Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Eric LeFante on September 22, 2020, 02:19:10 PM
-
https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/articles/2020/09/ceo-mike-davis-announces-departure-2021.html#returnable (https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/articles/2020/09/ceo-mike-davis-announces-departure-2021.html#returnable)
-
Kicking the Distance Project down the road to his successor(ess). I was, again, inelegant. The results of the project were already announced. In March 2021 they are releasing equipment research topics.
-
The USGA has seemingly been run more like a business than a governing body.
Is his partnership selection proof that he knows more about business than golf architecture?
-
He did mention in his US Open Interview that the Distance Project results were meant to be released in March but was delayed by COVID. They are planning on releasing them in March of 2021.
-
Everyone should pursue their dreams.
Remember when we used to debate whether setup yielded to design or trumped design? I always suspected Mike wanted to be an architect. But, then again, who amongst my friends doesn't? :D
-
The USGA has seemingly been run more like a business than a governing body.
Is his partnership selection proof that he knows more about business than golf architecture?
It does feel like Ben Bernanke going to work for a Hedge Fund after leaving the Fed.
-
Partnering up with Fazio doesn't strike me as getting into the restoration aspect of classic courses as perhaps he would have had some angle as the USGA has held championships on many classic course. So what will be Mike Davis designed golf course hallmarks? Championship courses that are 8,000 yards maybe? Teaming with Fazio gives him a head start that he wouldn't ordinarily have and be able to learn the technical aspects of GCA from building processes, as opposed to manipulating the finished products.
Never cared for his setup philosophy and hope the USGA can abandon that in the years to come.
-
sure seems like he is over the hill for his relatively young age (55)
-
sure seems like he is over the hill for his relatively young age (55)
The issue that no-one is mentioning here is that Fazio is 75...
-
Should be interesting to see how the Fazio - Davis company operates?
How many owners or clubs will be tempted to hire them with a non guaranteed, wink/wink, promise of a USGA tournament?
-
The USGA has seemingly been run more like a business than a governing body.
Is his partnership selection proof that he knows more about business than golf architecture?
It does feel like Ben Bernanke going to work for a Hedge Fund after leaving the Fed.
Davis made a $1.5MM at USGA so he may be taking a pay cut to pursue his dream.
Ira
-
sure seems like he is over the hill for his relatively young age (55)
The issue that no-one is mentioning here is that Fazio is 75...
Isn't he partnering with Tom Fazio II -- who I'd imagine is in his 40s?
-
sure seems like he is over the hill for his relatively young age (55)
The issue that no-one is mentioning here is that Fazio is 75...
He’s going with Tom Fabio II who is Tom Fazio’s nephew (Jim’s son)
-
I clicked the link just to be sure.
I guess now we now why he was always front and center and never afraid to share his often destructive thoughts on course setup.
I guess I just never forgave him for the Shinny debacles...and the yearly game of plinko on the greens...
(speaking of green speeds of 14-15 leading up to the Open at Congressional come to mind-rain never let that happen)
Postponing the distance issue for 20 years has been good for redesign and by extension, architecture-guess he wants to capitailze on his inaction.
Snarkiness aside, Interesting decision and good for him.Not many have the courage or the means to an embark on an exciting second career.
-
I have an image of 9 of the 18 holes all being exactly the same length, i.e. 340 yards -- but each having 14 sets of tees so that the course can be 'set up' in hundreds of different ways, with Par 3s from 70 yards to 300 yards and with more driveable 4s than you can shake a stick at. And for the other 9 holes -- 4 of them will be 675+ yard Par 5s, and the rest 510+ yard Par 4s.
-
sure seems like he is over the hill for his relatively young age (55)
The issue that no-one is mentioning here is that Fazio is 75...
Isn't he partnering with Tom Fazio II -- who I'd imagine is in his 40s?
Yes. Just figured that out. Tommy is 52 fwiw.
-
Tom/Mike and the rest of the lads who do this for a living know there's much more to designing a golf course than doing a stick routing. Even a course the GCA professionals may think isn't routed in a particularly exciting way or perhaps missed capitalizing on a unique site condition can appreciate a course, bunkers and greens that drain well, keep the grass alive (minimal shade on tees in the AM to dry out the dew), are routed in a and concise manner and are fun to play.
I wish Mr. Davis well. I'd have a great 2nd career if I have $1.0MM or more the past few years.
Slapper: Can you afford me?
BK
-
FWIW Mike Davis has been part owner of a golf course for a few years now and tinkers there from time to time.
Of course, I've not read much positive about Joe Dey's decision making when it came to his home golf course at The Creek.
Michael
-
Man talk about conflicting interests!!! Correct me if I am wrong.....USGA and Davis delay reports for whatever reason. They’ve dodged and passed the buck and Davis knows the trend will continue. The answer.....build bigger and longer course for the .001% pros knowing that the market is small and in demand? This sounds like insider trading to me.
-
Tom D. is spot on — everyone should be allowed to follow their dreams. Mike has always admitted he loved golf design as a kid. His eyes light up when he is around GCAs, and he goes out of his way to get involved with projects and topics involving GCA. On several occasions he has joined ASGCA at meetings — when he could well have sent someone else.
Bottom line: He loves golf design and he has figured out a way to get involved. Not many people have that option at their fingertips, but his hard work and hours for the USGA have led to something good for him. I am happy for him.
The snarky posts who are attacking Mr. Fazio are uncalled for. When I make references here on the Atlas to the "closed minds" and "only if _______ was involved" crowd, remember this thread because very often I get the reply, "What...who does that?" as a response.
-
Would you hire him to design a course for you? Just asking.
atb
-
Mike is a good guy who has long been keenly interested in golf architecture. This career move is of no surprise to those who know him, and had been practically telegraphed for sometime.
Tommy Fazio Jr. is a nice guy who will stand to gain a good deal from a professional association with Mike Davis. He's currently focused on re-working his own design on the New Course at Trump Bedminster, now that the New is being combined with the Old Course for a composite routing for the 2022 PGA Championship.
Yes, I think Joel Stewart is partly right when insinuating that this new combination will reflect a targeted marketing approach for future USGA tournaments.That said, I doubt this team will oust the Hanse/Wagner or Coore/Crenshaw from their current leadership slots. When a premier private club desires to restore their course in order to attract a USGA event, those teams are a proven, safe entity with a near perfect track record of delivering excellence to the audience in Far Hills. Only the limits of availability or price will deter those decision-makers. Lastly, while Mike might well retain considerable influence at the Golf House, he also has a good amount of personal integrity and won't likely sully himself trying to oversell a venue that hardly deserves an event.
I imagine the new Fazio-Davis pairing will fare well overseas, as well as smaller, domestic courses of decent quality where owners might pick famous names over the more experienced. It's often human nature to choose celebrity when available.
Bruce Katona,
No, I can't afford you! ;D
Jeff Warne,
Mike was not really responsible for the Shinny debacles. Yes, he was the USGA official who wore that blame and stood in front of the public bus, yet the truth lies elsewhere. Look closer (or PM me) for those truly responsible.
-
I’m interested to see what happens when Tom Fazio retires. Do Tommy and Mike Davis continue on as a separate entity or move over to Fazio Golf Design and run the show?
-
I’m interested to see what happens when Tom Fazio retires. Do Tommy and Mike Davis continue on as a separate entity or move over to Fazio Golf Design and run the show?
Faz Senior has already all but retired. His son, Logan runs the show there now.
I believe there isn't enough affinity between the Sr. and Jr. that would even remotely suggest he and Mike D. coming over the transom. Two separate entities, with shared surname, for a long time IMO.
-
Yes, I think Joel Stewart is partly right when insinuating that this new combination will reflect a targeted marketing approach for future USGA tournaments.That said, I doubt this team will oust the Hanse/Wagner or Coore/Crenshaw from their current leadership slots.
No, but when Bill & Ben retire from that work, guys like Nuzzo and Forrest R are now less likely to have a shot at it because of the new guy with the inside track. And the same goes for new projects.
I do believe that everyone should pursue their dreams, but at the same time, it's sad that the market only has room for a few winners, and it is so skewed in favor of name recognition. It took me twenty years of work to become an overnight success!
The real hypocrisy is that most of the guys who look sideways at golf pros-turned-architects all have their own route plotted out, and none of their plans involve actually working for someone else to learn the ropes. It's more like "I will get us work, and you will give me partial credit and have to listen to some of my ideas while I learn." Which is exactly the same path as the pros who are criticized for doing it.
-
Those who were on thi site back in the beginning will remember that Mike was contributor here and truly doe enjoy looking at architectural issues.
-
Yes, I think Joel Stewart is partly right when insinuating that this new combination will reflect a targeted marketing approach for future USGA tournaments.That said, I doubt this team will oust the Hanse/Wagner or Coore/Crenshaw from their current leadership slots.
No, but when Bill & Ben retire from that work, guys like Nuzzo and Forrest R are now less likely to have a shot at it because of the new guy with the inside track. And the same goes for new projects.
I do believe that everyone should pursue their dreams, but at the same time, it's sad that the market only has room for a few winners, and it is so skewed in favor of name recognition. It took me twenty years of work to become an overnight success!
The real hypocrisy is that most of the guys who look sideways at golf pros-turned-architects all have their own route plotted out, and none of their plans involve actually working for someone else to learn the ropes. It's more like "I will get us work, and you will give me partial credit and have to listen to some of my ideas while I learn." Which is exactly the same path as the pros who are criticized for doing it.
+1
-
Considering some of the absolute hacks that are getting renovation/restoration work these days at some pretty decent clubs, there seems to be enough work to go around.
The number of clubs that can afford a C&C or Hanse renovation are probably 0.001% of US clubs already, let alone ones that actually have a chance of securing a US Open. That leaves a lot of work below that. If Mike and Tommy are mostly positioning themselves as renovation/restoration folks, I'm sure they'll find some old fart boards to will buy the BS of Mike Davis being on TV sulking around greens at Twilight.
Maybe that takes away work from really good younger architects, but did those young good architects really want to work for the type of board that would hire Fazio II/Davis??
-
Thomas Dai — I am not sure who you were asking, but as to how anyone goes about hiring a "golf course architect", I think the questions are (1) Are they a golf course architect? and (2) Haven't we seen it all...novices, seasoned 100+ portfolio individuals, and one-hit wonders? Clients and clubs hire who they will. I don't see that changing. The scale is wide. From "being the the right place at the right time" to "who you know" to "a great run of great work" to "God knows why".
In Mike's case I read that he will spend time over the next year with Hanse and Coore on projects. Then, join Mr. Fazio II. I am not even certain Mike will "do" the designing. Maybe he'll start out consulting, weighing in and ... then ... transition. I cannot say, and I'm not sure that has been covered, nor could it perhaps at this early date. I just wish him well. Not many people get to have two careers. In Mike's case, it may be closer to three as he had a life before the USGA we rarely hear about. Hats off.
-
Would you hire him to design a course for you? Just asking.
atb
Not after seeing what he did to Chambers Bay.
-
I do believe that everyone should pursue their dreams, but at the same time, it's sad that the market only has room for a few winners, and it is so skewed in favor of name recognition. It took me twenty years of work to become an overnight success
Tom - I couldn't agree more. There are incredibly talented young architects trying to forge a name for themselves who have paid their dues and learned their craft. Meanwhile, you have guys with a last name like Jones, Nicklaus or Fazio and guys like Mike Davis taking opportunities that would have otherwise allowed these young talented guys to really show their abilities. Also, to think that he will not use his influence with the USGA is foolish. It is pretty much all that he has to sell, given that he hasn't paid his dues to actually learn the craft.
If Hanse and Coore Crenshaw are going to allow him to spend time on projects, I hope that they require him to get his hands dirty and do some work. Otherwise, they are doing a disservice to every "guy in the field" that worked hard under them to learn their craft
-
I'm not seeing much difference between Mike and a pro with a name teaming up with an architect to become a co-architect themselves. Like it or not, celebrity in its various forms often wins the day and this isn't the only niche where its so...
-
It’s hard for me to fathom that there are those that begrudge Mike Davis a career in golf course architecture. His tenure with the USGA exceeds thirty years and I’ll go out on a limb and say he’s made a fair amount of connections in the world of golf. ;) He has always seemed like a genuinely nice man who has handled himself with grace under some tough questioning as it pertains to the USGA. I agree that there are a lot of deserving young guys out there but I’m at least willing to give Mike a shot going forward.
-
I got to know Mike Davis while volunteering on a couple USGA championships. He is both smart and educable. He is very well versed in golf course architecture, even if some would scoff at USGA dictated changes on courses hosting USGA events.
This decision strikes me as a move by a man who wants his final professional occupation to help him hone in on his real passion. Pretty solid decision making.
-
I am happy for Mike and glad he is following his passion. I am surprised that more people (especially on this board) are not more supportive. I am guessing quite a few people would love to retire after 30+ years and start a new life tagging along with Hanse and/or CC to learn more about golf course architecture.
-
Would you hire him to design a course for you? Just asking.
atb
Not after seeing what he did to Chambers Bay.
Or Erin Hills :P
-
Would you hire him to design a course for you? Just asking.
atb
Not after seeing what he did to Chambers Bay.
Or Erin Hills :P
You can blame him for the setup but he wasn’t the architect. Being tasked with setting up these courses one specific week a year for the greatest players on earth is no easy feat. Especially when the USGA ethos has been to try to keep the winning score around par.
-
Would you hire him to design a course for you? Just asking.
atb
Not after seeing what he did to Chambers Bay.
Or Erin Hills :P
You can blame him for the setup but he wasn’t the architect. Being tasked with setting up these courses one specific week a year for the greatest players on earth is no easy feat. Especially when the USGA ethos has been to try to keep the winning score around par.
I am not sure what he did at Erin Hills, but he rearchitected holes at Chambers Bay.
-
so what I am reading here is being the President/CEO of the USGA was not his passion? really?? sounds like it was a great gig to me :o :o :o
-
Those making a living as golf course architects obviously know what it takes to succeed.
As someone who only took part in numerous meetings (I was not a decision maker of any sort) with an architect as he and his team restored our course, I observed a lot of tedious discussions, hard work, less than glamorous tasks, weather challenges, etc. that go into that profession.
My guess is that Mike Davis may snag some low hanging fruit (I'm guessing his relationships run far, wide and deep), but I will, of course, wait to see how his long ball game is in the years to come. Always room for good people in any profession, however.
-
Being critical of Davis's choice of partner is different from being critical of him for following a passion.Golf Club Atlas has been debating architecture for over 20 years.
There have been many discussions about architects and the great work they are creating, many unheard of previously.
Based on the number of discussions of Davis's chosen partner, I would say this crowd sourced forum would have chosen someone else for a partner.
Unless art wasn't the first priority, then the business impacts would need to be further understood.
Which is similar to the USGA caring more about the business of golf than the game.
-
I am happy for Mike and glad he is following his passion. I am surprised that more people (especially on this board) are not more supportive. I am guessing quite a few people would love to retire after 30+ years and start a new life tagging along with Hanse and/or CC to learn more about golf course architecture.
+1. If any architects reading this are interested in me, please PM. Of course you would have to teach me how to read a topo map.
-
Would you hire him to design a course for you? Just asking.
atb
Not after seeing what he did to Chambers Bay.
Or Erin Hills :P
You can blame him for the setup but he wasn’t the architect. Being tasked with setting up these courses one specific week a year for the greatest players on earth is no easy feat. Especially when the USGA ethos has been to try to keep the winning score around par.
Tim:
Erin Hills was Davis' personal playpen. All the changes made to its original design and layout -- the lost Dell (which, I didn't think a great version of the type, but nonetheless original to the first design), the neutered blind 17th approach, the advent of all those bunkers -- were done with the intent of hosting a US Open, and Davis ran the USGA (and directed many of the changes) while all that was going on.
-
Only a Scrooge wouldn't be glad to see someone pursuing what he/she loves. I don't know Mike D at all, but I'm happy for him taking this next step in his working life. But this is a discussion board, and there is Mike D the person and then there's "Mike Davis-USGA" -- championship set-up man, promotor of public venues, and organizational guiding light on all things rules & equipment related. And it's *that* Mike Davis it seems appropriate to discuss here, ie what type are architect might he be? given his past professional decisions, what's his vision for the game and its fields of play, and his ethos and ideals re: design in the current environment?
-
Would you hire him to design a course for you? Just asking.
atb
Not after seeing what he did to Chambers Bay.
Or Erin Hills :P
You can blame him for the setup but he wasn’t the architect. Being tasked with setting up these courses one specific week a year for the greatest players on earth is no easy feat. Especially when the USGA ethos has been to try to keep the winning score around par.
Tim:
Erin Hills was Davis' personal playpen. All the changes made to its original design and layout -- the lost Dell (which, I didn't think a great version of the type, but nonetheless original to the first design), the neutered blind 17th approach, the advent of all those bunkers -- were done with the intent of hosting a US Open, and Davis ran the USGA (and directed many of the changes) while all that was going on.
But he didn’t make the course soft. Mother Nature did that. Erin Hills has a lot of defense, but that got neutered a lot by the June weather in Wisconsin, don’t you think? One might quibble with some setup decisions but the soft turf made the course easy prey.
-
Only a Scrooge wouldn't be glad to see someone pursuing what he/she loves. I don't know Mike D at all, but I'm happy for him taking this next step in his working life. But this is a discussion board, and there is Mike D the person and then there's "Mike Davis-USGA" -- championship set-up man, promotor of public venues, and organizational guiding light on all things rules & equipment related. And it's *that* Mike Davis it seems appropriate to discuss here, ie what type are architect might he be? given his past professional decisions, what's his vision for the game and its fields of play, and his ethos and ideals re: design in the current environment?
One observation I've had about the input of Ben Crenshaw in design, and, so far, the impact of Tiger Woods in design, is that neither one cares much about building a "championship" course. They know better than anyone that most courses are not going to host championships, and that most golfers cannot play to that standard. And because of who they are, no one ever second-guesses them about it, and tells Tiger he should make the course longer.
I'd guess that Mike Davis knows all of that, too. But the irony is that telling potential clients to forget about hosting tournaments might be turning away the subset of projects where he'd be most likely to appeal to clients. So the style of golf he builds must depend on what his business model will be.
It was easier for me to find my own niche. Nobody wanted to hire me to build a championship course, and my name didn't sell housing, so the only niche I could find was knowing what to do with beautiful property! Oh, and doing right in the restoration of under-appreciated classic courses.
-
Thanks, Tom.
Yes, not surprising that the amateur observer (ie me) talks of vision and ideals while the busy professional (you) notes too the importance of a business model.
Which makes me wonder if MD will be able (or even want) to choose his business model or if instead that choice will be made for him -- and indeed may already have been made.
-
Thanks, Tom.
Yes, not surprising that the amateur observer (ie me) talks of vision and ideals while the busy professional (you) notes too the importance of a business model.
Which makes me wonder if MD will be able (or even want) to choose his business model or if instead that choice will be made for him -- and indeed may already have been made.
If you really want to, you can choose your own niche, but you can't be sure you'll be successful in it. So 95% of designers are happy to take on any job that comes their way. It's only once you become successful that your true motivations start to become apparent.
I forgot to write about it in my book, but I actually turned down one or two opportunities to build courses just before I started High Pointe. One of them seemed like a vanity project and I didn't believe it would still be around in ten or twenty years. Oddly, I was right about the first part, but it still outlasted High Pointe! :'(
-
I am happy for Mike and glad he is following his passion. I am surprised that more people (especially on this board) are not more supportive. I am guessing quite a few people would love to retire after 30+ years and start a new life tagging along with Hanse and/or CC to learn more about golf course architecture.
I have no issues with anybody getting into the architecture business, but I don't feel any need to be supportive. I don't know the man nor do I know what his design philosophy is. Not bothered seems a reasonable way to feel about this career change.
Ciao
-
If Mike Davis ends up doing what he loves (my guess is he has a nice pension) in the golf architecture world then more power to him. If clubs hire him hoping he can lobby the USGA to earn championships, then I'm not a fan. We will see.
-
Tom,
Have you wondered if the niche you've worked in is more susceptible to course closings? I know you have a few NLE like HighPoint, Beechtree, the course in Mexico, Aetna Springs, and others like Wicked Pony that closed during construction and Apache Stronghold which is only a shadow of its former self.
-
If Mike Davis ends up doing what he loves (my guess is he has a nice pension) in the golf architecture world then more power to him. If clubs hire him hoping he can lobby the USGA to earn championships, then I'm not a fan. We will see.
+1
-
I've thought for some time that not enough attention on this site has been paid to individual niches/business models in judging golf course architecture and golf course architects. It's like we assume that all architects have complete control over what their project is and to whom it is meant to appeal. Personally, I may not be a fan of many of the finished products of Tom Fazio. But when considered in the context of his business model, he is very good and very successful. Building pretty courses, playable by all levels of golfers, with ample sites on the edges to build homes seems to be a recurring theme of his courses. Certainly by the standard of building golf courses to sell housing lots, there has been no one more successful than Tom Fazio. I don't think it is appropriate for me to be critical of this business model to which he seems to have dedicated his career.
-
I've thought for some time that not enough attention on this site has been paid to individual niches/business models in judging golf course architecture and golf course architects. It's like we assume that all architects have complete control over what their project is and to whom it is meant to appeal.
Which is why I always wonder why anyone would try to judge or rank golf course architects! You can rate or rank courses on the assumption they are for the enjoyment of the game - for some (or many) that was not really the first goal, but the golfer does not need to care about the real estate appeal unless he is buying a lot. But I agree with you that you can't really judge the architect based on that.
-
I dipped my pinky toe in the shallow end of this business and knew quickly that a) I’m not smart enough to be in golf construction/architecture and b) you have a tough row to hoe to “make it.” One of my data points was watching an extremely talented associate of Tom’s lose a job to Rees Jones’ firm at a private course in Denver for reasons I still can’t understand.
No one should begrudge Davis for following a dream. And he obviously has a lifelong education in golf. But a man has got to know his limitations. If Davis is doing nothing more than what some pros have some in the past when teaming up with architects, that’s a foul in my opinion.
-
Sean A — Maybe he does not have a "design philosophy" yet — at least one grounded in his new role outside the USGA.
-
All businesses (and golf architecture for both new courses and renovation/restoration projects is a business) require a good sales function to be successful. And for a long long time, the "rainmaker" model has been used in professional fields where transactions are few in number but are associated with large "ticket size". "Rainmakers" are a necessary part of the business in law firms, consulting firms, investment banking firms, etc etc.
We may be seeing the emergence of the "rainmaker" role in the golf architecture business. Just as it would be unusual (not impossible but unusual) for a brilliant architect to have big ticket sales skills (and the time to work that part of the process)...the opposite also is true...it would be unusual for a brilliant rainmaker to have deep architectural skills. Successful businesses hire people with different skill sets to widen the business'
The above is not necessarily bad or "dirty" if handled well and ethically. I would be shocked if Mike Davis ends up handling situations in a manner that is not ethical.
-
Sean A — Maybe he does not have a "design philosophy" yet — at least one grounded in his new role outside the USGA.
Maybe you are right. I guess I don't see this move as a big deal no matter how he plans it. Its just another archie swimming in the sea. I don't get what the fuss is about.
Ciao
-
Paul,
I completely agree that the golf architecture biz seems ripe for rainmaking. However, ethics and sales has always been a questionable marriage in my opinion when techniques like FUD and the upsell are considered Sales 101. My wife has been in software sales for most of her career and she has excelled, and I learned long ago not to delve into that topic, but I give her credit cause I couldn't do it. ;D
-
I've thought for some time that not enough attention on this site has been paid to individual niches/business models in judging golf course architecture and golf course architects. It's like we assume that all architects have complete control over what their project is and to whom it is meant to appeal.
Which is why I always wonder why anyone would try to judge or rank golf course architects! You can rate or rank courses on the assumption they are for the enjoyment of the game - for some (or many) that was not really the first goal, but the golfer does not need to care about the real estate appeal unless he is buying a lot. But I agree with you that you can't really judge the architect based on that.
Tom, I agree with Jim about different business models/niches. But I am not sure that I agree with you that it means it is not possible to judge architects or at least those who have relatively large portfolios across common mandates. Take for one example: Pinehurst. I am not an anti-Fazio guy, but if one or at least I evaluate PH2, 4, and 8 (none of which have selling real estate as part of the mandate), Ross is far superior to Hanse which is far superior to Fazio. And down the road at MP/PN, Ross is superior to Hanse or Fazio work at PH. Take Streamsong as another example: Doak noses out C&C and both are better than Hanse even though I think Black is quite good. Bandon is another example. Kidd and you were given very similar land. I think PD is clearly better, but I think BT is better than both. Others obviously will disagree with my opinions, but that does not mean judging architects who have quality sites and fairly large portfolios an illegitimate exercise. Ian Andrew’s ranking on his blog is quite thoughtful and nuanced although I wish he had included architects who still are alive.
Ira
-
Ira,
Bandon Trails is better than Pacific Dunes? You gotta tell me what brand of medical marijuana you’ve been sampling! Don’t get me wrong. I love all of the courses at Bandon and I’ve played them all a few dozen times.
The routing at BT is creative, to be sure, and the land always reminds you that you’re in the Pacific Northwest, while the others don’t have that arboreal vibe.
But there isn’t a weak or quirky hole on Pacific Dunes. I can’t say the same about BT. And I say this as the guy who moderated a discussion with Bill Coors and Mike Keiser on Opening Day of BT.
-
All businesses (and golf architecture for both new courses and renovation/restoration projects is a business) require a good sales function to be successful. And for a long long time, the "rainmaker" model has been used in professional fields where transactions are few in number but are associated with large "ticket size". "Rainmakers" are a necessary part of the business in law firms, consulting firms, investment banking firms, etc etc.
We may be seeing the emergence of the "rainmaker" role in the golf architecture business. Just as it would be unusual (not impossible but unusual) for a brilliant architect to have big ticket sales skills (and the time to work that part of the process)...the opposite also is true...it would be unusual for a brilliant rainmaker to have deep architectural skills. Successful businesses hire people with different skill sets to widen the business'
The above is not necessarily bad or "dirty" if handled well and ethically. I would be shocked if Mike Davis ends up handling situations in a manner that is not ethical.
Paul,
I found this pretty funny, as if rainmaking had not been the dominant business model in golf architecture since day one!
Previous rainmakers in golf architecture include Tom Fazio, Jack Nicklaus, Arnold Palmer, Robert Trent Jones, CB Macdonald, Donald Ross, and Alister Mackenzie. Every one of them spent no more than a few days designing a new course (with a significant part of that time devoted to client relations), and relied on associates to deliver the golf course. I am not saying they were ONLY a rainmaker but that's certainly how they became the best known designers of their day.
It's honestly hard to do it any other way. Many of my clients would rather I sat around and discussed the design over drinks with them, than actually getting out on site and DOING the design . . . often I have to risk being rude so that I have time to work. Or not communicate clearly about what day I will arrive in town 😉
Plus from a time perspective, you only have time to spend 60-90 days per year on construction sites, 30 more working on routings for next year's courses, and 30 to meet the people you're going to work for three years in the future - if you divide that by more than three new projects, you're not spending a lot of time on each of them.
And of course, I have my own team of talented associates who help me; I've just tried to be more transparent about it than Mr Jones.
-
Ira,
Bandon Trails is better than Pacific Dunes? You gotta tell me what brand of medical marijuana you’ve been sampling! Don’t get me wrong. I love all of the courses at Bandon and I’ve played them all a few dozen times.
The routing at BT is creative, to be sure, and the land always reminds you that you’re in the Pacific Northwest, while the others don’t have that arboreal vibe.
But there isn’t a weak or quirky hole on Pacific Dunes. I can’t say the same about BT. And I say this as the guy who moderated a discussion with Bill Coors and Mike Keiser on Opening Day of BT.
Judge,
I certainly do not have your experience, but as I stated people certainly will disagree with me on how I would rank architects. The point of my post is that ranking them is a legitimate exercise when comparing architects with comparable mandates across comparable sites. You have played way many more courses than I have, and I would wager that you feel it is fair to judge architects.
Indeed, I would view your ranking as particularly worthy of consideration given I have found your views well reasoned.
Ira
-
Ira,
Fair enough, but I was just attempting to internally rank the courses at Bandon. My all-time favorite golf course experience is Sand Hills. I liked it even more than Cypress Point, so I love me some Coore & Crenshaw.
-
Many of my clients would rather I sat around and discussed the design over drinks with them, than actually getting out on site and DOING the design . . . often I have to risk being rude so that I have time to work. Or not communicate clearly about what day I will arrive in town 😉
That's because of your magnetic personality, mastery of conversation, and advanced Carnegiean skills. ;)
This whole line of thinking is puzzling. There are few endeavors which don't require salesmanship. Those who see an inherent conflict between sales and ethics probably aren't very good at the former and have a selective grasp of the latter.
There are probably even fewer pursuits which do not have a large business element at their core. Golf is very much a business. Nicklaus is the epitome of a rainmaker. Mr. Palmer too. How about MacKenzie who went to an area for a relatively short period of time, consulted with several clubs, and left them with rather sketchy instructions and drawings for someone else to perform the work? Fred Couples has made some rain for several architects with a lesser resume and relatively little effort.
What does Mike Davis know about gca? He seems like a pretty smart, common sense guy to me. Working near or at the highest levels of the USGA for 30 years have given him tremendous exposure and access to all the relevant information. Even if he was a slow learner, what he has experienced during this time has to be the equivalent of a few PhDs. Certainly he has advanced skills that meld well with those who have a more technical background. I would think that he could write his own ticket in the industry, especially if projects are few and making rain is key.
And for our resident Lefties who would think badly of Mr. Davis if he uses his wide network of contacts including those in the USGA to advance his new business, can you say Hunter Biden? Where is the conflict, right? ::)
-
...
What does Mike Davis know about gca? He seems like a pretty smart, common sense guy to me. Working near or at the highest levels of the USGA for 30 years have given him tremendous exposure and access to all the relevant information. Even if he was a slow learner, what he has experienced during this time has to be the equivalent of a few PhDs.
...
Perhaps you don't understand the concept of Ph.D. A Ph.D. is required to add knowledge to the world. Absorbing knowledge from "tremendous exposure and access to all the relevant information", is not the same and can not be equated.
-
Ira,
Bandon Trails is better than Pacific Dunes? You gotta tell me what brand of medical marijuana you’ve been sampling! Don’t get me wrong. I love all of the courses at Bandon and I’ve played them all a few dozen times.
The routing at BT is creative, to be sure, and the land always reminds you that you’re in the Pacific Northwest, while the others don’t have that arboreal vibe.
But there isn’t a weak or quirky hole on Pacific Dunes. I can’t say the same about BT. And I say this as the guy who moderated a discussion with Bill Coors and Mike Keiser on Opening Day of BT.
Judge,
I certainly do not have your experience, but as I stated people certainly will disagree with me on how I would rank architects. The point of my post is that ranking them is a legitimate exercise when comparing architects with comparable mandates across comparable sites. You have played way many more courses than I have, and I would wager that you feel it is fair to judge architects.
Indeed, I would view your ranking as particularly worthy of consideration given I have found your views well reasoned.
Ira
How do you know the intracies, limitations and budgets of any given job? You are suggesting there is a completely open book about projects to easily compare. I think this is miles from reality.
Ciao
-
Sean A — Maybe he does not have a "design philosophy" yet — at least one grounded in his new role outside the USGA.
Choosing an architect as a partner by definition does deeply ground ones design philosophy. Whether the choice is for the art form, the game, overall design, business, or rainmaking reasons. Same is true for the client that chooses an architect, it identifies their priorities.
-
I found this pretty funny, as if rainmaking had not been the dominant business model in golf architecture since day one! Previous rainmakers in golf architecture include Tom Fazio, Jack Nicklaus, Arnold Palmer, Robert Trent Jones, CB Macdonald, Donald Ross, and Alister Mackenzie. Every one of them spent no more than a few days designing a new course (with a significant part of that time devoted to client relations), and relied on associates to deliver the golf course. I am not saying they were ONLY a rainmaker but that's certainly how they became the best known designers of their day.[/color]Tom--First...I would suggest that Jack and Arnold had perceived (and real) influence greater than Davis will have...and few hired them as great designers...my guess is that in many cases they were hired for their name and people wanting to be associated w them.
[/size]Second, if there is no need for rainmaking, and if Davis has no design skills/sense (and I do not believe either of those are true), then why are so many on this site so "outraged" about this move by him? Unless one believes Davis will act unethically, what is the big deal about someone going ahead and living their dream? And at least as far as my memory goes, there has been zero hints of unethical behavior by Davis. Some may disagree some of his decisions, but that is true about any major decision...it will generate disagreement. [/color][/size]No question IMO that current architecture firms will not look kindly at additional competition in today's market, but frankly so what...we (at least for now) are working in a capitalist system, and competition is one of the engines that keep things going. If a buyer chooses to pick Davis because the buyer thinks that will get their new course a leg up for USGA events (and again Davis does not act unethically)...blame the buyer. Don't tell (as some others on this site have implied) Davis he cannot pursue his dream (or tell Tiger he cannot pursue his). [/color][/size]And certainly CBM showed superb design skills (if not engineering skills) before hiring/partnering w Raynor. And I would bet that Ross, Jones, Dye and Mackenzie showed superb design skills before expanding their businesses which required them to become more of a rainmaker. Am not sure but guess that Tom Fazio'z success was given a major boost by his uncle George.[/color][/size][/font]
-
Would you hire him to design a course for you? Just asking.
atb
Not after seeing what he did to Chambers Bay.
Or Erin Hills :P
You can blame him for the setup but he wasn’t the architect. Being tasked with setting up these courses one specific week a year for the greatest players on earth is no easy feat. Especially when the USGA ethos has been to try to keep the winning score around par.
Tim:
Erin Hills was Davis' personal playpen. All the changes made to its original design and layout -- the lost Dell (which, I didn't think a great version of the type, but nonetheless original to the first design), the neutered blind 17th approach, the advent of all those bunkers -- were done with the intent of hosting a US Open, and Davis ran the USGA (and directed many of the changes) while all that was going on.
But he didn’t make the course soft. Mother Nature did that. Erin Hills has a lot of defense, but that got neutered a lot by the June weather in Wisconsin, don’t you think? One might quibble with some setup decisions but the soft turf made the course easy prey.
Oh, but you read into my comments that which I did not intend! I'm guessing you and the most recent nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court might....disagree....about the nature of original intent :)
My objection to Davis and the original design of Erin Hills is that he helped encourage its alteration, and played a direct role in some of those alterations, with the intent of it hosting a U.S. Open. Lots (and lots) of bunkers (where originally there were few), eliminating its blindness and quirkiness, flattening its glacial moraine landscape, streeeettttching it out -- all geared toward landing a U.S. Open. That suggests what direction he might take his new venture in golf architecture. I'll pass.
Sure, Davis wasn't responsible for a soft US Open in June, just as he wasn't responsible for the zippy and (much more) entertaining and challenging dry conditions that met competitors at the U.S. Amateur held at Erin Hills prior to the U.S. Open (although any local idiot -- me, for instance -- could've told him the odds of wet/soft conditions in Wisconsin are much greater in June than in August, when the Am was held).
-
Phil,
I understand your position regarding the substantive design changes. They’ve for that at a lot of venues, to different degrees.
In return, Erin Hills has earned more fame than infamy, IMHO.
-
A few points. Regarding Erin Hills, it is well documented that when Bob Lang acquired the property to build a golf course he set out to attract a US Open. I don't know the degree of Davis' involvement in any design changes but its hard to complain when Lang got what he asked for. When your goal is to get a US Open, design integrity (however you define it) takes a back seat.
As far as Mike Davis goes, I have mixed emotions. I give him credit for his role in bringing public venues into the Open rota. I believe he has a real fondness for classic architecture and that was reflected in some of the venues. The USGA's desire to keep scores low coupled with its failure to regulate equipment often clashed with the nature of courses selected. I chose the USGA, rather than any individual, purposely because there is a tendency to blame the acts of the organization on its highest employee while ignoring the fact that he reports to a Board of Directors.
I had the opportunity to share a couple of meals with Mike and to attend a number of meetings regarding the relationship between the USGA and local associations. It was my impression that an entire group of employees were brought in to make the organization more business friendly and more profitable. Many of those individuals are no longer with the organization. They were involved in the TV negotiations and other efforts to reorganize the administration of golf. Regarding the reorganization, I had some very harsh comments and because Mike was presenting them, he was the target. I may be incorrect but I got the sense that he was not entirely comfortable defending some of the organizational changes because he never gave a substantive response to any of my critiques even though our discussion took place at a large meeting.
On personal basis he is a very nice man who clearly loves the game and course architecture. I wish him well. I am more than curious to see who takes his old job.
-
Mike is a wonderful man on a personal basis, and I wish him well in his new venture!
-
Mike N. writes: "Choosing an architect as a partner by definition does deeply ground ones design philosophy. Whether the choice is for the art form, the game, overall design, business, or rainmaking reasons. Same is true for the client that chooses an architect, it identifies their priorities."
Well, OK, it sounds good — but in an art form and business that has a multitude of possible outcomes, can we really distill it down to this ideal and those few words? That to me, seems rather black, white and gray. I do not think so. There are many, many more possibilities. Words cannot do it justice, at least not in the space of a few sentences. I think it would take a full book, and more research on the subject and thought.
-
It’s hard for me to fathom that there are those that begrudge Mike Davis a career in golf course architecture. His tenure with the USGA exceeds thirty years and I’ll go out on a limb and say he’s made a fair amount of connections in the world of golf. ;) He has always seemed like a genuinely nice man who has handled himself with grace under some tough questioning as it pertains to the USGA. I agree that there are a lot of deserving young guys out there but I’m at least willing to give Mike a shot going forward.
Mike Davis is truly a nice guy. The few times I was lucky enough to be with Mike he was genuinely interested to talk to me (a nobody really) about golf, players and architecture. He talked about changes he would make on a certain hole, I could visually see it. I believe those changes were made. 32 years at the USGA, I wish Mike nothing but the best.
-
Mike N. writes: "Choosing an architect as a partner by definition does deeply ground ones design philosophy. Whether the choice is for the art form, the game, overall design, business, or rainmaking reasons. Same is true for the client that chooses an architect, it identifies their priorities."
Well, OK, it sounds good — but in an art form and business that has a multitude of possible outcomes, can we really distill it down to this ideal and those few words? That to me, seems rather black, white and gray. I do not think so. There are many, many more possibilities. Words cannot do it justice, at least not in the space of a few sentences. I think it would take a full book, and more research on the subject and thought.
I am not talking about Davis's design, but his partner choice. I am gleaning from my last 20+ years of watching other designers from the front row. That is a pretty big book and it isn't black & white, it is a great big coffee table book with great pictures and lots of well written descriptions. Vote
-
I worked at a bank early in my career, at one point they restructured the jobs into three types:
Finder - Rainmaker
Minder - Customer management
Grinder - Risk control / administration
Are any of these big golf course architecture firms much different?
Finder - Ross / Nicklaus / CB McDonald / Flynn / Pete
Minder - Hack / Morrish / Radnor / Gordon / Alice
Grinder - Future stars and many unsung people just executing their duties
-
I am happy for Mike and glad he is following his passion. I am surprised that more people (especially on this board) are not more supportive. I am guessing quite a few people would love to retire after 30+ years and start a new life tagging along with Hanse and/or CC to learn more about golf course architecture.
+1
-
https://twitter.com/AlanShipnuck/status/1361844608049684483?s=20
Mike Whan to be announced tomorrow, Alan says?
-
If so great move. But will be interesting to see his view on distance insights given his history at Taylor Made.