Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: David_Tepper on December 23, 2012, 12:43:30 PM
-
At least one GCA is not taking it lying down.
http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tours-news/blogs/local-knowledge/2012/12/an-indignant-norman-cuts-ties-with-course-he-founded.html
-
For some reason, I thought that Norman actually OWNED Medalist, so the subject line here was a bit of a surprise.
Interesting that he is telling them to take Pete Dye's name off the course, too. You would think that Pete would have his own opinion, and that Bobby Weed [who learned the business from Pete Dye] would be unlikely to pursue work that Pete disapproved of.
-
David,
What's even more interesting is this comment:
"The design integrity of the original designed course has been compromised by your alterations without consultation or discussion with neither Pete Dye nor me."
The original design integrity was compromised almost each and every year since the course first opened.
Anyone who played the original wouldn't recognize the 18th hole which looks like a Fazio creation.
I was there a few weeks ago and there's far more behind the story than the article reveals.
Tom Doak, The course was turned over to the members a while ago.
The shark above the bar is quite impressive.
I don't understand how Norman can expect it to be given to him, unless he loaned it to the club.
-
Does anyone else get a bit tired of Norman? It seems that there's always something going on with him that makes me like him less and less. First it was his series of tabloid marriages and divorces (not that I care about his personal life, but why draw attention to yourself). Then he has to interject himself into the whole Tiger Woods vortex and talk about how Tiger is finished (not likely). More incredibly, he staged his Shark Shootout the same weekend as the Australian Open (whatever happened to supporting your own national championship...and then he plays the PGA the following week but WD's). And now this, whatever it is.
If only he had won the 2008 Open and immediately retired, he could have avoided all this...but I think he likes to keep his name in the news.
-
I am pretty certain Greg Norman thru his Great White Shark Enterprises in a joint venture with Macquarie Bank owned Medallist Developments. Note the double L. It designed and built a number of golf community and residential developments including settlers run in melbourne, the vintage in the hunter valley in nsw Australia to name a few but I am sure they completed many other projects.
Greg Norman is a brand name and he has to keep a profile as it helps business.
The wd at the PGA he blamed on food poisoning. To his credit he spent some time in the commentary booth that weekend.... To keep the brand name out there!!! His influence in Aussie golf is profound the crowd following him at last years aus open was off the charts.
-
Wasn't it Norman who kept softening the course a little each year. I had a friend who joined when it opened and said that Norman made the course 6 to 8 shots easier and he never consulted Dye with the changes. Judging from what I saw in the Shell's wonderful world of Golf. I would love to see the original design.
Lawrence
-
Sidney,
Neither Greg nor any of his companies own the Medalist.
-
Sidney,
Neither Greg nor any of his companies own the Medalist.
I used to be a big Norman fan, but,
With all the available women in the world and especially in South Florida, having an affair with your best friend's wife is inexcusable..
The lowest of the low.
It's the ultimate betrayal and a sign of a weak character or pure arrogance or both.
Certainly not the action of one wanting to protect and enhance their "brand" image.
People lost all respect for him when he chose to have an affair with Chris Evert, the wife of his best friend Andy Mill.
People also say that his subsequent undermining of Andy's relationship with his kids didn't do anything but to further tarnish that image.
Sometimes great athletes and/or celebrities feel that they're invincible or not subject to the same principles as everyone else or both.
He may remain an idol in Australia, but to many in South Florida, where he, Chris and Andy live, he's a bum.
What's really shocking is that there are so many young, gorgeous, available women in South Florida, so why get involved with your BEST FRIEND'S WIFE ?
Patrick:
This post is beneath you. You're welcome to draw your own conclusions about a man's character, but there is no need to advertise them to others, especially when they have no bearing on the topic at hand.
Lots of people make the same mistake when your friend Mr. Trump comes up.
-
Sidney,
Neither Greg nor any of his companies own the Medalist.
I used to be a big Norman fan, but,
With all the available women in the world and especially in South Florida, having an affair with your best friend's wife is inexcusable..
The lowest of the low.
It's the ultimate betrayal and a sign of a weak character or pure arrogance or both.
Certainly not the action of one wanting to protect and enhance their "brand" image.
People lost all respect for him when he chose to have an affair with Chris Evert, the wife of his best friend Andy Mill.
People also say that his subsequent undermining of Andy's relationship with his kids didn't do anything but to further tarnish that image.
Sometimes great athletes and/or celebrities feel that they're invincible or not subject to the same principles as everyone else or both.
He may remain an idol in Australia, but to many in South Florida, where he, Chris and Andy live, he's a bum.
What's really shocking is that there are so many young, gorgeous, available women in South Florida, so why get involved with your BEST FRIEND'S WIFE ?
Patrick:
This post is beneath you. You're welcome to draw your own conclusions about a man's character, but there is no need to advertise them to others, especially when they have no bearing on the topic at hand.
Lots of people make the same mistake when your friend Mr. Trump comes up.
Congratulations, Pat. It takes some fine work to become the biggest self-righteous bozo in a thread when the topic is Greg Norman.
-
Merry Christmas to all ;D ;D
-
Guys,
lets not let Patrick's unusual view on life ruin another thread. There is no point in going there.
With Greg Norman, he has obviously given quite a bit of heart and soul into this course. It is always dangerous doing work free of charge for a club unless you are the type of person who can accept when the club decides to pay someone else to alter what you did as a gift.
Jon
-
The real question here should be, "How did Bobby Weed become the architect of choice at Medalist?" What has he done to warrant his work at a club such as Medalist? This one confuses me as I had heard by a very good source, that Pete Dye was involved and had done several ride arounds.
-
The real question here should be, "How did Bobby Weed become the architect of choice at Medalist?" What has he done to warrant his work at a club such as Medalist? This one confuses me as I had heard by a very good source, that Pete Dye was involved and had done several ride arounds.
For some reason, I thought that Norman actually OWNED Medalist, so the subject line here was a bit of a surprise.
Interesting that he is telling them to take Pete Dye's name off the course, too. You would think that Pete would have his own opinion, and that Bobby Weed [who learned the business from Pete Dye] would be unlikely to pursue work that Pete disapproved of.
Maybe they felt with the Pete Dye connection that he would be a good choice to get the style. It is not as if Bobby Weed is an unknown GCA
Jon
-
What is to stop the club from billing it as...
"Originally designed by Greg Norman and Pete Dye"
Simply a statement of fact.
-
Didn't the post original course changes by Norman result from a new member attraction issue? The original course was perceived to be "too hard" for newer higher handicappers.
-
Congratulations, Pat. It takes some fine work to become the biggest self-righteous bozo in a thread when the topic is Greg Norman.
Anthony,
When you witness a guys life destroyed and a family disrupted under those circumstances, and it bothers you, it's not self-righteousness.
-
This post is beneath you. You're welcome to draw your own conclusions about a man's character, but there is no need to advertise them to others, especially when they have no bearing on the topic at hand.
Tom, you could be right, but I thought that Sidney might be trying to deify him and took exception.
I've removed the reference but my sentiments are unchanged and I really, really used to admire the guy.
Lots of people make the same mistake when your friend Mr. Trump comes up.
True, but they don't know all the parties involved.
-
Didn't the post original course changes by Norman result from a new member attraction issue? The original course was perceived to be "too hard" for newer higher handicappers.
Steve,
It was hard for mid to low handicaps as well.
Interestingly, the original 4th hole, which I liked has gone through a number of iterations, the most recent of which almost returns it to the original.
I think the initial complaints centered on heroic carries, especially into a wind from the west and the off fairway consequences, which were essentially non-recoverable.
Interestingly, many of the original greenside bunkers were steep brick sodded bunkers, like in the UK, but, mainenance in South Florida with all the torrential rain and wind was a problem, plus, they weren't perceived as member friendly
The club has always been one of the best run clubs in South Florida.
But, the course, unlike Seminole, was too confining and the consequences for going off the fairway, dire.
Throw in the heroic carries on holes like # 2, 5, 8, 9 12, 13, 14, 16 and the flanking water on 10, 15, 17 and 18 AND the dense scrub flanking the fairways everywhere else, and you have a very, very demanding golf course.
It's been widened, but, it's still presents a stiff challenge.
-
Dear Patrick,
I never said GN owned medalist gc. I noted he part owned Medallist Developments! Totally different company!
Sorry if you did not understand my previous post. I even pointed out the double L.
Hope this clarifies things.
Sid
-
Congratulations, Pat. It takes some fine work to become the biggest self-righteous bozo in a thread when the topic is Greg Norman.
Anthony,
When you witness a guys life destroyed and a family disrupted under those circumstances, and it bothers you, it's not self-righteousness.
I don't think anyone here is giving off the impression that Greg Norman is some kind of angel... On the other hand what happened amongst a group of consenting adults seems to bear little relevance to whatever changes are being made to a golf course. A golf course where, I might add, the management has also welcomed visits from people with a connection to GWS.
On a related note, after the recent changes to 4 and 18 at New South Wales, the club received a letter from Alister Mackenzie and Eric Apperley asking them to...
-
I cannot comment on the Norman situation but I did play the course 4 weeks ago and know several members of the club. The course is in the best shape I have seen it since I first played it 8 years ago - I believe Mr Mudd was instrumental in hiring the assistant super from The Bears Club last year and he is doing a great job. They have done some work on the bunkering but the most noticeable change is in the clearing out of palmettos/bushes to make the course both more playable and better on the eye.
I also understand Mr Mudd changed the structure of the initiation process and has quickly filled the membership-some feat given the present situation at many clubs. I had a fun day and look forward to testing my game there again.
-
Anthony,
"Self-righteous?"
Jeeeez, I'm glad you are not my best friend.
I don't give a a shit what Norman's rationale was, there is no excuse for being a sexual predator on your best friend's wife. None, zero, zip. And if she was coming on to him, he should have thought through the ramifications of helping cause a very public divorce.
Now, there have been TWO very public divorces as Norman's short-sightedness blew up in his face.
And no, I am not being sanctimonious. Nobody understands better than me how a tryst can happen with an unrelated woman; marriage can be a trying challenge with a woman who no longer loves you.
But under no circumstances - period - do you hustle on your best friend's wife. And if she tries to get fresh, you give her the full Heisman right on the forehead.
The whole thing was egregious - and sickening. I hold golfers to a higher moral and ethical standard than NBA stars.
And I hold men to a higher standard than menopausal women.
-
Gib,
just to put a bit of balance into the discussion. Could said best friend's wife have said no. You make it sound as though it was all Greg Norman and 'sexual preditor' is a bit harsh, no.
Jon
-
Jon,
I do not care who started it or what extenuating circumstances were used as an excuse. I do not care if Chris Evert snuck into his hotel room 5,000 miles from home in a negligee and Norman was 11 sheets to the wind.
One more time: I hold men to a higher standard. Menopausal women sometimes make some incomprehensibly stupid decisions and the sane male must act like a responsible adult in those circumstances. That does not mean you go to your best friend and tell him what happened, but you make it crystal clear (can you tell this happened to me twice?) to the tart in question that if she ever pulls a stunt like that again, you'll rat her out in less than a flash.
Think about it: Go into the self-help section of the local bookstore and 90% of the browsers are wearing an estrogen patch. Ever wonder why? They are desperately trying to hold onto their self-image and every new wrinkle is like a knife in the vagina. Why do you think so many women in their mid-40's abandon good husbands that love them?
It is like a mental illness takes over; there is a reason the Yellow Pages are full of MFCC "therapists" - most of whom are divorced, middle-aged women who went off to "find themselves" and ended up hanging out a shingle with a quickie degree to help self-perpetuate this form of mid-life insanity. It is good for business.
If Greg wanted some extracurricular trim, there are 2,365,786 unmarried (of all ages) women in Florida who would be happy to polish the chrome on his sailboat.
And I do not begrudge him that. It is a free country and consenting adults can do what they like, just not with somebody's wife who considers you a brother.
-
"Menopausal women sometimes make some incomprehensibly stupid decisions"
Gib -
Per Jack Welch, General Petraeus and countless others, it would appear aging men are just as, if not far more, capable of making "incomprehensibly stupid decisions."
DT
-
Ah, but David,
I have come to believe that menopausal women are often stricken with a sort of psychological disorder - so I'm inclined to give them (as a group, not individually) a pass for knucklehead choices.
If General Petraeus was sleeping with his wife's best friend, then your comparison would hold agua, but he was not.
I'm not trying to rail against infidelity, I understand how that occurs every day.
Men do stupid things every day also. But as a man, I am not speaking out of turn to state that Norman broke THE CODE. Don't break the code homie. That don't fly.
I've never been a chick, but my observations are that the fairer sex is far more prone to irrationally emotional decisions in the throes of middle-aged madness.
Plus, most guys are smart enough to try and talk their friends out of doing something stupid. Women are too busy being "supportive" and sympathetic to grab each other by the ears and shake some sense into them.
-
Gib -
I will grant you that. My guess is the reason you don't see many men in the "self-help" section of bookstores is that they are too dumb to realize they need some help! ;)
DT
P.S. In certain quarters, the otherwise saintly Tom Watson is viewed as being guilty of the same transgression as Mr. Norman.
-
P.S. In certain quarters, the otherwise saintly Tom Watson is viewed as being guilty of the same transgression as Mr. Norman.
I was wondering why this never came up in the Ryder Cup captaincy discussion.
To Gib's point,when the menopausal(?) woman is Chris Evert,things are exponentially more public.
-
Aren't Norman and Evert just guilty of being themselves?
I find it hard to believe that the Florida social set was unaware of the fact that both of them were always a bit slutty.
Not sure why their previous behaviour was more tolerable.
-
I opened this because, as an Aussie, I retain a passing interest in most things norman.
Having skimmed through i am now annoyed at the time i've wasted reading these last half dozen+ posts. It's embarrassing. why would you guys post this kind of stuff publicly on a GCA website? What in the world does this stuff you are ranting about have to do with GCA? Join another site if you want to continue wringing your hands & tut tutting each other and leave GCA to GCA.
-
I opened this because, as an Aussie, I retain a passing interest in most things norman.
Having skimmed through i am now annoyed at the time i've wasted reading these last half dozen+ posts. It's embarrassing. why would you guys post this kind of stuff publicly on a GCA website? What in the world does this stuff you are ranting about have to do with GCA? Join another site if you want to continue wringing your hands & tut tutting each other and leave GCA to GCA.
Greg
Why on earth didn't you stop reading after the post?
Bob
-
Greg,
I don't have an opinion about Norman's private life (except I will say that he can't seem to stay out of the tabloid limelight). However, I thought it was in poor taste to host his Shark Shootout the same week as the Australian Open. As an Australian, what do you think of that? Does Norman do anything to support golf in Australia? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm honestly curious.
-
Greg,
I just want to make sure I'm clear, so please correct me if I am wrong:
A Treehouse greenhorn, who does not yet know where the bathroom is located - with 43 whole posts - is essentially ordering the following people off this website:
David Tepper - 5781 Posts
JM Evensky - 1908 Posts
David Elvins - 2083 Posts
Uncle Bob - 5754 Posts
Armenian - 1630 Posts (14 years)
So, some newbie Beet Eater, drinking Fosters out of a sippy cup feels entitled to scold the Provost and everyone in the faculty lounge. Lovely having you here and so glad Ran handed you the combination to the hatch. How did we ever get along all these many years without your moral piety and guidance?
-
Bob H:
Kept waiting for it to come back to the topic
Brian H:
Good question. I'll PM you seperately if i can work out how
Gib P:
Thanks for the note. Interesting turn of phrase. I didn't know that there was such a clearly defined pecking order here or that Newbies, Juniors, Aussies or just me are regarded as you describe. If it appeared i was ordering anyone out of the treehouse that wasn't my intent. I just thought it was a GCA treehouse and we were all supposed to stick more or less on topic? You guys are more than welcome to hold that kind of debate - i just think there's a more appropriate place for it where those who are interested in GCA, Norman, Medallist etc don't have to trawl through it.
-
I'll stick up for Greg. I don't mind some OT threads, but this one has gone way off the rails.
Let's keep in mind, Pat Mucci (of all people) actually took advice from another poster and removed his original post that started the descent. This thread has entered Real Housewives territory, and I'm glad Greg pointed it out regardless of how many posts he has.
That said, it's Ran's site and he can remove this thread or keep it if he so chooses.
My apologies for helping to keep this discussion on the first page.
-
Greg Gilson -
For better of worse (and believe me, it often is for worse ;)), discussions here do sometimes veer off in directions never expected or intended. It is the nature of the beast.
In this case, the reason might be that, while very few of us here have actually seen or played the Medalist course, almost all of us have some impression of Greg Norman, especially given his rather large public persona.
DT
-
The relevant question is still what the thought process was behind bringing in Weed when Norman apparently offered his services for free, and with him having such a strong association with the club. And also what the views of Mr. Dye are in regards to this development. The obvious assumption is that the board felt Weed would do a better job than Norman's group, but hopefully someone can shed some more light on the subject. I am very curious on Pete Dye's views and involvement in this.
-
Pat Mucci may be onto something as he stated there may be more to the Norman resignation @ Medalist than made the article.
As we all are not club members, we may never know.
My only comment on GN's personal life is that unfortunately men sometimes think with an incorrect part of their anatomy.....that fact has ruined far better men than me.
-
More gossip about this over on Geoff Shack's site. See letter from Jim Kaat.
http://www.geoffshackelford.com/
-
Dave McCollum -
Here is a direct link to the item on G. Shackelford's website:
http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2012/12/23/medalist-tizzy-shark-wants-his-shark-returned.html
DT
-
Dave McCollum -
Here is a direct link to the item on G. Shackelford's website:
http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2012/12/23/medalist-tizzy-shark-wants-his-shark-returned.html
DT
Blistering critique...
If Greg had not de-Dyed it and it had the management team in place it has today, I would never have resigned. Many of us thought it should be one of the great clubs in America of which to be a member. For me, there's only one person who prevented that. Greg Norman. It's sad. He was the greatest golfer on the planet, charismatic, attractive, a magnetic personality. His mismanagement of the Medalist and his comments about many issues in recent years have caused me to look at him as a pathetic figure. Sad but true.
-
More gossip about this over on Geoff Shack's site. See letter from Jim Kaat.
http://www.geoffshackelford.com/
Dave,
I've played golf with Jim Kaat at the Medalist.
He's a very nice fellow to play with.
We had a very enjoyable round.
He's also a very low key guy.
Bruce, you're correct ;D
-
The relevant question is still what the thought process was behind bringing in Weed when Norman apparently offered his services for free, and with him having such a strong association with the club. And also what the views of Mr. Dye are in regards to this development. The obvious assumption is that the board felt Weed would do a better job than Norman's group, but hopefully someone can shed some more light on the subject. I am very curious on Pete Dye's views and involvement in this.
I think the letter from Jim Kaat on Shack's site answers your initial question.
From the beginning if this saga, I had a gut feeling that the reason Greg's "free" service was declined was because it was his cumulative work that needed to be undone. Kaat's letter seems to confirm that.
Given that, it makes perfect sense that they would bring in a former Dye co-worker to perform the restoration. Ultimately, I suspect they weren't concerned about losing the "Norman" part of the "Dye/Norman" design label.
-
Kevin,
More than architecture is involved.
-
The Shackelford post at least sheds some light on what actually went down at the club.... so this thread is taking a positive turn from Pat Mucci and Gib (short for Gibberish?) Papazian's lazy moralizing on Greg Norman's wandering pee-pee.
Perhaps there is a connection between Norman's inability to take constructive criticism, his serial marrying of well-travelled blondes and his often bizarre public statements, but having read about 1000 Mucci/Papazain posts over the last few years, I'm not expecting the insight needed to tie the Shark's character flaws together in one neat package will be forthcoming from either of those two...
Once Shark undergoes a few more business/life reversals, I imagine Bryant Gumbel will send in Frank DeFord to get to the bottom of it all, or Bill Simmons will make it one of the two times he pays attention to golf each year. Until then, tying Norman's shortcomings as a human being to his ability to design golf courses, strikes me as mindless-and pointless-speculation.
At the end of the day... to borrow one of Shark's favorite phrases... we can only hope that any additional time he finds on his hands is not spent figuring out how to further 'improve' New South Wales.
-
The Shackelford post at least sheds some light on what actually went down at the club.... so this thread is taking a positive turn from Pat Mucci and Gib (short for Gibberish?) Papazian's lazy moralizing on Greg Norman's wandering pee-pee.
Not really Anthony. There is a lot more to this than is being discussed or guessed. Probably best just to let the members handle it. ;)
-
Anthony,
Let's just say that Gib and I are enlightened/informed and that you're in the dark on this issue and most others.
The situation at the Medalist isn't remotely connected to Greg's ability to take constructive criticism, but keep guessing and maybe, like a blind squirrel............ ;D
-
At the end of the day... to borrow one of Shark's favorite phrases... we can only hope that any additional time he finds on his hands is not spent figuring out how to further 'improve' New South Wales.
So you have given up trying to defend his work at NSW, Anthony? :D
-
Anthony,
I've waded through an innumerable number of your posts too and frankly cannot think of one that made any impression on me - either intellectually or with a clever turn of phrase. If the only spice you have on your rack is corn starch, I guess everything looks like it needs more filler.
And did you come up with the "Gibberish" line all by yourself? A real literary card you are, not sure if I can keep up with the pace of your rapier wit. That stated, I've got to give you a little bit of 'dap on this thread. Picking a fight with me and Mucci at the same time is manly. I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man, but manly. Hope you like the taste of lead. Hitler tried to fight a two-front war too.
If you'd like to get into a pissing contest, I'm happy to dye your Mary Janes bright yellow. I take lots of vitamins.
As long as we are in a mood for speculation, it is likely the Medalist got tired of Norman's self-absorbed pomposity and public antics. America has an incredible tolerance for arrogant, entitled superstars with a penchant for media grandstanding and making a spectacle of themselves. However, once the scales of bullshit vs. payoff reach a tipping point on the former, the aforementioned diva is unceremoniously dumped in the "has been" pile and covered over with manure. High society, particularly, has a low threshold for yacht sails made of dirty laundry.
The "lazy moralizing" crack pisses me off. Maybe you were not paying attention when the fallout from Tiger Woods' string of dalliances turned the professional game into a vulgar, lurid circus. If you cultivate the image of a false idol on the masthead of our great game, then you'd better either comport yourself like a gentleman, or learn some discretion. Porking the local dumbass barmaid does not fall under the category of discrete.
Greg Norman is one of the most recognizable faces - in golf and business - on the planet. His (now) ex-wife played the role of "America's Sweetheart." Both are prominent members of the Blue Blood community down there. Both - because of arrogance, stupidity and selfishness - shit an enormous oil slick and rubbed everybody's nose in it. They are entitled to do as they please, but a couple of superstar public figures - icons of the last two "relatively" clean sports left - acting like tabloid tramps is beyond the pale.
And why do I seem to have an emotional opinion?
Let's put it this way - since you're too f*cking dim to pick up on this: Those of us who have been dragged into a very public mess starring a sexual sociopath and a disturbed ex-spouse are uniquely qualified to express disgust and horror watching a man or woman, just like you and me, subjected to unimaginable humiliation. And if you have a problem with my opinion on the subject, kiss my ass.
-
It is amazing how serious we are taking the Shark, his relationship with the club, and the sordid way he lives his life
-
Summary of the last four posts on this thread:
1) Mike Young... 'let the members handle it'. That's a great idea... maybe you'll follow your own advice one day.
2) David Elvins-You are conflating my support for New South Wales with 100% approval of the changes Norman has made there over the last 8-10 years. Nothing could be be further from the truth. While Bob Harrison and Norman could reasonably claim some credit for the spectacular rise the course made on worldwide ranking lists between 1998-2006, I think the latest changes have increased the focus on accuracy on the very few holes where it is not already a premium... Consistency in this case, is the hobgoblin of mediocre minds...
3) Speaking of mediocre minds, does Gib know that by invoking Hitler he has immediately lost any internet-based argument? It's quite an analogy... Little old me daring to challenge the combined might of his and Pat Mucci's intellect is exactly like the Third Reich thinking they were a match for the collective Allied Powers in WWII. Given the amount of time spent in this thread giving tongue baths to all the deadbeats in South Florida supporting themselves on Madoff 'dividend' checks and assorted other financial scams for the last three decades, it's impressive how much energy you have left to display such enormous self-regard for your own 'inside baseball' opinions.
While everyone who has participated in this thread, including me, knows that Greg Norman can be a world-class douchebag (Of course, he's a rank amateur in that category compared to Pat's good friend Donald Trump) it strains credibility to think Norman's private life is so filthy he can no longer move as much as a shovel-full of dirt at a golf club which he helped found.
On the other hand, if it was just about 'going in another direction' it appears the club elders you hold in such high regard are simply not capable of having an adult discussion with one of the club founders (and a professional architect of some 25 years) before he threw all the toys out of the cot. No-one has to know the inside story to see there's about a million holes in the story you're pitching here ... so if you have any information about it, why not share with the common people and bring them out of the dark?
4) Gib-to paraphrase your rather bizarre Personal Message.... Sexual psychopath? Ted Bundy... Yes. Jeffrey Dahmer... Yes. Dominique Strauss-Kahn... I'll even give you that one.. But Greg Norman? Really... I mean Really? Tell me there weren't consenting adults involved and I'll tell you you were right to get your panties that wadded up...
-
I find it interesting indeed, to find within our community, a number of contributors with their knickers in a twit about the sexual shenanigans of a couple of sports stars. I would hazard a guess that on a scale of one to ten, that Bill Clinton leaving some DNA residue on an intern's dress was far worse than Petraeus’ little nibble with his amanuensis. The General is forced into retirement and Bill, the former Commander-in-Chief and a perjurer to boot, is a highly paid shill and a darling of the Democratic Party.
When it come to extra marital sex it is best not to inquire too diligently into the behavior of many of our golfing icons.
Bob
-
Bob,
In fairness, there really wasn't much outrage about Petraeus--many left of center commentators opined that the scandal wasn't serious enough to warrant resignation. And I'm sure Petraeus will soon, if he isn't already, become a "highly paid shill" as well. As for Clinton, it seems everyone, even Nixon, is rehabilitated at some point.
-
The plot thickens! Greg Norman's letter to the Medalist members:
http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2012/12/28/greg-normans-letter-to-medalist-members.html
-
David,
That may be the tip of iceberg.
Bob,
Partner selection is THE critical factor in golf, business, marriage and affairs ;D
-
Guys doing stupid things is not limited to well known middle age and older men. It is a big club.
-
Anthony (or whatever your real name is),
Gawd, I hope we meet one day. Just so you know, I've received enough attaboys to make me blush from other posters sick of the artless prattle you leave like an unwelcome dog all over this website. And quit trying to pawn yourself off as some kind of Fortune 500 big shot because nobody believes your bullshit.
Even if you have actually sucked enough chrome to get to the top of the "money changer" septic tank, pulling out your 2" intellect and waving it around like a war club is only going to impress the big hair GED graduates in the slut pool. This card room is not for idiots or poseurs - which puts you at two strikes before the ump yells "play ball."
If anybody knows the Cricket equivalent (assuming the ubiquitous A. Butler is an Aussie, Kiwi or Brit), please speak up.
And know this if nothing else, it is painfully obvious those spitballs your 3rd grade intellect shoots across cyberspace are incapable of grasping a micron of what I was trying to get across to you. Swine do not sing and admittedly, it is horse on me to have forgotten that fact; but do not presume to know shit about another man's experiences.
Uncle Bob,
I've come to the point of viewing politicians as a festering vermin whose only objective is to replicate and infest every corner of our lives. With one exception - and my insightful father-in-laws still thinks I'm naive about us Libertarians - party affiliation seems irrelevant. Both Bill Clinton and Greg Norman are serial lotharios - which hardly gets my panties in a wad. I'm just sick and tired of (a) TMZ and the tabloid press reporting every celebrity peccadillo for my daughter to see, (b) these same idiot celebrities proudly flying their stinky laundry as some sort of birthright, and (c) the complete lack of discretion and disrespect in the press for the privacy of those dragged through the mud in the fallout. Collateral damage seems acceptable until the shrapnel is lodged in your posterior.
This is hardly the first time Norman has suffered a dismissal as a designer. Mirabel in Scottsdale was designed, constructed (FKA Stonehaven), bulldozed under and reconstructed in a new incarnation with Tom Fazio at the controls. The final results are quite honestly excellent. I'm not sure why Medalist is causing such a stir - unless it was sort of Norman's "Muirfield Village" or "Bay Hill" and his ego and social missteps got him escorted off the premises.
I've never had anybody tell me over a cocktail that The Medalist was any better than a decent 7, so perhaps I'm not grasping the gravity of this architectural divorce.
-
I've come to the point of viewing politicians as a festering vermin whose only objective is to replicate and infest every corner of our lives.
Please make one exception on this one. ;)
-
:D ::) ;)
Have read this topic with interest as a golf and architecture fan. It begs the question of power and ego. Did the membership hierarchy rebel against Greg Norman's obvious influence on the club , or was there a serious complaint against architectural tweaking. Did he do it without any consensus from membership? In reading the various letters and testimony, it's hard to determine .
I do know that Medalist in its inception was incredibly difficult , for anyone , let alone a membership base north of fifty. Jim Kaat tends to be the exception , not the rule , when it comes to golf masochism.
Does anybody have any info on why Norman made the changes, or what precipitated them . If it wasn't membership frustration with the inherent difficulty of the design, what else caused him to tinker.
Given when it was built, and his work ethic and methodology, Pete Dye did most of the design and build , with some ??? imput from Norman. I assume proximity and time spent there, given it was his home club, led to Norman's increasing influence in the club. Maybe I missed it, but the membership appears to own the club , and he is just a single member, albeit an influential one.
Dye seems reticent about getting involved, which doesn't surprise me. But I'm guessing he might not be in concert with Norman or Bobby Weed on how to go forward, or backward.
-
Can we please be clear on two things
1. Not all Aussies think that the sun shines out of Greg Norman's clacker
2. No one in Australia drinks Fosters. It's camels piss and reserved for Tourism
Australia purposes only
Thank You
-
Anthony (or whatever your real name is),
Gawd, I hope we meet one day. Just so you know, I've received enough attaboys to make me blush from other posters sick of the artless prattle you leave like an unwelcome dog all over this website. And quit trying to pawn yourself off as some kind of Fortune 500 big shot because nobody believes your bullshit.
Even if you have actually sucked enough chrome to get to the top of the "money changer" septic tank, pulling out your 2" intellect and waving it around like a war club is only going to impress the big hair GED graduates in the slut pool. This card room is not for idiots or poseurs - which puts you at two strikes before the ump yells "play ball."
If anybody knows the Cricket equivalent (assuming the ubiquitous A. Butler is an Aussie, Kiwi or Brit), please speak up.
And know this if nothing else, it is painfully obvious those spitballs your 3rd grade intellect shoot across cyberspace are incapable of grasping a micron of what I was trying to get across to you. Swine do not sing and admittedly, it is horse on me to have forgotten that fact; but do not presume to know shit about another man's experiences.
Uncle Bob,
I've come to the point of viewing politicians as a festering vermin whose only objective is to replicate and infest every corner of our lives. With one exception - and my insightful father-in-laws still thinks I'm naive about us Libertarians - party affiliation seems irrelevant. Both Bill Clinton and Greg Norman seem serial lotharios - which hardly gets my panties in a wad. I'm just sick and tired of (a) TMZ and the tabloid press blasting every celebrity peccadillo for my daughter to see, and (b) idiot celebrities proudly flying their stinky laundry as some sort of birthright, and (c) the complete lack of discretion and disrespect in the press for the privacy of those dragged through the mud in the fallout. Collateral damage seems acceptable until the shrapnel is lodged in your posterior.
This is hardly the first time Norman has suffered a dismissal as a designer. Mirabel in Scottsdale was designed, constructed (FKA Stonehaven), bulldozed under and reconstructed in a new incarnation with Tom Fazio at the controls. The final results are quite honestly excellent. I'm not sure why Medalist is causing such a stir - unless it was sort of Norman's "Muirfield Village" or "Bay Hill" and his ego and social missteps got him escorted off the premises.
I've never had anybody tell me over a cocktail that The Medalist was any better than a decent 7, so perhaps I'm not grasping the gravity of this architectural divorce.
Quite a tantrum old man... Hope you didn't throw your sippy cup too far away...You'll need it for your next 'cocktail' while you tut-tut Greg Norman putting the moves on your daughter.
-
It is the opinion of this writer and the vast majority of golfers I know, that everyone hates the design of the Medalist, just too bleak and difficult, no fun what so ever. After playing it twice, I routinely turned down invites to play it.
I think the board did the correct thing in hiring Bobby Weed, who will hopefully give them a much better product.
As to Greg Norman's letter and attitude, sorry pal, your ego is bruised, you have been confronted with some rejection which is long over due for this project.
As far as his "dick" goes, boys will be boys, but I hear that Christy was just as much the aggressor as Greg. She was the Alpha
-
By Pete Dye signing the 12/4/12 letter he is certainly complicit as to not wanting any connection to the Booby Weed changes which at least on the surface seems to add relevance to Norman's position on the architecture argument. I will not speculate as to Weed and Dye's relationship although as a protege you would think some professional courtesy would have been extended as related to the proposed changes. Does anyone know of another situation where Dye has asked that his name be pulled after the fact or in this case SO long after the fact?
-
By Pete Dye signing the 12/4/12 letter he is certainly complicit as to not wanting any connection to the Booby Weed changes which at least on the surface seems to add relevance to Norman's position on the architecture argument. I will not speculate as to Weed and Dye's relationship although as a protege you would think some professional courtesy would have been extended as related to the proposed changes. Does anyone know of another situation where Dye has asked that his name be pulled after the fact or in this case SO long after the fact?
Tim,
I was curious about Dye signing the letter as well. Do you think it's really a strong objection over the changes? Could it simply be that he didn't want to offend Greg publically by leaving him on an island in his protests? For all I know, Dye just signed the letter, knowing full well that his architectural legacy is secure and that no one will forget he designed the course, despite any further official mention.
There's some irony in a multiple-divorcee attempting to "annul" his architectural connection to a course, as if it never existed. I wonder if he'll have to go to Pope Doak or Cardinal Crenshaw to delete the course from his past.
-
By Pete Dye signing the 12/4/12 letter he is certainly complicit as to not wanting any connection to the Booby Weed changes which at least on the surface seems to add relevance to Norman's position on the architecture argument. I will not speculate as to Weed and Dye's relationship although as a protege you would think some professional courtesy would have been extended as related to the proposed changes. Does anyone know of another situation where Dye has asked that his name be pulled after the fact or in this case SO long after the fact?
Tim,
I have a feeling you are reading too much into this. Kevin L, above, has suggested a much better take on it....things aren't always as they seem.
Kevin,
hmmmmm.. ;D ;D ;D
-
By Pete Dye signing the 12/4/12 letter he is certainly complicit as to not wanting any connection to the Booby Weed changes which at least on the surface seems to add relevance to Norman's position on the architecture argument. I will not speculate as to Weed and Dye's relationship although as a protege you would think some professional courtesy would have been extended as related to the proposed changes. Does anyone know of another situation where Dye has asked that his name be pulled after the fact or in this case SO long after the fact?
Tim,
I have a feeling you are reading too much into this. Kevin L, above, has suggested a much better take on it....things aren't always as they seem.
Kevin,
hmmmmm.. ;D ;D ;D
Mike- I have absolutely no knowledge of the workings of the club or Norman's involvement/actions as related to the recent decisions.I was just throwing out the Dye angle to try to garner more insight into the situation as some posters who have inside information indicted that "another shoe would drop" in time. Kevin certainly puts forth a plausible explanation.
-
Mike- I have absolutely no knowledge of the workings of the club or Norman's involvement/actions as related to the recent decisions.I was just throwing out the Dye angle to try to garner more insight into the situation as some posters who have inside information indicted that "another shoe would drop" in time. Kevin certainly puts forth a plausible explanation.
Tim -
My scenario was just an alternate guess and really an extension of what you said. I have never heard of anything like this in Dye's history, and he seems like the type of person who doesn't care what others think publically. Thus, I suspect he signed the letter more for Greg than himself.
However, as Pat Mucci has mentioned a few times, there is much more going on so I am just speculating.
-
Can someone tell me why this is such a big deal?
Courses get changes all the time. Many of the top designers have seen their work bastardized. Norman decides to have his name removed on this one.
Why should I care about this?
Not being confrontational...seriously trying to understand why I should into this.
-
There's plenty of Greg Norman stories floating around beyond his distruption of the Mills / Evert household.
Wouldn't repeat the story that floated around the Palm Beaches in the mid 90's in its entirety, but to summarize in the style of "Clue" (the boardgame)
Norman, on Aussie Rules, in the presence of Laura and the Hobe Sound Garden Club
-
There's some irony in a multiple-divorcee attempting to "annul" his architectural connection to a course, as if it never existed. I wonder if he'll have to go to Pope Doak or Cardinal Crenshaw to delete the course from his past.
I don't know how I got to be Pope of who designed what, and I certainly don't know how Ben Crenshaw would be responsible for it ... I think Ron Whitten wrote the book on that. And I believe Ron has decided to disavow his own participation in Erin Hills, so maybe he and Greg can have a heart-to-heart talk about it.
Personally, I've never understood how anyone "takes their name off" a course after they've done it. To have such a clause in your contract and expect a client to sign it is the ultimate in controlling behavior.
Perhaps this is all just about marketing -- if the club was paying Norman a fee to use his name to promote the course, he could ask that they stop (and they could stop paying). But if he identified part of his design fee as a license for the use of his name, and then wants to rescind that, perhaps he owes them some money back? Or perhaps not after 19 years.
I have not talked to Pete Dye about this nor would I. However, it is worth pointing out that Bobby Weed is not the only protege of Mr. Dye's who is involved. Jason McCoy, who was the construction superintendent for The Ocean Course at Kiawah and for The Medalist, signed on as one of Greg's lead associates* right after The Medalist was completed, with Pete's encouragement. So it's really impossible for Pete to support all of his former associates in this battle.
* Note: I just went to Greg Norman Golf Course Design's web site to try and find Jason's official title, to no avail. No other members of his design team seem to be credited anywhere on their site. I have seen Jason listed as a Vice President or President of the company in some articles but cannot confirm it online.
-
??? ;) ???
Mac why the interest ? I could care less about Normans personal life relative to GCA and this site, but I am interested in the evolution of the golf course, and why changes were made. It speaks to what we should design /build. I don't think we have answered that question yet , though some have postulated.
Having spent a little time with Pete Dye , and knowing about his work , his take interests me . He seems singularly immune from responding to the "critics" or general public, and builds what he likes and sees in his mind. He is an iconic figure in GCA, as Norman is in golf. Their interaction and the evolution of this golf course is interesting to me. I'd like to focus more on why the changes were made, and what precipitated them. It appears that they were much more Norman than Dye.
-
Can someone tell me why this is such a big deal?
Courses get changes all the time. Many of the top designers have seen their work bastardized. Norman decides to have his name removed on this one.
Why should I care about this?
Not being confrontational...seriously trying to understand why I should into this.
Mac,
Can't speak for anyone else, but my interest is simply the general topic of how architects react when their work is changed. In this case, it seems to be how the members react (like Kaat's letter). it's even more interesting when the person making the changes was involved in the original design and long-time member. It's intriguing to me (regardless of Greg's extracurricular pee-pee activity or people's personal feelings toward his ego).
As you said, original works are often changed, but I don't recall many instances with the request to remove names. It's an unusual case study when the architect reacts publicly.
Insight from architects is probably my favorite aspect of this forum, so I thought this would be a good topic to follow.
-
I thought Fosters was kangaroo p*ss, not camel p*ss?
-
There's some irony in a multiple-divorcee attempting to "annul" his architectural connection to a course, as if it never existed. I wonder if he'll have to go to Pope Doak or Cardinal Crenshaw to delete the course from his past.
I don't know how I got to be Pope of who designed what, and I certainly don't know how Ben Crenshaw would be responsible for it ... I think Ron Whitten wrote the book on that. And I believe Ron has decided to disavow his own participation in Erin Hills, so maybe he and Greg can have a heart-to-heart talk about it.
Tom,
You are right - Pope Whitten is probably the appropriate "keeper of names" who would need to annul Medalist from Norman's past. I mentioned you & Crenshaw while thinking about the "infallibility" of the Pope. :)
But, bringing this somewhat back to the architecture world, I'd be curious to hear from the architects on the board.
Is there an really an "accepted professional courtesy" that the original architect be contacted before any changes are made (as Norman claimed in his letter)? Is there ever language put in contracts addressing future revisions?
Generally, when you learn of revisions at one of your designs, do you feel the desire to contact the club and understand why (whether motivated by pride or a desire to improve your craft if there were legitimate concerns)?
As always, I'm grateful to have any feedback from those in practice.
-
Tim, Kevin and Archie,
My recollection, and it could be flawed, is that the course was primarily Dye, and that it was intended to be a difficult challenge.
Once built, it was under Norman's care and guidance.
It was a very difficult, narrow test that was one of those course you enjoyed on occassion, but not as a steady diet.
So, it had to be softened, for members, guests and potential members and I think that's when Greg began tinkering
Norman had previously been a member of Old Marsh, another challenging Pete Dye course.
However, Old Marsh had very generous fairways, a luxury not afforded at The Medalist.
I think the fact that Greg was such a spectacular driver of the golf ball may have been an architectural liability in terms of him being able to design a golf course for the broad spectrum of golfers represented by the Medalist membership and their guests.
Administratively, The Medalist was always very well run. But the golf course had deficiencies or perhaps excessively challenging features.
I happened to like the effort to introduce brick sod faced bunkers. They were very unique and demanding.
One of the flaws, that I perceived, was the narrowness of the fairways and how it was a major factor on dogleg holes where good drives, hit straight, ran through the fairway and into disastrous lies resulting in high scores.
The 4th hole, a most unusual par 3, a volcano hole, which I liked, probably went through half a dozens iterations with the current hole more like the original.
So, the tinkering continued as Greg tried to "get it right"
The tinkering ceased being tinkering and became major redesign when # 17 and # 18 were totally changed.
When I first saw the revised 18th, I thought they had brought Fazio in to do the work.
It was wildly out of character with the rest of the course.. So the course was beginning to take on multiple personalities in term of design.
The original continuity, irrespective of what you thought of the individual holes, was being lost.
Recently, and I don't know at whose direction, efforts have been made to widen the playing corridors, essentially peeling back the very penal nature of the golf course, making the course far more user friendly for all levels of golfers.
The Medalist is a course that, from it's origins, had the ability to be a good golf course by merely widening the playing corridors, but for some reason, that wasn't the primary focus of the tinkering. A well thought out Master Plan should improve the golf course.
From an outsider's perspective, if Greg hasn't gotten it right after all these years, then, someone else needs to be retained to improve the golf course.
That's all for now ;D
As to the Great Pete Dye, he's probably a victim of circumstances and a reluctant participant.
-
Perhaps some of these pro golfers should learn how to control their shots with the stiff shafts they are playing.
-
I am interested in what the protocol or "law" or "copyright" is when a course is originally designed by Architect A but gets tweaked by Architect B. Obviously there is a point at which "tweaks" become "redesign" becomes "different course". Is there some kind of understanding between archies that B gives A a heads up (assuming A is still alive)? Once the tweaks have been completed, at what point does the course become B's course rather than A's? This is not limited to what's happening at Medallist - apart from anything else, there are lots of examples currently down here in Australia. Several posters have talked around this point here already and i'd love to hear any real world examples from our contributing GCA's. Thanks!
-
Greg,
I think it would be the same as with a house. You need an architect to do the design of a new house but if any alterations or extensions are done at a later date it is not unusual to use another architect. On GCA there is a tendency for us to think (feel) the courses are the property of architect. It therefore depends on the relationship between the owners and architect.
Jon
-
Tim, Kevin and Archie,
My recollection, and it could be flawed, is that the course was primarily Dye, and that it was intended to be a difficult challenge.
Once built, it was under Norman's care and guidance.
It was a very difficult, narrow test that was one of those course you enjoyed on occassion, but not as a steady diet.
So, it had to be softened, for members, guests and potential members and I think that's when Greg began tinkering
Norman had previously been a member of Old Marsh, another challenging Pete Dye course.
However, Old Marsh had very generous fairways, a luxury not afforded at The Medalist.
I think the fact that Greg was such a spectacular driver of the golf ball may have been an architectural liability in terms of him being able to design a golf course for the broad spectrum of golfers represented by the Medalist membership and their guests.
Administratively, The Medalist was always very well run. But the golf course had deficiencies or perhaps excessively challenging features.
I happened to like the effort to introduce brick sod faced bunkers. They were very unique and demanding.
One of the flaws, that I perceived, was the narrowness of the fairways and how it was a major factor on dogleg holes where good drives, hit straight, ran through the fairway and into disastrous lies resulting in high scores.
The 4th hole, a most unusual par 3, a volcano hole, which I liked, probably went through half a dozens iterations with the current hole more like the original.
So, the tinkering continued as Greg tried to "get it right"
The tinkering ceased being tinkering and became major redesign when # 17 and # 18 were totally changed.
When I first saw the revised 18th, I thought they had brought Fazio in to do the work.
It was wildly out of character with the rest of the course.. So the course was beginning to take on multiple personalities in term of design.
The original continuity, irrespective of what you thought of the individual holes, was being lost.
Recently, and I don't know at whose direction, efforts have been made to widen the playing corridors, essentially peeling back the very penal nature of the golf course, making the course far more user friendly for all levels of golfers.
The Medalist is a course that, from it's origins, had the ability to be a good golf course by merely widening the playing corridors, but for some reason, that wasn't the primary focus of the tinkering. A well thought out Master Plan should improve the golf course.
From an outsider's perspective, if Greg hasn't gotten it right after all these years, then, someone else needs to be retained to improve the golf course.
That's all for now ;D
As to the Great Pete Dye, he's probably a victim of circumstances and a reluctant participant.
Thanks Pat. That certainly ties up some loose ends for me. I like Bobby Weed's work and will be interested as to how the finished product is perceived.
-
Is there an really an "accepted professional courtesy" that the original architect be contacted before any changes are made (as Norman claimed in his letter)? Is there ever language put in contracts addressing future revisions?
Generally, when you learn of revisions at one of your designs, do you feel the desire to contact the club and understand why (whether motivated by pride or a desire to improve your craft if there were legitimate concerns)?
As always, I'm grateful to have any feedback from those in practice.
Kevin:
I believe the "accepted professional courtesy" in the golf architecture societies is generally directed at the business of consulting work at clubs -- it's taboo for an architect to speak to a club about consulting work if there is another architect under contract to that club. I guess that rule is to prevent architects from "poaching" work, though it has also led some to claim that it is wrong for architects to disagree publicly or offer a second opinion.
The courtesy is routinely violated the other way round, by clubs who have decided to switch architects and ask around a bit for potential new consultants before informing the previous designer.
If / when a club pursues changes to one of your courses without your involvement, it is usually a sign that the relationship with the client has broken down, and if that's the case there is little you can do to talk them out of it. It's an awkward position to be in; the club can do what it wants, so often you are in the position of making changes you don't really agree with in order to prevent them from hiring another architect who might make more radical changes.
There are designers (all of them famous Tour pros to my knowledge) who have a clause in their contracts that the club is not entitled to change the course for x number of years without their agreement. You can only submit such a contract if you have all the power in the relationship and the client is willing to let it slide because they want your name so much. But, even if the clause exists, when the club believes a change is necessary they are ultimately going to prevail. It's their course. They paid for it.
-
For what it's worth.
On May 9, 1994, I visited Pete Dye while he was in the process of designing, and along with Jason McCoy, building the Medalist Golf Club. When we met, I asked him if I could look at his routing or design plan and he pointed me to a hand written piece of paper hanging on the wall in the trailer. If I recall correctly, it consisted of a list of estimated distances for each hole along with par, and point to point sketch of the routing of the eighteen holes.
I am looking at the notes I made that day and my scribbling says this "total of 400 acres available, 200 acres are marsh, 120 acres of upland brush and 80 acres for golf." If true, no wonder the fairway corridors were narrow. Perhaps in later years, more of the marshland was, or now will be reclaimed for golf.
While on the course with Pete, he was in the process of making some last minute adjustments to what I believe is now the 14th hole. He was quite hands-on as he focused on grading the green approach and with bunker shaping. When he drove me back in, Greg was waiting in the trailer.
I realize that this was a 2-hour snapshot of a multiple month project, but my impression was that with Greg's busy playing and business schedule, Pete was a large contributor to design of the original product.
-
As Tom says above, the "signature" who was paid an excessive fee because of the perceived marketing of the RE development around the golf course usually could hold the developer's feet to the fire because they felt they needed his name for selling RE. I don't think it was ever done for design integrity.
For so many of us regional guys you just never know what will happen at your projects. They get sold or another pro comes in or a new supt is hired and they all have friends who they feel can do a better job and things evolve. Also, since the architect is rarely seen over the years at his projects and the supt and pro are there everyday, it is fairly common for any issues such as drainage or greens problems etc to be blamed on the architect. About the only way to prevent such is to do your best to contact your older projects at least once a year and hopefully more. It's a very delicate subject for many. If you really want to start a skirmish all you need to do is be asked to do a job that was originally done by a member of one of the societies. You will quickly become one of the very lowest life forms.. ;D ;D
-
Is there an really an "accepted professional courtesy" that the original architect be contacted before any changes are made (as Norman claimed in his letter)? Is there ever language put in contracts addressing future revisions?
Generally, when you learn of revisions at one of your designs, do you feel the desire to contact the club and understand why (whether motivated by pride or a desire to improve your craft if there were legitimate concerns)?
As always, I'm grateful to have any feedback from those in practice.
Kevin:
I believe the "accepted professional courtesy" in the golf architecture societies is generally directed at the business of consulting work at clubs -- it's taboo for an architect to speak to a club about consulting work if there is another architect under contract to that club. I guess that rule is to prevent architects from "poaching" work, though it has also led some to claim that it is wrong for architects to disagree publicly or offer a second opinion.
The courtesy is routinely violated the other way round, by clubs who have decided to switch architects and ask around a bit for potential new consultants before informing the previous designer.
If / when a club pursues changes to one of your courses without your involvement, it is usually a sign that the relationship with the client has broken down, and if that's the case there is little you can do to talk them out of it. It's an awkward position to be in; the club can do what it wants, so often you are in the position of making changes you don't really agree with in order to prevent them from hiring another architect who might make more radical changes.
There are designers (all of them famous Tour pros to my knowledge) who have a clause in their contracts that the club is not entitled to change the course for x number of years without their agreement. You can only submit such a contract if you have all the power in the relationship and the client is willing to let it slide because they want your name so much. But, even if the clause exists, when the club believes a change is necessary they are ultimately going to prevail. It's their course. They paid for it.
Tom- It is obviously far easier from a public relations standpoint when the original archie is an ODG. I know that Renaissance is the consulting architectural firm to a lot of great old classic courses. Do you ever find yourself in a situation where the club seems to be more sympathetic to certain original design features than you are? Additionally you must occasionally win the battle but lose the war on an original design where you incorporate a feature despite objections by the developer/owner only to see it changed down the line.
-
If you really want to start a skirmish all you need to do is be asked to do a job that was originally done by a member of one of the societies. You will quickly become one of the very lowest life forms.. ;D ;D
The oddest call I ever got along those lines came when I was a young architect with maybe 3 or 4 courses under my belt ... it was about a project in Virginia where the committee was having a falling out with the designer and there was a faction that wanted to replace him.
For a while the fellow would not tell me what the course was, but when I insisted on knowing before giving him an answer, he told me that it was the Robert Trent Jones Golf Club! He was looking for another architect to finish a course named after the original architect! [And not only that, but if I have my history correctly, the land was actually found and purchased for the club years beforehand by Mr. Jones himself.]
I declined to become involved in that.
-
Do you ever find yourself in a situation where the club seems to be more sympathetic to certain original design features than you are?
More often it is the other way around -- I am more sympathetic to the original design [either by wanting to preserve an existing feature or restore an old one] than the membership is. A lot of our best advice has been to NOT change things.
Additionally you must occasionally win the battle but lose the war on an original design where you incorporate a feature despite objections by the developer/owner only to see it changed down the line.
This has happened once or twice but not often. There is no point in winning the battle if you know you are going to lose the war. But there are plenty of times when I have gotten a client to see the light about a particular feature, or at least to trust me that it will all work out, and it has turned out to everyone's satisfaction. One such is the punchbowl 18th green at Cape Kidnappers, which Mr. Robertson originally disliked because he thought it was too easy, but has refrained from changing because of the general acclaim for the course.
-
Do you ever find yourself in a situation where the club seems to be more sympathetic to certain original design features than you are?
More often it is the other way around -- I am more sympathetic to the original design [either by wanting to preserve an existing feature or restore an old one] than the membership is. A lot of our best advice has been to NOT change things.
Additionally you must occasionally win the battle but lose the war on an original design where you incorporate a feature despite objections by the developer/owner only to see it changed down the line.
This has happened once or twice but not often. There is no point in winning the battle if you know you are going to lose the war. But there are plenty of times when I have gotten a client to see the light about a particular feature, or at least to trust me that it will all work out, and it has turned out to everyone's satisfaction. One such is the punchbowl 18th green at Cape Kidnappers, which Mr. Robertson originally disliked because he thought it was too easy, but has refrained from changing because of the general acclaim for the course.
Tom- I was sure that you would usually be more sympathetic to the original features but I found the idea of being on the other side every once in a while interesting. As always I guess it depends somewhat on the subject club's goals going forward.
-
Tom- I was sure that you would usually be more sympathetic to the original features but I found the idea of being on the other side every once in a while interesting. As always I guess it depends somewhat on the subject club's goals going forward.
In practice, if I'm not fond of the original design of the course I am probably not going to take the consulting job, unless the membership is already looking to make a significant change [i.e. Medinah #1]. I have taken on most of the consulting work we do in order to help preserve the courses in question.
About the only time I am in favor of destroying an "original" feature that the club wants to keep is in the case of trees [which are not really an original feature, but are an existing feature that raise emotional arguments among some memberships]. Those who have paid attention to me on this site know that I think that trees have a place on some courses, but there are a handful of clubs where you could never convince the women's committee that I am anything but a tree-killer.
-
Mike,
I think you have to look at change/alterations in a qualitative context.
The critical question is, not is it different, which we know it is, but, is it better ?
To make changes that don't improve the course/play would seem to be an indication of a lack of understanding or a lack of talent, or both.
Donald Ross tinkered with # 2 for about 26 years.
CBM tinkered with NGLA up until a year or two before his death.
Ken Bakst has tinkered with Friars Head for about a decade.
Roger Hansen has tinkered with Hidden Creek for ten years.
I think it's safe to say that the tinkering resulted in improvements to those courses/play.
I'm not sure you can say that about the Medalist, save for the recent widening of the playing corridors.
Therefore , one has to ask: Is 17 years a sufficient amount of time to get it right ?
And, if it hasn't been "gotten right", after 17 years, is it time to bring someone else in who can "get it right" ?
To a degree I think the Medalist suffered from a common American Syndrome......... Difficulty = a great or quality course.
I think they forgot a critical requirement, namely, that the challenge has to remain .....FUN.
Perhaps, because of the quality of Greg's play, that requirement went unheeded.
I always thought that the Medalist could become more user friendly with the simple addition of width on many of the holes.
It's got a nice mix of unique holes.
Repeat play certainly helps.
they maintain the course extremely well, F & F.
So condition isn't the issue
-
Wow, this thread sure went round the bend, (worth it to get to read more Gib prose) but now has some REALLY good gca responses.
-
??? ;D ???
Pat , we both saw the start of Medalist the same way. It was so hard that few enjoyed it as a regular diet save perhaps Norman and Jim Kaat , who certainly was quite an athlete.
What is still a little tricky to fathom is who exactly Norman was listening to when he tinkered , if anyone? Dye's reticence to comment may indicate displeasure with his work being sullied but he also shows great restraint. Respect for Greg, or just not interested in petty squabbles??? We may never know. .
-
archie, I don't think Greg was listening to anyone, I think he was conducting on the job training using the Medalist as his proving ground. He was a novice looking to make a foray into designing golf courses and what better course to train on than the one he controlled. that's my story and I'm sticking to it
-
Thankfully this thread has turned back to it's original intent.
During my one visit to the course in '07 both the GM who arranged the game and Norman who made a stop and go visit to the practice tee (where I attempted to hold a conversation with him while simultaneously not shanking a 7 iron in his presence) mentioned the complaints of the members on the difficulty of the course, especially from the tees.
Part of the issue was that the course mostly forced you to hit one shot from the tee, especially if you were not blessed with the ability to accurately fade or draw the ball on command. It was calm the day I was there (early December, generally a good weather stretch for that area of Florida) but even the members tees would be a challenge when the winds got up in Feb/March. A few of the holes could have used some forward tees so the course could be played at 6,300-6,400 yds.*
The guy I played with was around 65 years old and played to a 7 handicap. He could drive it up a gnats bum from 240 yds and seemed pretty comfortable from the members tees that were playing around 6650. He did mention that some of his fellow members had retreated to their other clubs and were only seen at the Medalist dragging their visiting friend/relatives in for some 'shock therapy'.
After I left the course, I heard talk of ongoing discussions about adding width to the fairways, and changing surroundings to the greens to allow for more recovery shots. The words "Royal Melbourne" were mentioned during these discussions.. that's when I knew something had jumped the Shark... Let's face it, the Medalist was dredged out of 400 acres of swamp, not laid out on 300 acres of Sandbelt. It took Pete Dye about 10 years and $15 million dollars to make TPC Sawgrass playable for the world's best golfers, so it was hard to see what could be done to make everyone at the Medalist a happy camper. To quote another famous sporting figure, sometimes "It is what it is."
* Part of this problem also has to be assigned to members who think just because a Pro V1 and a 460cc driver allows them to hit their Sunday best 275 yards they should always play from the 7000+ yds tees. Given the amount of emphasis placed on distance through televised golf (in both the telecasts and the ads running in the breaks) distance anxiety has become the second greatest worry amongst male golfers, right behind whatever those Cialis ads are meant to cure.
-
My understanding of the Cialis commercials is if you find yourself and your significant other in side-by-side bath tubs above an ocean front bluff it'll put a smile on your face...
-
My understanding of the Cialis commercials is if you find yourself and your significant other in side-by-side bath tubs above an ocean front bluff it'll put a smile on your face...
And if you take too many Viagra, apparently your vision leads you to believe you're swimming in that ocean... but I defer to Pat and Gibby on that one.
-
I've only played one so-called "Norman Signature Design" and am surprised that the Medalist Club is considered too difficult for the membership. Across the Bay from me - in the shadow of the execrable Poppy Ridge - The Course at Wente Vineyards is the absolute opposite of how The Medalist is described.
Aside from #2, which is a shortish par-4 that corkscrews through trees and bunkers, the rest of the golf course seems quite roomy off the tee. The routing - by necessity - is the tale of two courses, but nowhere have I ever felt intimidated looking at the landing area. The greenside bunkering (aside from #2) on the front nine presents yawning hazards, but in reality, there is a tremendous amount of breathing room to operate.
Even the back nine, which begins with a cartpath switchback to the top of an enormous hill, Norman took pains to provide enough width off the tee for middle handicappers to enjoy themselves. Perhaps it is because Wente is routed in and around a windy corridor, but even with a stiff breeze, you've got to hit the off-the-world shot to lose a ball.
It could be that his marching orders at The Medalist (with Pete) was to give the members a brutal test. The developer of the infamous "Dragon" above Lake Tahoe made the same demand of the late Robin Nelson - who recounted the tale to me one afternoon. After completing the front nine, the NorCal course raters returned a ridiculously high slope rating; the developer was apoplectic because it was not the "hardest in America" and demanded Robin make the back side that much more impossible.
We all know the story of The Dragon's demise; it may be that Norman and Pete were instructed to build a monster like Kiawah and simply built what the client wanted. Again, I've only played one Norman design, but it was good enough to drive Ran's brother (John) over there for a special look. Maybe Wente is an anomaly, but John - who is every bit as sharp as Ran - said the bunkering and strategies on the front side looked airlifted from the Aussie Sandbelt.
By contrast, every Nicklaus Course - public and private, aside from one - has been too damned hard for anybody but low handicappers. I've yet to hear of any membership rebelling against his tape-loop of indulgent, one-dimensional dog crap. I was assigned Old Greenwood, a private club near Truckee, CA. We ended up playing behind a mixed foursome of 60-something members. By the time we reached the 18th, an uphill par-4 steep enough to require pitons to reach the summit, the group in front of us had left a trail of blood running out their knickers.
If that is the relaxing retirement waiting for me, I'd just as soon put a gun in my mouth. Maybe as the membership at The Medalist got a bit older, the overlords had the good sense to stop the self-flagellation and surrender to good sense. We all eventually reach that epochal moment, some sooner than others.
Could be that Norman's antics were just an excuse to stop the madness - although Wente demonstrates that the Shark is perfectly capable of designing something fun and enjoyable to play. We may never know the truth, but hiring Bobby Weed to blunt the teeth of his mentor's chainsaw makes good sense to me. Pete may not have wanted to get into a row with the club or split the sheets with Norman, so why not hand the keys over to his protege? Doak and my departed friend John Harbottle started in the same stable and damn if they didn't make the most of it.
As for Anthony Butler: If those two sophomoronic loogies are the best you can cough up, just get back in the kiddie pool where you belong. You couldn't clean Mucci's toilet.
-
Being the world famous winemaker he is, you'd think the Shark would understand better the influence of terroir and climate on any outdoor enterprise.
Never drink Pinot Noir from the Napa and stay away from Washington Cabernets... It's also why a swamp in Florida will never be a Sandbelt.
Curiously, GCA often stands that notion on its head with the number of elderly men who often act like children.... ;)
-
As for Anthony Butler: If those two sophomoronic loogies are the best you can cough up, just get back in the kiddie pool where you belong. You couldn't clean Mucci's toilet.
Gib,
Reading that last sentence reminded me of a make believe insult I received from the best guy in the business. I was introduced to Don Rickels on the first tee at Riviera over thirty years ago. He said 'hi" and I responded with "I am pleased to meet you" in a plummy accent. Then, as only Rickels could, asked if I was some sort of English faggot. My response was no but I'll give you a kiss if you want. After that I spent the funniest round of golf ever; like you he was a softy at heart.
Bob
-
The Course at Wente Vineyards is the absolute opposite of how The Medalist is described.
Could be that Norman's antics were just an excuse to stop the madness - although Wente demonstrates that the Shark is perfectly capable of designing something fun and enjoyable to play. We may never know the truth, but hiring Bobby Weed to blunt the teeth of his mentor's chainsaw makes good sense to me. Pete may not have wanted to get into a row with the club or split the sheets with Norman, so why not hand the keys over to his protege? Doak and my departed friend John Harbottle started in the same stable and damn if they didn't make the most of it.
Gib,
To take this thread off topic again, I believe that Wente Vineyards is quite different than Norman's other American courses because it was designed by Bob Harrison out of Norman's Australian office. Norman's Australian courses are all very good, and contain the space to play that you talk about.
Whilst Wente Vineyards is the only Norman course in America that I have played, from looking at photo tours and talking to people it appears there is quite a chasm between what came out of his American office and Australian office from 1995-2009. The Australian courses are wide, very playable and sparingly bunkered, whilst the American office produced courses that were narrower, harder and more heavily bunkered.
PS Thanks for the entertaining turn of phrases throughout the thread.
-
In my visits to The Medalist over the years I haven't noticed many/any members playing the back tees.
To a degree, I think you have to view the creation of the Medalist as a by-product of Old Marsh, or perhaps Old Marsh on Steroids.
The two courses are clearly related and I think Greg, who was a member of Old Marsh, wanted to make the Medalist more difficult than Old Marsh, and.........Old Marsh was difficult. But, Old Marsh had width. Old Marsh also had water fronting or flanking every hole, but the width made it manageable if you played smart. The Medalist had an advantage in the soil, in that it was further East than Old Marsh, which is West of the Turnpike. That's a significant difference as much of the off areas at the Medalist enjoyed a Sugar Sand base. Old Marsh was mostly marsh/swamp. Hence, I think narrowing the playing corridors and the retention of off area scrub and swamp was the path to creating a difficult golf course at The Medalist.
Initially, it worked.
Golfers were attracted to the "legend" and "the new, difficult, game in town"
But, "difficulty" wears thin quickly.
Had the owner/ developer been anyone else, I think the course would have been softened considerably, quickly.
It will be interesting to see what changes are proposed.
I would guess that # 17 and 18 would be a priority, but as I think about every hole, I can't envision major changes.
Maybe some fine tuning, and if that's the case, then the original design integrity would remain mostly intact, which would cause me to think that recent events at The Medalist have little to do with architecture.
-
David,
If true, that is counter-intuitive to me. I rarely see such wild differences in style in an architectural firm, even one with such far flung projects. Most Fazio and Nicklaus courses - regardless of which associate ran the show - have a visceral similarity in design philosophy. I suppose the same can be said for Tom's group.
Apache Stronghold and Pac Dunes are sewn together with similar tapestries despite the different terrain. Maybe Old Mac is a bit of a departure, but not as much as it looks at first glance. Even their faux-Macdonald reprise has a similar aroma, demonstrating that Tom and Urbina have rubbed off on each other.
And despite the intramural squabbles with the boss over the years, R.T. Jones Jr.'s work has a consistency in terms of arrangements, look and content. He's spawned a lot of spin-off organizations, but whether the pencil belonged to Don Knott, Gary Linn or Kyle Phillips, a sharp eye can see the hand of Bobby's influence.
Neal might sniff that I'm full of shit, but most every Bob Graves course aside from La Purisima (which is a supercharged, ramped up version of his design philosophy) feels quite similar. Perhaps Damian had an epiphany (which could explain Monarch Dunes), but if we are era specific - when Bob Graves was driving the bus - a client who hired Robert Muir Graves got a Robert Muir Graves style golf course. That is not a bad thing as I love his old courses. They are what they are - relaxed, dependable and maybe a bit formulaic in a comfortable way.
So how is it that a monstrous ego like Greg Norman allows (or encourages?) two completely different design philosophies between offices? It seems impossible - particularly because he lives there - that the Florida office churns out a completely different product than the Aussie associates. I wonder why Bob Harrison handled Wente. Interesting question . . . . .
Uncle Bob,
With the exception of Wayne Morrison (has he been banished?) and an occasional tiff with Barny, I rarely get into a cosmic snit at anybody in the Treehouse. There is something about his smug nyah nyah nyah attitude that puts this Anthony Butler twit off my tea. He's like one of those toy punching clowns with a red nose that squeaks. I keep expecting him to pop back up with something beyond an inane taunt; I don't know what is more ridiculous, wasting my time on the Treehouse loser or expecting a plastic toy full of hot air to give me a match.
-
Mr. Huntley, I have this vain yet funny image of you telling Don Rickles funny stories about ME.
Happy New Year, Bob.
Mike
-
David,
If true, that is counter-intuitive to me. I rarely see such wild differences in style in an architectural firm, even one with such far flung projects. Most Fazio and Nicklaus courses - regardless of which associate ran the show - have a visceral similarity in design philosophy. I suppose the same can be said for Tom's group.
Gib,
Good points, I suspect the difference for Norman was that, 1. although he was head of the business, he wasn't actually a designer so he had different people drawing up the plans, and 2. He ran them as separate offices, rather than separate projects so there was probably a greater deal of autonomy within the offices. he may of considered the need for different courses in different markets too?
I am going to go out on a limb here and post a picture of a course that I have never played, but here is a photo of a randomly selected Greg Norman designed Florida resort course (Doral Great White) compared to Pelican Waters, a Greg Norman designed resort course in Queensland, Australia (similar climate and demographics to Florida.)
As you can see, the differences are enormous. The second aerial (Pelican Waters) features lots of diagonal angles, width, preferred sides of fairways, and more naturally shaped water hazards. The first aerial (Doral) features almost no holes that make strategic sense (from the aerial) very few diagonal carries, more randonly positioned bunkers and strange shaped greens left right and centre.
On the ground it might make sense (but probably not), but based on the aerial at the very least we can conclude that the difference in styles is stark!
(http://i194.photobucket.com/albums/z17/Digby_Jeffrey/Norman_zps82bf07d2.jpg)
-
Amazed nobody has posted these yet. 1999 vs 2012. Maybe GolfCourseHistories can get a comparo going??
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc430/SaltyLaw/ScreenShot2012-12-31atMondayDecember31201262555PM_zpse9e48f49.png)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc430/SaltyLaw/ScreenShot2012-12-31atMondayDecember31201262612PM_zpsef0b8d4f.png)
-
Mark:
Thanks for posting those. I'm really surprised how much the bunkering is changed, just from a quick glance at holes 4-5-6-7 in the upper left corner, which I remember pretty well from their original version.
-
Apache Stronghold and Pac Dunes are sewn together with similar tapestries despite the different terrain. Maybe Old Mac is a bit of a departure, but not as much as it looks at first glance. Even their faux-Macdonald reprise has a similar aroma, demonstrating that Tom and Urbina have rubbed off on each other.
Gib:
Apache Stronghold, Pacific Dunes and Old Macdonald were all built with Jim as the lead associate. Perhaps if you are looking to make your point, you should go and play one of the courses where he wasn't involved -- High Pointe or Lost Dunes or Cape Kidnappers or Barnbougle or Rock Creek, for example. I think you would find them a bit different, though not as different as Greg Norman's work in Australia is from his work in America. I agree with David about that.
I could explain why I think Norman's work in the U.S. is so different to what he built in Australia, but there has already been more than enough hypothesizing about the man on this thread, so I won't go there now.
-
Apache Stronghold and Pac Dunes are sewn together with similar tapestries despite the different terrain. Maybe Old Mac is a bit of a departure, but not as much as it looks at first glance. Even their faux-Macdonald reprise has a similar aroma, demonstrating that Tom and Urbina have rubbed off on each other.
Gib:
Apache Stronghold, Pacific Dunes and Old Macdonald were all built with Jim as the lead associate. Perhaps if you are looking to make your point, you should go and play one of the courses where he wasn't involved -- High Pointe or Lost Dunes or Cape Kidnappers or Barnbougle or Rock Creek, for example. I think you would find them a bit different, though not as different as Greg Norman's work in Australia is from his work in America. I agree with David about that.
I could explain why I think Norman's work in the U.S. is so different to what he built in Australia, but there has already been more than enough hypothesizing about the man on this thread, so I won't go there now.
Had the pleasure of meeting Bob Harrison while he was supervising the installation of the last of the stacked sod bunkers on #12 at NSWGC in 1998.
-
I think there are several issues that generate various styles within one firm. In the case of GN and the difference between his American style and his Australian style it would be the case of two different associates who were trained by architects other than GN. Now if the firm was old enough to have had associates on both continents trained by the same guy then the styles would not vary as much.
To me the most notable variation in design over the life of a firm has been with the JN firm. I think it went from Moorish to Cupp to Lipe and and I would assume Chris Cochran now. For that reason I classify JN courses by their designer and prefer to play the courses that Jim Lipe designed.
The other aspect of a design firm's design variation that is being missed is the contractor and to be more specific the individual shaper. I think the shaper can have as much to do with determining a design as any other element. I know that for at least one signature firm the process was as simple as requiring one specific shaper on a particular job and the associate would approve the routing and the tell the shaper to place "the green from hole #3 at course A on the green site for hole #7 at course B". I can even show you one signature course at a resort near where i live in which the front nine was built at the same time as the back nine by two different shapers and it is very obvious. Yet when I was telling the supt that there were two different shapers on the two nines he was dumbfounded that it was obvious. He had been there and knew it but never thought about it. Once I showed him the bunker shaping and greens tie ins he could not believe he had not noticed it before.
-
Mark Saltzman, thanks for posting the side by side aerials.
There are two great sources of strategic reduction in the changes made between the mid 90s and now. The raising up and re-bunkering of the green complexes, and the removal of the inside of the elbow hazards on many of the tee shots. I am sure that most people can't see too much from those aerials because they don't see which holes are which, or what direction they run in, but, on 2, 3, 7, 9, 13, 15 and 18 we see bunkers moved from the inside to the outside of the driving areas. Drives lacking in nerve used to run into pine straw, or worse. Now they are collected by fairway bunkers and the shorter lines are no longer adventurous.
-
As for Anthony Butler: If those two sophomoronic loogies are the best you can cough up, just get back in the kiddie pool where you belong. You couldn't clean Mucci's toilet.
Gib,
Reading that last sentence reminded me of a make believe insult I received from the best guy in the business. I was introduced to Don Rickels on the first tee at Riviera over thirty years ago. He said 'hi" and I responded with "I am pleased to meet you" in a plummy accent. Then, as only Rickels could, asked if I was some sort of English faggot. My response was no but I'll give you a kiss if you want. After that I spent the funniest round of golf ever; like you he was a softy at heart.
Bob
Comparing anyone on GCAs ability to insult people (other than by accident) to Don Rickles is like saying someone on GCA has the ability to drive the golf ball like Greg Norman.
Which, come to think of it, might explain some of Shark's problems as an architect.... he can't imagine that people don't enjoy having to drive it up a mosquito's ass from 275yds on every hole.
-
Anthony Butler,
I think that's true, and not just for Norman.
Didn't Nicklaus's designs reflect his preference for high fades ?
At he time, Norman was the best driver of the ball that I had seen, hence I think that element probably crept into his designs.
Unfortunately, at the Medalist, going off the narrow fairway invariably proved disastrous.
I think an architect has to forge a balanced challenge which DOESN'T favor any particular golfer or any aspect of one's game.
In that context I think both Norman and Nicklaus came up short.
-
Anthony Butler,
I think that's true, and not just for Norman.
Didn't Nicklaus's designs reflect his preference for high fades ?
At he time, Norman was the best driver of the ball that I had seen, hence I think that element probably crept into his designs.
Unfortunately, at the Medalist, going off the narrow fairway invariably proved disastrous.
I think an architect has to forge a balanced challenge which DOESN'T favor any particular golfer or any aspect of one's game.
In that context I think both Norman and Nicklaus came up short.
Perhaps there's a bumper sticker in that: "Crooked Drivers make Better Architects..."
That would be a head-scratcher for about 99.9% of the population, of course.
-
Anthony,
I think the egos of great players interfere with their ability to view architecture through the eyes/play of the broader spectrum of golfers.
-
Tiger tees?
http://www.golfdigest.com/story/redesigned-medalist-golf-club-to-feature-new-tiger-tees (http://www.golfdigest.com/story/redesigned-medalist-golf-club-to-feature-new-tiger-tees)
-
Tiger tees?
http://www.golfdigest.com/story/redesigned-medalist-golf-club-to-feature-new-tiger-tees (http://www.golfdigest.com/story/redesigned-medalist-golf-club-to-feature-new-tiger-tees)
Pretty much impossible to find a fairway from those tees!
Thanks, I'm here all week.
-
I played the Medalist once, it was soon frigging difficult, I declined future invites...bruised my ego too much ;D