Life as a Shaper

[Mark_Fine]

Someone like me would be lost without a good shaper as I can't get on a bulldozer or back hoe and bring my vision to life.  I can operate both but to use them as a paint brush or scalpel is a totally different level.  As has been said a zillion times, these guys are artists and I have the utmost respect for them.  But it must be a tough life.  You have to truly love what you are doing/creating.  They deserve far more credit than they are given. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Someone like me would be lost without a good shaper as I can't get on a bulldozer or back hoe and bring my vision to life.  I can operate both but to use them as a paint brush or scalpel is a totally different level.  As has been said a zillion times, these guys are artists and I have the utmost respect for them.  But it must be a tough life.  You have to truly love what you are doing/creating.  They deserve far more credit than they are given.

Mark,


It's not like I didn't try to get on a dozer....it's just that I realized pretty quickly that the world wasn't going to be a better place with me shaping. 


Your post does make me think why some folks think being a Tour Pro qualifies you as an architect as if they are two equal and related skills, but also that for both shaping and designing, that because you can do one, you can also do the other.  Yes, I suppose had I stuck with it long enough I could have taught myself to be a shaper, and many shapers (and a few Tour pros) have taught themselves to be architects.  But, it really is two different skill sets.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Personally I think an architect has to be able to see shapes and understand how to build them just like a shaper does, even if he can’t work the machines to a technically proficient level.


I think for architects who don’t / can’t, they are relying “too much” on a shapers creativity. Because even architects with the best eye for designing on paper can’t stop a course looking like it was designed on paper without seeing and creating whilst on site.


If an architect has no eye for the detail in the build, then the result will be more dependent on the shapers eye than it will be on the architect’s vision (macro-stuff aside of course - I’m talking as much about the look).

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ally,


Yes, if the gca can't visualize the details, perhaps they shouldn't be a gca. Or, the are a below average one, at best.  I have often joked to the big contractors and some individual shapers, that they shouldn't work so hard to make lesser architects look good.  Of course, that is their job.  As Brent Wadsworth once told me, they try to make it as good or even better than the plans show.


Another problem is communicating vision.  I gather that if the gca is their own shaper, that is a bit less of a problem.  Both the artistic shaper and artistic golf course architect are probably visual learners, so sometimes I have had long discussions with shapers about something, and when I ask if they understand, they nod yes.  I can always tell by the quality of the nod whether they really do or not.   That is why those red line field sketches are so popular among architects, but even those don't always communicate what we feel needs to be changed.  Hence, why 3D renderings and sketches can be so valuable.


And the stuff I have learned from shapers (and perhaps, really from other gca's as they have just shaped a Fazio job or something) is stunning.  It's little and hard to explain things, but for one, if you build two mounds/earth forms, the swale between them should never be exactly 90 degrees.  The best shapers alter that by a few degrees, creating that attractive "wobble" shape. 


Similarly, if they gently orient any line of earth forms around a green more to the natural lines, rather than 90 degrees to the edge of the green, things usually just look so much better. In the old days, with more horses, but oddly, less horsepower, shapers had to follow the natural angles a bit more.  No. 10 at Prairie Dunes is one great example.  And, I have seen lots of Fazio greens where the surrounds follow the terrain as much as being oriented to the green (might be that shaper, and not TF, can't be sure since I wasn't there) but they work great.


Another shaper taught me how skylines of nearby earth forms can cross and disappear behind the other.  I fought one shaper once when he had been adamantly taught that skylines should never cross.  Don't know why.


Again, easier to point out in the field than explain on a screen.

[Tommy Williamsen]

At a few Coore/Crenshaw course I have heard stories of Ben being on his hands and knees shaping the contours of the greens. How is shaping a green different from shaping a fairway?

[Tom_Doak]

At a few Coore/Crenshaw course I have heard stories of Ben being on his hands and knees shaping the contours of the greens. How is shaping a green different from shaping a fairway?

It's only different in that in addition to all of the aesthetic things Jeff mentions above, you are working within very small tolerances for what is an acceptable slope in the hole locations, because green speeds are so fast nowadays.  1% is not enough, in northern climates, due to potential ice damage in winter, and anything over 3% is too much [the Tour says 2.25%].  There is very little wiggle room to build a cool green unless you are unafraid to push the envelope, and if you do, you have to be very thoughtful as to how it will all work.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,


Another thing I notice on Fazio green sets is that for the most part, the steeper the edge rolls creeping into the green, the flatter the cup areas.  It makes sense to me as a little detail that make some excessive green contours work better.  I have never really looked into how to make internal contours work, but presume it is similar in contouring, as well as just making the green large enough to accommodate the wasted cup space.


Wonder how true the "hands and knees" story is.  Usually, those final grades and nuances are created with a sand pro, in my experience.  What could you do on your knees?  Pick up a scoop of greens mix in your hand and create a little ant hill somewhere?  It would get dragged out when they went to seed the green, without a lot of work to avoid it.

[Tom_Doak]

Wonder how true the "hands and knees" story is.  Usually, those final grades and nuances are created with a sand pro, in my experience.  What could you do on your knees?  Pick up a scoop of greens mix in your hand and create a little ant hill somewhere?  It would get dragged out when they went to seed the green, without a lot of work to avoid it.

Well, I can imagine him getting down in the dirt and pushing stuff around to illustrate to the shapers what he wanted them to do, like Mr. Dye used to do.  But, I think you are correct that there is no way anyone is shaping greens contours with their hands, so perhaps those stories are misunderstood, or possibly deliberately exaggerated.

[Mark_Fine]

I have used clay for creating shapes, green contours, etc to show shapers and I have also used sand boxes.  What I find is that some shapers connect with me very quickly as to what I am looking for and some it takes more time.  I was just back the other day to play a course we renovated and explaining to the guys I had in my group that I had the mounding on the one side of the green redone four times until the shaper got it right.  It was the first hole we worked on together but once he "got it" and we connected on the look I wanted, he got almost everything else right or very close on the first pass.  It was fun and I knew each time I was on site to approve bunkers or green contours,..., I was probably going to be happy.  Again these guys are truly artists and if you respect them but at the same time connect with them on vision, good things mostly happen.  All that said, if you end up with the C crew, which can happen if you don't have the clout of some of the top architects, it can be a lot of work to get what you want.  That is my experience. 

[Tom_Doak]

All that said, if you end up with the C crew, which can happen if you don't have the clout of some of the top architects, it can be a lot of work to get what you want.

Or, you could work alongside a few trusted guys for twenty years, and not have to worry about that.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Totally agree with you about working with a few trusted guys for a long time.  Awesome to have the team you have.  But not all of us have the luxury.  I just lost a good project because I proposed a design/build as I wanted in this particular project to bring in my own team (contractor and shaper who I really like and have done a lot of work with).  The potential client wanted to bid out the project and it effectively took me out of the running.  Sometimes the design/build model works and sometimes if costs you work but I am ok with that.  Quality for me not quantity is most important.  That said I do work with different contractors and shapers but I have my favorites. 


By the way, I think you know Forrest and I used Kye Goalby at our Mira Vista project.  I really enjoyed working with him.  Great shaper and very nice guy! 


One of the secrets to success is to surround yourself with smart and talented people who have different skill sets to your own.  A great shaper is a must for successful projects. 

[Tom_Doak]

Totally agree with you about working with a few trusted guys for a long time.  Awesome to have the team you have.  But not all of us have the luxury. 

One of the secrets to success is to surround yourself with smart and talented people who have different skill sets to your own.  A great shaper is a must for successful projects.

Mark:


Lots of architects have said this to me over the years -- even some pretty famous ones -- and I just smile and shake my head.  I had Jim and Bruce on payroll for 7-8 years before Pacific Dunes, and other guys for part of that time, too, because I wanted to make sure we turned out quality work every time out.  And I took them to lots of great courses to teach them what we were trying to do.


Any of you could have done the same thing, if you were equally committed to the business model.  I believed in your last paragraph 100% -- enough to actually follow through on it, even though it meant I had to take less $$$ myself.


I guess most people think that's just too big a risk to take, but that's why I "have the luxury," as you put it.  Because I paid for it.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
You paid your dues no question so the luxury, as I called it, was planned and earned.  I tried to do something similar early on but came into the business via a much different path then you did.  My partners to start were other architects and agronomists and engineers and irrigation experts, etc.  I did also team up with a contractor, Elwood Williard, who was fantastic and I learned a ton from him.  But I didn’t have enough projects for him to work exclusively with me so he would often get busy working with others and at times I would have to bid out projects to others as many architects do.  I did, however, work with Elwood on a lot of design build projects and to this day that is my preferred business model which is similar to yours - bring in the core team that you know and work with and then spend most of your time in the field vs behind a desk doing detailed drawings.  As I said I just lost a project because the club wanted a competitive bid process on the construction (or maybe that had a contractor they preferred and were just trying to pair an architect up with them).  I actually think that might have been the case.  But again not to get off topic, the shaper is such a critical part of any team and I have my preferences of who I like to work with. They just aren’t on my permanent payroll.