Comparing Apples and Oranges...?

[Scott Macpherson]

I see a thread on GCA asking 'how great "X" golf Pro is as an architect?'. It's a question I often get asked too. I find it very difficult to answer. My resistance to answering comes primarily because 1) I'm never sure how much say Nicklaus, Player, Els, Faldo etc are involved with any design and 2) I'm not sure what their personal level of design/visualisation ability is anyway.

The question becomes laced with complexity when it morphs into comparing golf Pro designers from different centuries.

Certainly I think we can better assess the abilities of our golf pro designers from yesteryear. Because the industry had less technical demands when Old Tom, Braid, Willie Park, Taylor etc where working, they could layout courses (sometimes in half a day!). So we can go and see their work, and be pretty sure (not always certain) that Braid or whomever was onsite and participating in the design. That is to say, the work was not outsourced to a face-less (in a nice way) design associate some where on level 3 of the design office.   Also, because the design industry was in its infancy, these men often wrote at length on their design philosophies.

So how do you assess the ability of modern day professional golfer as an architect? Can you, or can you just comment on their company's ability to produce golf courses? And then, how do you compare a modern golf pro designer to the industries forefathers?

Scott

[John Kavanaugh]

Give me a break.  Old Tom was so busy trying to squeak out a meager living giving lessons and playing golf that he had little time to do the field work.  I would put his input at no more if not less than the modern pro who has so many more tools at his disposal.  History is kind to those who hold the pen.

[Kirk Gill]

One can't help but wonder regarding some of the older courses, how much of what we refer to as the design of the course was actually performed by the folks who were out there physically moving dirt and planting grass, etc. I'm sure there's a sliding scale from course to course and architect to architect.

I think it's refreshing to hear how often Tom Doak credits his design associates on this site.

The one pro I've always been the most curious about regarding his input to the design process is Ben Crenshaw, probably because of the fact that the Coore/Crenshaw courses are so highly regarded. I've heard anecdotes about Mr. Crenshaw's involvement, in particular I was told a story about how he was out on the Colorado Golf Club site digging at a bunker until well after dark, but I really don't know overall how the dynamic between him and Bill Coore works, and it would sure be interesting to know.

[Scott Macpherson]

Hi Kirk,

yes, it would be nice to hear more about Mr Crenshaw.

One well known Golf Professional who I know a little about is Peter Thomson. His Australian company with Ross Perrett is quite topical at the moment having got into the final 8 of the Olympic Project. I worked for them in 1997/98 in Melbourne, when they were known as TWP. I think Peter is quite remarkable. His golfing success is well documented, but I have strong recollections of him coming into the office almost everyday and walking around the design associates and studying what they were working on and making design suggestions. His input was invariably good and I think he has a sharp sense of strategy. So Peter is definitely a contributor and closely connected to his designs. I must admit, my memory is rather vague as regards his digger operating skills though.

scott

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

What I can contribute is based ona round with Mr Crenhsaw at Pebble in the First Tee evenet.
He was great all dat atalking about his and othere golf courses that we both liked.
Once he was awarae that I was a wanna be architect and just lovred all there is about golf courses, he could not stop talking about the topic..probabaly at the expense of his own game that day....he was very very knowledgable and equally passionate about what he was saying...nothing was said without thought...it left me very impressed.
His comments on other peopels works were equally interesting, always polite but not prepres to say soemthing was great when it wasn't just to be politically correct...a great day.

[John Kavanaugh]

What I can contribute is based ona round with Mr Crenhsaw at Pebble in the First Tee evenet.
He was great all dat atalking about his and othere golf courses that we both liked.
Once he was awarae that I was a wanna be architect and just lovred all there is about golf courses, he could not stop talking about the topic..probabaly at the expense of his own game that day....he was very very knowledgable and equally passionate about what he was saying...nothing was said without thought...it left me very impressed.
His comments on other peopels works were equally interesting, always polite but not prepres to say soemthing was great when it wasn't just to be politically correct...a great day.

So, by how many strokes did you beat him?

[JMEvensky]

What I can contribute is based ona round with Mr Crenhsaw at Pebble in the First Tee evenet.
He was great all dat atalking about his and othere golf courses that we both liked.
Once he was awarae that I was a wanna be architect and just lovred all there is about golf courses, he could not stop talking about the topic..probabaly at the expense of his own game that day....he was very very knowledgable and equally passionate about what he was saying...nothing was said without thought...it left me very impressed.
His comments on other peopels works were equally interesting, always polite but not prepres to say soemthing was great when it wasn't just to be politically correct...a great day.

M W-P,doesn't this belong in the boasting thread?

Jackins says come over to Memphis and bring a lot of cash.

[Bill Brightly]

Scott,

I say the "name' gets the credit or the blame, whether he was on site every day, a few days, or never even visited the site and worked from topo maps. It is almost impossible to look back on a course and accurately determine how much influence the architect had versus his top assistant, the shaper, etc. At the very least, the architect hired the assistant and the shaper, gave them guidance, and had final approval before the grass was planted and the bunkers filled with sand.

If an architect is blessed to have great people in the field, he may be the benficiary of great work done in his name. Or he may have had to instruct the crew to re-do something 3 or 4 times, and we would never know. You either like the architect's golf holes or you don't.

They are all apples. Even if it taste like an orange, that is just a bad-tasting apple!

[George Pazin]

I see a thread on GCA asking 'how great "X" golf Pro is as an architect?'. It's a question I often get asked too. I find it very difficult to answer. My resistance to answering comes primarily because 1) I'm never sure how much say Nicklaus, Player, Els, Faldo etc are involved with any design ...

Can't speak as to the others, but Tom D's recent sharing of Sedonack experiences has me thinking Jack does a lot more than most think.

[Niall C]

Scott

I can't help thinking it must have been a lot easier and more enjoyable laying out a course the old fashioned way however I wonder how much of what we look at now on the classic courses is actually the original course and hasn't been redesigned and tweaked on numerous occasions. I suspect very few courses are entirely original.

Re; your story on Peter Thomson, I had the pleasure of meeting him with a bunch of other wannabees and thought he was a perfect gentlemen. The one bit of advice that I do remember over 10 years later, was that he advised us all to become shapers !

Niall

[Peter Pallotta]

Scott - I have to admit, I liked my post so much that I started a new thread with it, based on yours, so that it didn't get lost here. 
Peter

[Sean_A]

I see a thread on GCA asking 'how great "X" golf Pro is as an architect?'. It's a question I often get asked too. I find it very difficult to answer. My resistance to answering comes primarily because 1) I'm never sure how much say Nicklaus, Player, Els, Faldo etc are involved with any design and 2) I'm not sure what their personal level of design/visualisation ability is anyway.

The question becomes laced with complexity when it morphs into comparing golf Pro designers from different centuries.

Certainly I think we can better assess the abilities of our golf pro designers from yesteryear. Because the industry had less technical demands when Old Tom, Braid, Willie Park, Taylor etc where working, they could layout courses (sometimes in half a day!). So we can go and see their work, and be pretty sure (not always certain) that Braid or whomever was onsite and participating in the design. That is to say, the work was not outsourced to a face-less (in a nice way) design associate some where on level 3 of the design office.   Also, because the design industry was in its infancy, these men often wrote at length on their design philosophies.

So how do you assess the ability of modern day professional golfer as an architect? Can you, or can you just comment on their company's ability to produce golf courses? And then, how do you compare a modern golf pro designer to the industries forefathers?

Scott

Scott

I was very much under the impression that guys like Braid and Old Tom made site visits (on most projects) and left the building (and invariably some interpretation) to builders.  I know Braid relied heavily on Stutt for many projects (just as Colt relied heavily on Franks Bros) and in this sort of way they could be considered what is now known as design associates and I think it reasonable to assume these builders actually designed quite a bit of the courses.

I honestly don't think it is all that different today for the pros who actually do design work.  Indeed, some pros today may actually spend more time on site than Braid and Old Tom etc.  The hard part is figuring which pros just put a name on the design.  I never got that feeling about Jack, but I am sure his input is varied.   

Ciao

[Melvyn Morrow]

John

As usual you are talking way above your pay scale. Your knowledge about golf is to say rather basic verging on the poor.

Your ass seems to do much of your talking for you in the form of verbal diarrhoea.

You know sweet FA about the working or work of Old Tom. You sick F#@k you are turning this site in to a joke.

John you are an unpleasant individual who should know better.

I remember the reason you left the last time, perhaps we should start to re look at that again, showing just you in your true colours.

Actually John, if you are a Member of this site then I no longer want to be – once I have finish my commitment to Ran, I will leave if you are still post on this site.

Melvyn

[Garland Bayley]

John,

I don't get it either. Why are you here other than to feed your own ego?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Scott

For someone who has studied TOC I am surprised with you regard your comment re Old Tom. Has history not shown that Old Tom undertook many visits to many courses during the design stage.

If designs were complete in half a day why did it take another 6 -12 weeks before the courses opened. Remember this was a time pre design drawings, and also not many would have been able to understand the design drawings had they been issued.  Thus requiring many return visits to develop the course. Sometimes Old Tom would hold back a team to build the Greens until the layout was agreed by clubs committee.

This idea of stake it AM play it PM and open the next day is a total misunderstanding of the early design process. Many designers may agree a design can materialise more or less immediately or will take some time to develop, even then the client (Club Committee) may require changes for various reasons.

Melvyn

[John Kavanaugh]

Melvyn,

I believe Jack Nicklaus and Old Tom have more in common than not as both playing professionals and golf course architects.  Could you please compare and contrast the role each played on their home courses? ie: The Old Course and Muirfield Village.

[Scott Macpherson]

HI Melvyn,

You have done some incredible research into Old Tom, and know far more than I about he. As regards this thread, in an attempt to 'paint a picture' I mentioned 4 chaps who a hundred years or more ago were involved in laying out courses. You will note that my reference to spending a minimal time on a property was in brackets. I do know that some of the chaps did that though... as I am sure you do. But that was not what this thread was about.

I'm interested in your comments about why it then took 6-12 weeks to prepare a course for play. Without any specific knowledge my guess would be that while the course may have been pegged out in a day, the course would still have needed to be prepared for play – i.e. the grasses cut etc. Does this make sense?

regards,

Scott

[Melvyn Morrow]

Hi Scott

I take your point re one of four names.

As for the 6-12 weeks, that was the norm - as for cutting the fairway that was done the first week by the club (new Club), the time was taken to prepare the course once the final agreed plan was agreed, generally not via a drawing but by the few Members of the Committee walking the course with the designer, then reporting back and taking either the rest of the committee or other Members around the proposed course. Hence you get some clubs reporting that their Members playing the unopened course, this was all due to the lack of many to understand let alone read plan drawings. Most of the early drawings were by Surveyors as you know from your great book on TOC and its early maps.

Design was developed or at times quickly approved without modifications, but generally 2-4 weeks to finalise a design - but by playing the proposed course. Old Tom has been reported returning many times to explain or adjust the design. It was never a 1/2 hour job but an on-going process communication with the Members or some of the Members of the Clubs Committee.

Yet much like today the course still had to be prepared and Greens re- turfed.

Melvyn