[Tim Weiman]

Mark Fine:

During my years in oil supply and trading, a person with absolutely no operations experience came to me wanting to join my team.

He was very upfront about his lack of credentials and didn't claim to be the most quaified candidate in the traditional sense. But, this fellow expressed a real passion about wanting to change his career direction and get some operating experience.

After talking things over with my team, I decided to give him a shot and matched him up with a very experienced person to guide him day to day.

One year into 70-80 hour weeks, he was pretty much up to speed. At the two year mark he was as strong as any person I might have hired.

My point is simply to express that my intent was not to be negative. Perhaps - I don't know the business - if someone like Jim Urbina or Dave Axeland took you under their wing for a couple years, you would learn one important aspect of golf design and construction. Another mentor might then be able to help you develop other skill sets.

Unless, the industry is drastically different than other professions, I suspect that a determined person might be able to break in and be up to speed in a few years, maybe 3-5.

But, the first challenge is convincing someone to provide that mentoring experience and, perhaps, that you are willing to spend a few years on tasks that aren't exactly glamourous.

Mark, I suppose it is a bad analogy, but I remember one of my sister's closest high school friends who worked for the Ford modeling agency. Katie. who modeled lingerie, was very quick to point out that modeling was far from the glamourous life most people thought it was.

That's my only caution: most professions, from oil supply to modeling to golf architecture, probably require a period of "shitwork", you might say. If you are willing to do that AND you can find a sponsor, by all means give it a shot. Just do so with a clear head.

[Tony Ristola]

To add to China I would add continental Europe.  This is an area which resembles America 100 years ago.  Many of the courses built have been on excellent terrain and they just don't measure up to the investment made.  They'd go bankrupt in North America.  Needless to say there will be a considerable amount of redesign work in the future.

On the continent they don't have the skilled labor and there isn't enough involvement by the architect to transfer the design intent to the constructors. Germany for example has less than 1% of the population playing golf...most workers (including foremen) don't play or know the game, and haven't studied architecture.  There is no foundation.

The opportunity here is for architects to give more and better service (The WIND STANDARD...spending "the weeks and sometimes months")...in fact I would say this is the major opportunity for those working into the business (the toughest job is the first) and seek to compete at an increasingly higher level.  The 0 to 5% on-site involvement during construction (The ROSS STANDARD), when the product is being assembled and the million(s) spent is a pretty large service and communication gap which can be closed for the betterment of the project. More service during construction ensures what is intended is constructed.  More time on site means opportunities seen can be implemented while construction progresses.  Opportunities to improve the project never reveal themselves according to a schedule and if you're not there to take advantage, you'll most likely miss capitalizing on them...instead spending site-visits putting out fires or reworking work completed to plan.

Dan Maples in an interview (2001) with www.thepilot.com (can't find the interview) stated his father Ellis asked Donald Ross what he would do differently if he could do it over again...He states Ross replied ...(paraphrasing) "he would only take on projects where he could be personally involved."  Ross seemingly realized the short comings of his methods and would have changed his modus operandi had he to do it all over again.  

[Michael Dugger]

Mark Fine,

Everyone is not being negative here.  They are being realistic.  Besides, as someone posted ages ago (yours is not the first thread of this type) if I knew the key to tapping into the design industry without 'doing the work' and 'putting in the time' I certainly wouldn't tell you.  I wouldn't tell anyone, and that shouldn't come as a surprise or be offensive.  You would, or should, feel the same way.  

I'd like to believe that all it takes is studying a few courses, but it simply is not true.  I also think you are failing to realize that great artists are not 'educated' nor 'trained'.  The truly great artists of the world are born, they cannot help but succeed.  Do you think you are one of these 'geniuses'.  That's cool, me too, guess we have something in common.

Oh, and by the way, I never got around to reading Dr. Hurdzan's book.  Not my type, although you should check it out.

[TEPaul]

Tony:

That's a terrific post particularly that you're an architect and experience it. Glad to see you hammer away at the importance and ramifications of "on-site" time and that's a fascinating quote from Donald Ross.

That kind of high production output has just got to show the problems somehow, some way and frankly, I've always thought there are plenty of Ross courses that show it! Many are solid but basic structures but can often be mundane or simplistic in certain ways.

Ross did have an interesting way of networking though--that shows through clearly in the early minutes of my golf club. MacKenzie had some really interesting ways of networking too it would seem. It's pretty shocking to consider the number of famous courses of Alister's that he never saw completed, so he had some interesting way of creating symbiosis in construction and the process of devolution of ideas.

[Tony Ristola]

TEPaul: Dan Maples did also say that Ross and Ellis Maples had so much communication between them that Ellis was a "tool" for Mr. Ross, but with his production rate, how many top quality "tools" could he produce?  Something has to get lost somewhere.  But when golf was in its early stages in the US, it's probably better that Ross and a handful of others dominated the landscape...today this isn't true at all.

I find it interesting that both Mackenzie and Ross stated the importance of the architect's involvement during construction (Design on land, not on papar" Ross) but didn't honor this method themselves for the most part.  Perhaps looking back they realized a few investors got shorted, or for the long term interest of the game their methods wouldn't be the best, yet 50+ years after the death of Ross, his standard of operation is still the standard today.  To any young guy wanting in...this is a ocean of opportunity...but it ain't easy.  The established guys aren't going to roll over for young architects.

Today with the huge increase in fees (thanks Jack Nicklaus), an architect desiring to focus on economy and excellence can limit his production and do so. I don't know if this was possible in the Golden Age, but it is today as the market (for investors and their projects) is highly competitive.  The architect will net less per year, but will be in position with each ensuing project to seek higher profile work.  The biggest problem with this is permitting because predicting when a project will come through is virtually impossible in some regions.

One other benefit is the architect who is on-site is going to get less intereference from outside influences, be it the owner, shapers, contractor's foremen etc., or will be able to manage these influences better, explaining why things should or shouldn't be done in a particular manner.

[TEPaul]

Mark:

Sorry, I don't really mean to be negative, if I'm one who was. It's just that I can hardly restrain myself from making remarks whenever possible regarding this whole magazine rating world! I really feel it has so little in the way of redeeming educational benefit architecturally particularly as it regards  actually getting into the nuts and bolts of understanding how to route, design and construct golf courses, which this thread of yours seems to be about. So I wish you'd just quit telling some of us that that's the best way to get an architecural education! At the very least, though, I guess to each his own.

And as usual I have no real idea where you're coming from on this thread with your questions and comments. I can't tell if you're interested in starting a design business or if you're interested in getting some sort of OJT edcuation in all the details of architectural design and construction yourself, or even if you're just asking to generate an interesting thread on Golfclubatlas.

Personally, I would have zero idea on the first one (creating a design business) but the second one (trying to get a personal education in architecture) I'd tell you to just go spend time out there on as many sites as you can, at the stages of pre-routing, routing, pre-construction during design and during construction. Be a true observer and student to start with--and best to find your favorite architecture and latch onto him and pick his brain as much as you can and he'll let you!

I'll guarantee you that you'll be absolutely amazed the things you'll learn.

After that I think you're the type of guy that could do it--do some conceiving and conceptualizing as long as you can find the reliable support and in depth construction people you need, which you must know how to do running a business. But you should also ALWAYS remember what Ian Andrews told you on this thread--"To ALWAYS know what you don't know!!"

If you want some historical encouragement I can tell you right now with absolute certainty that both Hugh Wilson and George Crump were both RANK amateurs when they began building their one golf course.

But it's absolutely astounding the dedication both put into their projects and the immense learning curve both went through and where it took them in architectural undestanding.

Frankly, Wilson might have been the more amazing! He was like a terrier, most particularly on all things agronomy. Wayne and I just ran across the God-damnedest lode of correspondence between Wilson and two guys from the US Dept of Agriculture! By the time the correspondence ended these three guys had created the USGA Green Section itself and Wilson was probably the top expert in the country on agronomy pertaining to golf architectural application!!

To show you the dedication and the extent of it Wilson corresponded with these two fellows about 2-3 times a week from 1911 until 1925!!! And that certainly wasn't all he did! Merion, like Pine Valley was a very slowly evolving project!

There was some great info in this voluminous correspondence and one that was most poignant. Wilson wrote Piper one day in January 1925 that he felt just God awful--his description was he "felt like a boiled owl". Checking the records he was dead within the week!

Not to sound negative or doomish though, on the contrary, you can do it if you really put your mind to it! Follow the examples of some of those really interesting amateur architects.

And I will also guarantee you Mark--those guys didn't learn what they learned by playing golf courses to rate them for Golf Digest! Sorry, I just couldn't resist! (How do you do those smiley faces again?) Insert one here!

Good Luck!

[Mike_Cirba]

My gawd...

Note to self;

Next time you begin to "feel like a boiled owl", check into the nearest hospital, PRONTO.  Obvious warning sign that should not be trivialized or otherwise ignored.    

[Tim Weiman]

Mark Fine:

I would second Tom Paul's point about spending time on site during the various phases of a project. For about fifteen years I ran around looking at golf courses, both here in the States and across the pond (unfortunately never Australia).

But, then I went through a divorce, had a two year old daughter and was trying to figure out how to do something golf/golf architecture related but stay very close to my daughter.

At the same same I met Dusty Murdock who hired Tom Fazio and introduced me the the Sand Ridge project. So, I pretty much gave up playing for a couple years figuring it was time to see a golf course built.

Hugging my daughter while driving around in a maitenance cart meant a lot, especially when she said "Daddy, can't we go around again", but more to the point, it was an education in how different the construction process is than just evaluating the strategic merits of golf holes. Not the same thing at all.

I feel qualified to comment on the merits of a finished golf hole, but really incompetent when it comes to building one. Then, too, I realize how different building an entire course is than commenting on such things as bunker placement.

Speaking of which, at Sand Ridge I feel Fazio & Co made some mistakes - #3, for example -, but I would never say I could do what the team of Fazio, Marzolf, Landscapes Unlimited and John Zimmers did overall. No way. Years of looking at finished products hasn't taught me that.

Mark, I would say that if your interest is genuine, spending time on site during construction can be quite enjoyable. This fall Tom Doak and Don Placek gave me a tour of Stonewall 2. Yes, it was only a few hours, but nonetheless, quite interesting. I wish I had time to do the same at Cape Kidnappers, for instance.

Finally, I do think sincerity and passion matters. When people sense that, they are more inclined to help whether it involves making a career change or just enjoying your favorite hobby even more.

[Mark_Fine]

Thanks for the further thoughts guys.  To enlighten those of you who I have confused about my intentions here, I'm really just trying to get people to brainstorm.  Kind of like an online focus group    My whole career I've been involved in stuff like this - evaluating ideas, deciding which ones were worth pursuing and which ones were not.  Some we acted on, some we did not.  Some succeeded, some failed and all for a variety of reasons.  

Let me finish with one more question, if I were to say I know people who are considering forming/funding a design team (I would not be on it personally for those of you wondering  ) to focus on the golf course development market in China, do you think they'd get any takers?  

[jg7236]

Mr. Fine,

I agree with everybody else on this subject.  Golf course architecture isn't a field one can jump right into, unless your dad is Tom Fazio or Jack Nicklaus.  At the present time the economy is extremely bad, and it is going to get even worse before it gets better.  No one is hiring, and a lot of golf course architects can't find work themselves.  The only ones that are really surviving are the ones that are a licensed landscape architects too, so they have something to fall back on if the golf course design business isn't doing well, like now.  From this site I know Jeff Brauer and Tom Doak are doing extremely well.  From a couple of my personal contacts, Keith Foster/Jack Nicklaus/ and Tom Fazio are still doing lots of work.  If you can't tell Mark I am also trying to get into "Golf Course Architecture."  I have been around golf all my life, played since I was five years old.  I have two degree's:  Bachelor of Landscape Architecture/Bachelor of Science in Agriculture.  I have worked golf course development for Landscapes Unlimited.  I have done internships in horticulture.  I currently just got laid off from my Assistant Golf Course Superintendent job, and currently am looking for a job.  I have probably called or sent my resume to every golf course architect in American Society of Golf Course Architects/European Istitute of Golf Course Architects/and Australian Golf Course Architects.  I will keep bugging them until I get my dream job in golf course architecture, and no one is going to stop me in my pursuit.  Currently I am looking to get a job in landscape architecture, and work towards my landscape architecture license.  Then when the economy is good I will be ready to "ROCK."

John

[ian]

John, good luck.

May be this can help:
We have lots of people come into the office to meey with Doug or myself, we enjoy the enthusiasm and interest they show. Again, we have lots! We hire in frequently, but it comes down to two things. 1. Can they help us (sorry its a friggin' business whether we like to admit it or not) 2. will they fit in. Let me explain because this is important.

Fit in means:
1. are the comitted to learning
2. they realize they have a lot to learn
3. they are willing to take the mundane with the exciting
(i'm 13 years in and I will draft or even make flippin' coffee if thats what going to help us get our work done well)
4 they have technical knowledge, and it doesn't have to be golf, does it make us collectively smarter.

We rely on "OUR" (meaning the collective members of the office) skills, not our own. We have a principal, and when push comes to shove, he built the office, its his call. But generally golf design is a team effort. We all have particular skills and we use each other to be better.

A good office encourages you to learn and "try" what you need to learn. A bad office has you do only your strength, because you will not grow.


Are there opportunities, tons, you just may have to "put in your time" to get where you want to go. Every architect admires somebody with committment. Committment is not e-mailing or sending resumes; its meeting an architect on a site to listen for an afternoon with no prospect for a job. Suprise suprise two years later he/she hires you or recommends you to someone else. I will always remember the one or two people in particular that stuck out from the rest. One we hires FIVE years after he first showed up. Another posts on this iste regularly and you all have a lot of respect for him (we have not had an opening). The last one we recommended to an architect in another city to help him because we liked him so much. All these guys found other places to learn, if we are lucky we get to hire them. If they are lucky somebody recognizes a great guy and grabs them up quick.

If you committed, and I mean willing to do what ever it takes, you will end up as a golf architect.

I used to meet Doug to talk, worked on week-ends during school, waited two years, but phoned regularly, till the position I wanted was mine.

Take Tom Doak, he went to university, he worked on construction sites for Dye, he worked a lot of years doing a combination of renovation and new projects to get where he is. There's 20 years leading up to his success. If you ask him, there may be some really lean times in those 20 years, nobody hands you anything.

It doesn't change later either, I just interviewed twice and spent a whole year to get selected for a renovation/restoration client that a dearly wanted to work with. For every Dye, Jones and Fazio there are a hundred DeVries, Harbottles and Kidds, who do great work, and are working hard just to keep a staedy business.

My rant is over, I finally took a breath.

Mark, you deserve a few answers:
"Following the crowd might be the safe route but there are other avenues.  Do you not agree?"

Yes and thank god there was an insurance salesman with little experience who turned golf design on its ear when it needed it most.
 
"a number of them had never been there before??  Am I missing something or does this not surprise anyone"

I think a trip to Scotland is essential (again "I think"), but its not a requirement, there are still a lot of great courses in North America fthat need to be studied too.

"One final point, if you follow this site for any length of time you will realize that many people here (I am Not one of them) think that only a handful of modern architects can design anything worth playing.  You will also hear that the far majority of the courses being built today leave much to be desired?  If any of these assumptions are true, why is that? "

Ever concidered that only 5% of golf architects are held up as the examples of whats wrong and another 5% of architects are held up as whats right; and the rest they don't know but choose to paint them all in with the "what's wrong" group.
Tim's point is correct, you have limited resorces to see new work so you have to depend on a source. This one is excellent. But how many of us have played Jim Engh's (however he spells it sorry Jim) work. Who's played Steve Smyers. Bobby Weed? Bill Coore before Crenshaw? You must take the site for what it is a great source, not the definative one.

[TEPaul]

Well, Mark, looks to me like you just got a wealth of good and interesting advice on your thread question. Certainly the most valuable is from those that actually are in the business not some of us dilettante bystanders, but only to the business and nitty gritty end of it! I think a lot of those on here not in the business have a lot to offer but not much at all when it comes to the business and construction end of things etc, etc

I frankly think there's some sort of very interesting but maybe hard to identify "interface" area here somewhere between those who really are in the business and those of us who might be seen as the best critics and analyzers of golf architecture who are NOT in the business.

Golfclubatlas very well may be the ultimate ongoing entity and resource for those in the business and those not in the business to keep exploring where that twain just might meet, if you know what I mean! It's very interesting actually. In other words if Crump or Hugh Wilson could possibly show up on Golfclubatlas around late 1910 they would very much be on the layman side of the Golfclubatlas contributors!

Now isn't that interesting!

But you got some great advice here, you should hit the PRINT button!

[Real Estate Salesman]

There will be opportunities in golf/real estate communities. We use golf to help sell homes. And people are still investing in real estate. The mortgage rates are low. Now, I know people here don't like real estate. But if you are talking business instead of "art", then that's where there are opportunities.

[Mark_Fine]

There are some good ideas here and that is what I was hoping for.  I will hit the print button and pass it on.  Who knows, maybe it will lead to an opportunity for someone out there.  In the meantime, I better get back to selling chemicals  

By the way Ian, I have played some of Jim's work and talk to him off and on on the phone.  Very interesting and creative architect.  Also played a number of Smyers courses including Old Memorial with his lead design associate.  Great guy (his name escapes me now).  I also enjoy Boddy Weed's designs and of course C&C's.  Your point is well taken and I agree whole heartedly that there are many other architects out there doing good work.  

[ian]

Mark, I say this sincerely, if you have the desire, go after it. Cam quit his job, and went back to school in his 30's; he's been with us for 5 years. Keeps saying its the best decision of his life.

Good luck Mark!

[B. Mogg]

Mark,

We do a lot of work in China - maybe you can buy us out!!

Learning Chinese would be a great way to get started, look at the numbers there vs the number of courses and you can see the potential.

Still, getting paid can be difficult and doing work of the quality you would like can sometimes be verydifficult given the fast track nature of everything, the lack of skilled staff (who are willing to work in China for what the Chinse are willing to pay).

And China is no cakewalk, besides the language and cultural difficulties, it is still very competitive there - and a track record still comes in handy (we've been working there for over 10 years and still find it difficult)

Good luck by the way, don't want to paint a too rosy picture on getting into the profession - if you have talent and persistance (and a golden tongue would help) you can go far - it's tough though so those in the bisiness are just trying to be straight up with you. It can be done obviously, but it ain't gonna be easy.

[Mark_Fine]

I'm not cashing out and I'm not starting a design business.  But myself and my partners are always looking for opportunities.  We are setting up a new company in China and there could be spin off opportunities there including golf.  But don't worry Bill, I'm not going myself.  I just happen to be the one who they look to to check things out especially when it comes to golf.  Wonder why?

[Rick_Noyes]

I realize that this thread comming to an end but I wanted to chime in with my 2 cents.

When I was looking to get into this business I talked with John LaFoy.  He told me staight up that is was a difficult business to get into, but, once you're in people in the business seem to know who you are.  I was knocking on doors when Dan was beginning Little River here in Pinehurst.  So it was a matter of right place right time.  Education (Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management and Landscape Architects degrees from Clemson) coupled with experience in maintenance and operating equipment and a good fit personally got me the job.

My father retired from 30 years in the fishing tackle business.  He always said that people wanted to get into their business because they like to fish.  Well, he said, if you're good at the job, you don't have time to fish.  I feel that this adage holds true in the golf course design business.  People play, some play very well and are well traveled and have seen a lot of golf courses and styles.  They feel that it's not that big of a step to design.  I appreciate Nicklaus not calling himself an architect but a designer.  He says that he can design fairly well but has architects on staff to make it work.  Symantics maybe but there is a difference.

Experience/track records etc have been referred to in this thread and I beleive one of the most important aspects of getting the work.  Investors have to trust who their turning over their project (millions of dollars) to.  That doesn't come easy.

Tony- I believe Ross was referring to Dan's grandfather Frank who was Ross' construction superintendent.  Ellis certainly knew Ross but was a very young man late in Ross' life.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()