[Tom_Doak]

Maybe you feel differently but I don't see a lot of BS in this business.  You either know what you are doing and stay employed with projects or you disappear pretty fast.  You can't fake a good bunker or an improved golf hole.  It is either well accepted or it sucks and if it sucks word will get around fast and you won't get many more jobs to screw up! 

I don't know about this.  There are lots of renovations on top of renovations going on now, and nobody ever asks out loud why it's all necessary?  Some of those guys did big renovations for ten or twenty years before clubs got around to erasing their work, and still to this day, you never hear anything bad about the guy.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
You may be right but at the time many people thought the renovations being done were great and that is why many kept getting work. The current trend will likely run its course in time as well. 

But think about a guy like Pete Dye deciding to quit his job and trying to become a Golf Architect (Designer) with no formal training.  Why would any one hire some insurance salesman to design and build their golf course?  He must have been a really good salesman.  Can you imagine what Pete’s contemporaries like Robert Trent Jones must have thought about this insurance salesman trying to enter their business?  They must have laughed at him. Pete had done some work at a golf course prior but he was better known for killing grass than growing it!  He also couldn’t draw and his sketches were barely legible.  So what would possess someone like a Tom Doak or Bill Coore to go work for some insurance salesman who never worked for and got groomed by some established "golf architect"?  They must not have worried that Pete was just a Designer   

Follow your passion and don’t let anybody discourage you otherwise 

[Mike_Young]

Maybe you feel differently but I don't see a lot of BS in this business.  You either know what you are doing and stay employed with projects or you disappear pretty fast.  You can't fake a good bunker or an improved golf hole.  It is either well accepted or it sucks and if it sucks word will get around fast and you won't get many more jobs to screw up! 

I don't know about this.  There are lots of renovations on top of renovations going on now, and nobody ever asks out loud why it's all necessary?  Some of those guys did big renovations for ten or twenty years before clubs got around to erasing their work, and still to this day, you never hear anything bad about the guy.

IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE BS IN THE RENO BUSINESS THEN YOU HAVEN'T SEEN MUCH OF THE BUSINESS..."But think about a guy like Pete Dye deciding to quit his job and trying to become a Golf Architect (Designer) with no formal training.  Why would any one hire some insurance salesman to design and build their golf course?  He must have been a really good salesman.  Can you imagine what Pete’s congntemporaries like Robert Trent Jones must have thought about this insurance salesman trying to enter their business? "" I don't have to think about doing it the way Pete Dye did it because I quit my job w no formal training, ( even though I did work on three Pete Dye projects during my Summer vacations before (Atlanta National, Honors and LongCove)  mainly just to be nosey and see what I could dig out... And after my first project..it didn't take long to find out how much the established guys despised someone getting "their" jobs as an outsider..I guarantee if Pete had not gained a national reputation the ASGCA would never have accepted him and the way he worked...they almost had to take him...

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,
You may be right but at the time many people thought the renovations being done were great and that is why many kept getting work. The current trend will likely run its course in time as well. 

But think about a guy like Pete Dye deciding to quit his job and trying to become a Golf Architect (Designer) with no formal training.  Why would any one hire some insurance salesman to design and build their golf course?  He must have been a really good salesman.  Can you imagine what Pete’s contemporaries like Robert Trent Jones must have thought about this insurance salesman trying to enter their business? 

Mark:


I thought you said you had met Pete Dye.  I don't know how anyone could have spent very long with him and not know what a great salesman he was.


But, your comparisons are pretty poor.  Back in 1960 [or before that] how many golf course architects HAD formal training?  Robert Trent Jones surely made the most out of auditing classes at Cornell for two years during the Depression, but the other guys Pete would have looked up to didn't have any formal training, either . . . Pete used to play golf with Dick Wilson in Florida back in his amateur days, and old Bill Diddel was a five-time Indiana Amateur champion years before Pete and Alice.


I happen to have picked up Pete's biography for my bedtime reading this week, so I've been re-reading about the early years of his career.  The guys who hired the Dyes for their first design at El Dorado were two contractors from Indianapolis, and then a local developer hired them to build Heather Hills.  Both clients knew Pete's background pretty well, and were convinced he knew about golf and trusted him to figure out the bits about construction.  [Construction wasn't quite as complicated as today; the entire construction budget for Heather Hills was $80,000.]


My favorite story in there that I'd forgotten was that after they got back from Scotland, Pete bought a D-2 bulldozer, and practiced shaping features like he'd seen in Scotland on some fill dirt in their front yard, while waiting to get to work on Crooked Stick.  Maybe you should try that. 

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
Thanks for sharing part of your story.  It is always tough being an outsider.  Glad it didn’t deter you. 


Tom,
I was lucky to meet Pete quite a few times and I had some long conversations with him.  He was always very encouraging to me and I really appreciated that.  He was a real class act as you well know and of course a great salesman.  He said he actually read our bunkers book before it was published, loved it and agreed to write the foreword.  Who better for a book on hazards. 


We both know you can’t get a formal degree in golf architecture (not that I am aware of) back then or even now.  You can become a landscape architect but how many of those know anything about golf course design.  I believe there are lots of ways to enter the profession.  You also need some lucky breaks along the way.  Did you have any?


By the way, I have operated a dozer and actually shaped part of a green complex on one of my early projects.  If I could post a photo I would put one up    I wouldn’t say I was very good at it but then how many are.  I am a little better with a sand pro floating out a green but I don’t get to build too many greens like you do.  Tillinghast might have liked me.  I am sure you know what he said about who built his best greens while he sat under a tree drinking


I just always thought Pete was a great example of someone who didn’t enter the profession in a “conventional way” if there is such a thing.  And he called himself a designer vs architect which was part of the topic of this thread.  What does someone like Ben Crenshaw call himself.  I doubt he really cares.  He and Bill have different skill sets and make a great team.  I have worked with many other designers/architects, superintendents, agronomists, arborists, drainage consultants, environmental experts, civil engineers (I am an engineer by degree),… over the years on many of my projects and learn all I can from each one.

[Forrest Richardson]

The topic here is an easy answer — no real difference. We’re all designers. When we complete a course … we’re Golf Course Architects.

Tom … Give Mark a break. You don’t need to be so hard, snarky and condescending. Mark’s made a decent mark in this profession, and he’s done it with grace, restraint and budgets that would not even begin to pay one of your business class fares. We owe it to each other to be respectful.


I’d like to think we might all learn from the living — not just the dead guys.

[Greg Gilson]

This topic came about because of the parallel discussion regarding Cape Wickham. It seems from the informed discussion on this thread that there is little to no difference in the golf course business between the 2 job titles.


THE CW website lists Mike DV as "COURSE ARCHITECT" & Darius Oliver as "COURSE DESIGNER". I dont know but i am pretty sure Darius & the CW folks chose those 2 differing titles on purpose. Why do you all think that they did that?


I am considering just emailing CW &/or Darius & asking but i would like to have the DG's perspective before i did so.

[Niall C]

Greg
 
As the instigator of this thread I can say you are correct that the debate over design attribution and the respective roles at Cape Wickham was the seed for this thread however the job title(s) were meant to be incidental to the discussion. The point of the thread was to discuss the difference between what I saw as separate roles. The labels I stuck on each ie. architect and designer, I took from Darius’s own description although IIRC he isn’t totally consistent in applying the term designer to himself.


Unfortunately, some can’t see by the labels which kind of frustrates the idea of the thread while others see no difference between the two roles which I find surprising, indeed very surprising. One day when I eventually win the lottery and develop my own course, I’ll be looking for the guy (or girl) who can deal with the nuts and bolts as well as the artistic side of things. What I won’t need is an enthusiastic amateur to suggest “cool features” or where to put bunkers or “wouldn’t it be nice to make this a Biarritz”. That will be my job.  [size=78%] [/size][size=78%] [/size]

 
Ps. Perhaps Darius shied away from calling himself an architect because he doesn’t have PI cover ?
 
Mark


For your information from 1999 onwards the Edinburgh College of Art in conjunction with Heriot Watt University ran a one year MSc course in Golf Course Architecture. I know because I hold the distinction, and indeed honour of being the first to fail the course !


Actually, that isn’t quite true as I didn’t quite complete my final submission and was asked to resubmit which I decided not to do. By that time I’d come to the conclusion that I knew enough to know that I didn’t know enough. I’m big headed enough to think that I could hold my own at routing and individual hole design (hole strategy, bunker and green placements etc) but nowhere near being sufficiently competent on the engineering/agronomy side of things.


Maybe one thing I’ve taken away from this thread is that perhaps that might not have been an impediment to getting into the golf course design business.
 
Niall

[Mark_Fine]

Forrest,
Thanks but I am used to it by now.  No worries.

Niall and others,
I hope no one here thinks Golf Architects "build" golf courses and Golf Designers don't. Both (if they are different) obviously play a critical role but it takes a whole team with a wide variety of talents and expertise to successfully complete most projects.  And this is not just for new courses but for large renovation projects as well.   On one of my recent projects we had on our team a civil engineer helping with new bridge designs/calculations, an expert in wetlands mitigation and stream bank erosion, an irrigation consultant, a pond contractor, a paving expert for cart path construction/removal, an agronomist/superintendent, an arborist for tree management/removal, …, all in addition to the golf course building contractor who had two shapers, a whole team working on drainage, as well as all the rest of the construction crew doing rough grading, stripping/laying turf, removing/hauling sand and dirt and pipe,....  Golf Architects/Designers have their role and help coordinate all of this to see their vision through but NONE are masters at all of these skills that are needed for successful projects. 

So tell me again, what is the difference between an architect and a designer? 

[Ally Mcintosh]

Niall,


I’m struggling with why you are struggling?


Anyone can call themselves an architect or a designer but anyone who is any good at actually leading a job as the named architect or designer will be able to provide a full service. That will include master-planning, permit and regulatory submissions, cost estimates, Bill of Quantities, specs, contracts,  grading plans, green plans, detail design drawings, drainage outlines etc… If the designer also carries out the build, he can reduce some of the above technical documentation and effectively detail in the field, especially if on sand (where the engineering can often be reduced and the artistry can often be increased). There are different ways to skin a cat… But…


Whether you call yourself an architect or a designer, if you are the name on the course and you can’t oversee the project from beginning (concept) to end (grow-in and open for play), then you are not as accomplished as someone who can.

[Tom_Doak]

Unfortunately, some can’t see by the labels which kind of frustrates the idea of the thread while others see no difference between the two roles which I find surprising, indeed very surprising. One day when I eventually win the lottery and develop my own course, I’ll be looking for the guy (or girl) who can deal with the nuts and bolts as well as the artistic side of things. What I won’t need is an enthusiastic amateur to suggest “cool features” or where to put bunkers or “wouldn’t it be nice to make this a Biarritz”. That will be my job.   

Niall:


This is the money quote of this thread.


I get letters all the time from people who want to work for me and be golf course designers.  Nearly all of them really want to do the part I highlighted in bold above, whether they come right out and say it or not.  That's what golfers dream about.


It took me about three days of working for Pete Dye to realize that he didn't really need anyone's help designing Long Cove.  The rest of us were there to help him build it.  But there wasn't a hard and fast plan, so if, along the way, you built something that was cool and a little different than what he had visualized, and it made the course better, it was going to stay.  That was the hook that kept everyone interested through the day to day grind of building the course.


But the thing is, once someone has spent years building up that experience, it's pretty sad to think that they should then take orders from someone without the training, about when to build a Biarritz [or, hopefully, something more original].  And if you can really do both, then the label doesn't matter.

[Niall C]

Tom


You're very lucky I didn't have your address 20 years ago or I'd have sent you one of those letters, although I'm not sure I'd recognise a Biarritz if you hit me over the head with it. Mind you when I was writing that line I was mindful of a previous discussion with Pat Mucci re Trumps involvement in the design of Balmedie. Pat was defending Trump in his sticking his nose into the design of the course by suggesting if I was in that position I would do the same. I responded that I would unless I was determined to get the best course I could in which case I'd get out from under the gca's feet. That was one of the few times I got the last word on Pat.


Niall

[Niall C]

Anyone can call themselves an architect or a designer but anyone who is any good at actually leading a job as the named architect or designer will be able to provide a full service. That will include master-planning, permit and regulatory submissions, cost estimates, Bill of Quantities, specs, contracts,  grading plans, green plans, detail design drawings, drainage outlines etc… If the designer also carries out the build, he can reduce some of the above technical documentation and effectively detail in the field, especially if on sand (where the engineering can often be reduced and the artistry can often be increased). There are different ways to skin a cat… But…


Whether you call yourself an architect or a designer, if you are the name on the course and you can’t oversee the project from beginning (concept) to end (grow-in and open for play), then you are not as accomplished as someone who can.

Ally


I'm not quite sure what we are disagreeing about. In that first paragraph you have articulated the job description for a golf course architect far better than I ever could. If you or anyone else want to call the person doing that a designer or architect or both then I don't have a problem with that. I only used the terms architect and designer as that appeared to be the distinction that Darius Oliver was using between someone capable of doing the job as you so capably outlined and someone who couldn't but was still involved in a lesser non-expert role (my interpretation of Darius Oliver's role at CW based on his writings).


The obvious analogy to use that I've tried to avoid so far as it would inevitably lead to folk going off on tangents about technical qualifications and professional indemnity etc, and that is to the building (house) architect and the interior designer. The architect designs a house as per the brief and budget, ensuring that it is compliant and structurally sound (referring to engineering consultants where required) and then provides sufficient design information such that the contractor can build it. That's basically it in layman's terms. The interior designer then picks the wall-paper, curtains and what colours of fluffy cushions for the sofa. They may even suggest knocking down a wall to create a bigger room out of two but in doing so have no idea whether the wall is structural and whether the house will fall down. 


Well you wouldn't mix up an architect and interior designer. What I'm basically suggesting is that Darius's role at CW was as a golfing version of an interior designer.


Niall

[Niall C]

Niall and others,
I hope no one here thinks Golf Architects "build" golf courses and Golf Designers don't.

Mark


In case there is any doubt, although I'm not sure why there would be, that is not what I think an architects job is. With regards your final question as to the difference between architect and designer, see my response to Ally above.


Niall

[Ally Mcintosh]

Niall,


If the discussion here is really just about the distinction Cape Wickham make between Mike as Architect and Darius as Designer, then yes - I am equally as confused as you.


I’ve no idea what each did or didn’t do. Darius’s essay made it no clearer as it was indeed really high level, “move a green here, add some strategy there” stuff.


Because Darius hadn’t previously done any of the technical work needed to get a golf course over the line, I still suspect he was more of a “design consultant” and that only because he was hooked in to the project prior to an actual architect / designer being engaged.


But the nature of the Cape Wickham site might have reduced some of that technical stuff and who is to say that Darius’s enthusiasm didn’t mean that he just got stuck in and facilitated a lot of the decisions and work that needed to get done. Really, I’ve no idea. He could be a natural for all I know?

[Niall C]

Ally


That all sounds about right. I'm also fairly sure after 250 days on site that Darius knows a lot more now than he did before. In terms of the dynamic I'd also imagine that the contractor filled in quite a bit of the void provided by Mike's absence as it appears that the contractor was more invested in the project than a contractor perhaps normally would be given their previous ownership interest ? (I note that it's the same contractor for Darius's next project)


Good luck to him although I still wish he hadn't promoted himself by rubbishing Mike.


Niall

[Mark_Fine]

Niall,
I think Ally and Forrest and others have explained this well but like most things that are subjective we will never get 100% agreement.  I know a guy in the Poconos who owns a road building company.  He designed and built a golf course.  I highly doubt his business card says golf course architect but he could call himself one if he wanted to.  Long story but I guarantee you there were no fancy grading plans and cut and fill measurements done,.., He had a big piece of property and wanted a golf course so he built one.


What would be really interesting and a nightmare would be a debate about what makes a good architect/designer from a bad one or a great one - OMG that would be ugly. 


As far as I am concerned back when someone first called me to come see their course and “paid” me to develop a plan to try to improve it (and the actual changes got made) is when I felt differently about my status.  I am not hung up on titles and have been called many things (just think of all the things Tom Doak has called me  ) but that was the turning point for me.  I am sure others have all had one as well.


By the way, that class at Edinburgh in GCA; if one did graduate, does that mean you are a golf course architect or just have some kind of degree in GCA? I have an engineering degree.  Does that mean I am an engineer?  As in most professions there are different levels and proficiencies. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark, it strikes me that someone who designs a course for themselves really isn't a golf course architect or designer, at least not in the professional sense.  That is, I believe someone else (and preferably more than one someone else) has paid you to design a golf course.  Yes, I understand back in the day Thomas, MacDonald, and a few others designed many courses for free, but that has largely gone the way of the top-flight amateur golfer, now almost certainly turning pro.  And, I believe CBM did start charging after 1911, even if he didn't take the money, but just used it to cover Raynor and others' efforts and costs.


Your comments about not caring what you are called remind me of a very old comedy routine...."Well, you can call me Fred, and you can call me ?? but just don't call me .  Oh well, it partly reminded me of an old comedy routine.


As to what constitutes a good golf course architect....let's just say that like labels, actual talents are all across the board in this field, as are actual project types.  It's TE Paul's Big World theory.  Maybe the top criteria is to be smart enough to know when you need to supplement your own talents. 


Conceptually, the problem with your thesis is that it is static, and the world isn't.  For example, TD became a much better architect after finishing Pacific Dunes, at least in the eyes of those watching new golf courses.  For him, he probably felt he always had the same talent, waiting for a chance to shine, and it could also happen to any other gca in practice now, no?  For outsiders to judge the talent level of a gca, perhaps at least two, maybe three good projects should be completed to show a pattern?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff - I agree with you. If my post seems to differ from yours, it is because I was trying to give those who claim to have 'a thorough understanding of design' as much benefit of the doubt as I could, in the name of being fair minded and measured. But the truth is I have little doubt who the 'architect' was on CW, in part because for all the many words he uses and (sole) credit he takes, even DO himself doesn't claim to have come up with the routing for the course.

(As I noted on that thread, it's striking to me that in the entire essay only one very short sentence makes mention of the 'routing' -- which for decades has been a skill/function by which we've judged an architect's worth and talent.)
 

Peter,


This thread does interest me, so I have been re-reading.  Your post struck me in that I would be there is a routing plan out there, and one look at it would probably tell you who did the majority of routing.  I suspect that it has a MDGD logo on it somewhere, and perhaps Mr. Oliver would be listed on the plan in whatever capacity he was involved, as they contemporaneously understood it

[Ira Fishman]

What would be really interesting and a nightmare would be a debate about what makes a good architect/designer from a bad one or a great one - OMG that would be ugly. 




Mark F,


Why would this be such a nightmare? 15 years ago Ian Andrew did a series of posts on the 25 architects he considered the best in history. He included detailed reasoning. You might not agree with his ordering or even some of the inclusions and exclusions, but his criteria do not strike me as particularly controversial.


Ira


PS Ian did not rank then living architects so it might be fun to debate which ones should make the top 25, but that is not relevant to the ability to distinguish what makes good architects.

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
The private course I was referring to has lots of members.  I have several friends who joined.  It is open for membership. 

I agree about multiple “paid” projects.  But is it two or 22 or I do this for at least a partial living.  Didn’t Steve Wynn get partial designs credit for Shadow Creek?  I guess if you are paying the bills you can take what ever credit you want.  I saw Geoff Ogilvy just got the Medinah project. What does he call himself?  Again I doubt he cares but he probably wants some respect.  By the way what was my thesis? I guess I didn’t realize I had one. 


Ira,
This site would have huge trouble agreeing on anything especially the quality of architects although some do have their pet favorites.  What is the criteria?  Top 100 courses?  This site thinks the Top 100 course lists are a joke so can’t use that 


Look at the division with courses like Strantz’s Tobacco Road?  One poster said he would play it 0-10 vs Southern Pines.  It would be very subjective and likely end up with ugly debates. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Maybe you feel differently but I don't see a lot of BS in this business.  You either know what you are doing and stay employed with projects or you disappear pretty fast.  You can't fake a good bunker or an improved golf hole.  It is either well accepted or it sucks and if it sucks word will get around fast and you won't get many more jobs to screw up! 

I don't know about this.  There are lots of renovations on top of renovations going on now, and nobody ever asks out loud why it's all necessary?  Some of those guys did big renovations for ten or twenty years before clubs got around to erasing their work, and still to this day, you never hear anything bad about the guy.

IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE BS IN THE RENO BUSINESS THEN YOU HAVEN'T SEEN MUCH OF THE BUSINESS..."But think about a guy like Pete Dye deciding to quit his job and trying to become a Golf Architect (Designer) with no formal training.  Why would any one hire some insurance salesman to design and build their golf course?  He must have been a really good salesman.  Can you imagine what Pete’s congntemporaries like Robert Trent Jones must have thought about this insurance salesman trying to enter their business? "" I don't have to think about doing it the way Pete Dye did it because I quit my job w no formal training, ( even though I did work on three Pete Dye projects during my Summer vacations before (Atlanta National, Honors and LongCove)  mainly just to be nosey and see what I could dig out... And after my first project..it didn't take long to find out how much the established guys despised someone getting "their" jobs as an outsider..I guarantee if Pete had not gained a national reputation the ASGCA would never have accepted him and the way he worked...they almost had to take him...

Mike,


The bolded quote got my attention, so I pulled out some of my ASGCA history material.  Peter was accepted as an associate member in 1966 and elevated to full membership (no. 40) the next year.  As always, it is the board of governors who formally approve membership.  Those aren't recorded in my materials, but just for grins, these were the leaders deciding if Pete should/could be a member:


President Floyd Farley - entered gca as a golf pro (not tour pro)


VP -Bill Gordon - Entered profession as a seed salesman, interned with Toomey and Flynn (who were never ASGCA members), went on his own, at first building courses for Ross and McGovern before getting any design contracts of his own.


Sec/Treasurer - Fred Garbin - Entered profession as an agronomy graduate of Penn State, partnered with his father in law Jim Harrison (an ASGCA member since 1950).


While how they felt about Pete by either you or I is pure speculation, since it was before our time, I am going to guess that him being a design-build guy was not or would not be a factor in his election to membership. 


It was kind of fun looking back at that membership list.  While we associate the landscape architect trained gca to guys who came of age in the 50's, like Ed Seay and Bob Graves, etc., it really seemed to accelerate in my generation in the 1970's.  That said, it has never been the only path to the business or ASGCA.


Of the original 14 members, 5 had some training in LA or agronomy, 4 in construction, 3 were golf pros, and 2 were businessmen who converted (Maxwell and Bill Diddel).  A look at early membership through the 1960's shows about the same.


You made one other comment in your new deleted post that caught my attention.  You believe too many gca's rely on big contractors.  You say it like it's a bad thing!  However, with only dozens of new courses under my belt (or yours) I can count the instances of problems in construction where I was glad to have a Wadsworth, Landscapes Unlimited, or another contractor with hundreds or maybe thousands of project experience, which sometimes gave them the leg up on how to solve a construction problem I hadn't encountered.  For any construction method, you can sure name pluses and minuses, and of course, in the end, it usually boils down to just being lucky enough to work with good, passionate, and ethical people.

[Ira Fishman]

Jeff,
The private course I was referring to has lots of members.  I have several friends who joined.  It is open for membership. 

I agree about multiple “paid” projects.  But is it two or 22 or I do this for at least a partial living.  Didn’t Steve Wynn get partial designs credit for Shadow Creek?  I guess if you are paying the bills you can take what ever credit you want.  I saw Geoff Ogilvy just got the Medinah project. What does he call himself?  Again I doubt he cares but he probably wants some respect.  By the way what was my thesis? I guess I didn’t realize I had one. 


Ira,
This site would have huge trouble agreeing on anything especially the quality of architects although some do have their pet favorites.  What is the criteria?  Top 100 courses?  This site thinks the Top 100 course lists are a joke so can’t use that 


Look at the division with courses like Strantz’s Tobacco Road?  One poster said he would play it 0-10 vs Southern Pines.  It would be very subjective and likely end up with ugly debates.

Mark,


Debating individual architects is very different than discussing the criteria for good ones. I tried to make that clear. I suggest you look at Ian's posts.


Ira

[Tom_Doak]

The bolded quote got my attention, so I pulled out some of my ASGCA history material.  Peter was accepted as an associate member in 1966 and elevated to full membership (no. 40) the next year.  As always, it is the board of governors who formally approve membership.  Those aren't recorded in my materials, but just for grins, these were the leaders deciding if Pete should/could be a member:


President Floyd Farley - entered gca as a golf pro (not tour pro)


VP -Bill Gordon - Entered profession as a seed salesman, interned with Toomey and Flynn (who were never ASGCA members), went on his own, at first building courses for Ross and McGovern before getting any design contracts of his own.


Sec/Treasurer - Fred Garbin - Entered profession as an agronomy graduate of Penn State, partnered with his father in law Jim Harrison (an ASGCA member since 1950).


While how they felt about Pete by either you or I is pure speculation, since it was before our time, I am going to guess that him being a design-build guy was not or would not be a factor in his election to membership. 

After just re-reading Pete's book, I wonder if he told the ASGCA board that Alice was his co-designer on most of those early projects, and if so, what they thought of that? 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark,


There are a few pros who have made the concerted effort to cross over as architects, while most always stayed as consultants.  Among them are JN, John Fought, Mark McCumber, Ben Crenshaw, and probably a few others I have forgotten.  I get the impression that Ogilvy has or is in that career transition process, but could be wrong.


Steve may have given himself some credit, but I think most just sort of know Fazio was the designer.  Having a big enough checkbook to cover mistakes is not on the list of gca skills needed to call oneself an architect.......


In using the word thesis, I was referring to your idea of deciding what makes a good golf course architect, nothing more.  I agree, it would be ugly!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()