Oh how wrong I was (mostly)!

[Alex Miller]

I think back fondly of this thread

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,42846.0.html

which was probably my greatest learning experience from this site to date. I feel like my knowledge of GCA has come pretty far since then, or at the very least evolved. I know that many threads in which I looked like a buffoon spouting utter nonsense have been tremendously educational for me, even if they were just frustrating for others.

In this case I broadened my understanding of what an architect does. I learned just how important the routing is; how an architect's work is as much in the earth they didn't move as it is in the earth they did. I learned the importance of making clear statements, and that it's not easy to do so from a cell phone mid-round  .


I've enjoyed each and every re-read of this thread, even the cringes I have at my own posts. My thought was other people could share threads that show how much their knowledge has grown, how their opinions have changed, and how discussion can foster greater understanding. Let's see the humility/humiliation!


And if you can't find a link, share what you've learned most through discussion with fellow enthusiasts!

[Terry Lavin]

I speak from experience when I say that first displaying stupidity is an important step toward becoming an educable idiot, aka, a happy hobbyist on this site.

[Joe Bausch]

Dear Alex,

I love you man!

Sincerely,
JakaB
--------------------

[Alex Miller]

By the way, I think my prophetic abilities have always been strong 


Quoted from the linked thread:

Alex:

I have just spent most of the day walking around our new site in Florida, tweaking what I thought was already a pretty good routing, and making it even better.  We relocated two of our par-3 holes entirely, turned the 4-5 finish into a 5-4 that should be much better, and thought through a lot of issues of how to do earthwork on six holes that really need some. 

To me, all of this is what a golf architect does.  But if I could have figured out a way to move a couple of holes so as to require LESS earthmoving and artificial work, and still produce a great golf course, I would have considered that an improvement, whereas you've implied that having to do less work means the architect should get less credit.

By all means, you've got to give credit to the guy who thought of building on this dramatic site ... where a huge amount of earth has been moved around in beautiful and creative ways by a team of guys who had no thought of creating a golf course there.  But then it takes real work and real creativity to figure out the best way to lay out a course over the ground.

Thanks Tom,

I wonder if Pat Mucci will like that Florida course. I think people are inferring from my statements that I don't have as much appreciation for what GCA do as some other people. That may be true and it may not, but I definitely give them credit for routing a golf course and leaving certain things alone on a site that warrants it.

My contention, which is still being ignored, is about what an architect is PROUDEST of. I think an architect who turns an all-world site in to an all-world golf course should be commended. First, that's a lot of pressure to not screw a task such as that one up. Second, they have to do all the things that people on here are discussing: rout the course, use restraint, find the best golf holes available on such a property.

I assert, however, that a GCA should feel proudest of turning an average or below average site into a Great golf course. Obviously the same things go into doing such a thing. There are likely still features to be left alone, but some things need to be done to improve the site given to them.

I am NOT saying that a manufactured golf course is better than a more natural one. My arguments concern only how the GCA feels, as in the original statement.

I appreciate the conversations that go on here, and while I have not strayed from my position, I'm glad I can get everyone else's take on the matter. Especially those involved in the production of a golf course.

[Will MacEwen]

I'm not so sure you were that wrong Alex. 

[Joe_Tucholski]

Alex what are your thoughts now?  Your previous opinions made sense to me.  

As George Pazin stated it he would be more impressed with an architect who could turn a 9 site into a 10 course.  I'm more impressed with the one who can turn 1 land into 4 course, assuming all else is equal.  I wonder if that opinion is because I'm more likely to play golf on land that is a 1 than a 9.

[Alex Miller]

Will and Joe,

I'm not sure how wrong I was either, but in making my argument I neglected so many things.

First of all, I assume were talking about the courses on a Doak scale in that thread (which is not linear) and that the scale used for sites was the same. I think some of the points I made were valid, but I totally and completely underestimated what went into routing a course and the importance that a routing has. If the site is a 1 then so much earth has to be moved to turn a course into a 4 anyway, so a huge part of what an architect does is gone. Also, you could have a 10 site, but if routed poorly the golf course could really suffer. There is huge opportunity for the architect to screw up, so more value should be placed upon the ability to create 8, 9, or 10 courses in the first place. They are rare! I think this is the point Tom Doak was making in the thread.

The discussion spurred me to pay closer attention to what was involved pre-construction. I could expand on why my position has changed (again, not entirely), but I'll let this sit for now in the hopes that someone takes the baton to share their own tale of enlightenment.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Alex, I think you were wrong, but I can assure you, most of the world thinks you were right.

When it comes to design, and building what is designed, it does seem like knowledge and information is devalued. If an architect A can lay out a good golf course that requires very little construction work, it would make sense that he is worth more then an architect B who might take the same site and move all kinds of dirt and build something completely different for multiples of expense compared to architect A's work. But guess what, most of the world will say B is worth more money and did more to deserve more compensation. Does that make any sense whatsoever?

Its the same with many different fields. We pay people to do stuff. The world does not know how to value knowledge, but it knows how to value work. So we value work and act like everyone has the knowledge...in hindsight.   

[Tom_Doak]

Alex:

You should be proud of that thread.  For one thing, as instructive as it was, it only went on for four pages, and you managed to include Melvyn's worldview without starting a shitstorm.  Compared to Patrick's "controversial" thread, you should be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

What strikes me about it looking back now (and echoing Don Mahaffey's comments) is that doing great work is not just about less (or more) earthmoving.  What went wrong with the golf business 20 years ago was that all of a sudden EVERY project had to be "world class" and use the highest standards for every facet of construction, from drainage to irrigation to bunker liners to sand-capping -- to the point that most of those courses may have been built to "world class standards" but they had no chance of earning their keep.  My chosen approach of minimalism has always been about all that other stuff, too ... even though there have been times in the last ten years when I couldn't talk the client out of building things the most expensive way, no matter how wasteful it was.

So, in that sense, Melvyn was completely right.  The more you can leave the natural lay of the land alone, the less you need to spend on all the other line items in the golf course construction budget.  It's an (almost) impossible dream, but there is a reason it's a worthwhile goal.

[David Harshbarger]

Don, very true about valuing work over knowledge: it's hard to create systems that value knowledge over work, as knowledge is harder to measure.  In my business we are trying to change how physicians are paid so they are paid more for keeping members healthy (applied knowledge) vs. just doing services.  It's hard to do.

Here's the nadir of my time on here:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,50381.0.html

I still like to tell my non-golf architecture friends how one of the World's pre-eminent golf course architects thinks I'm an idiot (he cares!), and I still think there is value in some of the comments.  Particularly, I am much more in tune with non-abstract golf values than concepts like a signature hole.  That said, I'm in for the long haul, I am more knowledgable, and to paraphrase Richard Feynmann, "what one fool can learn, so can another!"

At this point I feel like Tom Townsend in Metropolitan: no, I didn't play that course but I can tell you what I read about it.

Dave

[Will Lozier]

An old African proverb goes something like this:

To stumble...is to move forward more quickly

[Garland Bayley]

...  Compared to Patrick's "controversial" thread, you should be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
...

I'll  second the nomination.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

First, I asked if everyone was ready for a controversial thread.

Second, Isn't the "goal" of an architect, to produce the best course the land will yield ?

If that is the goal, does it matter what was left alone and what was moved ?

As to what was moved, to a degree doesn't that get evaluated in terms of how it relates to budget ?

And, if the production of the best course the land will yield requires the moving of greater amounts of dirt, doesn't that indicate an inverse relationship regarding the quality of the site ?