Fred Hawtree (II) Quote

[Paul_Turner]

"Golf course architects on the whole, and in public at least, are very courteous when describing each other's work but they start from the firm conviction that they could have done it as well or better themselves."

The first part isn't so true now, but I reckon the second part is.

What do you think?

[Mike Sweeney]

Paul,

Let's be honest. Most of us are NOT golf course architects and many/most/all (especially Pat Mucci) think we can do it better. 

[Tom_Doak]

"Golf course architects on the whole, and in public at least, are very courteous when describing each other's work but they start from the firm conviction that they could have done it as well or better themselves."

The first part isn't so true now, but I reckon the second part is.

What do you think?

Undoubtedly so, though there are at least a few exceptions.

The surprising thing to me is that even a lot of the architects whose careers have consisted of more modest projects (and who seem entirely happy with that career choice) sometimes let slip that they aren't so impressed with the more famous courses.  They seem to believe all designers are essentially equally skilled, and that it's more of an engineering profession than a design profession.  The only reason that one architect rises above another, in their opinion, is "marketing".

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom - I can understand (i.e. I think I can explain) that sentiment: it seems to me that in all the arts-crafts, what separates the best from the very good is actually quite hard to pinpoint and define; it is almost intangible, but I'm almost sure it isn't 'training' or 'technique' or 'experience' or even 'knowledge'.  I tend to think that the key intangible is 'intention' -- which is itself, I know, a vague term. But as vague terms go, I think it is more determinative than 'talent'.  So the very good in any craft are loathe to admit that they lack the technique or training or experience or knowledge or even talent of the best among them, and in this they may be right. But they forget about intention.

Peter

[Stuart Hallett]

A very interesting thread which throws up many more questions than the 2 initial parts. Despite popular belief, the job is actually difficult, and involves many aspects that people don’t see.

Personally, I believe that a few guys lead the way, regardless of marketing. Others need « marketing » to play in the same league, or hope to one day. Surely, vision & original designs will always stand out, thus underlining individual talent.

Among the majority of others, some talk a good game but don’t actually play, some talk all day and you end up believing them, and the remaining few are too busy playing to find the time to talk, or they let the work do the talking with the hope of bigger projects.

Of course, it’s easy to criticise, and I do try to be courteous in general. But it’s true that not all famous courses necessarily had talented designers with enough vision to make the most of any given site. That’s probably where most of us see a weakness, which brings me back to
« marketing »… if you see what I mean !

[Paul_Turner]

Well I guess an averagely talented architect is wrong about this 50% of the time.  We all tend to overestimate our abilities no matter what the field....almost everyone reckons they're a better driver (car) than average.

Also the criticizing architect will usually only have a partial picture of the constraints that the criticized architect was working under.  Particularly if there is a substantial time difference i.e. remodeling an old course.

[Joel_Stewart]

"Golf course architects on the whole, and in public at least, are very courteous when describing each other's work but they start from the firm conviction that they could have done it as well or better themselves."

The first part isn't so true now, but I reckon the second part is.

What do you think?

I agree 100%.  Most are so oblivious to the fine detail work that makes great courses.

[Paul_Turner]

On the flip side, are there any modest, introverted "shrinking violet" architects out there with loads of talent but who are hopeless at marketing/promotion and so never get plum jobs?  Or is this an impossibility in this field?

[Tom_Doak]

On the flip side, are there any modest, introverted "shrinking violet" architects out there with loads of talent but who are hopeless at marketing/promotion and so never get plum jobs?  Or is this an impossibility in this field?

Paul:

Of course there are.  But few of them survive for the long term, because it's so hard for them to find enough work for themselves. 

Others stay in the background and work for someone else without getting proper credit.

[Dan Smoot]

"Golf course architects on the whole, and in public at least, are very courteous when describing each other's work but they start from the firm conviction that they could have done it as well or better themselves."

The first part isn't so true now, but I reckon the second part is.

What do you think?

Undoubtedly so, though there are at least a few exceptions.

The surprising thing to me is that even a lot of the architects whose careers have consisted of more modest projects (and who seem entirely happy with that career choice) sometimes let slip that they aren't so impressed with the more famous courses.  They seem to believe all designers are essentially equally skilled, and that it's more of an engineering profession than a design profession.  The only reason that one architect rises above another, in their opinion, is "marketing".

That seems like such a crazy attitude to have about your profession.  In every profession, including engineering (my profession) and certainly in golf architecture, there is an element of creativity (art/craft).  In engineering, that element, most times separates the good from the very good.  Golf architecture has its engineering element that can't be avoided but the creative elements of strategy, routing and integrating the various design elements into a unique site is such a significant factor into the final product.  I believe that the "design skill" of Tom Doak, C&C and some others is what "markets" their product.  For those who love the game of golf, what makes us return, again and again.  Marketing might get me there but it won't make me reach back into my wallet.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I think its a fair quote. Publically I would not slag anyones work, although once I said on here a course in Iceland was a bit dull and the architect certainly did not like that and I do genuinely regret saying/typing that. I think the second part is true as well, I think I always think I could do a better job, but I have submitted redesigns and options and the club has not gone with my preffered one so its a lot about opinion.

As for TD, CC..... I really like their work. I would like to see what they could do on a 150 acre flat, squared site with 6 trees on, or if they would even do it. The are levels and divisions and probably they are at the top of tree, even ahead of the Jack Nicklaus's, who may be nearly out of the game now, I think people that want golf courses from now on will go with people that really design them rather than an attached name that puts $50,000 on the value of each plot.

I think it needs a great team to design and build a great course, but they do need a lot of design input which costs, a lot of lower budget courses suffer from the final finishing and thats a shame because realatively its not lots more to really do it nicely. Tony Risolta's work looks nice and its clear his direct input is huge through the project, too often architects do 'six weekly visits'.... its almost a case if your building more than one at a time your doing it wrong, unless of course you have that same collective team that are dancing to the same song.

[Ian Andrew]

The surprising thing to me is that even a lot of the architects whose careers have consisted of more modest projects (and who seem entirely happy with that career choice) sometimes let slip that they aren't so impressed with the more famous courses.  They seem to believe all designers are essentially equally skilled, and that it's more of an engineering profession than a design profession.  The only reason that one architect rises above another, in their opinion, is "marketing".

Tom,

My experience is quite the opposite.

You could say I tend to run with that group. I find them quite modest when it comes to their own skills, their place in the golf architecture and their goals are not as lofty as others. They tend to openly parise who they think is good and not say too much publicly on who they think does lousy work. They don`t see all as equal including themselves.

I`m actually suprised your experiences have been so different than mine. There are exceptions to rule of course, but the guys that don`t see themselves as the top tier are not what I call bitter or resentful at all.

[Tony Ristola]

I'd say the quote is pretty accurate, and believe that marketing plays a role in the success of some. As an example I present the case of architects teaming up with celebrities (PGA Tour Members). If the architects are so skilled and know the game so well, why do they need the association?

[Dan Smoot]

As for TD, CC..... I really like their work. I would like to see what they could do on a 150 acre flat, squared site with 6 trees on, or if they would even do it.

Take a look at what TD did with the Rawls course at Texas Tech in Lubbock Tx.  You can go to google maps and look at the land just beyond the periphery of the property.  A totally flat piece of property which I believe was a cotton field.  When you are within the boundary of the course, you would not believe you are in West Texas.  I don't believe there were many trees originally on the site.  Go to the course website for pictures.

[Paul_Turner]

"Golf course architects on the whole, and in public at least, are very courteous when describing each other's work but they start from the firm conviction that they could have done it as well or better themselves."

The first part isn't so true now, but I reckon the second part is.

What do you think?

Undoubtedly so, though there are at least a few exceptions.

The surprising thing to me is that even a lot of the architects whose careers have consisted of more modest projects (and who seem entirely happy with that career choice) sometimes let slip that they aren't so impressed with the more famous courses.  They seem to believe all designers are essentially equally skilled, and that it's more of an engineering profession than a design profession.  The only reason that one architect rises above another, in their opinion, is "marketing".

That seems like such a crazy attitude to have about your profession.  In every profession, including engineering (my profession) and certainly in golf architecture, there is an element of creativity (art/craft).  In engineering, that element, most times separates the good from the very good.  Golf architecture has its engineering element that can't be avoided but the creative elements of strategy, routing and integrating the various design elements into a unique site is such a significant factor into the final product.  I believe that the "design skill" of Tom Doak, C&C and some others is what "markets" their product.  For those who love the game of golf, what makes us return, again and again.  Marketing might get me there but it won't make me reach back into my wallet.

Dan

It appears that more architects agree with the second part of the quote.  Which means they must be a particularly delusional bunch, unlike engineers like us, of course

And then maybe ratings/rankings do actually serve a purpose: to give a more objective view.