that was out of frustration.

I have to catch a flight now but will try to remember to get back to that topic.

Hopefully you'll see this when you land.
If Mr Dye and Commissioner Beman didn't want to change stuff, then why was it changed? What was so crazy about the course that made it so out of line? Same with PGA West Stadium, what is so out of the ordinary with that course that tour players complain like little girls about it being "too difficult?"