How Did The Architect Become So Removed From The Golfer?

[Paul Gray]

It occurred to me the other day whilst walking around a much abused local course that there can be no other area of the game where the player is so disinterested in the knowledge of the expert. Amateur players would never presume to tell the club pro how to correctly swing a club, nor would many recommend a specific treatment to the greenkeeper.

However, the average player is quite happy to voice opinion on architecture without ever considering that someone else had actually thought about it long and hard before. The average player probably doesn't know who designed their own home course, let alone what the design intent was. It's as is the average golfer assumes the course just appeared by magic one day. And how many golfers could even name five renowned architects. Let's be honest, the proud owners of a multi-storey car park are more likely to be able to dig out original plans than the proud owners of a golf course.

So my question is simple, how did this separation happen?

[Darragh Garrahy]

I see it as a natural separation in the sense that the average car driver doesn't care how their Toyota or whatever was built but will happily complain about design quality or similarly extol the virtues of the make when it gives a problem, without researching to back up their assertions.

Its easy to make throwaway comments about course design on a superficial level but not so much about your club pro when he's highly visible!

It's a level of expertise unlikely to impact on someone's immediate enjoyment of the game and as such the separation will naturally be wide.
I could not pass comment on the aetiology of the separation aside from my thought of it being a niche area of the game.

Darragh

[Thomas Dai]

Amateur players would never presume to tell the club pro how to correctly swing a club, nor would many recommend a specific treatment to the greenkeeper.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one Paul. Although not 'in the business' I hear such comments all the time, although I would love not to hear them.

I do go along with your comment about "how many golfers could even name five renowned architects", although I'd suggest you're being very diplomatic with naming 5 archies, unless that is the likes of Christopher Wren and Capability Brown are included!

atb

[Paul Gray]

I can honestly say I've never heard a member suggest a specific treatment. General advice, definitely, but nothing specific in the same way that golfers have specific ideas about this or that fairway line.

And I was being diplomatic. I will suggest the average golfer could probably name only two of the great architects, namely Jack Nicklaus and Peter Alliss.  

But seriously, I think my issue is with the industry not leaving behind enough information for the average club to work with. I don't know if he's reading this but I know Frank Pont has some quite interesting views on this. It's a strange subject we deal in which seems to interest people enough for everyone to have an opinion but not enough for those same people to get an education.

[Tim_Weiman]

Paul,

I don't know that the architects favored here were ever well known. Guys like Bill Coore, Tom Doak, Mike DeVries, Gil Hanse, etc., aren't exactly household names.

But, I was surprised a couple months ago in a meeting with SK, the big South Korean oil refining company, to meet a young guy from Korea who was a fanatical Tom Doak fan despite never having seen one of Tom's courses.

Anyway, most golfers just want to play the game and aren't interested in discussing architecture.

[Mike_Young]

Paul,
It's just the nature of golf.  Geoff Shackleford's site just had an article on the "Golf Inc. Top 40 people in golf industry".  Most were management companies and they were singled out for the affect they have on the industry.  Come on....there are 16,500 golf courses out there and if you allow for 3500 of them as private clubs then there are probably 12,000 golf courses out there that don't have management company involvement and are probably individual owner (mom and pop) courses.  For those 12,000 course they could care less who the architect was and many probably don't know.   The average golfer associates good golf design with: a signature tour player name, a high level of maintenance and course length.
  Many clubs will readily accept that the best player will be the best to discuss architecture for the club and in many cases his opinion will be accepted over that of a regional archie.  In the real world the average facility and golfer does not respect the golf architect and what he brings to the table.  The club representative will feel that he has a better perspective of what is needed than the average local archie and the only thing he will listen to is signature architect.  The "jock sniffing" element of golf architecture has been expensive for many clubs around the country.

I think MacKenzie had a good quote regarding professionals such as doctors and lawyers not listening to golf archies...

[Paul Gray]

Mike,

I agree with every word. However, the question is why?

[Mike_Young]

Mike,

I agree with every word. However, the question is why?

I think it's just human nature.  The person the golfer sees in front of them the most will have the most influence on them.  Therefore the golf professional has the most influence and after him probably his assistants and somewhere down the line is the supt and the very last is the archie right after the cart boy.     It works that way in the construction of a project also.  I have often seen the on site supervisor at a project have more influence with a member than the archie himself just because the guy is there everyday....

[Jon Wiggett]

Amateur players would never presume to tell the club pro how to correctly swing a club, nor would many recommend a specific treatment to the greenkeeper.

Paul,

I have lost count of the times golfers who couldn't break 100 were still quite happy to tell me what the best cure for this swing fault or that was. Like all spectators at a football match know better than the manager once a golfer has more than glanced at a golf magazine they become experts on swing technique. As for greenkeeping, this is even worse after all they all have perfect lawns at home don't they

Why the lack of interest in GCA? Probably the same reason as with buildings. Most people have never thought about the architecture of the house they live in or any of the buildings they see. Yes they may know what they like or dislike but most people do not take the time to think about why.

Jon

[Jim Nugent]

Paul, maybe part of the reason is the interactive nature of golf.  As golfers, we play on the course.  We see what we like and don't like.  So it's natural for many to suggest changes to courses, based on their experiences.

They don't tell the pro how to teach, because they know that is beyond their sphere of expertise.  Same with advising the greenkeeper.  But if they keep hitting their tee shot in that damned fairway bunker over on #5... or constantly 3-putt (from 50'!) on contoured greens they hit in 'regulation'... they feel they are entitled to a say in the matter.  

  

[Paul Gray]

Perhaps a better question for me to have asked in the first place would have been:

Why ia there not a fluid connection between architect, contractor, Greenkeeper, Club Secretary and the Chair of the Greens?

[Mike_Young]

Perhaps a better question for me to have asked in the first place would have been:

Why ia there not a fluid connection between architect, contractor, Greenkeeper, Club Secretary and the Chair of the Greens?

Because each thinks he has the right solution...

[RJ_Daley]

Paul, although rare, there are examples of those connections and that they worked as a team rather than separate and disparately interested in the project outcomes.  It probably starts with a design-build firm, and is better with a super involved and on the same page as the archie, and a project general manager in collaboration with the rest of the team.  Can you say Dismal Doak?   

[Ed Homsey]

As green committee chair at my club, I had a lot of "average golfers" give me specific advise about features of the course, e.g. bunker placement, tree management, fairness issues related to various hazards.  These "suggestions" generally arose out of the difficulty the specific golf had with the object of his complaint/suggestion.  Never was it couched in architectural terms.  Seems to me that most "average" golfers are shot-bound, i.e. where do I want to hit this thing, and what club can do the job for me?  When they talk about a golf course, they talk almost exclusively about its conditioning and level of difficulty.  

Related to this issue is the relative lack of interest in historical matters pertaining to golf courses and/or clubs.  I've been historian at my club for nearly 20 years.  I've tried to bring attention to the rich history of our club with regular articles in our newsletter, history programs, etc.  We have events that focus on Walter Travis, our course designer.  Still, I am certain that it is a minority of our club who could pass any ten-question quiz I might devise (and, I have devised for placemats in the lounge, etc.).  I think that's just the nature of folks generally.  But, I haven't given up.  I keep hoping to recruit another member to the group that is knowledgeable about some of the Travis characteristics of our course, and who understand and appreciate the intent of our long range golf course plan, developed under supervision of an archie well-respected on this site.

[Tom_Doak]

Perhaps a better question for me to have asked in the first place would have been:

Why ia there not a fluid connection between architect, contractor, Greenkeeper, Club Secretary and the Chair of the Greens?

One reason is that there isn't much time for all that.

As my life is today, I spend 150 days on the road dealing with a couple of new construction projects per year, planning for the next two, looking at prospects for future work, and consulting.  Plus I spend a fair number of days in the office, running the business and doing planning work and p.r. and all the rest.

I've only opened 35 courses of my own -- I'm a piker compared to the big boys -- but even devoting one day per year to each of them would add up to quite a bit of extra [unpaid] time.  It's not that I don't care; there just isn't the time.  I could do it when I only had ten courses to my name, but no longer.

The best I have done is to establish a good relationship with the superintendent during construction, so that he will understand most of what we had in mind himself, and write to ask if he's uncertain.

Anyway I am learning that it is better not to be a micro-manager and just let Nature take its course after my work is done.

[Peter Pallotta]

Paul - here's another take on your interesting question, the original one, especially the "why" part.

I think it's because if folks think about it at all, architecture appears to be about "creativity" and "imagination", which most folks believe they have plenty of. The irony is that they are right -- most folks DO have a lot of creativity and imagination. The trouble is, a huge part of what makes gca actually WORK has nothing to do with either of those things! And I'm not just talking about technical things like drainage, I mean to refer to ALL of what makes a great golf course great -- they have little to do with "creativity" and "imagination"....they have instead to do with CRAFT. And most folks, if they think about the subject at all, tend to confuse the former with the latter.

When I was struggling to learn and get better at my particular craft, ie. playwriting, and to understand the building blocks of narrative and the foundations of engaging narratives and the creation of living characters and how dialogue did and didn't work, I can't tell you how many times people would say to me: "Oh, cool - I've gotta become a writer one day. I mean, I've got TONS of stories to tell, I just don't know how to get them down on paper". Arrrgggh! As if "getting them down on paper" was just some kind of minor inconvenience that they couldn't be bothered with at the time, or as if "getting it down on paper" really wasn't all that related to "writing". And sometimes, if I was in a bad mood, I wanted to scream "You idiot - getting it down on paper IS the writing"!

Not that it still bothers me But I do think there's a parallel there.

Peter
 

[Rich Goodale]

Perhaps a better question for me to have asked in the first place would have been:

Why ia there not a fluid connection between architect, contractor, Greenkeeper, Club Secretary and the Chair of the Greens?

One reason is that there isn't much time for all that.

As my life is today, I spend 150 days on the road dealing with a couple of new construction projects per year, planning for the next two, looking at prospects for future work, and consulting.  Plus I spend a fair number of days in the office, running the business and doing planning work and p.r. and all the rest.

I've only opened 35 courses of my own -- I'm a piker compared to the big boys -- but even devoting one day per year to each of them would add up to quite a bit of extra [unpaid] time.  It's not that I don't care; there just isn't the time.  I could do it when I only had ten courses to my name, but no longer.

The best I have done is to establish a good relationship with the superintendent during construction, so that he will understand most of what we had in mind himself, and write to ask if he's uncertain.

Anyway I am learning that it is better not to be a micro-manager and just let Nature take its course after my work is done.

Excellent post, Tom, particularly the final sentence.  My only question is "do you consider mankind to be a part of nature or not?"

Rich

[Greg Taylor]

The reality is that most golfers are concerned about their score, pace of play and condition of the course.

Plus having a beer and getting away in reasonable time to get back to the family.

So, I would say the relationship between the greens committee and golfer (customer) isn't broken... but Joe The Plumber... LoL... when it comes to architecture it's too far removed from what he wants out of his game.

[Sean_A]

Paul

Being a professional doesn't make one an expert  

The separation you describe has been there from day 1 of architecture.  People generally don't care about the design of most things and I think that holds true for architecture wing nuts...it just happens that most of us care about this thing rather than spoons or desk lamps.  

One major reason why folks don't pay attention to who designed their course is to them, nearly all courses look alike.  When a course does stand out for the punter its usually for maintenance reasons.  Which leads me to believe that the best way to keep the golfer close to the design is via the greenkeepers, not the archie.  Of course, that presumes folks actually care about this rather than just wanting to moan about something.  

One area which always fascinated me was classic cars.  People may not know who the exact responsible design/engineering team were for a car (not so different gca), but for some reason the lines of the car, etc etc are sacred and to be preserved and many can understand the idea even if they have no interest in doing so or even owning a classic car.  There is probably a branding/marketing/memory lane phenomenon responsible for the classic car situation...cars are ingrained into the psyche of many people in that they can mark the passing of time like music does.  The closest we get to this in golf is the events, not the courses.  

Bottom line, many of us are wing nuts and deserve our fate  

Ciao  

[Jud_T]

Sean,

The classic car analogy is an interesting one.  I guess the difference is that everyone gets a new car every 5 or 10 years and then when you see a classic rolling down the street it sticks out as nostalgic or a novelty.  The difference is most clubs can't just get a new golf course every decade (even though some have tried!).  Rather a club changes subtly over a generation or two till there's little institutional memory of what the course was presented like originally left.  Trees grow slowly, fender benders happen in an instant.  Then 50 years later when some well meaning young Archie comes in and suggests taking out a tree that dear old dad spent 20 years hacking his way around, everyone gets in a huff.  Then you're already playing defense trying to educate the membership about strategy, options, turf etc.  the question is how can we play offense instead?  Perhaps if a classic is properly and fully restored and presented, and gets a bunch of Buzz, folks get a chance to see it and play it, and this aesthetic takes hold as the old is new thing, then traction can be gained more broadly.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Not sure if it is mentioned, but I think one reason there is more gca/golfer disconnect is the nature of who actually commissions the gca.  I presume in the Golden Age, most work was commissioned by a small dedicated group wanting to get a course built for their own enjoyment, and it set the parameters for the gca work.

Now, with 2/3 or more of all courses commissioned by cities, real estate developers, etc., the owner we serve is also a step removed from the golfer, AND, probably has some other priority than great (or should I say, good "course you could play every day" motives.  Those, of course, being selling real estate, winning awards, providing a golf factory, paying down debt, etc. etc. etc.  IMHO, the modern process itself separates architect from golfer right from the get go.

[Jud_T]

Jeff,

This is an excellent point.  Even when new courses strive for greatness, it's often the developer/owner's intent to garner ratings and thereby $$$'s rather than simply build what's the best for playing the game or the membership.  So even in that instance the motives are rarely as pure as the driven snow.

[Jaeger Kovich]

I think a huge part of the disconnect comes from time/technology.

In the old days, with horse drawn tools, everything took significantly longer in the field. That gave the construction manager/associate/architect/etc weeks to grind out ideas as they developed. Today many of those decisions and ideas have a matter of hours thanks to modern construction equipment. If the guy in the machine isn't thinking about drainage, the ball, sight-lines, contours, grass lines, etc all at the same time, and adjusts as they work, most will have a hard/impossible time editing all that stuff back in after. They may get some of it back, but it is human nature to comprise before 100%.

Chances are, those thoughts are not going to occur to most while operating the machine (I know a few where it does)... That is why I believe in design build. Either shaping yourself, or having a design associate on the dozer, where things happen the fastest, is the best way.

[David Ober]

It occurred to me the other day whilst walking around a much abused local course that there can be no other area of the game where the player is so disinterested in the knowledge of the expert. Amateur players would never presume to tell the club pro how to correctly swing a club, nor would many recommend a specific treatment to the greenkeeper.

However, the average player is quite happy to voice opinion on architecture without ever considering that someone else had actually thought about it long and hard before. The average player probably doesn't know who designed their own home course, let alone what the design intent was. It's as is the average golfer assumes the course just appeared by magic one day. And how many golfers could even name five renowned architects. Let's be honest, the proud owners of a multi-storey car park are more likely to be able to dig out original plans than the proud owners of a golf course.

So my question is simple, how did this separation happen?

People give advice to their greenskeepers and club pros all the time, but not as frequently as they do to the course architect (in absentia), certainly. The main reason for that is that both greenskeeping and the swinging of the golf club (at a basic level) are both more "science" than they are art.

Golf course architecture, though, is (in the minds of most people), much more of an art than a science; and everyone has their opinion(s) about art. If I tell you that I don't prefer Picasso, who are you to tell me otherwise? If I tell you we need to apply retardants to our poa annua greens in May instead of in August, then I'm either (most likely) right or wrong. If I say that the fairway cut on the number three fairway should be moved five yards right, then I'm neither right nor wrong. I'm just stating an opinion (albeit one with consequences to how a hole can/should be played.

That's really all it is, in my opinion....

[Stephen Kay]

Paul  -  I agree with you completely.  As for why, that is another question.  All the old classic architects said the same thing so things never change.  When different disciples get together to talk we always learn a lot.  Everybody is an expert in all industries it is human nature.  We all knock Washington DC (I know I sure do) but do we really know how things work and/or how they should work.