News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Get worse over time as they respond to the comments of the uneducated and /or squeaky wheels that complain about features on their courses.
All the while forgetting that there are many players who love/like their courses who simply pay their dues/money and go home, a happy, silent majority.

We all know about architects who have to make compromises for their clients, but what about those who become gun shy from criticism, and become afraid to do anything bold, or even slightly polarizing.

I often tell my staff to take care of the good people, and to not get wrapped up in spending too much time on the miserable, who are chronic complainers, and therefore cause the overall service level to drop for the noncomplainers. Or worse yet, they cause ridiculous policies to be enacted which serve a vocal minority rather than a silent majority.
i.e. the squeaky wheel shouldn't take all the grease.

Thoughts?
« Last Edit: September 05, 2013, 08:16:03 PM by jeffwarne »
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do architects that worry too much what critics and players will think
« Reply #1 on: September 05, 2013, 10:13:06 PM »
This is why even a great public course like Pacific Dunes would be better if it were designed and maintained to be private.

Jim Sherma

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do architects that worry too much what critics and players will think
« Reply #2 on: September 05, 2013, 11:26:18 PM »
This is why even a great public course like Pacific Dunes would be better if it were designed and maintained to be private.

Better for who and under what criteria?  Please clarify.

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do architects that worry too much what critics and players will think
« Reply #3 on: September 05, 2013, 11:29:58 PM »
This is why even a great public course like Pacific Dunes would be better if it were designed and maintained to be private.

Better for who and under what criteria?  Please clarify.

Even Keiser has admitted that the greens are slower and less quirky because of the public nature of the course. It is common sense from a fiduciary standpoint.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Do architects that worry too much what critics and players will think
« Reply #4 on: September 07, 2013, 08:34:46 PM »
Get worse over time as they respond to the comments of the uneducated and /or squeaky wheels that complain about features on their courses.
All the while forgetting that there are many players who love/like their courses who simply pay their dues/money and go home, a happy, silent majority.

We all know about architects who have to make compromises for their clients, but what about those who become gun shy from criticism, and become afraid to do anything bold, or even slightly polarizing.

I often tell my staff to take care of the good people, and to not get wrapped up in spending too much time on the miserable, who are chronic complainers, and therefore cause the overall service level to drop for the noncomplainers. Or worse yet, they cause ridiculous policies to be enacted which serve a vocal minority rather than a silent majority.
i.e. the squeaky wheel shouldn't take all the grease.

Thoughts?

Jeff:

It's a fine line.  Architects must always be thinking a bit about self-promotion, and from that angle everyone wants to be seen as a good guy who listens to feedback.  Otherwise, there are not a few people who would be all too happy to portray you as arrogant and unwilling to listen ... including your competitors for business.

Generally, though, you are right.  Many architects want their courses to be universally praised, and establish so many "don'ts" that they are building bland courses.  One of the things that helped me a lot was realizing that a course only had to find an audience large enough to support it -- if it does, it can be successful without being universally popular.

I disagree with John K's analysis of Pacific Dunes.  Generally, from the beginning of my career, I got ahead by not dumbing down public courses, and I think Pacific Dunes is a lot more sophisticated than he represents.  I think Mr. Keiser's preference for flatter greens is more a matter of personal preference, not a calculation about what the retail golfer wants.  Every time I've heard him tell me he's concerned about my wilder greens, it's been a personal concern.  Oddly, he worries about hiring me for Wisconsin because he's afraid I'll make the greens too wild, even though in two projects we've done together, he has never asked me to tone down a green.