[Michael Dugger]

Oh well, here is the link
http://www.jhgd.com/current

[Forrest Richardson]

Oh, please...

[Andy Levett (Guest)]

Seve has been a 'golf course architect' - in the sense that Jack Nicklaus or Ben Crenshaw are  'golf course architects' - for a while now.
Here's a link to his portfolio.
http://www.seveballesteros.com/ing/trayectory/campos.htm

I remember his remodelling of the greens at Crans-sur-Sierre where they play the Swiss Masters was almost universally reviled by his fellow pros - which ought to make him a poster boy for many on this site ;)

[Brian Phillips]

Andy,

I have no idea about Jack or Seve but I can assure you that Ben has more input on his designs than people realise.  

He is more up to date on architecture, it's history and how to build courses than many other architects that are teaching me now in Scotland!!

Brian.

[Resume Builder]

Why do people on this website keep throwing the word "architect" around like it actually represents an achieved professional rank? The vast majority of those who call themselves "architects" are not lisenced architects, not even landscape architects. They are at best and at worst "designers". In this light, Seve can call himself a consulting designer until the cows come home for all I care and so can Ben Crenshaw. As soon as any of them, including Tom Doak and Donald Ross, start calling themselves "architects", you've moved into a different realm.  

Now, Seve may be a bad design consultant, but that remains to be seen. Questions along those lines ought to center on specific decisions and input he has made/had, in my opinion. Do we have any of those specifics to examine?

[Dan Pohl]

I can top that one - check out this little gem.
Apparently now all you need to become a signature designer is to have won on the US Tour, threatening in, let alone winning, majors is no longer a requisite.

http://www.torquaysands.com.au/press01.shtml

[Matthew Mollica]

Dan, there are worse examples here in Oz, if you dig deep enough. Pride in my own country forbids me from bringing them into the light.

All this raises an interesting question I was pondering last night.

What array of college / university qualifications do the various course architects here at GCA boast, as a collective.

Furthermore, how long is it until we see a fully fledged, widely respected and recognised multi-year, industry-supported golf course architecture university qualification ?

Geez, I'd love to do it. Imagine attending lectures on history from Klein, Mucci, Crenshaw, Dye and others, shortly before studying routing with Richardson, and then, after lunch, learning of the details regarding mid-semester break with Doak, on site in Tasmania....

Where do I enrol ?

Matthew

[Dan Pohl]

Matthew great point about qualifications re - golf course architecture, but sadly until the marketing stops selling memberships and the quality of the product does I doubt there will ever arise a day when only fully qualified practitioners can create courses.
We are all the worse because of it.

I'd like to hear some of your worse examples of blatant 'signature' designing than Stuart Appleby's effort. Has there ever lived a Professional less qualified in Australia to design courses who has actually designed a course?
I doubt it, the guy's still young, has underachieved and has won as many tour events as Olin Browne. C'mon the Sergio Garcia effort in the states was bad enough but Appleby having a go at routing a golf course is absolutely ridiculous.

Lets not forget his remarks at the Matchplay in 2001 at Metropolitan, best course in Australia, best grooming on the planet, full set of clubs ahead of Augusta etc etc. We all know Metro's good but its not great and sadly as long as the grass is green and the greens are firm Stuart will never realise this.

Don't get me wrong I like the guy as a person (have met him), and I admire his game, but he's not a great player (yet) and I believe this highlights how signature design is getting out of hand when run of the mill professionals start winning design contracts (or at least their names on the contracts).

If this golf course is a commercial success then the incentive for the next developer to hire a real designer (ie one who's qualified, if not to a University degree) when looking to build a quality course on great land is gone.

Stuart may know more about routing a course than Seve but I would have liked to see him achieve more or finish his career before concentrating on serious design. I would also have liked to have seen his submission laughed out of the office by the developer but hey at the time he was Australia's highest ranked player and he fit the project. By the way there are two ahead of him now and two more on the charge, ie Badds.com and Scotty.

Sorry if I'm sounding negative but Australia has so many wonderful courses and it worries me to see the modern Aussie golfers eyes have been taken off the ball and instead of looking to quality golf they now have, and I hate to say it, an American gullibility when it comes to golf course hype.

Hopefully some of the new projects can put quality back into sharper focus but judging on trends worldwide I think the country has started down the slippery slope and there may be no returning.

[Mike Clayton]

MatthewM

 I'm having a hard time thinking of examples of things sillier than the selling of Stuart as a course designer in Australia.

I doubt there has been a pro here who has spent less time on site.
Of course it's just an IMG Design with his name on it.

Regarding Crans I have played there many times and it was always a terrible course . I havn't played it since Seve has been there but no-one has described it as anything less than horrendous.

[Johnny Browne]

Interesting - actually I live in Ireland and Jeff Howes is a good friend of mine.  He is a very good architect and I have played his last course which was designed at Gowran Park in and around a Horse race track - it is good although may suffer from the owners not putting that extra bit of cash in to make it better.  I will find out in due course how his relationship with SEve is going and what input seve had.  Of course the reason he is involved is that in todays golf world a leading players name helps sell the course (and membership) - my opinion is that unless the architect is outstanding and well known a compromise is to combine a very good architect with a big name to get the best of both worlds.  It does not always work and depends on personalities.
For those who love old architects (that includes myself) observe the picture on the website of Belvoir Park (my home course) an original Harry colt and still probably unsurpassed as an inland course in Ireland.
Happy New Year to all on the discussion group from Northern Ireland.

Johnny Browne

[ForkaB]

I have played one of Seve's first "designs," Westerwood in Scotland.  I played it once, about 10 years ago, and I still get chills every time I drive by it (which is frequently--it's on one of the main routes from my house to Glasgow).  These chills are not frissons of nostalgic delight.  As one often venerated maven on this site said to me when I e-mailed him privately about that experience:  "You mean they let him design a whole golf course???!!!!!!!!!!!"

[Bye]

Matthew great point about qualifications re - golf course architecture, but sadly until the marketing stops selling memberships and the quality of the product does I doubt there will ever arise a day when only fully qualified practitioners can create courses.
We are all the worse because of it.

I'd like to hear some of your worse examples of blatant 'signature' designing than Stuart Appleby's effort. Has there ever lived a Professional less qualified in Australia to design courses who has actually designed a course?
I doubt it, the guy's still young, has underachieved and has won as many tour events as Olin Browne. C'mon the Sergio Garcia effort in the states was bad enough but Appleby having a go at routing a golf course is absolutely ridiculous.

Lets not forget his remarks at the Matchplay in 2001 at Metropolitan, best course in Australia, best grooming on the planet, full set of clubs ahead of Augusta etc etc. We all know Metro's good but its not great and sadly as long as the grass is green and the greens are firm Stuart will never realise this.

Don't get me wrong I like the guy as a person (have met him), and I admire his game, but he's not a great player (yet) and I believe this highlights how signature design is getting out of hand when run of the mill professionals start winning design contracts (or at least their names on the contracts).

If this golf course is a commercial success then the incentive for the next developer to hire a real designer (ie one who's qualified, if not to a University degree) when looking to build a quality course on great land is gone.

Stuart may know more about routing a course than Seve but I would have liked to see him achieve more or finish his career before concentrating on serious design. I would also have liked to have seen his submission laughed out of the office by the developer but hey at the time he was Australia's highest ranked player and he fit the project. By the way there are two ahead of him now and two more on the charge, ie Badds.com and Scotty.

Sorry if I'm sounding negative but Australia has so many wonderful courses and it worries me to see the modern Aussie golfers eyes have been taken off the ball and instead of looking to quality golf they now have, and I hate to say it, an American gullibility when it comes to golf course hype.

Hopefully some of the new projects can put quality back into sharper focus but judging on trends worldwide I think the country has started down the slippery slope and there may be no returning.

So are golf writers such as Whitten , Shackelford and Mingay architects?

[Justin_Ryan]

Appleby did admit to the media that his role would be to basically make some suggestions.  I imagine the bulk of his reputed $A600k fee will be for marketing purposes.

Having been denied a Karrie Webb 9 holes at Keysborough, I had heard a story she had been signed up to front a course in Queensland.  And Allenby has been rumored to be in the running to be the front man with the second Sandhurst club course.  They would probably be on a par with Appleby.  Next I suppose Badds.com will be stepping up for a share of the action as well.

[Matthew Mollica]

Mike - thanks for the reply.

While not wishing to openly denigrate anyone, I am sure that you can think of more than one current touring pro who has been touted as having designed a course here in the last few years, with the time spent on site, and indeed the outcome, being hardly surprising.

Personally speaking, if there were a few more Mike Clayton's, we golfers would be in heaven. Alas for us, there aren't many like you...

Getting back to the main line of my post, what qualifications do practicing course architects here possess ? Which skills are acquired on the job, and which are acquired at the desk ?  

MM

[Resume Builder]

Maybe Forrest Richardson, the man of "Oh please..." from above can tell us how it has helped to have Peter Oosterhuis along on projects. That might help everyone here.

[Resume Builder]

Forrest, Are you out there? Can you help us out here?

[Resume Builder]

I am pulling this up in case Forrest looks in again. As this site regularly has trouble accepting average golf pros in the design business, it would be useful for someone like Forrest to explain how his association with a golf pro works in his design business.

[RJ_Daley]

As Res. B. alludes to above, the terms "architect" and "designer" are never going to be used properly or consistently in the business of GCA or D.  In looking at the first and second to last pictures on M. Cirba's post #353 on the Cigar thread, one must come to the conclusion that there are those that techincally have the right to call themselves "golf course architects" yet don't even come off as good designers; and then there are those that call themselves "golf course designers" that have no formal schooling yet outshine those that have formal studies and a degree in LA by virtue of having designed and constructed great golf courses by their wits and intellect.  

As long as there is a buck to be made selling gullible and class minded people an image of "lifestyle" we will have stuff like this from the Torquay Sands website:

Mr Handbury says the 195 hectares of farmland on which the links course is based has been transformed in the last two weeks with heavy machinery excavating the central lake feature as well as shaping the first few holes along the beachfront.

"Stuart Appleby is staying in close touch from America with construction crews and will be visiting the course later in the year to finetune features such as bunker and greens placements," Mr Handbury says.

"He has been outstanding to work with and his enthusiasm for his first course has helped create an 18-hole challenge that will test the best golfers and provide a slice of sporting heaven for both visitors and the resort's residents," he says.

There are formally trained architects that will never have a clue, and guys that are golf writers and insurance salesmen that have great imagination and go about aquiring the skills to design and construct a golf course through great effort and years of OJT and self study.  We all know the "touring pro" is out touring and has little time to really learn the skills and theory of design and construction.  Yet, some of them, like Ben C., took the time and did it right over many years, others will just take the easy money to pose for the picture and consult from 8000 miles away on those pesky details.  

[Derek Duncan]

I don't understand where the venom of this thread is coming from. Players being paid to endorse, consult, build, whatever it is, has been going on for a long time. So new blood is getting into it, what's the difference? Is it better if Jim Dent "designs" one because at least he's been around the game for a while? Dan Pohl, are you saying that winning tour events correlates into a greater understanding of golf course architecture ("Stuart may know more about routing a course than Seve but I would have liked to see him achieve more or finish his career before concentrating on serious design.")?

Anyway, who among you wouldn't take the commission to have your name on a golf course even if (or especially if) you only had to go to the site a couple of times and maybe or maybe not make a few suggestions? I'm sure most of us would relish the opportunity to get down and dirty with it, but would you walk away from it if your imput could only be limited? Tour pros get paid for doing and endorsing many things, this is just one more thing.

And it doesn't hurt golf architecture any more than much of the other stuff that's built by "actual" architects/designers does.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()