Since the golf course contractors have more money and can pay more, I wonder what it is that makes people think that the best shapers work for the generally lower paying gca's? In the real world, it doesn't work that way. And I can name many architect supported shapers who I wouldn't even allow on my jobs, so it is all a matter of perspective. In general, I think there is a lot of talent out there, whether working for gca's, contractors, or independents, after the last golf course boom. Where they end up is a matter of their own personalities, ability to tolerate their boss (whether gca or gc) etc.
I also recall that Tom Lehman came on here and had hired two Doak shapers, who Tom promptly labeled his "6-7 guys" out of his then 8 stabled shapers. While that may be true, it means he hired for need when he was busy, too. And, there is no company I know that doesn't sort of mentally demote its guys who have left almost immediately, preferring then to remember the screw ups rather than the good stuff. Human nature, really.
Mike Young makes a good point, but all things can work both ways. For contractors I have worked with mulptiple times, they try to give me a shaper that I have worked with well in the past, and then maybe one new guy. In reality, sometimes the new guy and I get along better. They do vary in talent of course, and on a job it usually works out that I can direct the contractor to use the one I prefer for the more critical areas if not all the basic shaping while the other guy pushes topsoil, makes the first bulk pushes or cuts, etc.
In short, whether you are working with your own guys or someone else's, it all comes down to people skills......which is why I would probably be screwed either way on shaping, since I have soooooooo little of that! I started a recent job with a highly touted, reputedly egotistical shaper by telling him I had heard he was the "best ladies tee guy in the biz." That put him off balance and he hasn't let me forget it, either. But, we actually worked quite well together and got good results.
And, in some cases, having a new shaper who has worked for others has its benefits. Its a pain to hear that someone did it this way for Faz, Doak, JN, etc., but sometimes, the joining of perspectives yields even better results than working with a shaper who has conditioned himself to do it the bosses way only.
I will submit that whether the shaper works for the gca or the contractor (or the owner as an independent, also a common occurrence) that at some point, the time factor precludes the "endless shaping by the gca to get it "just right" that is a supposed advantage of that method. After all, the grass needs to be planted by Sept 15 or so, either way. I doubt many gca's would put off grassing a year to get that last green just perfect, or that it would be an advantage to anyone in 99.9% of the cases.
Lastly, most contractors have two shapers plugged in from January to September and don't fight shaping changes until they get the sense that the overall schedule is compromised. Sometimes, you get in a fight if you ask for endless long pushes, or more work that isn't shown on any plan in any way, but as noted by the gca's with shapers, who really designs golf courses in such an uneconomic manner anyway? Not I or anyone I know.
Lastly part two, if the gca was really going to draw plans and hand them off, I gather the quality of the shaper wouldn't matter. But this forum as a whole has misrepresented a whole bunch of gca's as CAD and no site visit guys. Again, my firm draws CAD plans, (using the same software as Mike Young, for which he willingly shares all the info he has....thanks Mike!) but it doesn't mean I don't care enough to visit on site. It is just the most efficient way to draw stuff that needs to be drawn to get most projects bid out to a qualified contractor.
Just pre coffee, Monday morning thoughts.