Does the Disciple often do less than the Master?

[Peter Pallotta]

Today I played a rare (for me) 36 holes:
18 in the morning on a Stanley Thompson course, 18 in the afternoon on a Robbie Robinson course.
Both are public courses, and they are 10 miles apart on very similar topography.
In this case, the disciple (Robinson) seems to have done ‘less’ than the master (Thompson).
I can’t put it any other way, though I know that word isn’t very clear.
I don’t mean ‘worse’ or ‘not equally good’ or even all that ‘different’, but ‘less’.
Maybe a little less contours (on the greens), maybe a little less drama (using bold features), maybe a little less penal (in the bunkering).
For those who know: is this common among masters-teachers and disciples-students?
Or instead, do the students tend to do ‘more’ than their teachers?
Do disciples pump up/inflate the master’s basic style or do they tend to tone it down?
Peter

[Tom_Doak]

Hmmm ... I will have to think about this one for a while.  Most of the examples I thought of quickly follow your theory of "less" -- but it might just depend on the Master.


Bill Coore and I were lucky to work for Pete Dye, in that we can do less than he did, and still have a lot of room to play.


Mike Strantz definitely went the other direction from Tom Fazio.

[Mike Nuzzo]

I'm aware of separate disciples that came from one master, (although there were a number of mid level masters in the organization too). One does more, the other less. I would say it was more a function of their personalities, than the master. There are a number of disciples that kind of do the same, for good reason. I can think of two more successful disciples that have done more, although the master may have been trying to catch up afterwards. And one last master that did too much, their disciples do somewhat less. Hope that helps....
Kudos on the 36.

[Tim Martin]

This is an interesting thread and something I was thinking about recently as it relates to the Donald Ross tree. Orrin Smith came out from under Ross and did some really good work though not at the level of the “Master” IMO. Al Zikorus learned from Orrin Smith and although his courses are playable they are not at the level of Smith and certainly not Ross. I think both did “less” than Ross which didn’t enhance the final product.

[Don Mahaffey]

I’m very much in the minority here but in terms of predicting success whether it be coaching, managing, or design, I consider mentorships to be way over valued. I do think there is great opportunity for personal growth by having strong and positive influences by mentors. But good mentors encourage disciples to cut their own path. Arming one with tools is one thing, but I’m not so sure taking more than that means success will follow.

[Peter Pallotta]

I found myself wondering (on the basis of what I know is very slim evidence) whether the 'maturing' of an art-craft, with the passage of time and the 'advancement' in techniques from master to disciple, is often in the direction of increased subtlety -- of doing less and not more. And I found myself asking if, in any cases when that movement is in the opposite direction, the reasons for it lie in commercial & extraneous considerations instead of ones rooted in the art-craft itself.
Peter

PS - thanks Mike! I have to admit that I was quite proud of myself (which I know is in a way quite sad)...   

[Tom_Doak]

I found myself wondering (on the basis of what I know is very slim evidence) whether the 'maturing' of an art-craft, with the passage of time and the 'advancement' in techniques from master to disciple, is often in the direction of increased subtlety -- of doing less and not more. And I found myself asking if, in any cases when that movement is in the opposite direction, the reasons for it lie in commercial & extraneous considerations instead of ones rooted in the art-craft itself.
   

I don't agree with this viewpoint.  My one example of going the opposite direction - Mike Strantz - certainly did not do so for commercial reasons, he just felt that was the direction golf needed to go.  And in some ways, I'm like-minded.  I appreciate subtle work, but I am also here to push golf architecture forward, and that doesn't mean building softer versions of things that have been done before.


Indeed, while commercial pressures may cause some designers to build wild things to get noticed, once they are noticed many designers become decidedly more conservative, in order to keep pleasing the people who got them attention.

[Tom_Doak]

good mentors encourage disciples to cut their own path. Arming one with tools is one thing, but I’m not so sure taking more than that means success will follow.

Yes they do!


That day I was working at Long Cove and Mr. Dye shared his story of building Harbour Town - and changing his style to be different than Mr. Jones - what I took away was that the best way to honor Pete's legacy was to do something different than he'd done. 


I was a 20-year-old kid then and I don't believe Mr. Dye had any expectation that I was going to become a designer in my own right someday, so I've always wondered why he bothered to tell me that, but it did have a profound influence.

[Peter Pallotta]

"...I've always wondered why he bothered to tell me that, but it did have a profound influence."

I'm guessing the answer is that he's a good man, and that he exemplified a trait/quality that seems quite rare in any of the creative arts and within/among its practitioners, i.e. he wasn't afraid that in raising up and bolstering another's talent and self-confidence he was somehow diminishing his own. I think that generosity of spirit is quite rare.
Maybe that's a determining factor in whether a disciple does less/more than the master.     

[Tom_Doak]

"...I've always wondered why he bothered to tell me that, but it did have a profound influence."

I'm guessing the answer is that he's a good man, and that he exemplified a trait/quality that seems quite rare in any of the creative arts and within/among its practitioners, i.e. he wasn't afraid that in raising up and bolstering another's talent and self-confidence he was somehow diminishing his own. I think that generosity of spirit is quite rare.
     

Oh, I knew that part.  When I was living with Pete and Alice's son, P.B., a couple of years later on a project, he was expounding on some aspect of design one night, and P.B.'s college roommate stopped him and asked him if he really thought he should tell me all of their accumulated knowledge, because I might be smart enough to use it.  And without missing a beat, P.B. said if I could do that, that would be good for golf, and more power to me.


[And again, I don't think he ever expected me to get to that position, but he was certainly not afraid of it.]


That's why I've always been an open book when people ask me questions about how we do things, in person and online.

[Terry Lavin]

good mentors encourage disciples to cut their own path. Arming one with tools is one thing, but I’m not so sure taking more than that means success will follow.

Yes they do!


That day I was working at Long Cove and Mr. Dye shared his story of building Harbour Town - and changing his style to be different than Mr. Jones - what I took away was that the best way to honor Pete's legacy was to do something different than he'd done. 


I was a 20-year-old kid then and I don't believe Mr. Dye had any expectation that I was going to become a designer in my own right someday, so I've always wondered why he bothered to tell me that, but it did have a profound influence.

This anecdote represents quintessential mentorship.

[Kalen Braley]

I think there is certainly value in mentorship and will use NFL coaching as an example.  There are a handful of head coaches who have produced an inordinate amount of successful down-line coaches, OCs, and DCs themselves.  Seems more than just coincidence that so many of them can be traced back to one good mentor. 


http://graphics.wsj.com/nfl-coaches/

[MCirba]

Not sure the question assumes conscious, active intent to mentor?


I'm reminded of the adage, "Great artists steal, bad artists borrow."

[Peter Pallotta]

Mike -
the thread will go where it will, and it's an interesting one; but yes, I was not so much wondering about mentorship as I was the 'evolution of the craft' from teacher to student, i.e. whether there was a common (among such relationships) trend towards increased subtlety/doing less with the passage of time and as the disciple moved out on his own and out from under the wings of the master.
I was wondering what those among us here who know well the work of other famous masters-disciples thought of this.
P     ,

[Michael George]

Peter -  I will use the words master/disciple, even though I am not sure that they are politically correct 

I certainly think that most evidence would indicate that the disciple usually does less than the master.  However, I think there are several factors that work against the disciple.

First, often times, the disciple gets less opportunity than the master.  The master simply doesn't step away and let the best opportunities go to their disciples.  In fact, especially at the beginning of the disciple's solo career, he is only getting opportunities that the master does not want. 

Second, building a golf course is a business.  Owners want to market the bigger name....even if they feel like the disciple could do similar work.  So until the master retires, it is hard for the owner to take a risk on the disciple.

Third, many of the great architects were able to make their names during "boom" times of golf course construction.  Boom eras don't last forever and often the master does much of his work during these boom times.  By the time the disciple has obtained enough experience to go solo, the boom era has ended.  It had to be a lot easier for a disciple to go out on his own in the 90's and early 2000's, when new course construction was much more plentiful, than today.  For example, if a disciple worked for 10 years under the master from 1997 to 2007 in order to gain his experience, he would have lost the boom era only to be given 2008. 

Lastly, in today's market, many disciples have to take restoration/renovation work and hope to make a name for themselves there. Much harder to do than building a new course for many reasons.  The architect is usually limited by what is already in the ground.  Also, when you build a new course, you make the owner happy and members join because they like the golf course.  Those people that don't like the course, just don't join (and usually aren't vocal about not liking it because they have no attachment). Meanwhile, when you renovate a course, you usually have a group of members, all with divergent views on what should be done. When the work is completed, even if it is really well done, you usually have a group of members who are upset with the architect. These members, while often wrong in their criticism, are often the most vocal.  Tough environment to build a career.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I haven't really studied it, but believe what the disciple does is more related to his/her own design and/or sales ability.


I like to think I have exceeded my mentors, although few would call them masters of the craft.


I also like to think that I have produced some successful proteges - Jeff Blume (who has been on here) and John Colligan (whose associate Trey Kemp posts fairly regularly.)  I knew when (or soon after) I hired them they had the talent to be architects in their own right.  I had one other staffer who tried it on his own and didn't make it (I didn't think he would) I must have had at least 20 others over the years, and only 2 are still in the biz, one with Rees Jones and the other with JN (or now on his own, not sure)  Most of the others who were more of the "9 to 5" mentality and more than willing to stay associates. 


I will say that who you apprentice for seems to correlate to where you go to some degree.  Pete Dye has several apprentices going on to bigger and better things.  In a way, that's because they get to mingle with the rich and famous, where those of us who started with firms going after "lower hanging fruit" tend to keep getting those type of projects, i.e., maybe our expectations were set a bit too low. (i.e., you get what you sell)


As mentioned, the overall market may make a difference in what architects get.  If I hadn't started my own office in a fairly hot market (both geographically and by year in the 1980's just as the boom started) my list of 60 new courses would be much more meager.  I often wondered how much was me being good and how much was a factor of simply "getting my fair share" of the 300-500 courses built a year starting about then.  Probably more of the latter!

[Tom_Doak]

Pete Dye has several apprentices going on to bigger and better things.  In a way, that's because they get to mingle with the rich and famous, where those of us who started with firms going after "lower hanging fruit" tend to keep getting those type of projects, i.e., maybe our expectations were set a bit too low. (i.e., you get what you sell)

Even among the people who worked for Mr. Dye, there were different levels of expectations of where one's career might get to.  One similarity between me and Bill Coore was that both of us befriended Ben Crenshaw, whose expectations of what we could build were sky high . . . the conversation was always about the best courses in the world, and why couldn't we build something at that level?  [instead of why we couldn't]  I don't think Bobby Weed or Lee Schmidt, who are very talented, had those same expectations.


I have never spoken to Bill about it, but I'm not sure he worked on very many jobs where he interacted at all with Pete's clients.  I didn't much, either, but I did get to observe how he dealt with the developers of Long Cove one on one, and Deane Beman with the Tour, and Tour players in general during all the furor about the TPC at Sawgrass; and how he spoke about rich guys like Corby Robertson in Austin and Jack Lupton at The Honors Course.  He didn't hold them in awe, and spoke to them and about them the same way he would deal with guys on the construction crew.  That was a very good lesson for me, although it was harder to pull off at the beginning of my career when I was so much younger than the clients.

[A.G._Crockett]

I think there is certainly value in mentorship and will use NFL coaching as an example.  There are a handful of head coaches who have produced an inordinate amount of successful down-line coaches, OCs, and DCs themselves.  Seems more than just coincidence that so many of them can be traced back to one good mentor. 


http://graphics.wsj.com/nfl-coaches/

Or, alternatively, there are head coaches who are just MUCH better at hiring assistants who have what it takes to later become top-shelf head coaches themselves.  Don't discount the importance of this.

[A.G._Crockett]

In some cases, could GCA be different than other fields of endeavor because the quality of work is more "site dependent" than other professions?  Is it possible that the master got a better canvas on which to paint, and the disciple was working with less to begin with?

[Peter Pallotta]

A.G.

Yes, that's why I used 'less' in quotes, and also why I'm asking if the common trend (among teachers-students) is towards increased subtlety, e.g. if teacher used/created, say, tear drop-shaped mounds or sharply defined template features, do students tend towards lowering those mounds and softening the edges of those features?
In short, is there any pattern we can discern in terms of how the disciple tends to reinterpret or refine the master's work?
A genuine question, as I simply don't know -- but I assume there are some here who do.
 

[Ira Fishman]

I think there is certainly value in mentorship and will use NFL coaching as an example.  There are a handful of head coaches who have produced an inordinate amount of successful down-line coaches, OCs, and DCs themselves.  Seems more than just coincidence that so many of them can be traced back to one good mentor. 


http://graphics.wsj.com/nfl-coaches/

Or, alternatively, there are head coaches who are just MUCH better at hiring assistants who have what it takes to later become top-shelf head coaches themselves.  Don't discount the importance of this.


Being a great leader who also is a great mentor does require both spotting people with lots of upside potential and then investing in the right kind of teaching.  To several other Posters' point, that teaching can be as much informal as anything else because being at the top of a profession is as much about culture, attitude, and self-awareness as it is about technical skills and expertise.


To Peter's original question using the football coach analogy:  perhaps the most successful coaching tree in the NFL is Sid Gillman's. Gillman was a genius in the passing game.  Most of his "disciples" were offensive minded with wide open passing games. But many were not either because they were defensive-minded or more run-oriented. So as others have said: it depends.


Ira

[Kalen Braley]

I think there is certainly value in mentorship and will use NFL coaching as an example.  There are a handful of head coaches who have produced an inordinate amount of successful down-line coaches, OCs, and DCs themselves.  Seems more than just coincidence that so many of them can be traced back to one good mentor. 


http://graphics.wsj.com/nfl-coaches/

Or, alternatively, there are head coaches who are just MUCH better at hiring assistants who have what it takes to later become top-shelf head coaches themselves.  Don't discount the importance of this.

AG,

Its hard do one thing at a top notch level, much less multiple things.  And its one thing to be a top notch coach, and another thing to be a top notch recruiter.  To bring in another sport, look at the NBA where many legends of the game think they can be good GMs too and most have been miserable failures.  And to a similar extent you see this with Ex-PGA tour players who think they can be top notch golf course designers....

[A.G._Crockett]

I think there is certainly value in mentorship and will use NFL coaching as an example.  There are a handful of head coaches who have produced an inordinate amount of successful down-line coaches, OCs, and DCs themselves.  Seems more than just coincidence that so many of them can be traced back to one good mentor. 


http://graphics.wsj.com/nfl-coaches/

Or, alternatively, there are head coaches who are just MUCH better at hiring assistants who have what it takes to later become top-shelf head coaches themselves.  Don't discount the importance of this.

AG,

Its hard do one thing at a top notch level, much less multiple things.  And its one thing to be a top notch coach, and another thing to be a top notch recruiter.  To bring in another sport, look at the NBA where many legends of the game think they can be good GMs too and most have been miserable failures.  And to a similar extent you see this with Ex-PGA tour players who think they can be top notch golf course designers....

Kalen,

At the risk of a thread-jack, I'll tell you that in football, even at the high school level, it's not two different jobs; head coaches have to hire assistant coaches EVERY year.  Identifying talent and hiring without being threatened by that talent is part and parcel of what every head football coach has to do.

[Tom_Doak]

At the risk of a thread-jack, I'll tell you that in football, even at the high school level, it's not two different jobs; head coaches have to hire assistant coaches EVERY year.  Identifying talent and hiring without being threatened by that talent is part and parcel of what every head football coach has to do.

This is not unique to football.  It's true of most executive level and/or entrepreneurial jobs, I think.

[Kalen Braley]

AG,

I don't doubt its part of the job.  My only point is that while top level NFL coaches may be elite, it doesn't necessarily follow that their recruiting skills are elite as well.  Even if you look at that article from that perspective, it still bears out the point as the vast majority of NFL coaches don't have a down-line anywhere near those guys.  Its super difficult to be the best of the best at one thing, much less more than 1.

In my own career, I've seen extremely smart and brilliant managers/VPs/execs make awful HR/hiring decisions, but it may be more prevalent in tech as being good at technical stuff often doesn't translate well in the people skills department.