Saved best for last, or almost last

[Matt Kardash]

As was being discussed in another thread, which course designer (who designed a significant number of courses) saved their best work for the end of their career.
I was making the claim that like most artists, their best and most important work comes from the first half of their career. Who bucks this trend?

[Tom_Doak]

Well you could make the case that Crump and Fownes both did their best work last, as well as first.


George Thomas's last course was Riviera.


And Alister MacKenzie was certainly better from 1926-1932.


Honestly, I think it's more a matter of timing.  Many of the Golden Age designers did their best work near the end of their careers, because the Depression put an end to their careers prematurely.  Whereas today, there is much more financial incentive to keep building courses until you can no longer get out of bed.

[Peter Pallotta]

Matt:


I guess this is not a fair answer, but since he tinkered with it until very late in his life, can one say that Ross did his 'last' and finest work at Pinehurst No 2?


Why it came to mind is because I'd just been exchanging IMs with a friend (about another art form, not gca), and the question of what defines 'the best' was discussed, i.e


sometimes the best work might come when an artist-craftsman has, with the passing of many years, 'distilled down' all his ideas and philosophies and talents to their very essence. 


The work then might not be the flashiest, but it may be the purest.

[Mike_Trenham]

Mike Stranz is an example of a designer who’s work near the end of his life was some of his best.

[Joel_Stewart]

One of Pete Dyes first courses was the Golf Club and is arguably his best.


Same with RTJ at Peachtree.

[Ronald Montesano]

Does this premise consider natural expectation of life, against situations of life cut short?


Dylan Thomas, Jimmy Hendrix, Frida Kahlo...lives cut short. Not the same as ones that live to proper old age.


What would you call Pete Dye's last course? It wouldn't be one that his hired architects designed in his name, correct?


With Mike Strantz passing at age 50, wouldn't his last course be many other architect's middle course?


Too many variables to attribute balance and validity to the premise.

[Joel_Stewart]

What would you call Pete Dye's last course? It wouldn't be one that his hired architects designed in his name, correct?

That's a good point and messy at best. If that course gets built in Kohler it will be promoted as his last course.

[Tom_Doak]

One of Pete Dyes first courses was the Golf Club and is arguably his best.


Same with RTJ at Peachtree.

I was reading up on Mr. Dye's early career just the other day, in the fine Crooked Stick club history.  Pete and Alice built several courses around Indianapolis from 1959-64, plus Radrick Farms in Ann Arbor, before starting on Crooked Stick.  And The Golf Club was after the back nine at Crooked Stick, so it was maybe their 7th or 8th course.


Likewise, Peachtree was "early" in Mr. Jones' long career, but he had been in business for 15 years by that time.

[Matt Kardash]

Mike Stranz is an example of a designer who’s work near the end of his life was some of his best.

I said by a designer who designed a significant number of courses. I am talking about designers who worked for many decades and designed many courses. Not Rod Whitman.

[Mike_Young]

Likewise, Peachtree was "early" in Mr. Jones' long career, but he had been in business for 15 years by that time.

TD,Do you know which town or region has the most RTJ.  After Peachtree he came back and did 36 at Atlanta Athletic, 18 at Fairington, 36 at Stone Mountain, 18 at University of Ga and 18 at Sunset Hills in Carrolton.  Seems like a lot for one area...Are there areas with more located so close to each other?

[Bret Lawrence]

Seth Raynor and Willie Park saved some of their best work for last. Of course they both passed away early.


Robert White and Donald Ross probably peaked in the middle of their career before the Depression.  Alfred Tulls last course was called Pilgrim Harbor in Wallingford, CT  and it isn’t very good.  His best work was behind him at that point.


Bret

[Tom_Doak]

Likewise, Peachtree was "early" in Mr. Jones' long career, but he had been in business for 15 years by that time.

TD,Do you know which town or region has the most RTJ.  After Peachtree he came back and did 36 at Atlanta Athletic, 18 at Fairington, 36 at Stone Mountain, 18 at University of Ga and 18 at Sunset Hills in Carrolton.  Seems like a lot for one area...Are there areas with more located so close to each other?

Besides the Trail in Alabama?


I quickly scanned the Cornish / Whitten book and the only two areas that would compete with ATL are upstate NY [over a fairly big area] and the Costa del Sol in Spain.  Many of the latter were mostly Cabell Robinson's work, but they did nine courses there in a fairly small area based on the initial success of Sotogrande.

[Brian Ross]

Most of what we consider Maxwell's best work came in the second half of his career with Southern Hills, Prairie Dunes, and Old Town all being built during the mid-to-late '30s (during the Depression, no less).

[Mike_Young]

Likewise, Peachtree was "early" in Mr. Jones' long career, but he had been in business for 15 years by that time.

TD,Do you know which town or region has the most RTJ.  After Peachtree he came back and did 36 at Atlanta Athletic, 18 at Fairington, 36 at Stone Mountain, 18 at University of Ga and 18 at Sunset Hills in Carrolton.  Seems like a lot for one area...Are there areas with more located so close to each other?

Besides the Trail in Alabama?


I quickly scanned the Cornish / Whitten book and the only two areas that would compete with ATL are upstate NY [over a fairly big area] and the Costa del Sol in Spain.  Many of the latter were mostly Cabell Robinson's work, but they did nine courses there in a fairly small area based on the initial success of Sotogrande.

Thx..

[Jeff_Brauer]

Most of what we consider Maxwell's best work came in the second half of his career with Southern Hills, Prairie Dunes, and Old Town all being built during the mid-to-late '30s (during the Depression, no less).

That is amazing. 


Looking at my career, while I have no doubt I know more than I did 15-20 years ago when my most recognized work was built, I don't think I will have any or many similar opportunities.  I am thinking that (like Mike Y says, some of us were born at the right time) that the overall golf building picture, and quality sites, determine your best work more than your experience.


In addition to when you were born, how old you are might be a factor in another way.  I believe that prior to 1980 or so, most decisions were made older people who liked to hire older people, as the seniority mentality was in place.  Around 1980, Boomers were coming into their own, and things changed, and they were more likely to hire younger gca's.  Again, just an opinion, actually relayed to me by several people of the previous generation, but obviously, I haven't done, nor could any research really be done to prove that.

[Tom_Doak]

In addition to when you were born, how old you are might be a factor in another way.  I believe that prior to 1980 or so, most decisions were made older people who liked to hire older people, as the seniority mentality was in place.  Around 1980, Boomers were coming into their own, and things changed, and they were more likely to hire younger gca's. 

I will second that, anecdotally.


For the first half of my career I was nearly always the youngest guy in the room.  I was used to that, having skipped the first grade.  But when I would interview for a job against three other guys who were 20 years older, for a client who was 20 years older, I didn't think I had much chance at the job and was just there because they were curious to meet me.


Nearly all of my early clients got recommendations on me from somebody who'd known me since I was in college, which turned my youth into a plus.


It's very odd to have the tables turned now and have some clients who are younger than I am, but I don't think I've switched to being seen as "Old Tom" yet.

[Jeff Schley]

  I am thinking that (like Mike Y says, some of us were born at the right time) that the overall golf building picture, and quality sites, determine your best work more than your experience.


In addition to when you were born, how old you are might be a factor in another way.  I believe that prior to 1980 or so, most decisions were made older people who liked to hire older people, as the seniority mentality was in place.  Around 1980, Boomers were coming into their own, and things changed, and they were more likely to hire younger gca's.  Again, just an opinion, actually relayed to me by several people of the previous generation, but obviously, I haven't done, nor could any research really be done to prove that.

Jeff the book Outliers (while I don't believe all Gladwell's conclusions) has some very clear links with when people are born lend themselves to being successful in a certain profession. I think if one were so inclined to study the GCA evolution, opportunity is paramount as you need investors, land, etc.


Just think for a minute, suspend your humble view of your ability, and think if I was born between 1869-1876 I may have a couple top 100's in the world still, now over 100 years later? Much of success in one's life certainly is based on talent and ability, but we see it time and time again where opportunity factors in to a marked degree. You can't deny that it any coincidence that that 7 year period that produced those 7 GCA's account for probably 1/3 of all top 100 courses?


The time when one is born yields unique opportunity and had one of our architects who are alive and well posting today on GCA were born during this window I don't see any reason they wouldn't be considered one of the all time greats. They benefiting from golf's spread in the US and development of the private club model when wealth was driving golf. They were first and born at a time that they could discover this profession soon enough in their lives they could make a living at it full time, or in some instances change careers to do so. The barriers for entry weren't too great.

Nowadays so few new builds happen and those are with wealthy developers who go to the name GCA's because well they want the name for marketing and yes their ability which has been proven. The opportunities are very small and we all make our living the best we can in the time we have. Not a big leap to think the timing of when God has put us here has either increased or decreased our ceiling for professional achievement.

• MacDonald / Fowler - 1950's
• Emmet - 1961
• Travis - 1862
• Park Jr. - 1864
• Bendelow - 1868
• Colt - 1869
• Mackenzie / Braid - 1870
• Ross - 1872
• Thomas - 1873
  
• Raynor - 1874
  
• Tillinghast - 1876
• Simpson - 1877
• Maxwell - 1879
• Allison - 1882

[Mike_Young]

Most of what we consider Maxwell's best work came in the second half of his career with Southern Hills, Prairie Dunes, and Old Town all being built during the mid-to-late '30s (during the Depression, no less).

That is amazing. 


Looking at my career, while I have no doubt I know more than I did 15-20 years ago when my most recognized work was built, I don't think I will have any or many similar opportunities.  I am thinking that (like Mike Y says, some of us were born at the right time) that the overall golf building picture, and quality sites, determine your best work more than your experience.


In addition to when you were born, how old you are might be a factor in another way.  I believe that prior to 1980 or so, most decisions were made older people who liked to hire older people, as the seniority mentality was in place.  Around 1980, Boomers were coming into their own, and things changed, and they were more likely to hire younger gca's.  Again, just an opinion, actually relayed to me by several people of the previous generation, but obviously, I haven't done, nor could any research really be done to prove that.

Jeff,
Brent Pendleton a resort consultant who began with Frazier and those guys at Hilton Head told me this about 15 years ago.  My son was working with me and was in his mid 20's.  Brent was working with the project we were doing and he mentioned that companies like Discovery Land etc liked to hire young sales people because the older guys buying the properties liked to buy from younger guys and felt like they were helping get them off the ground etc....basically he was telling him he was the right age to be selling.  I have always remembered that and often let him do the selling when the situation calls for it.  AND then just recently a friend who was on a committee searching for an architect at their club asked me to recommend some younger architects to him....never had that happen before....

[SL_Solow]

This may not be useful on this thread but I always ask myself the same question when thinking about the issues raised.  Are we trying to determine an architects best "work" or the best "course"?  Clearly the desirability of the site can have a major influence on the final product.  That is true in many endeavors.  I know that I have done some of my best legal work in very difficult cases.  From the outside, I may have achieved a better result in other cases but the facts were such that I almost couldn't avoid a good result.  In the context of GCA, can we (or should we) separate these elements?  I will give an example using 2 of my favorite courses from a favorite team.  Everyone that I know who has had the good fortune of playing them loves Sand Hills and Friars Head.  As far as I can tell the difficulty in Sand Hills, beyond irrigation, was in choosing a routing that connected 18 holes out of a myriad of possibilities given the property.  Friar's Head, on the other hand, presented a routing problem relating to the different character of the dune land and the farmland.  From my perspective, it would have been easier to "mess up" the Friar's Head routing, which as constructed is brilliant.  Does that make it better work?  Most rate Sand Hills as a better course.  It is a definitional issue which makes it more difficult for us to directly engage.  Is this a topic for a separate thread?  Am I asking too many questions without committing to answers?

[Andrew Harvie]

Stanley Thompson built Highlands Links around 1940, which is way past his "prime" from 1924-1929. I forget the stat Ian Andrew once said, but he designed like half of his golf courses from 1920-1926 or something dumb, so that would count. He died in 1954, and continued to work into the 50's, with courses like Whirlpool, Marathon Peninsula, and renovations at Sault

[Tom_Doak]

Nowadays so few new builds happen and those are with wealthy developers who go to the name GCA's because well they want the name for marketing and yes their ability which has been proven.

I certainly agree with your general point, but not so much this part of it.


Mike Keiser believed that the land made the project, not the architect, and was determined not to pick the same old same old architects for Bandon Dunes, and was received well for choosing (mostly) new faces.  But when he started other projects he felt some loyalty to the people who had helped him achieve such success [not to mention familiarity].  Plus it is often the case that one's attitude changes when you become the status quo, instead of the one challenging it.


I don't think many of my subsequent clients decided to hire me because my name was marketable; if they are looking for that, I figure they're going to pick Bill & Ben, because of Ben.  The Mosaic Company absolutely wanted to pick the hottest architects of the day for Streamsong, but Julian Robertson and Richard Sattler and Bill Foley and Lew Thompson didn't really care, and some of them didn't really even know who was or wasn't.

[Peter Pallotta]

Shel,
that seems to me an excellent example and the important distinction:
an architect might produce his best course earlier in his career, but might do his best work later in his career.

[SL_Solow]

Let me add something to Tom's most recent post.  I know for a fact that Mike Keiser wanted to avoid the conventional choices when he was first planning Bandon.  I also know that he was already familiar with C&C yet he picked David Kidd for course 1 and Tom for course 2 even though Tom had not yet achieved his current stature.  Indeed Pacific Dunes is usually considered to be Tom's "breakthrough".  Why the choices and the order is something that only Mike Keiser can explain but it seems to have worked out.

[Jeff Schley]

I don't want to diminish any architect's actual ability to produce a great product, and don't mean they solely have gotten work due to marketing by the developers. They have a name to market based on their past performance of success and without that they wouldn't have the reputation they have earned.


Also when I said, "Nowadays so few new builds happen and those are with wealthy developers who go to the name GCA's because well they want the name for marketing and yes their ability which has been proven." I think we can consider nowadays to the time since new course building has dried up, which is probably what circa 2008 afterwards? I don't blame developers for picking the big names nowadays, they are names for a reason and have had much success.


My main point is the timing when one is born yields unique opportunities in one's life to accel in a particular profession or skill. So while opportunities today are few and far between to build new courses, had a Jeff Brauer, Mike Young, Jaeger Kovich, or some of the associates of the big names (Schneider, Slawnick, Axland, Wagner, Schaan, etc.) been born in the later 1800's they would have had more opportunities in the profession.

[Sean_A]

In addition to when you were born, how old you are might be a factor in another way.  I believe that prior to 1980 or so, most decisions were made older people who liked to hire older people, as the seniority mentality was in place.  Around 1980, Boomers were coming into their own, and things changed, and they were more likely to hire younger gca's. 

I will second that, anecdotally.

For the first half of my career I was nearly always the youngest guy in the room.  I was used to that, having skipped the first grade.  But when I would interview for a job against three other guys who were 20 years older, for a client who was 20 years older, I didn't think I had much chance at the job and was just there because they were curious to meet me.

Nearly all of my early clients got recommendations on me from somebody who'd known me since I was in college, which turned my youth into a plus.

It's very odd to have the tables turned now and have some clients who are younger than I am, but I don't think I've switched to being seen as "Old Tom" yet.

Does there need to be a YTD for you to be OTD? 

Ciao