Coore is soft-spoken, but Crenshaw may be even more soft spoken. Coore has always been the spokesperson for the partnership, at least from what I've read.Interesting you say this, because in Cob Carlson's documentary, Donald Ross: Discovering the Legend, Ben Crenshaw appears in a lot segments and expounds on Ross many design nuances and how those were incorporated into returning PH #2 closer to Ross' original intent. Bill Coore is only shown randomly with Ben pouring over old photos and architectural plans of Pinehurst #2 with Crenshaw, but is never heard on mic. I suspect this was done to promote the documentary seeing Ben Crenshaw is a more widely known name in the golfing world than Bill Coore, but I found that to be interesting.
Coore is the in the dirt trained guy. Crenshaw is the on the course trained guy, although Coore did compete for Wake Forest, so there's that. Over the years, Crenshaw has learned sooo much from Coore, but he never did an apprenticeship like Coore did.
Lest we forget:
https://golfclubatlas.com/feature-interview/bill-coore-november-1999/ (https://golfclubatlas.com/feature-interview/bill-coore-november-1999/)
Lest we forget:
https://golfclubatlas.com/feature-interview/bill-coore-november-1999/ (https://golfclubatlas.com/feature-interview/bill-coore-november-1999/)
Someone should delete every "speculative" response above this and read question 18 at this link.
Hello, Mark.
I don't know you, so I hope I don't put you off with this response.
That was 21 years ago. It is expected that a working relationship evolves over those 21 years.
It is possible that Ben got more "into" other aspects of design, than he had understood previously.
Ben was 47 at the time of that interview, four years removed from his 2nd Masters jacket, also his final tour title. He won a 2009 senior event with Fuzzy, but I think it was a silly season event.
I have never worked alongside or competed against C&C or any other design firm headed by a big name former pro... so I come at this question with the same level of ignorance as many of you.
I’ve always wondered which pro’s are the most intricately involved with the designs they put their name to?
If you divide architecture in to the following four very broad activities -
1. Routing
2. Strategy and playing characteristics
3. Shaping the landscape
4. Technical aspects like grading, quantities, calculations, drainage, irrigation and production of plans / drawings
- then I always figured that most “involved” professionals would be able to contribute greatly to No.2 whilst struggling (at least initially) with 1, 3 & 4. Those aspects come with a lot of training and hours and most pro golfer architects are spending a lot of their time on sales and other golf business interests, including many of them still playing professionally.
Mike Clayton (for instance) may be a full time GCA now and adept at all 4 of the above.... Colin Montgomery (for instance) may be a masthead and nothing more i.e. is adept at none of the 4.
But above is speculation. I’d be as interested to know as anyone on both Ben Crenshaw and any other names. Whether anyone who does know is willing to speak up is another matter.
Given that its C&C does it really matter who does what?
Big difference between these guys taking dual attribution and an ex-pro that fronts a design shop, shows up for photo shoots and opening day, while doing little else....but is then the sole name on the design.
Agree with William, nuff said, C&C has a great thing going and no doubt have nothing to prove to anyone...
Given that its C&C does it really matter who does what?
Big difference between these guys taking dual attribution and an ex-pro that fronts a design shop, shows up for photo shoots and opening day, while doing little else....but is then the sole name on the design.
Agree with William, nuff said, C&C has a great thing going and no doubt have nothing to prove to anyone...
Sorry Kalen, don't agree. "Nuff said" is an attempt to shut down discussion on a discussion board ffs. If you don't agree with Ron's OP then say why you don't agree but let people discuss. And as Ron himself said, the interview referred to was 21 years ago. When I think of my own career, what I am doing now is very much different to what I was doing 21 years ago and I work in the same profession. It's not unreasonable to think that C&C's working relationship might have moved on in the same timescale.
Niall
For one, they aren't design partners in a company (corporation or otherwise) but just put together, probably under separate contracts to somehow co-design a golf course. C and C are partners (or whatever their actual biz arrangement is.
I don't know any specifics about their Houston project. But in the many I have done under similar arrangements, the pros sort of use their endorsement and/or appearance contracts as a base, throw in a bit of language about design reviews, and a lot of language (if they are smart, but not every agent or pro consultant is aware of potential problems) about limiting the pro's liability for design. For gca's, I would bet most would say, "if you ain't liable, you aren't the designer!"
On the other hand, all the Beatles songs were said to be written by Lennon-McCartney, but 50 years later, there are books, blogs, and even a mathematical algorithm dedicated to figuring out who wrote each song, down to parts thereof. Curious minds want to know, I guess.That's kinda where I was coming at from all this. In many respects, Coore and Crenshaw is to the golf world what Lennon - McCartney's was to Rock 'n Roll. It's fair to assume on any Beatles record the songs John sang were mostly written by him and the same for Paul. On every Beatles album I would count the number of songs each had to determine who was more the driving force of the band at the time. In the early years John carried more of the weight. In the latter years Paul did. To transpose this to Coore and Crenshaw, it would be interesting know on any given course that bears the twos name who had more of a hand in the creation of holes and possibly debate whose holes were better. It's an entertaining exercise, if nothing else. However, given the privacy of their relationship I'm guessing we'll never know.
Why couldn't Tom Kite parlay his look into being the smartest man in golf?Because Bryson took that distinguished honor away from him. ;D ;D ;D
Why couldn't Tom Kite parlay his look into being the smartest man in golf?Because Bryson took that distinguished honor away from him. ;D ;D ;D
I've always thought this whole book thing was a bunch of malarky. If you can't be like em read like em.
My wife and I have had a wonderful marriage for 40 years now. How we divide the labor shifts constantly, and often puts both of us into "non-traditional" roles. Who does the laundry, or who cooked dinner last night, or which of us should do ANY task that we face, is less important than that the task get done. Because of that, it probably isn't possible, except in the most general terms, to define our "roles" in the marriage. We have different gifts, and we have different deficiencies; the marriage allows us to take advantage of the former and minimize the latter.
The C & C marriage has been lasting, and has produced beautiful, subtle, lasting results. I would guess that there are as many answers to the question at hand as there have been courses, with Coore's answer to question 18 in the interview bringing general insight into what each brings to the other. Analyzing their roles beyond that is likely impossible; the answer for one project isn't likely to be the same as it was for the previous project or the next project.