"Lost Credit Common In The Course Design Game"

[David_Tepper]

http://read.nxtbook.com/global_golf_post/global_golf_post/20180212/index.html#lewine_col

[Mike_Young]

If you really want to have some fun go thru the five courses each ASGCA member has to submit for his application for membership.  If you will check them you will find so many of the members actually use courses done for a larger firm for whom they once worked and haven't done any of their own.  Design credit is often  joke....so many people in the business today have never had to sell a design and then sell another one after doing their first.  Saying one designed a course under the guise of a signature designer is not the same as the guy who has to sell it.  And so many find out they can't sell it once they are on their own. 

[Jeff Schley]

If you really want to have some fun go thru the five courses each ASGCA member has to submit for his application for membership.  If you will check them you will find so many of the members actually use courses done for a larger firm for whom they once worked and haven't done any of their own.  Design credit is often  joke....so many people in the business today have never had to sell a design and then sell another one after doing their first.  Saying one designed a course under the guise of a signature designer is not the same as the guy who has to sell it.  And so many find out they can't sell it once they are on their own.

I don't know much about who gets to take credit for a design.  Are what you saying in essence is that as long as someone worked on the design while employed at a larger design company, they can take credit for design credit at ASGCA?

[Adam Lawrence]

Jeff -- Mike has had a bee in his bonnet about the associates of big firm issue for as long as I have been reading GCA. From his point of view it is fair enough; he sees being able to get your own projects as an essential part of being a golf course architect. ASGCA takes a different view; their attitude is can you actually design the course and make it happen? How you get the project is not relevant to them.


What this speaks to is the whole issue of design credit and 'signature' design in all its forms. As a golfing resident of Saudi Arabia, you are presumably familiar with European Golf Design, the design practice owned by the European Tour and IMG. Now, EGD has four lead architects, Ross McMurray, Robin Hiseman, Gary Johnston and Dave Sampson. When they get a project, Jeremy Slessor, the company MD, will assign one of those architects to it, and it'll be his. Example, the JCB course you posted about the other day; that's a Robin Hiseman project, and it will go down to history as a Robin Hiseman golf course.


Now, for much of its history, EGD has mostly done courses that were credited to Tour professionals as 'signature' designers (they don't do so many now, for a variety of reasons it's not worth going into in this thread). So, for example, Robin designed the Royal GC in Bahrain, with Colin Montgomerie as signature, and the owners market it as a Monty course, not unreasonably, because that's what they paid for. But if Robin were trying to join ASGCA (or the European Institute, EIGCA, of which, as it happens, he's already a member) he could cite that as one of his golf courses. Also not unreasonably, given that he designed the thing.


Now, let us suppose that EGD were exactly the same company, except that, instead of belonging to IMG and the Tour, it was Jeremy's own company, and known as Jeremy Slessor Golf Design. In that context, JCB would be a Jeremy Slessor course, because it's his name on the shingle. That's how things work at all the firms that have more than one architect, but are named after their principal. Same at Nicklaus, same at RTJ II, same at Christoph Staedler Golf in Germany. The only key difference is that where the name on the shingle is that of a person, there is doubt over who exactly did what. If you hire Jack Nicklaus, Jack will not design the golf course entirely; there will be an associate leading the project who will do most of the day to day work. Same if you hire RTJ II or any other larger firm.


The question in these circumstances is who did what, and it is very difficult for an outsider to figure that out. But that's what the architect societies do, or reckon they do, in their membership application process. You have to cite a number of courses, whatever it is for the relevant society/institute, and the peer review process by which they evaluate applications will assess the documentation that you provide to prove to their satisfaction that you actually did what you said you did.


There is an element of smoke and mirrors about all this. But in another sense, it's just how professional services businesses work. They are commonly named after their founders. But if you hire Ernst & Young to do your accounts, you don't expect Mr Ernst or Mr Young to rock up with a calculator and start going through your books. If you hire Foster & Partners to build a new office block, you wouldn't be too surprised when Sir Norman doesn't appear to present the designs to your board.


Another side to this is the growing 'celebrity' thing that we see in other sectors. Nobody seriously believes, I hope, that Victoria Beckham actually designs all the clothes that appear in her clothing line, or that Beyonce, or Sarah Jessica Parker, or whoever, actually formulates the perfumes that sell under their names. There is a branding aspect to golf design that makes it more complex to identify who is actually responsible for some things, especially given that the brands have an interest in keeping the identity people who actually do the work very close to their chests. Because they are brands!

[Mike_Young]

If you really want to have some fun go thru the five courses each ASGCA member has to submit for his application for membership.  If you will check them you will find so many of the members actually use courses done for a larger firm for whom they once worked and haven't done any of their own.  Design credit is often  joke....so many people in the business today have never had to sell a design and then sell another one after doing their first.  Saying one designed a course under the guise of a signature designer is not the same as the guy who has to sell it.  And so many find out they can't sell it once they are on their own.

I don't know much about who gets to take credit for a design.  Are what you saying in essence is that as long as someone worked on the design while employed at a larger design company, they can take credit for design credit at ASGCA?

Yes, basically.  While I understand what Adam says above and why,  he fails to mention if many of the guys doing such work were on their own they would not have those jobs.  It's sort of like caddying for Tiger and knowing which club to choose, how to hit it and then how the putt breaks.  You can say "we" won 14 majors but really you didn't.  Or like an assistant major college basketball coach who know the entire gameplan ans schemes but has never had to call a timeout.  Knowing the technical is a commodity.  So yes, at the end of the day the "celebrity" business does work in that way but the consumer rarely realizes it and often the dude doing such doesn't realize it until he has left the firm and doesn't get the same recognition when he goes to sell.  THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GETTING THE JOB YOURSELF AND DOING THE JOB FOR A COMPANY WHO GO THE JOB VIA THEIR AGENT OR CELEBRITY.

And a little OT but relates to the article you mentioned ....Did Devlin or Dye do Secession? That should stir it?  It's pretty obvious no matter what name is on it...

[Mike_Young]

Jeff -- Mike has had a bee in his bonnet about the associates of big firm issue for as long as I have been reading GCA. From his point of view it is fair enough; he sees being able to get your own projects as an essential part of being a golf course architect. ASGCA takes a different view; their attitude is can you actually design the course and make it happen? How you get the project is not relevant to them.

Adam,
I think you sort of answer my argument above.  " Make it happen" is a key phrase.  And for someone thinking " getting the project is not relevant" then they don't get it.  It HAPPENS because the head dude is a signature or a celebrity.  The sad thing is so often the guys doing the work in these offices don't realize they are almost a commodidty and when they have to go on their own they are like a deer in headlights.  ASGCA takes that view so they can have members.  Working under a signature and working on your own is like being shot at with blanks or real bullets.  Cheers....

[Jeff Schley]

Adam thanks for the background.  I completely understand now.  I like the fact that the professional societies dig deep to put the burden of proof on the applicant to prove they did xyz design or participated enough to justify it for their resume. The marketing of "Jack Nicklaus Design" or "RTJ" is exactly that marketing to the public a standard that has "goodwill" value to it, thus increases its value.  Who did the actual work is a sidebar, but I appreciate the auditors so to speak which appear in this example professional societies which are peer assessed.

This isn't unlike how research and development at a university is done and credited.  You can do your research, write up your research, but then to get credit you must publish your research in a recognized publication which is recognized by ISI (International Scientific Indexing).  You don't get credit for the research unless it makes it into a ISI recognized journal and to do so the researcher must pass the editors review, which is made up of peers for that particular field.  So that is the auditing built into the system for academic publishing recognition and works fairly well.

Where the ambiguity comes in is where "gifted" authorship is given, whereas a scientist is cited as a co-author of the research. There is a generally accepted criteria, which sometimes can be stretched for being a co-author:

Only those who meet all of the following three criteria should be co-author of an article:

"1) substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data;

2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and

3) final approval of the version to be published.

Authors should meet conditions 1, 2, and 3."

Academia is no different than other industries in that they need to be sustainable, which means funding.  You don't get the research funding if you haven't published for you won't be recognized as being respected by the metrics as outlined above. What many peers consider the most powerful measure of a researcher is h-index or Hirsch index, which basically measures their research against the number of times peers cite it in their own research.

In applying this to our example here is that workflow coming in for golf course design goes to those companies that have value.  JN or RTJ are a brand that has perceived value, if you work for JN or RTJ you would have to meet those companies standards as a golf course designer or they wouldn't hire you.  As a result, you go with the company that you trust will add value.  If I'm a designer working for JN for example, and I'm given the project and I design it or meet the criteria for co-designing it then I'm given credit on my resume and professional societies. My name hasn't been developed into a brand like JN or RTJ, thus the course wouldn't put my name down as designed by Jeff Schley, it would be JN.  However, the professional societies know if I have done the work and I get credit for doing so.

I see Mike's point of purity in that he would prefer to strip back all the brand names of  JN or RTJ and let each designer go it alone and see who has success in winning projects.  I get that, but what that is negating is that the buyer wants a brand to sell and having JN or RTJ adds value to me as I in the end have to sell rounds to the public or memberships to consumers. So I don't view this hypothetical reality in there are no brands to hide behind and everyone is an independent contractor as being a bit utopian.  Hitting the reset button on the industry to prove that only the strong survive is good for conversation, but can't be proven for it won't realistically happen.

A lot goes into a brand and our example of JN or RTJ for golf course design is miniscule in terms or building brands in the world.  Multibillion dollar companies such as IMG thrive to create a brands for companies, because that is what appeals to consumers is their crafty advertising campaigns.  It is just the way it is, although golf course designers working under a JN or RTJ umbrella maybe selling themselves short of recognition if they were to leave the parent company.  However not everyone has that risky entrepreneurial spirit to want their name on the course.

You want to be respected by your peers for work achieved and rightly so the professional societies give it if you have done the work, however don't put an asterisk by it because it doesn't have my name on it, but my companies.  If I wasn't good enough to meet their standards, JN or RTJ wouldn't employee me is another form of quality control. Give credit for work done, but fighting the branding/marketing aspect is futile IMO, it is capitalism and appealing to consumers is part of that game. 

[Adam Lawrence]

Mike -- do you therefore also believe that, to qualify as an accountant, you must be able to demonstrate that you can win your own business? That would eliminate a very large proposition of accountants worldwide who have always worked for substantial firms where biz dev and actually doing the work are separate processes. Or that to be accredited as a buildings architect you must only build under your own name?


IMO that doesn't make sense. You are probably right that it is going to be harder and harder to practice as a golf architect if you can't sell your own projects -- the big design firm is on the way out. But inherently selling is not a part of golf course architecture.

[Tom_Doak]

Adam:


I'm sort of between you and Mike in this discussion.  I don't give a hoot about the salesmanship side of it, but there is a lot more that comes between that and deciding where the bunkers go.


Your analogy with European Golf Design vs. Jeremy Slessor Design was good.  I don't think even Mike would tab Colin Montgomerie as the true designer of the Royal Bahrain in your example. 


But somehow, you assumed that Jeremy Slessor wouldn't do the design work in his own firm, but just managed it, and that his associates were handed all that responsibility.  That could be true for the largest firms, or for the figurehead firms, but it's certainly not true for others.


I have several talented associates, and they take turns being the lead associate for a project, and then shaping on others.  It's a collaborative effort, as golf course construction always is; we will typically have 4-6 people involved in a project who contribute something to the design.  I always make it clear who the lead associate was.  But they aren't the "real designer" of that project ... they are managing the design for me when I'm not there.  They may come up with the contours for one or more greens, or placement of the bunkers on certain holes [and just as likely so might one of the other people on site], but they aren't out there waving their hands around at the shapers telling them what to do, because the shapers are just as creative as they are, and everyone knows I'm the one who makes the final edits.  I'm fine with them getting co-design credit, although occasionally, the guy who contributes the coolest stuff to a project was not the lead associate.  But for anyone to assume that I've given my lead associate the reins to design it themselves, is silly.  I choose to do only a couple of projects per year, precisely because I don't want to give up the creative side to my associates, and just become a managing partner.


Some of the guys who work for the big firms don't do nearly as much as my associates do.  They may or may not have had a lot to do with the routing -- some of the big offices had people who did nothing but preliminary routings, and the lead associate may have just winnowed down the options so the principal could choose one and made some edits.  They certainly don't get on the excavator and build bunkers.  Mostly, they manage the project for their boss, and it's years and years before they will stick their neck out and try something the boss might not like.  [IMHO, that's why the work of many big firms gets stale over time ... the principal doesn't have much time for a project, and the associates are afraid to be too creative.]  Does that make them the real designer?  Not by a long shot.  Yes, it means they understand enough technically to design a course on their own, and that's why their boss will eventually sign off on them as the "lead designer" so they can become an ASGCA member.  But no, they aren't the "real designers" of some of the courses they are credited with, as it's not at all like your example of EGD.


In a one-man firm, there would still be someone else in that role.  But they'd usually work for the client or the contractor, and nobody would think of giving them design credit, even if they did contribute a lot to the feel and style of the project, because they were there more.

[Mike_Young]

Mike -- do you therefore also believe that, to qualify as an accountant, you must be able to demonstrate that you can win your own business? That would eliminate a very large proposition of accountants worldwide who have always worked for substantial firms where biz dev and actually doing the work are separate processes. Or that to be accredited as a buildings architect you must only build under your own name?


IMO that doesn't make sense. You are probably right that it is going to be harder and harder to practice as a golf architect if you can't sell your own projects -- the big design firm is on the way out. But inherently selling is not a part of golf course architecture.

Adam,
I'm not sure accountant is the profession I would use.  It is an accredited profession.  Golf architecture is not.  I would use artist as a better example.  As for the big signature firms and EGD etc, that kind of work is more about real estate marketing than design.  And the stacks of paper plans generated are part of the hype.  So many of the firms rely on builders they have used and know what they want to put a product on the ground and it usually is done with enough middlemen to cost the client much more than the smaller shops would use.  I will always be convinced that being in an office writing specs and layers of drawings will not make you a golf architect even if you placed it on paper.  TD states it correctly when he talks of his guys being in the dirt.

"Or that to be accredited as a buildings architect you must only build under your own name?" There is no accreditation for golf architecture and some groups may try to present it as so thus we have the issue of arguing about who gets credit.  TD mentions he really doesn't give a hoot about the salesmanship side and I understand that. I don't either but for most of us it is the main part.  I break the business into the hunted and the hunter.  A select few firms are actually "hunted" and sought out by clients.  The rest have to be the "hunter" and constantly be selling their product.  Read the RTJ book by James Hanson and listen to him describe the hassle RTJ would go thru for jobs.  You don't ever see that as an associate for a signature doing RE projects and resorts. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Adam,

Thanks for jumping in with a reasonable explanation for Mike's latest complaint about the industry.  I appreciate help in saving the golf industry from Mike Young trying to "save" the golf industry.

While your view is perfectly in line with what ASGCA believes, I will say that some members have agreed with Mike.  The late Bob Cupp lobbied for a distinction in membership levels between principals and associates.  We had a lot of deep philosophical discussions about it, but decided the group would be more cohesive with one membership status (although we do have the 3 year waiting period to transition to full membership.)  Either you can or cannot do the things necessary to design a golf course, and are or are not highly ethical according to your past clients.

And actually, its not even "all the things necessary to design a golf course" its really most of them.  The ASGCA has a detailed membership form (partially developed by yours truly years ago and still in use) that for each project has the head of firm (if applicable) the applicant, and the owner's rep estimate the amount of work done in each typical phase.  I advise anyone I sponsor that it looks unrealistic to put "100% responsible" for every item, since irrigation, erosion control and a few other things are typically farmed out these days.  But, with a sponsor, four member reviewers, five referrals from owners, and an interview from the Board of Governors, we feel that the sheer numbers of review by qualified people give us a pretty good idea of the capabilities of an applicant to design a golf course. We have found some associates of well known principal members to be lacking the well roundedness at the time of first application and told them to come back.  We weed out folks who are just draftsman, etc.  If it walks like a duck and all that. 


However, whenever someone proposes a more detailed, stringent or clear cut definition, we struggle to find rules that fit all situations, and prefer the by laws to be a bit flexible, like the US Constitution, knowing every situation is a bit different.

In modern times, the distinction of who designed what is or can be pretty complicated.  We can question whether tour pros who hire on for a single project to lend their name (but, often not their time) should get design credit for a few site visits, vs the actual designer (a guy like me or Mike) and the "name firm" vs. the staff architect.  An example is a client who hired Palmer Course Design, but only if the late Vikki Martz was the lead designer, having worked with them and her before.  And, by virtue of doing good work, Vikki helped secure a commission for Palmer Design, no?  (Most firms get hired because the Owner likes their past work, eh?)

I personally have some heartburn about some of the co-credits I share with name pros.  But, it is what it is, and I have used those on my resume, so it hasn't hurt me, even listing them as co-designers, despite widely varying levels of involvement.  If credit sharing were really a huge issue that truly affected the world, someone somewhere would have probably done something about it.  When its just a personal grudge or opinion, most of us just let it ride.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom's reply is good, too.  As a similarly sized small firm, I have had, in some years, talented associates who may have done 90% of everything, but I reviewed the routing, hazards, etc.  While talented (and younger than me) I never had a project where I didn't have a significant contribution to the design, and never really liked the idea of giving up any control.  As the business shrank up bit, some talented folks returned more to the draftsman role.  It had to be hard, and of course, it is one reason any talented associate leaves.


Mikes response is his typical BS.  We have been over it and over it, and no one suggests there is accreditation in golf course architecture.  Nor does ASGCA really affect who gets credit, its outside forces beyond anyone's control - the RE developer and his marketing arm, etc.  In terms of associates of firms getting in to ASGCA, they do have to have the approval of the head of firm to use their projects, done jointly.  I suppose a few have been denied membership due to an over protective boss, but in general, we are happy to get our associates in the ASGCA, even knowing they will probably leave after attaining full membership (I know I did!)

[Mike_Young]

I knew I could get JB into this

We both know there are ASGCA design firms out there today with websites that show nothing but work they have been involved with while working for a signature firm and have never had a full project on their own. Hell, I know of guys who have tld me in the past their principal told them which 5 courses to use for application and I know some clubs who will attest that the guy who took credit for such was not the guy.  So we could go on and on with that merry-go-round.   It's all BS even more than my BS.  And most of these guys are fine.  The industry is down to where ASGCA has Mutual Admiration Excellence Awards for projects done that year if you just submit.  And magazines are now touting practice ranges and 6 hole and 9 hole projects where they used to would never have noticed.  Yet no one really realizes there are many things out there that you or me or others might be doing and we realize we will continue to get these things whether we spend time hyping them or not.  So much work willnot be known outside of a 20 mile radius. 

That's all I'm saying....don't put it on your website if your name is not on the scorecard.   AND we can also reverse it and  realize there are probably some "signature "ASGCA guys who can't do the work the application requires. 

I just don't know when all the BS and hype will stop in this business.  I'm hoping the guys that TD describes who enjoy actually creating and not worrying about who gets the credit will change the perspective. 

[BCowan]

Mikes response is his typical BS.  We have been over it and over it, and no one suggests there is accreditation in golf course architecture.  Nor does ASGCA really affect who gets credit, its outside forces beyond anyone's control - the RE developer and his marketing arm, etc.  In terms of associates of firms getting in to ASGCA, they do have to have the approval of the head of firm to use their projects, done jointly.  I suppose a few have been denied membership due to an over protective boss, but in general, we are happy to get our associates in the ASGCA, even knowing they will probably leave after attaining full membership (I know I did!)

Jeff,


   When you set up Muni Renovation contracts that makes it so ASGCA only Archies get to compete then I have a huge issue with the organization.  It's nothing like Accounting profession in which my old man is a CPA.  He had his own practice for 26 years and then went back and passed his CPA tests.  The CPA test isn't a Frat.  We are talking about Protectionism.  Calling Mike's post BS, is unwarranted. 

[Adam Lawrence]

Tom -- I agree entirely, that's why I said in my original reply that it was very difficult for outsiders to know who did what on any project. We both know that there are as many different levels of involvement of 'the name' (whether that's a signature professional or a design firm with multiple designers) as there are projects; if you hire Tiger for two projects you'll get different levels of Tigerness depending on any number of factors, possibly including the fee, how busy he is with other stuff such as playing, his level of interest in the project.


Your business model allows you to keep creative control while giving enough input to your talented associates to keep them happy working for you; Bill's does the same. Also, those people are able to go off and get projects, where they can, in their own name, which I dare say helps too. Much of that is because of the nature of the projects you get and the work you do. Obviously there is a direct correlation between the quality of people you have working for you and the fact that you typically do such outstanding projects. I doubt you'd be able to keep them all happy if they were building Doak 3s in Florida housing developments.


My only goal here is to get clarity. Mike seems to want to claim that someone who has worked for Bobby Jones for thirty years and been lead man on dozens of golf courses (Bruce Charlton say) is not a golf architect, because he doesn't have projects under his own name, which is ridiculous. Equally I am quite happy to accept that being able to sell is an important attribute for a golf architect -- in a sense, because it isn't a regulated profession, anyone who can convince someone to let them design a golf course can call themselves a golf architect. Which is pretty ridiculous too.

[Mark_Fine]

There is an old saying in business - “It is amazing what you can accomplish if you don’t care who gets the credit”.  It applies to golf course architecture as well.  My guess is someone like Bill Coore and Ben Crenshaw work in this manner.  I don’t think they keep tabs on who did what and how much of the design was “credited” to one or the other.  They just want the best product that they can both deliver and it works. 


I happen to have a copy of the the ASGCA membership application.  I was asked to send in my list of projects/work and got a favorable response back from the committee that I should apply.  My focus for the past 15 years has primarily been on restorations/renovations.  Where that puts me I will leave to someone like Mike Young to decide    The extent of my new course design that has actually been built is a three hole short course and some rerouting of new holes to replace ones that were going to be lost due to housing and/or a driving range additions.  I've designed and built multiple driving ranges and practice areas and also redesigned existing holes on existing courses but never designed a new 18 hole course from scratch.  Most of my efforts are researching older courses and preparing master plans to help bring them back to more of their original look and feel and design intent that has been changed/altered over the years.  My goal on most of these older courses is that when the work is finished, it looks like I was never there and that it was the original architect who came back in and touched up their own work.  My name doesn’t show up on the score card for credit and it shouldn’t need to.  I have worked on dozens of designs from complete restorations/renovations of every hole to simply changing grassing lines and doing tree management work.  The scope of effort is widespread.  How ones measures “credit” for this, who knows?  I've never really cared but I guess the ASGCA will if I decide to apply.   It will be interesting to see what they think?  What I do know is that I meet Mike's criteria in that while I have collaborated with many other architects, I have my own firm and the majority of my projects I have had to secure myself 

[Mike_Young]

Adam,

Thanks for jumping in with a reasonable explanation for Mike's latest complaint about the industry.  I appreciate help in saving the golf industry from Mike Young trying to "save" the golf industry.

Either you can or cannot do the things necessary to design a golf course, and are or are not highly ethical according to your past clients.

Jeff,
I love it. Yes Adam makes some good points.  And he should but rememebr he also does your magazine which only promotes ASGCA( as it should).
 Do you realize how often one runs into an ASGCA dude asking a client how he could choose someone who was not an ASGCA member and how their "ethics" kept them out?  I think they have to be very careful with those kinds of statements and ASGCA members who have lost to outsiders naturally see those guys differently than they do the associate of one of their brethren. That is a PURE BS statement that says so much. 

Adam,
I don't really know Bruce whom you mention.  I'm sure he is a nice guy and knows the design business well.  I said there were exceptions.  And I want to be clear.  I'm saying all of the projects he has done for RTJ Jr were not his.  They belonged to his employer.  He still works for the guy.  If he were to go on his own and put photos all over a website of golf courses and take the credit for such while not really noting they were under RTJ Jr then I have an issue.  Otherwise I don't.  And as you last sentence states, we have guys on this site that call themselves golf architects and they haven't even convinced someone to let them do a project yet.  We agree on that.

And as for what I think of all of this I just do my thing and sometimes as a hobby I will try to expose ASGCA for what it is when I know I can get JB going

Cheers

[Adam Lawrence]

Adam,

Thanks for jumping in with a reasonable explanation for Mike's latest complaint about the industry.  I appreciate help in saving the golf industry from Mike Young trying to "save" the golf industry.

Either you can or cannot do the things necessary to design a golf course, and are or are not highly ethical according to your past clients.

Jeff,
I love it. Yes Adam makes some good points.  And he should but rememebr he also does your magazine which only promotes ASGCA( as it should).

No I don't. I haven't been involved with By Design for five years, except for very occasionally writing something for it.

[Mike_Young]

No I don't. I haven't been involved with By Design for five years, except for very occasionally writing something for it.

Adam,
Oops..my bad...

Mark,

ASGCA is nothing more than a fraternity that tries to subtlety promote itself as the sanctioning body for golf architecture. 

When I first got started I thought it should be a goal.  I submitted once I had six courses.  I could not get the guys who I had competed against for those six projects to sponsor or even look at my projects so I had to get guys from other states.  All went well right through the interview.  The only issue was they did not like the fact that I did my own construction even though several on the interview committee had their own construction firms also.  I got a letter a week after the interview saying they were sorry but  some had a problem and I would not be allowed in.  The problem was from a local who I was competing.  He wanted me to wait longer and he did come around eventually. 

I waited a good ten years and thought perhaps I should do it again when I had a little over 25 courses.  I had good sponsors.  It was funny that the same thing happened when i came to having guys look at my work.  The guys who were members and went after the same projects as me would not volunteer.  Actually one had made it known to me that I would not be a member while he was alive.  And lo and behold….same thing…go to the interview after doing the entire process and who is a the head of the table but the guy who said I would never be in….I was so pissed I couldn’t see straight. 

Now, I have zero interest in being a member.  But I do know that an associate doesn’t have the same hassle because his boss is already in and the associate has never had to compete with the other members.  So their “ethics” are much better.

I saw where one fellow who worked for me for over 7 years was accepted after working for some signatures and was under their umbrella.  Not one mention on his resume of working in our office.  Oh well.it's all fun and games…

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,

   When you set up Muni Renovation contracts that makes it so ASGCA only Archies get to compete then I have a huge issue with the organization.  It's nothing like Accounting profession in which my old man is a CPA.  He had his own practice for 26 years and then went back and passed his CPA tests.  The CPA test isn't a Frat.  We are talking about Protectionism.  Calling Mike's post BS, is unwarranted.

Ben,


Well, I wrote the contract template, and I decided to include the ASGCA qualification, but it was always intended for each owner to customize the generic template to their need. For you or Mike to tout that every potential client is like a blind sheep being led to slaughter, come on!  These are intelligent people who are only looking for a guiding hand in writing an RFQ that for most cities is a one off event.  In most cases, it is not left in, and in cases where it was, non ASGCA architects stated they were interested and were allowed to propose.  Case closed, and a much better way to handle things than belly aching about unfair competition on the internet......just do something about it if you feel that way.  Complaining the way Mike does makes him sound like.......a Democrat! (which for him, has to be the biggest insult, I know )


There is no protectionism, really, and anyone who thinks we are against free competition is missing the point of a professional society, which is collaboration on issues of mutual concern, helping golf as we can, and providing continuing

educational seminars.

  Yes, there is a sense of fraternity (also not a bad thing as Mike likes to imply.)


The competition is brutal 51 weeks a year, and yes, one week a year, we get together to drink and swap stories.  For all the seminars, most would say the most valuable learning comes from off hand comments in the bar and on the course, which is what makes membership so valuable to me.  Where else might I hear from Pete himself, that he designs cup space at a maximum of 2.25%? Sounds mundane, but the difference between 2.25 and 2.5% is something a professional golf course architect needs to consider.


Despite the above, Mike and your point about it being a fraternity is off base, too. So, I still call BS on Mike! [/size][/color]

The best any of us can do is be the best professional example we can be, not insinuate that everyone else is trash.  Try to keep it classy everyone! 

Mike,


As per above, yes you draw me in, as its hard to let your biased and often incorrect opinions and statements go unchallenged.  It's like the old Bill Clinton war room, where they had a response to his daily "bimbo eruptions" rather than hope those things would just go away on their own.  M[/size][/color]

y fear is enough people with no knowledge of the subject might not know the difference.  We do many good things, and for someone like you to stand on the sidelines and proclaim us pure evil is very disturbing, but

I would hope regular participants here will note that you think just about everything in golf is B.S., and know your opinion of ASGCA is just that, as well.


Agree, we shouldn't sell on the negative side ever.  And, it does (me, at least) no good, anyway.  But, isn't selling professional services largely pointing out the differences between the method and mostly results you will give the client?  There is a fine line between saying "here is what I do that others may not" and trashing your opponents.


Saying you are a member is fine, downgrading any other architect to get a job is not acceptable, but yes, it happens, unfortunately.  (even with some non-members......I hear one even wrote a book trashing most other architects work! Oh, the humanity! )  Guess what, both members and non-members survived and even thrived despite all the shenanigans.....you can complain about the hyper competitiveness of the profession, but it won't stop.


I agree with you sales talent is required to be a successful gca long term.  That probably explains architects closing their doors more than anything ASGCA or other outside competing force does, so why focus on small parts of ASGCA as a reason for failure?  It just ain't so.

As to going out on your own and using old projects, yes it happens.  However, ASGCA is pretty clear that you should be honest and attribute it as being done as "an associate of XXX".  And, whenever someone breaks the code, he probably gets called on it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

There is an old saying in business - “It is amazing what you can accomplish if you don’t care who gets the credit”.  It applies to golf course architecture as well.  My guess is someone like Bill Coore and Ben Crenshaw work in this manner.  I don’t think they keep tabs on who did what and how much of the design was “credited” to one or the other.  They just want the best product that they can both deliver and it works. 


I happen to have a copy of the the ASGCA membership application.  I was asked to send in my list of projects/work and got a favorable response back from the committee that I should apply.  My focus for the past 15 years has primarily been on restorations/renovations.  Where that puts me I will leave to someone like Mike Young to decide    The extent of my new course design that has actually been built is a three hole short course and some rerouting of new holes to replace ones that were going to be lost due to housing and/or a driving range additions.  I've designed and built multiple driving ranges and practice areas and also redesigned existing holes on existing courses but never designed a new 18 hole course from scratch.  Most of my efforts are researching older courses and preparing master plans to help bring them back to more of their original look and feel and design intent that has been changed/altered over the years.  My goal on most of these older courses is that when the work is finished, it looks like I was never there and that it was the original architect who came back in and touched up their own work.  My name doesn’t show up on the score card for credit and it shouldn’t need to.  I have worked on dozens of designs from complete restorations/renovations of every hole to simply changing grassing lines and doing tree management work.  The scope of effort is widespread.  How ones measures “credit” for this, who knows?  I've never really cared but I guess the ASGCA will if I decide to apply.   It will be interesting to see what they think?  What I do know is that I meet Mike's criteria in that while I have collaborated with many other architects, I have my own firm and the majority of my projects I have had to secure myself 

Mark,


First, it would be a great, entertaining and educational discussion for a golf course architectural website to have us pros give a few examples of "who did what."  Ron Whitten suggests we all write our musings about old projects down while we can recall them, just in case any future historian wants to know, and I have started that process in my spare time (which seems to dwindle whenever Mike Y starts to post.......)  Maybe I will start someday soon, giving a brief retrospective of a recent or current project, and I will be naming names!


As to ASGCA, let me know if I can support your application by being a reviewer, or just answering questions.   While some would say our application process is geared to keeping people out, it is really geared to getting everyone who is qualified in.  Most of us would prefer someone enthusiastically doing your kind of work to a super salesman who really doesn't do the work.  And, in the recent downturn, the application process has become more renovation friendly to suit the times.  Not to mention, in the end, as professional architects, your reviewers should understand the depth of your work and commitment.


I would love to have you get in, if for no other reason to provide another example of an outsider getting in to quiet Mike down about how impossible it is.

[Mike_Young]

MY REPLIES ARE IN GREEN CAPS

Jeff,

   When you set up Muni Renovation contracts that makes it so ASGCA only Archies get to compete then I have a huge issue with the organization.  It's nothing like Accounting profession in which my old man is a CPA.  He had his own practice for 26 years and then went back and passed his CPA tests.  The CPA test isn't a Frat.  We are talking about Protectionism.  Calling Mike's post BS, is unwarranted.

Ben,


Well, I wrote the contract template, and I decided to include the ASGCA qualification, but it was always intended for each owner to customize the generic template to their need. For you or Mike to tout that every potential client is like a blind sheep being led to slaughter, come on!  These are intelligent people who are only looking for a guiding hand in writing an RFQ that for most cities is a one off event.   MOST OF THESE CITIES ARE BLIND SHEEP AND CAN EASILY BE LED ASTRAY...In most cases, it is not left in, and in cases where it was, non ASGCA architects stated they were interested and were allowed to propose.  AS AN EXAMPLE, WILMINGTON , NC WOULD NOT REMOVE IT SAYING ASGCA HAD CONVINCED THEM THEY WERE A GOOD BAROMETER OF JUDGING QUALIFICATIONS.  SO CASE IS NOT CLOSED THAT EASILY...THERE ARE MORE..  Case closed, and a much better way to handle things than belly aching about unfair competition on the internet....I'M NOT BELLY ACHING, I'M REVEALING BS..just do something about it if you feel that way.  Complaining the way Mike does makes him sound like.......a Democrat! (which for him, has to be the biggest insult, I know )  AGAIN, I'M NOT COMPLAINING, I'M EXPOSING....


There is no protectionism, really, and anyone who thinks we are against free competition is missing the point of a professional society, which is collaboration on issues of mutual concern, helping golf as we can, and providing continuing

educational seminars.

Yes, there is a sense of fraternity (also not a bad thing as Mike likes to imply.)  NEVER SAID IT WAS A BAD THING...FACT IS IT IS A VOTE TO GET IN NOT A QUALIFICATION PROCESS.... GET 9 OF 13 VOTES AND IT DOESN'T MATTER...


The competition is brutal 51 weeks a year, and yes, one week a year, we get together to drink and swap stories.  For all the seminars, most would say the most valuable learning comes from off hand comments in the bar and on the course, which is what makes membership so valuable to me.  Where else might I hear from Pete himself, that he designs cup space at a maximum of 2.25%? Sounds mundane, but the difference between 2.25 and 2.5% is something a professional golf course architect needs to consider.  WOW


Despite the above, Mike and your point about it being a fraternity is off base, too. So, I still call BS on Mike!

The best any of us can do is be the best professional example we can be, not insinuate that everyone else is trash.  Try to keep it classy everyone!    HAVE I EVER SAID ANYONE IS TRASH?   NO....   ALL I HAVE SAID IS THAT AN ORGANIZATION IS A BASIC JOKE.... [/size][/font]

Mike,


As per above, yes you draw me in, as its hard to let your biased and often incorrect opinions and statements go unchallenged.  It's like the old Bill Clinton war room, where they had a response to his daily "bimbo eruptions" rather than hope those things would just go away on their own.  M  WE DISAGREE HERE JEFF...I THINK MY OPINIONS CAN BE PROVEN...

y fear is enough people with no knowledge of the subject might not know the difference.  We do many good things, and for someone like you to stand on the sidelines and proclaim us pure evil is very disturbing, but

I would hope regular participants here will note that you think just about everything in golf is B.S., and know your opinion of ASGCA is just that, as well.  AND LIKEWISE IS..MY FEAR THAT MANY UNKNOWINGLY WILL ACTUALLY THINK ASGCA MEMBERS ARE MORE QUALIFIED AND HAVE SOMETHING ON NON MEMBERS...ASGCA DOES THINGS THAT BENEFIT ASGCA MEMBERS...IT'S EASY TO DISGUISE SUCH AS BEING "GOOD FOR GOLF" BUT ITS ALL ABOUT HYPING THE ASGCA MEMBER.  AND TO BE CLEAR....I'M NOT SAYING AN INDIVIDUAL MEMBER IS A BAD GUY....


Agree, we shouldn't sell on the negative side ever.  And, it does (me, at least) no good, anyway.  But, isn't selling professional services largely pointing out the differences between the method and mostly results you will give the client?  There is a fine line between saying "here is what I do that others may not" and trashing your opponents.  AGREE BUT MANY DO....AND THEY USE ASGCA TO EXPLAIN SUCH


Saying you are a member is fine, downgrading any other architect to get a job is not acceptable, but yes, it happens, unfortunately.   AND WHEN IT IS SHOWN I HAVE NEVER SEEN WHERE ANYTHING WAS DONE.... (even with some non-members......I hear one even wrote a book trashing most other architects work! Oh, the humanity! )  DID THAT BOOK TELL THE TRUTH OR NOT?  Guess what, both members and non-members survived and even thrived despite all the shenanigans.....you can complain about the hyper competitiveness of the profession, but it won't stop.   I HAVE NEVER COMPLAINED ABOUT THE HYPER COMPETITIVENESS OF THIS BUSINESS...I LIKE IT...I JUST DON'T LIKE BS...


I agree with you sales talent is required to be a successful gca long term.  That probably explains architects closing their doors more than anything ASGCA or other outside competing force does, so why focus on small parts of ASGCA as a reason for failure?  It just ain't so.  WHO MENTIONED FAILURE?  I JUST SAID IT WAS A FARCE AND NOTHING MORE AND PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW THAT...HOW CAN AN ELECTION DECIDE IF ONE IS A QUALIFIED ARCHITECT?

As to going out on your own and using old projects, yes it happens.  However, ASGCA is pretty clear that you should be honest and attribute it as being done as "an associate of XXX".  And, whenever someone breaks the code, he probably gets called on it.   PERHAPS ASGCA SHOULD CHECK INTO THIS MORE....

[Mike_Young]

Mark,


First, it would be a great, entertaining and educational discussion for a golf course architectural website to have us pros give a few examples of "who did what."  Ron Whitten suggests we all write our musings about old projects down while we can recall them, just in case any future historian wants to know, and I have started that process in my spare time (which seems to dwindle whenever Mike Y starts to post.......) SUCKER Maybe I will start someday soon, giving a brief retrospective of a recent or current project, and I will be naming names!


As to ASGCA, let me know if I can support your application by being a reviewer, or just answering questions.   While some would say our application process is geared to keeping people out, it is really geared to getting everyone who is qualified in.  YOU ARE SPEAKING FOR YOURSELF HERE AND I SINCERELY BELIEVE YOU.  IF THEY WERE SINCERE THEN THE PROCESS WOULD BE OBJECTIV AND NOT SUBJECTIVE.  JUST LIKE CERTIFIED SUPT OR BUILDER ETC..OH SHOULD I APPLY...AM I QUALIFIED???.Most of us would prefer someone enthusiastically doing your kind of work to a super salesman who really doesn't do the work.  JEFF, ONE OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS WAS A SUPER SALESMEN WHO WAS BEYOND REPROACH EXCEPT THAT HE HAD TWO CONSTRCUTION COMPANIES THAT HE OWNED AND HAD THEM BID AGAINST EACH OTHER WITHOUT LETTING THE CLIENT KNOW AND ALSO NEVER WANTED GUYS ALLOWED IN THE ASGCA ONCE THEY LEFT HIM..COME ON... And, in the recent downturn, the application process has become more renovation friendly to suit the times.  SHOULD QUALIFICATIONS ADJUST WITH TIMES OR IS THAT NEEDED TO FUND FRATERNITIES?Not to mention, in the end, as professional architects, your reviewers should understand the depth of your work and commitment.  REVIEWERS CAN UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING...ITS THE NINE VOTES THAT TELL YOU HOW QUALIFIED YOU ARE


I would love to have you get in, if for no other reason to provide another example of an outsider getting in to quiet Mike down about how impossible it is.   I KNOW OUTSIDERS WHO HAVE GOTTEN IN....I NEVER SAID IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE..THE OUTSIDER JUST HAS TO BE SURE HE DIDN'T STIR THE WRONG GUYS...AND I CAN GIVE YOU PLENTY OF EXAMPLES RIGHT NOW

[Derek_Duncan]

I think that, more than anything else, this thread shows the importance of a good developer/owner who knows exactly what they want and has some basic understanding of how golf courses are built.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Derek,


That is typically the case, but in the go go 90's, there were many uneducated folks and cities jumping in the golf biz.


In some cases, I saw the culprits as those golf management/build/ operators who sold cities on courses funded basically with junk bonds, when cities couldn't pass revenue or G.O. bonds.  They were issued based on studies showing they would make increasing profits forever, leading to some of the fall out today.


But, as MY will tell you, there are apparently culprits to go around the entire industry......


That said, this thread started as a discussion about what is appropriate credit for various entities involved, lead architect, name architect, main project architect, supplementary project draftsman, etc.  If it were really a big issue, someone would have applied some brain power to create some system.  But it isn't, and like our court cases, nearly every situation is a little bit different.


I do agree with Mike that it can be hard to sort out when formerly aligned parties go separate ways.  When people are selling, they tout their experience.  I have been in pre-construction bid meetings where a farmer claimed credit for a pretty famous course.  Wadsworth was at the meeting and nearly exploded, because he was merely hired hourly to run the tractor to seed some fairways.


It even happened to me once, and I strive to avoid problems.  Jim Colbert told a potential client something like "I was the guy who really designed Kemper Lakes" and it made the papers and is still probably found on the internet today.  I called my mentors to apologize for the indiscretion (since Colbert had jumped their ship when I left on my own, it still didn't appease them, really) 


And, I have had former associates cross the line (IMHO) on taking credit, blurring lines, etc. after they have gone out on their own.  You can only hope there is some restitution somewhere along the way, if you believe in the basic goodness of most people.


And, you know, sometimes that kind of statement is true.  I got my first job because they guy in charge of the club committee had recently started his own business after being second in command, and was pre-disposed to think a young guy, just starting out, would charge a lower fee, had the experience and the energy to do them a good job.  Mike seems to think that guy, without knowing any facts, must have been hornswoggled somehow.  But, he knew what he was doing, knew the score, and made a decision that was right for him.


We all get our start somewhere, and that was mine.  I am sure more seasoned architects wondered how I got the job and felt they could do better.  I sure feel that way, especially after the work slowdown, when established architects were nearly begging for work, and somehow an owner who really doesn't know much, manages to hire a young kid with more dreams than actual training under an established firm.  And, sometimes, for more money that I might have been willing to charge.


We all have our sad tales of projects we "should have had."  Yes, it seems unfair when you lost a project, and it sometimes seems as if the universe conspires against us, but as Dad said, the universe owes you nada. 

Meanwhile, I live to fight another day, professionally speaking. 

[/size][/color]

[/size][/color]

I do find myself wondering just how many projects have picked "the wrong architect?"  But, how could you measure?

[/size][/color]

[/size][/color]

But, I digress.