[Kalen Braley]

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.

[William_G]

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

[Jim Hoak]

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.

[Tom_Doak]

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.

[Ben Sims]

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.

[Forrest Richardson]

Sean A — Maybe he does not have a "design philosophy" yet — at least one grounded in his new role outside the USGA.

[Paul Rudovsky]

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]

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

[Kalen Braley]

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. 

[Ira Fishman]

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

[Terry Lavin]

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.

[Tom_Doak]

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 Fishman]

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

[Terry Lavin]

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.

[Lou_Duran]

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? 

[Garland Bayley]

...
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.

[Sean_A]

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

[Mike Nuzzo]

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.

[Paul Rudovsky]

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]

[Phil McDade]

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

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).

[Terry Lavin]

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.

[SL_Solow]

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.


       

[Jim Hoak]

Mike is a wonderful man on a personal basis, and I wish him well in his new venture!

[Forrest Richardson]

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.

[Bob Brightly]

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.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()