[Geoff Shackelford]

So nice to see you all having so much fun while I was out in beautiful rainy Moorpark. Thanks for the interesting and supportive comments, though it's fascinating how things went from one person's view of Fazio Design's work to personal discussions, but nonetheless, I'm pleased to explain what we've been up to at Rustic Canyon.    

Where to begin? I guess anonymous Bill and Kelly haven't heard, but for the last two plus years, I've been lucky enough to work on a project here in Southern California. Thanks to Gil Hanse who I'm eternally grateful to along with Jim Wagner, I've had the chance to be involved in every aspect of a project, from planning, routing, coming up with a name/concept for the course, plenty of meetings with people who weren't too thrilled about us doing a golf course, clearing work (fun!), plenty of "conceptualizing" as TEPaul might put it, sitting on a big roller so those green well floors are flat, then on to the sand pro and hand raking greens, some fun shovel work, a little shaping that required fixing by Gil of course, and now, my current favorite pasttime, chunking. I highly recommend it! Hopefully that answers a few questions for those who were wondering why Chris called me an architect. But still, Rustic Canyon is a Gil Hanse, Jim Wagner design with yours truly just pitching in where he can.

Yo Kelly Blake, so great to hear from you! Me and my friends miss those wacky emails you used to send with all of those kind things you have to say about us writers who don't know how hard it is to be an architect!  I'm sure Brad misses them too!

Jim Kennedy, good news, no new yuccas today, the ground wouldn't budge, but after this rain, all bets are off. And yes, blame me if you get stuck behind one or in some sage...but remember, bunkers are hazards!

ajf,
We do disagree about how things come about best, but all I can say is that what I'm preaching is based on this experience at Rustic, and what Gil, and Tom Doak and Ben Crenshaw and Bill Coore and Dan Proctor and Dave Axland have been trying to get through to people like me for several years now, and after seeing things from beginning to end, I'm a believer in time and work in the field. In fact, I just can't imagine doing it any other way and feeling satisfied or that the best possible job was done, but again, that's strictly a personal preference.  Time really helped us sort out a lot of ideas, and knowing some of the classic holes and staring with those concepts and then drifting based on the land, hopefully made for interesting holes to play, we'll see. But I do think you have a point in that some sites where there isn't much to work with may not require time early on, but in the case of Rustic Canyon, we were quite fortunate to have a site that required extra care because many of its best features could only be viewed up close, not on a map.
Geoff
PS - re the Fazio interview, I'm trying to find out when they are going to replay it at TGC. Bascially, he makes the claim that Augusta really isn't a MacKenzie course because, ironically, the Good Doc wasn't on site that much!

[Mike_Young]

Again, here we go with the titles.  Who cares.  There will be 300- 400 courses designed this year.  If you convince someone to let you design it then, congratulations...you are a golf architect.  So, thats the first step.  Now if you can continue then you are a full-time practicing architect.  Good , bad , classic,modern it doesn't matter.  As much as some organizations want to make it a much sought after profession, there are only around 130 practicing firms and I don't know if that will hold up.  So there might be cases where some are architects as well as writers, golf teachers, pros etc.   Whether this site considers you good, bad doesn't matter.  If one continues to get work and builds a client base then you have to admit that somebody accepts them as an architect whether GCA does or not.  So, there are all degrees of golf architects IMHO ;but not many who can make a fulltime living at it.
Mike

[Jim_Kennedy]

TEPaul,
First let me say that I enjoy much of what I have read from Geoff. It was an article of his that led me to George Bahto and George has since become a friend and helped us understand and eventually put our Raynor/Banks(Hotchkiss School) course back in shape.
I have no problem with a writer as architect or architect as writer. I also see no conflicts with Geoff writing what he has, to date. The books by the great architects, while possibly taking a broad swipe at their contemporaries, were just that, books. They were not put forth mainly as criticism nor were they meant to be.
I also see no problem with his doing one course, whether it is as architect, consultant, or bulldozer jockey. It could only add a new dimension, that of first-hand experience, to his writings.
But that is where I feel the line should be drawn. If he continues to build courses then he should stop being a critic, not an author, but a critic. There is a big problem of conflict of interest, one that comes across as self-serving, but that may only be the perceived one and perhaps a minor one at that. The major problem happens when his critique of someone else's project causes them ANY harm, and this may only be perceived harm. As a critic/practitioner he opens himself up to lawsuits that could break his bank. Why he would even consider doing this is beyond me.  
As I said earlier in this post, if he stays with one course then he can use it to better understand the business of architecture, if he goes for #2 then he is crapping where he eats and when it flows downstream and pollutes somebody elses stream, look out.  

  

[Mike O'Neill]

It is my understanding that there is truly no such thing as a "Golf Course Architect" in the sense of any sort of licensing. These courses are being designed for the most part by designers not architects. And therefore, people who are in it in part for the ego boost claim to be "Architects" when they are not even Landscape Architects. I have absolutely no doubt that Geoff is not in this to be referred to as an "Architect". Technically he is not. But I bet it is safe to say that he is an "Artist". And if you can find an artist who understands that gravity is the biggest force at work on a golf course, whether in drainage or ball flight, you've got something special. And I am willing to bet Geoff has a handle on that stuff. Two of my favorite people in the world, Dave Axland and Dan Proctor, both fans of Geoff by the way, do not call themselves "Architects". Just a couple of guys moving some dirt around looking for a few good things to happen.

And what's this? Like The Captain himself, Geoff is out there transplanting something other than fescue. From a huge plant lover, let me just say, good show Geoff.

[Tim_Weiman]

Jim Kennedy:

I would not want to see Geoff stop being a "critic" just because he has the opportunity to work on some projects as an "architect".

Geoff is one of the more serious students of golf architecture.  I hope he will continue to write - and offer criticism - even if there are more golf course projects in his future.

Keep in mind that if Tom Doak had followed your advice we would be without his "Confidential Guide" or efforts like Pacific Dunes.  I wouldn't be happy losing either one.  Would you?

[Geoff Shackelford]

Jim,
Lawsuits? I'm liable for what, having an opinion? What country is this again? Well, when my next article or book comes out and it says something critical, I'll make sure to give my lawyer a big heads up that say, Hootie Johnson may be calling.  

Mike Young,
Well said.

DMoriarty,
Thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed your walk, hopefully you'll get to play it soon, but I'd guess it'll be a couple of months more, around late May. Jeff Hicks the superintendent is doing an all-world job growing it in despite pretty lousy weather (3 inches of rain since October, so much wind, cold nights).

Mike O'Neill,
Thanks, Dan and Dave are the best.  

Tim,
Thanks and well said. Imagine where our world would be if Tom Doak had not published the Confidential Guide out of fear getting sued...
Geoff

[TEPaul]

Jim Kennedy:

You mean you have to be both a critic and a practitoner to open yourself up to lawsuits for causing harm?--even if it's perceived harm? You mean GeoffShac has to be a designer too to be sued by someone for his critical writing? You mean someone can't sue him just for causing them harm or perceived harm for solely writing something nasty, albeit truthful?

That actually makes me feel much better about America and what I thought was its incredible "open season" litigiousness! I thought anybody could be sued for anything no matter whether they did one thing or a number of things!

This might actually explain something I've always wondered about. When Cale Yarborough pushed AJ Foyt into the wall at about 180mph at the Daytona 500 a number of years ago and when AJ punched out Cale in the pits shortly thereafter and a fairly vicious fistfight ensued between the two (causing both a bit more than perceived harm, btw), I always wondered why they didn't sue each other. It never occured to me that they needed to write something nasty about each other too, and had they done that then their lawyers would have seen each other in court! But Wow, I'm encouraged, I didn't think a lawsuit was as complicated to start as it just might be!

As for Geoff crapping where he eats, whether its #1 or #2 (sorry I mean first or second design)--I dunno Jim, we just might not see eye to eye on that ever!

There are some bears I know out in these woods who crap and eat in real close proximity and they're some damn talented bears, if you don't mind me saying so! There's even one with massive amounts of raw talent who's able to crap and eat not only in the same place but also at the same time! If you think about it that takes tremendous talent and probably loads of concentration too!

This very well be my best effort to date in not just getting off the subject but getting as far off it as is humanly possible! But that should not deter us as there is a great deal more to discuss on the subject!

I think someone asked Mr ShackLEford a question. Would you mind reminding me what that was?

[TEPaul]

Mike Young:

I think yours was a nice post too, but, my goodness, how things have changed in architecture. It seems that now to be considered a real architect you have to show evidence that you can make a fulltime living at it too! No wonder Tom Fazio is without question the best architect in the world!

That would also explain why those dabblers who never made a dime like Hugh Wilson, George Crump, the Fownes, Herbert Leeds should certainly never be considered in the same sentence with a real architect! And who were those other two also-ran slouches? Oh yeah, George Thomas and C.B MacDonald--they just never could seem to manage even a nickel for their efforts. I think their work should therefore just be considered a waste of both time and space!

[Mike_Cirba]

Does anyone else see the irony in the fact the both Kelly Blake Moran and Geoff Shackelford are two guys who are both devotees of site specific design with personal ethics that don't allow them do anything less than spend TONS of time onsite to ensure the best possible course....yet are finding plenty of room to disagree on this thread?

[Jim_Kennedy]

TEPaul,
The original question:
Mr. Shackleford,
   On other threads mentioning Tom Fazio's work, I have noticed less than stellar reviews.  I, myself, like most others on this site am rather indifferent to most of his work and find some of it distasteful.  Albeit, he does have a couple good ones thrown in there.  Out of curiousity, from an architects perspective, how do you feel about his work and why?

I think there were 14 posts heading off the subject before I chimed in.

I made no bones about Geoff's qualifications whatsoever. My position is and still remains that if you are going to be a critic,
be a critic. When Tom Doak wrote his book, as critical as it was, he did it as a recognized architect, not as a recognized critic. I only expressed concern in wondering about the potential problems it might bring for someone who is considered a critic. If those concerns have no merit, so be it.

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

No, I don't think it's the slightest bit ironic, not in the real sense of irony, anyway. All it means is Kelly Blake Moran sees Geoff Shackelford as a architectural writer, not a golf architect. That's understandable because most people know Geoff Shackelford as a golf writer and a golf architecture  critic, and for those who've read his books and articles, he's certainly one of the premier ones of our time!

Most people don't know Geoff Shackelford's actual architectural talents, very few probably do, why would they, they've never seen anything he's been involved in because this is basically the first big project he has been involved in, probably never even discussed architecture or the creation of a golf course with him?

I'm certain from everything I've read from Kelly Moran and what I've heard about him that he would understand that  type of talent when he saw that side of Shackelford. So when he sees that side I think he'll agree. Kelly is actually in good company too, as I don't think Doak, Coore, Crenshaw or even Gil Hanse, Wagner, Hines, Kittleman and many others ever saw that side either; how could they have until Rustic Canyon--and most haven't even seen that?  

Geoff Shackelford explained his contribution to Rustic well too, in my opinon. He gave credit where credit is due, to Hanse, Wagner and those that were out there. But he's being modest because he isn't really telling the true story of how Rustic Canyon evolved from the beginning to now and he probably won't, but I will, from what I know--and I know Gil and Jim Wagner will too!

I don't really even know how many of you guys who are just contributors to this site really understand about the pre-construction prep time and work that goes into a project, the dreaming, the pre-construction blank canvas, the site analysis, the routing difficulties and ideas, hole design concepts, the scrutinization of a site for natural features for golf, sometime so miniscule you can't even imagine it! So many of the things that the golf course turns out to be! Shackelford believes in time on site, so do I, but maybe the bigger, more experienced guys can do it much quicker, I don't know about that, but I'm sure not convinced that they don't need to do it too, not yet anyway!

He didn't just wander onto the Rustic Canyon project after some fact; he was there in the beginning--he was probably the only one there in the beginning, so far as I know! He's not going to tell you that, why would he?--but I can, and I'm pretty sure I'm right.

And Rustic Canyon is good, really good, I think! It's different, and the kind of different it is, is why it's good! In a way it's going to be the kind of golf and golf course that takes architecture back to the basics of what really good golf and good golf architecture is all about, sans the "stuff" that's been added into golf and architecture in the confluence of all that's happened in modern times to the game and the business of golf architecture.

Don't forget Rustic Canyon is not some big budget private course that supposed to jump to the top of the rating lists and everyone's concsiousness the minute it opens--it's a public golf course.

Maybe the basic So. Cal golfer who will probably be the one who sees it and plays it most won't even understand it or appreciate it all that well but I think he will--because I have to believe in the ultimate appeal of really good underlying architectural principles, design and natural aesthetics. I'm quite certain that the contributors to this site will understand it and appreciate it though.

And Geoff Shackelford isn't pretending to know all that being a golf architect is all about right now--but that sure doesn't mean he doesn't have real talent in some very important areas of golf architecture right now. He's got some strong opinions and that's good but he's also one of those who  remembers to know what he doesn't know. The same with Kye Goalby, in my opinion! Do you realize how important that is?

They've both done a lot of homework in classic architecture,  as opposed to just what seems to sell in architecture today, much more than most in architecture have, and they both have innate talent in some very important areas of classic architecture, in my opinion, and that's not small potatoes.

But what do I know? And I really mean that! So it just my opinon--unless and until, of course, you see Rustic Canyon's architecture which is the real thing without all the All American "Modern Age" Wow!

But as Shackelford said, Gil Hanse and Co, is the architect of Rustic Canyon, but I'm telling you Shackelford definitely helped fry the chicken! He may have even caught it, wrung it's neck, and plucked the feathers too!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

As someone that has been somewhat close to what is going on in one of the more beautiful canyons in Moorpark.......

I'm pretty amazed with all of the comments. In fact, I find it hard to believe some of them.

I have had the great opportunity to see Rustic Canyon change from a rustic canyon to an even more beautiful one that happens to have 18 very precise executions of golf architecture for the masses.

In truth, I live for two specific MODERN courses to be done and finished. They will not only be great, but they will hopefully let people get a glimpse of what the game should be, and the GREATNESS that is associated with it.

I have seen this Rustic Canyon countless times with Mr. Shackelford, all while climbing in and out of sage and other underbrush, while avoiding areas that had black sticks with diamonds on them that rattled. Geoff looked for every naturally evolved influence on a routing that from my recollection was the work of BOTH Geoff Shackelford and Gil Hanse, and I think in my judgement, would have to say that if Gil Hanse or Jim Wagner happened to be looking-in, would more then back-up my statements here that Geoff Shackelford designed this course as much as they did.

I also saw the very same person, on a bulldozer on several occasions, gently shaping what was there, and making it even better. It was just a nip and tuck here or there, and the perosn who knows exactly how much to nip and tuck is nothing less then an artist in any terms. I have been witht his same person on several occasions--while he uprooted the most sublime of sage brush and other native fauna from the site, to plant it, making sure that Rustic Canyon looks as if the effort was as minimal as possible.

This is all about REFINEMENT in it's most extreme form.

So, let me be the one to say, hence forth, from this day forward, my proclamation....

Geoff Shackelford, Golf Course Architect and Designer.

Take that Tom Fazio!

Jim Kennedy,
It so amazing that you could call into question the the validity of Geoff Shackelford's opinion on golf courses, yet, turn a blind eye on the conflict of interest that is going on between the chief agronomist for the USGA, who is suggesting not only architects, but changes to one of the great classic courses in the game (Riviera) and the fact that his wife is handling the Public Relations for the Club in their efforts in obtaining the 2008 US Open.

The fact is that Geoff Shackelford is a voice of reason in these times where you have the self-nominated King Of Golf Architecture--Tom Fazio dictating what Classic courses should play like, yet, says that there is no such thing as a Classic Course that what he is building now can be considered Golden Age Architecture.

I would also like to add, I play golf with a LOT of Golf Course Architects. Each of them have their opinions on other architect' works too, and I usually hear a lot of them. I find it very interesting to hear these diverse opinions on the subject. I think that there are a lot of them that have not one iota of a problem "Lying" to other architects about what they think of each others designs. However, the good ones I find to not only be of an open mind, but of open arms to accept critique. It is what make them better designers, and ultimately, what do you want, someone telling you half-truths and false-hoods or someone telling you exactly like it is, so one knows exactly where they stand?

(Dammit Jim, I can't begin to tell you how disappointed I am to see your posts on this topic, being with your affiliation with George and all. I'm just plainly disappointed.)

Kelly Blake Moran,
I am very interested in your opinion of George Crump, George Thomas, Dr. Alister Mackenzie, A.W. Tillinghast, CB MacDonald, and a whole list of amateurs who got their first start into architecture without an education in architecture, but are well read and self taught in the principles of golf course design--make that CLASSIC golf course design.

Have times really changed that much? (As far as building classic golf designs?) I mean, when you went and did your first course for Bob VonHagge, did he NOT consider you an architect? Did he pay you for your services as one?

[brad_miller]

Geoff, Gil, Jim, Tommy any pic's that can be shared at this time? There are a few on Gil's wed site. www.hansegolfdesign.com

Tommy, there are more than a few that await those same two courses

[Mike O'Neill]

Tommy,

It doesn't matter the job title of the person who built the course if you are a golf ball being bounced around the place. But it does tend to confuse the issue at times to call someone by a title that in other circles comes with some specific hoop jumping. In the world of "Architecture", like the world of medicine, one has to be licensed to get the title. There is no such licensing in the world of golf, as far as I can tell. In the world of golf, people who are golf course "designers" or "builders" will occasionally call themselves "architects", or, as in the case of this thread be called an "architect".  

Why is it so important to use the word "architect" when there is no actual definition of the term? Yes, there is "Landscape Architect". But one has to be licensed there too. And one ought to know about plants, which golf course designers don't tend to care about. There's no technical validity to the title, "Golf Course Architect". How about we use the term "designer" and then we can just focus on the golf layed out by Crump et. al. and let the love begin!

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

I said amen because I was not aware that Geoff had any background in designing golf courses.  Since reading all of the posts on this thread I am more aware of what he has done, and it certainly sounds as if he is very worthy of being called a golf course architect, or whatever he feels is an appropriate title that best defines his high level of expertise.  I said amen to the man questioning his credentials, which I think it legitimate to ask questions, probe, inquire, and seek truth.  That truth has been given very well by those most intimate with Geoff.  

Ken Baskt:

I think the response above answers that part of your question.  My other comment you questioned was not sarcastic but sincere.  I would not try to read too much into my comments.  I am not intelligent enough to massage words and phrases and speak in code.  Geoff goes into the field and to me that is a very worhty approach, Geoff has a marquee name, no question, and that was meant in a positive way, and I forget, oh yeas, these combined, plus working with Gil should make this a classic course.  I have only seen one Hanse course, but my readings here, opinions of others, and what I did see, certainly gives me some assurances that Rustic Canyon will be premier classic.

Tommy:

I never remember what Bob called me, in terms of titles.  Titles have never meant much to me.  I never once asked Bob for a title, or to be a partner.  I was glad to be doing what I was doing...that's all.  I believe architects or designers can come from many different disciplines, some unrelated to design, and they can make monumental contributions to golf course design.  It should remain open, and I hope the field will never be subject to some sort of licensure.  The only potential threat I heard about to somehow codify the profession was from Hurzdan.  Once he called von Hagge and said he would see that Bob and the partners, including me, would be approved to be in the ASGCA.  He felt von Hagge could be an ambassador for the organization in Europe since we had much work there.  He also said something scary, that the priesthood in the organization were floating the idea of marking up regions in the country, and members would pretty much be expected to practice in their region and defer to others in their respective regions.  So, I have always been suspicious of organizations, clubs, where it is more important to belong, and the titles that come after your name are what is most important, rather than what you have accomplished. Is there something more you want to pick with me?  I mean were you asking me a question or just trying to put me in my position.  Do you really want to know if Bob paid me?  Did you have to capatilize classic in some attempt to shame me for who I am, and to assert your preemminance?  We all started in this profession with no training just like the guys you mentioned.  I got a degree in landscape architecture just to help me get in the door of an architect with my resume.  But, coming out of school I knew nothing.  Eighteen years later I still feel I am juvenile, who wants to mature, but I can feel some intense fire deep inside and I try everyday to keep feeding it so I can know more about this fire.  But, as you  have done, and as Geoff has done, you have put back in my place.  Geoff hardly ever responded to me and now I know why, he thinks I am whacky.  I must admit when I get going on a subject my passionate spirit overtakes my practical mind.  Boy, what a bad way to start the day, two icons of GCA have pushed down to the ground and kicked dirt in my face.  And all over  the word amen, meant as an honest response to someone elses inquiry, which has since been passionately answered by others, much to my benefit and enlightment.  I have received an enormous amount of enjoyment from reading and seeing the works of the gentlemen you mentioned.  I do not have the patience to type all my thoughts about them here, but if you want to put me in my place on the subject I would rather do it face to face, this is not an appropriate median to do that.  You are a big boy Tommy but you don't scare me.  

[TEPaul]

Mike O'N:

How about we use family and given names for the people who create golf courses and just forget about some of these terms, like architect, designer, landscape architect etc when we talk about architectural output? To me it's all becoming somewhat meaningless or misleading.

It was about 3-4 years ago these two guys from a West Coast golf course company sat here at my house for a couple of hours handing me one precise hole and course drawing and one beautiful photograph after another of their holes from courses they'd done all over the world! I still have a lot of what they showed me, and man, it's so precise, so immaculate and pristine, there isn't a blade of grass or a grain of sand out of place--everything is so perfectly arranged!

Then they told me directly that this is the kind of thing I should be looking for because everything is perfectly priced out and perfectly set for anyone and everyone to see before they even set foot on a site to start creating a golf course! And then they told me directly again, I should not even consider talking to a company like Coore and Crenshaw because they were just a bunch of designers instead of real architects! It sure sounded to me like they were trying to imply that a company like Coore & Crenshaw could really only manage to create about half a real golf course, or that mistakes and cost overruns were inevitable or that you might never be sure what you might get or something like that!

Having gotten to know Coore and Hanse, Wagner, Hines, Doak, Bradley, Kittleman, Duncan, Goalby and lots of others of the same vein and certainly including Shackelford, I don't care if all those guys mentioned call themselves cooks or nothing at all--they're the ones who create some really great golf courses all based on the kinds of things I'm interested in with golf architecture. But that's just my preference now and maybe there're millions of golfers who don't agree with that, I don't know.

The bunkering and the greens and all that connects them is constantly good and interesting and quite different in one course from another in overall effect too! I'm sure there're a number of others that do it too, I don't mean to say that there're aren't, I guess I just need to get out and see more for myself but all of those guys mentioned are really good no matter what they call themselves.

[Mike_Young]

TE Paul,

As we say in GA. " I have no dawg in this hunt".  

You inject the phrase "real architect".  I don't think I used any word other than "fulltime architect".  But I think we were both arriving at the same point.  When you go back to the , Wilson, Colt, McKenzie era there was no way someone could make a living designing golf courses.  If they did they had to build them also.  How many "real architects" will be around if course demand drops under 250?
I think your second paragraph sums up what I am trying to say. But you used the word "real".  I never used the word "real".  WHAT IS A REAL ARCHITECT?  I think I will start that post.
Take care,
Mike

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tommy,
I am truly sorry you feel disappointed about me. George speaks very highly of you and I take special notice of your postings because of it. You may say some things I don't agree with at times but you have yet to disappoint me.

I said no more than this, that I feel it may be construed as improper for someone to be in a profession and have the pulpit to be able to criticize the work of others in that same profession.  
I didn't question his validity to date,
I didn't question Geoff's abilities.
I didn't question his dedication.
I didn't question his integrity, nor do I think he would ever use his position to hurt another in the business.
I didn't question the outcome of the course, although I did try to make a joke about yuccas in bunkers, which Geoff understood, I think.
As I read the example you spoke of, about the agronomist and his wife(something I was not aware of), I thought this: if the agronomist wasn't married to the public relations person for the club there would be no perceived conflict of interest. There may be no conflict of interest as it stands right now but it looks that way because they are on both sides of the issue. This illustrates what I was saying.

I expressed concern for a situation and for a person. I expressed why I thought as I did and that is all. There were no attacks in what I wrote, personal or otherwise, only opinions, and you know what they say about opinions.  

Hope to meet you someday. JK
    

[ajf]

Kelly,

I never said a base map is a substitute for spending time at the site.  What i did say is that spending time on a site is no substitute for talent.  There is no question that a topo map fails to show all the qualities a site possess.  A talented architect can study a map, walk the site and know exactly what he is looking at.  He starts working on the design the minute he sees the map, and never stops thinking about it until the last roll of sod is in place.  I certainly praise Geoff for getting his hands dirty and his passion for architecture.

Geoff,
I suppose i should have expanded on my comment about the time an architect spends on a project.  I would never say time spent in the field is not necessary.  And in most cases is the most important part of the design process.  All i wanted to get across is that some architects are much better at finding and understanding the natural features a site has to offer than others.  Time spent is less critical than the ability to understand what it is you are looking at.

It really shouldn't be fazio everyone complains about.  He isn't the one doing the field work anymore.  His guys spend lots of time on the site.  And they usually achieve the goal their client asks of them.

How to define an architect.  You certainly can't compare the role an architect played in the 20's with what an architect must understand today.  For geoff to claim he has no liability simply because it's just his opinion he is offering is inaccurate.  Architects, builders and owners get sued all the time for their opinions.  Their opinion that a cartpath is safe or that a landing area is far enough away from a tee or another landing area. I think the role of a true architect is much more than designing an interesting golf course.  He must be able to protect his client.  Protect him from builders doing the wrong thing.  Protect him from golfers being idiots (an impossible task to be sure).  Protect him from neighbors complaining.  Protect him from the corps of engineers or the local environmental task group.  Todays golf course architect wears many hats.                    

[TEPaul]

Mike Young:

Scratch the word "real" from architect then. Use fulltime or anything you think fits--I'm going to start to try to scratch architect, designer, landscape architect and anything else that's misleading to me anyway.

I don't really care what people who create golf courses call themselves anyway. And I think too many people hire a title too without really having much idea what it means or if it means anything. If I build a golf course I'm going to find out all of what somebody can and can't do anyway by doing the research on what they think and have done anyway and it doesn't matter if they don't call themselves anything.

ajf:

You've got some good responses about putting the necessary time in on site. It doesn't really matter, as you say, how much time it takes if you know what you're looking for and take the necessary time to find it. And yes, I agree, one could spend a lifetime on site and if he has no talent it's gonna be relatively meaningless anyway.

I don't think that Shackelford said everyone needs to put the time in he did at Rustic Canyon. I think he was saying about the same thing you are--which is no matter how short or long a time it takes--it does need to be done because utlimately it's gonna show.

I believe a guy like MacKenzie may have been extremely quick about finding what he was looking for and doing something about it when we know a guy like Crump might have needed six solid years on site to do the same thing. Their vastly different "on-site" time requirments seemed to have gotten their products to the same basic end though as time has seemed to show!

A guy like Doak, I believe, may be very quick to accomplish what it may have taken Shackelford a much longer time to do but the point is they both seem to understand the need to do the same thing regardless of the time it takes.

I'm going to make a separate post from Tom Fazio's book, quoting him on the issue of "using" vs "taming" terrain! Tom might put a lot of time in on site too or maybe just in conceptualization at the office. But the point is his approach to the land is so different, by his own admission!

That's one of the primary things, I think, that has always been such a large issue here, despite how many people seem not to care or even demand the way Fazio goes about it. It's just so different in both approach, principle and concept from the way the architects who seem to be admired here go about it.

But again, golf and its architecture is a great big thing and there's obviously room in it for everyone--always has been and probably always will be.

So vive Le differance! (Dan Kelly, that's not English, Spanish or French, or in any dictionary, I don't think, so lay off the spelling and grammar lessons!).

Jim Kennedy:

I think when Shackelford was questioning lawsuits he might have been referring to his opinions on what he writes about the architecture of others not about his opinions of what gets created at Rustic Canyon which he was involved in.

[George Pazin]

Jim K -

I think the conflict would only exist if Geoff were in some sort of position of power where he could make decision that would materially affect things, like a government official or something like that. True conflict of interest only comes with power. As it is, he influences most of us simply by providing insightful commentary based on tremendous research & knowledge. I think you could make a better case for conflicts with archies on ratings panels - I think some avoid this by not allowing architects to rate their own courses, but there is certainly more opportunity for conflict there.

[A_Clay_Man]

Tommy, you've hit on a key point.

The "yes man"!

 Perhaps thats what happens on a Fazio construction site? Lack of real criticisim and banter about "what would the Doctoer do?" type questions.

[George Pazin]

Just thought of the perfect analogy -

The NY Times Book Review generally uses writers to evaluate other writers. Same situation - the critic is offering an "expert" opinion & may provide influence to the reader, but only through his or her own opinion - it's up to the reader to determine the level of credibility of the critic. The critic does not have any direct power over the reviewee per se.

[Craig Rokke]

I think I've read enough of Geoff's writings to conclude that
as long as he has a good relationship with any architectural firm he may be assisting, that particular course will no doubt be better off because of his involvement--whatever that capacity may be.

[Mike O'Neill]

TEPaul,

You are correct. A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet. Like I said, let's just call them designers (or cooks if you like ) and not confuse the issue. Speaking of roses, wasn't that The Captain's favorite plant? Any roses out there anywhere Geoff?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()