[Erik J. Barzeski]

Ugh, not you [and Ally, too?].  It's pure ego to think that you born with some "designer gene", and the other 99% of the world was not.  It's all a continuum, and while some people are going to design more interesting courses than others, it's not anyone's birthright.


To me, what makes someone better at design is understanding how all of the technical parts play their role, so you can design great holes that incorporate those details in a way no one even notices.  By that logic, the more experience you have building golf courses, the better you're going to be at design.  Someone with talent as a shaper or experience as a "construction guy" has a leg up on everyone else, all other things being equal.

I thought this warranted a separate topic.

Are people born as "creative" or not? Is there a "designer gene"?

How much of a "designer" and how "creative" in the ways a GCA is "creative" was Seth Raynor? He was not even a golfer, yet having learned under CBM, he became quite a GCA based largely on his expertise at the technical side, no?

Generally speaking, does a GCA become "more creative" or "less creative" as his career continues? If yes, who are the major exceptions?

Are there great "technical" aspects guys who utterly stink at the "creative" side of things? Are there super creative guys who stink at the technical side?

[Carl Rogers]

As a Building Architect, I have always wondered about the intersection between innate ability and acquired skill in a high information environment.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I replied to this on the other thread.

[Ian Andrew]

First up, read the book "Thinking Fast and Slow" by Danial Kahneman
His economic work with Amos Tversky on Prospect Theory is an awesome read.
This will help on "how we think." It's a good starting point on "thinking"

There is no design gene, everyone can design something.
Only a few are great designers.
Great design is the ability to meld art and science with function.

It's hard to be remarkable at all three.
And the answer to who is great is very subjective.

My short answer on what defines great ... the ability to surprise you.

[Joe Hancock]

I have worked with architects and shapers who, I would say, have an innate sense of shape and design. I have also worked with architects and shapers who claim to have the vision of the finished product before any dirt gets moved.


I have neither. I have to get from A to Z through a series of problem-solving decisions that present themselves as I work the dirt. My decision-making has changed over the years, partly because my preferences continue to evolve and partly because I have become more proficient with the machines.


Bottom line is the path to creativity is a highly personal path. What works for one person may, and likely, won’t work for another.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ugh, not you [and Ally, too?].  It's pure ego to think that you born with some "designer gene", and the other 99% of the world was not.  It's all a continuum, and while some people are going to design more interesting courses than others, it's not anyone's birthright.


To me, what makes someone better at design is understanding how all of the technical parts play their role, so you can design great holes that incorporate those details in a way no one even notices.  By that logic, the more experience you have building golf courses, the better you're going to be at design.  Someone with talent as a shaper or experience as a "construction guy" has a leg up on everyone else, all other things being equal.

I thought this warranted a separate topic.

Are people born as "creative" or not? Is there a "designer gene"?

How much of a "designer" and how "creative" in the ways a GCA is "creative" was Seth Raynor? He was not even a golfer, yet having learned under CBM, he became quite a GCA based largely on his expertise at the technical side, no?

Generally speaking, does a GCA become "more creative" or "less creative" as his career continues? If yes, who are the major exceptions?

Are there great "technical" aspects guys who utterly stink at the "creative" side of things? Are there super creative guys who stink at the technical side?

Erik,


Good questions.  Raynor was basically a mimic, not a designer.  As TD and others have noted, there are probably no architects who are complete masters of everything in this somewhat complicated craft.  As a civil engineer he probably understood construction, grading, drainage, etc., and was thus a perfect match for CBM, and the success was a result of the luck of those two getting connected, similar to the story Joe tells.  I think Peter's chance of success hinges greatly on who he ends up getting on with and that whole dynamic.


And yes, there are guys who are similarly better at those complementary pieces.  A good design office will find a blend of all types.  At my peak, I had two guys I considered design types, and at least two more who could produce technically, i.e., size drain pipes, balance cut and fill on plan, etc. The typical "concept thinker" gets bored with the hard work of technical details.  It's not that they can't do it or be taught, but they often found their way out of doing it. And, in small offices, cross training is important for those days when someone is sick or quits, etc.  When fully staffed, it paid to assign jobs based on each individuals strength.



I would love just for fun to get an analysis of the guys Ross hired.  Only a few went on to big design success, and I can't recall anyone other than Ellis Maples who was considered one of the creative architects of their period.  For that matter, I wouldn't mind a personality analysis of Ross vs Mac, or Thomas, etc.  I don't think he was as creative a thinker as some.  For that matter, Tillie and Thomas etc. sure got more creative when Mr. Bell was shaping their bunkers........I guess it takes a village to build a really good golf course.

[Don Mahaffey]

The best civil engineers I've worked with find creative solutions to technical challenges.


I think coaches can be very creative in how they organize the pieces available to them. Some focus solely on execution, but those aren't often going to beat a team with superior talent.


Wasn't the initial use of analytics in baseball the result of trying to find creative ways to win in a different way than the norm?


I believe that most at the top of their professions are creative. Hard working and technically adept, yes, but how they organize all the tools available to them to be successful requires creativity.


I think we associate creativity with art, but isn't being creative having the ability to think differently? To look at a challenge and arrive at a solution others don't see? That happens in all professions.

[Tom_Doak]

How much of a "designer" and how "creative" in the ways a GCA is "creative" was Seth Raynor? He was not even a golfer, yet having learned under CBM, he became quite a GCA based largely on his expertise at the technical side, no?

Generally speaking, does a GCA become "more creative" or "less creative" as his career continues? If yes, who are the major exceptions?

Are there great "technical" aspects guys who utterly stink at the "creative" side of things? Are there super creative guys who stink at the technical side?

1.  Seth Raynor is a good case study.  He was very good at finding good fits for his favorite holes on a piece of ground . . . that is a big part of golf course architecture, and a skill that not all designers have.  But, of course, he looked for the same small set of holes.  Applying labels to any of this -- design, creative, whatever -- depends on your own definitions of those labels.  But I think it's fair to say that Seth Raynor was not really looking to do something creatively different.  [I caused a ruckus a couple of years ago by saying Raynor did not have a "creative temperament", but this is what I really meant.]  He had plenty of chances if he'd wanted to take one.


2.  Your career arc is a matter of perception, because it's being constantly redefined by what you've already done.  If you settle on a style and build a lot of courses, even someone as creative as Pete Dye, your work starts to get familiar and it's hard for people to see past that to what you are doing differently.  What really makes you look creative is having interesting new pieces of land to work with, and different people helping you.  I decided long ago those were the secrets to Alister MacKenzie's success, so that's how I've modeled my career.  But MacKenzie did decide late in his career to adapt to hard times and build courses without many bunkers; not everyone would change their style at that point.


3.  Almost all designers are stronger on one side or the other.  Most who have managed long careers have to be pretty good at the technical side, and they tend to stay busy even if their work is not that interesting.  If you're super creative but stink at the technical side, you'd better find a really good partner, or you're not going to last. 


But, it all depends on how you define "creativity", too.  I'm really not that great at dreaming up ideas from thin air, but I do have a really good memory bank of thousands of golf holes I've seen to use in a pinch.  I'm not sure if that's creativity.  But when I have a good site, and enough time to stare at a problem, I'm very good at finding an unusual solution already lying there, with only a tiny bit of pushing things around . . . that is real creativity, and from what I've seen, it's not common at all.


P.S. to Ian:  I tried reading Kahneman's book, and couldn't come close to finishing it!

[Tom_Doak]

I have worked with architects and shapers who, I would say, have an innate sense of shape and design. I have also worked with architects and shapers who claim to have the vision of the finished product before any dirt gets moved.

I have neither. I have to get from A to Z through a series of problem-solving decisions that present themselves as I work the dirt.

This is how I work, as well.  It's also how Mr. Dye worked, and that's why I don't trust anyone who claims they've visualized the whole thing before they start.  There are just too many little problems to figure out.  The only way you can visualize it all in advance is to bulldoze some of those problems away.

[Charlie Goerges]

I'm really not that great at dreaming up ideas from thin air, but I do have a really good memory bank of thousands of golf holes I've seen to use in a pinch.  I'm not sure if that's creativity.

Absolutely that's creativity, it's practically all that creativity is. Composers have X number of keys on a piano, the music is in which ones they choose to use and when. I'd love to hear from someone who came up with anything truly out of thin air, I don't know if it can be done. Models sat for davinci's paintings. Creativity is interesting choices and combinations.

[Joe Hancock]

I'm really not that great at dreaming up ideas from thin air, but I do have a really good memory bank of thousands of golf holes I've seen to use in a pinch.  I'm not sure if that's creativity.

Absolutely that's creativity, it's practically all that creativity is. Composers have X number of keys on a piano, the music is in which ones they choose to use and when. I'd love to hear from someone who came up with anything truly out of thin air, I don't know if it can be done. Models sat for davinci's paintings. Creativity is interesting choices and combinations.

My contrary, and usually humorous take on this is that my best trait, creatively, is a horrible memory. For me, it’s a lot more satisfying to design and build something with few preconceived notions and let the problem solving exercise take me where it may. If it ends up looking like something else that’s old and familiar, so be it, but, when it’s my choice, I don’t make that result a priority. Sometimes I’m asked to mimic something famous found elsewhere, and it is usually a less satisfying exercise to me.

[Charlie Goerges]

I'm really not that great at dreaming up ideas from thin air, but I do have a really good memory bank of thousands of golf holes I've seen to use in a pinch.  I'm not sure if that's creativity.

Absolutely that's creativity, it's practically all that creativity is. Composers have X number of keys on a piano, the music is in which ones they choose to use and when. I'd love to hear from someone who came up with anything truly out of thin air, I don't know if it can be done. Models sat for davinci's paintings. Creativity is interesting choices and combinations.

My contrary, and usually humorous take on this is that my best trait, creatively, is a horrible memory. For me, it’s a lot more satisfying to design and build something with few preconceived notions and let the problem solving exercise take me where it may. If it ends up looking like something else that’s old and familiar, so be it, but, when it’s my choice, I don’t make that result a priority. Sometimes I’m asked to mimic something famous found elsewhere, and it is usually a less satisfying exercise to me.

My take would be that you're just working on a more granular level of concepts from memory. I also have a pretty poor memory, so I work differently and more simply from someone with a great memory. My creative/design outlet is making things like kitchen utensils and things. Maybe I'm working more with basic shapes and concepts than a large memory bank of every bowl shape and spoon handle I've ever seen, but concept is the same. Does that make sense?

[Ally Mcintosh]

I have worked with architects and shapers who, I would say, have an innate sense of shape and design. I have also worked with architects and shapers who claim to have the vision of the finished product before any dirt gets moved.

I have neither. I have to get from A to Z through a series of problem-solving decisions that present themselves as I work the dirt.

This is how I work, as well.  It's also how Mr. Dye worked, and that's why I don't trust anyone who claims they've visualized the whole thing before they start.  There are just too many little problems to figure out.  The only way you can visualize it all in advance is to bulldoze some of those problems away.

Tom,


To Joe’s post, I would also distrust anyone who claims to see the finished result completely before any dirt gets moved, at least if the best product is the ultimate aim…. But I consider a sense of shape and design to be pretty important, whether innate or learned. If nothing else, it adds efficiency to the whole process. There is no way you don’t have that and I’m surprised Joe says the same. That sense is not mutually exclusive to having to get from A to Z through problem-solving decisions.


Perhaps we are talking at cross-purposes.

[John Kavanaugh]

The true miracle is when great designers develop proficient personalities.

[Joe Hancock]

I have worked with architects and shapers who, I would say, have an innate sense of shape and design. I have also worked with architects and shapers who claim to have the vision of the finished product before any dirt gets moved.

I have neither. I have to get from A to Z through a series of problem-solving decisions that present themselves as I work the dirt.

This is how I work, as well.  It's also how Mr. Dye worked, and that's why I don't trust anyone who claims they've visualized the whole thing before they start.  There are just too many little problems to figure out.  The only way you can visualize it all in advance is to bulldoze some of those problems away.

Tom,


To Joe’s post, I would also distrust anyone who claims to see the finished result completely before any dirt gets moved, at least if the best product is the ultimate aim…. But I consider a sense of shape and design to be pretty important, whether innate or learned. If nothing else, it adds efficiency to the whole process. There is no way you don’t have that and I’m surprised Joe says the same. That sense is not mutually exclusive to having to get from A to Z through problem-solving decisions.


Perhaps we are talking at cross-purposes.

Ally,


I very much have a *learned* sense of shape and design, and it is always a work in progress.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I'm really not that great at dreaming up ideas from thin air, but I do have a really good memory bank of thousands of golf holes I've seen to use in a pinch.  I'm not sure if that's creativity.

Absolutely that's creativity, it's practically all that creativity is. Composers have X number of keys on a piano, the music is in which ones they choose to use and when. I'd love to hear from someone who came up with anything truly out of thin air, I don't know if it can be done. Models sat for davinci's paintings. Creativity is interesting choices and combinations.

My contrary, and usually humorous take on this is that my best trait, creatively, is a horrible memory. For me, it’s a lot more satisfying to design and build something with few preconceived notions and let the problem solving exercise take me where it may. If it ends up looking like something else that’s old and familiar, so be it, but, when it’s my choice, I don’t make that result a priority. Sometimes I’m asked to mimic something famous found elsewhere, and it is usually a less satisfying exercise to me.

Joe, 


First off, I like the entire discussion on creativity.  As to your comment, "I very much have a *learned* sense of shape and design, and it is always a work in progress." [/size]yes, this is true too.  I was having this discussion yesterday with another gca.  While we tend to lump "the golden age" into one thing, in reality, it was decades lone.  Ross worked from early 1900's until his death in 1947.  There is no doubt his thoughts evolved somehow over that time.  On the other hand, many of the famous guys really only worked from post WWI (1918) until 1929.  It would be interesting to see how their thoughts might have evolved had the, like RTJ, survived to work after the war.  We'll never know, but it would be good fodder for some writer with an interest in gca to create a book out of.[/color]




I agree that civil engineering, software development, and hey, maybe even having two parents figure out how to schedule their three kids are different types of creativity.  Only a few really are applicable to golf design, but problem solving is no doubt creativity.


I think your point on creativity is valid, and a great point.  What creative people see is the relationship between items, and combining them in different ways to fit a specific need, which tends to be something new.  That is, copying a Redan hole using topo maps is slightly creative, but seeing a piece of land (usually a reverse slope at the green site, duh, in this case) and realizing some earlier solution (i.e., reverse slope green) is the basic best way to use that site, but that certain details have to change to best fit that site is way more creative, and exactly what good designers do and have.


To someone else's point, and yours, a short memory can work both ways, for sure.  I think designers (and coaches) do tend to get more conservative over time, remembering the neat ideas that didn't quite work out in the past (and understanding why) My first day with my mentors, they gave me a par 3 hole to design as sort of an intro project.  I had a pond crossing the front of the green, and Dick Nugent was very animated that was a bad idea and walked out, leaving me thinking I was going to be fired.  He came back about 20 minutes later and said, "We tried that at XX CC, and then we got fired.  None of the women and high handicap players thought it was fair." (I have read many critiques of the water to one side par 3 being "too standard" here, and that is probably a good example of the reason why so many exist right there.)

For that matter, I have seen many of the architecture buffs here posit that each design ought to start with a clean slate in the designer's mind.  As TD mentions, that doesn't happen often.  Whether your own mistakes where you would take a mulligan, or other golf holes you have seen, basically, that isn't truly possible.  And, no client would be comfortable with you throwing away all your past experience when designing, its why you get hired.  As a parallel, do you want your pilot to announce over the loudspeaker, "Fasten your seatbelts....I'm going to try something NEW!"
Creativity is probably harder to dissect than is possible in one post, or maybe even one thread.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I have worked with architects and shapers who, I would say, have an innate sense of shape and design. I have also worked with architects and shapers who claim to have the vision of the finished product before any dirt gets moved.

I have neither. I have to get from A to Z through a series of problem-solving decisions that present themselves as I work the dirt.

This is how I work, as well.  It's also how Mr. Dye worked, and that's why I don't trust anyone who claims they've visualized the whole thing before they start.  There are just too many little problems to figure out.  The only way you can visualize it all in advance is to bulldoze some of those problems away.

Tom,


To Joe’s post, I would also distrust anyone who claims to see the finished result completely before any dirt gets moved, at least if the best product is the ultimate aim…. But I consider a sense of shape and design to be pretty important, whether innate or learned. If nothing else, it adds efficiency to the whole process. There is no way you don’t have that and I’m surprised Joe says the same. That sense is not mutually exclusive to having to get from A to Z through problem-solving decisions.


Perhaps we are talking at cross-purposes.

Ally,


I very much have a *learned* sense of shape and design, and it is always a work in progress.

Ah I see.


I would consider myself to have had an instinctive knowledge of how to read the land, both on site and on plan, although that of course gets better and more refined with experience…


My understanding of constructability, shaping and detailing definitely feels more learned and is a continuous process.

[Cal Carlisle]

A good eye for scale and spatial awareness is difficult to teach. I've seen some designers (from many disciplines) that are naturally really good at it. With experience, most people improve, but there are others that just seem to understand it at a completely different level. I think it's a natural talent people have, just like being a "supertaster".

[Tommy Williamsen]

I'm really not that great at dreaming up ideas from thin air, but I do have a really good memory bank of thousands of golf holes I've seen to use in a pinch.  I'm not sure if that's creativity.

Absolutely that's creativity, it's practically all that creativity is. Composers have X number of keys on a piano, the music is in which ones they choose to use and when. I'd love to hear from someone who came up with anything truly out of thin air, I don't know if it can be done. Models sat for davinci's paintings. Creativity is interesting choices and combinations.

I am a musician of sorts and have written and recorded some of my original music. Sometimes a melody is the work of trial and error, trying to fit the music with the words. That doesn't require much creativity. Sometimes a melody will just appear out of thin air. I have music in my head all the time. There are only a few times each day when I am not aware of some melody in my head. Most of the time, it is a melody I know. Sometimes it is a melody that only exists in my head. Sometimes, if I am quiet long enough, I can hear a melody that exists somewhere else, and I am only the vehicle of that which wants to be sung.

[Mike_Young]

This stuff hurts my head.
IMHO golf design is just weird and so often hyped.  I will always say there was a concerted effort to hype the drawing of plans in the post WW2 era and it gave us some of the worst golf courses ever.   Basic technical proficiency comes from have a clear concept of the land itself.  I may sound like a nut job but if I come up with the proper routing then all I need is 3 stakes.  I let the land tell me what will fit and just massage what opens up as we begin to work it based on the strategy I want for the hole.  But that's me.  I have had a couple of shapers tell me of working for a contractor where the architect would come out and use a hand level to tell them to lower a mound behind a green because his plan said it needed to be 6 inches lower.  In my book that is pure bullshit and what we call a LOFT problem in golf.

[Charlie Goerges]

A good eye for scale and spatial awareness is difficult to teach. I've seen some designers (from many disciplines) that are naturally really good at it. With experience, most people improve, but there are others that just seem to understand it at a completely different level. I think it's a natural talent people have, just like being a "supertaster".

I agree there is something to this. So the divide isn't between creative/non-creative or anything along those lines, the divide is between spatial reasoning and it's lack. Agree people can come to an understanding of it, but I'd bet money that the architects and shapers would mostly all score highly on spatial reasoning, regardless of their working process.


My wife has a great understanding of music, good at math, but if we go upstairs in the house and I ask what room is below us, she's got no effing clue (obviously she remembers for future reference when one of us has told her). Real trouble imagining 3D space. I feel like that is probably the largest impediment to the sort of physical design that is needed for a golf course.

[John Kavanaugh]

This stuff hurts my head.
IMHO golf design is just weird and so often hyped.  I will always say there was a concerted effort to hype the drawing of plans in the post WW2 era and it gave us some of the worst golf courses ever.   Basic technical proficiency comes from have a clear concept of the land itself.  I may sound like a nut job but if I come up with the proper routing then all I need is 3 stakes.  I let the land tell me what will fit and just massage what opens up as we begin to work it based on the strategy I want for the hole.  But that's me.  I have had a couple of shapers tell me of working for a contractor where the architect would come out and use a hand level to tell them to lower a mound behind a green because his plan said it needed to be 6 inches lower.  In my book that is pure bullshit and what we call a LOFT problem in golf.

You’d have a tent city built up your ass if you had chosen to conform.

[Charlie Goerges]

I'm really not that great at dreaming up ideas from thin air, but I do have a really good memory bank of thousands of golf holes I've seen to use in a pinch.  I'm not sure if that's creativity.

Absolutely that's creativity, it's practically all that creativity is. Composers have X number of keys on a piano, the music is in which ones they choose to use and when. I'd love to hear from someone who came up with anything truly out of thin air, I don't know if it can be done. Models sat for davinci's paintings. Creativity is interesting choices and combinations.

I am a musician of sorts and have written and recorded some of my original music. Sometimes a melody is the work of trial and error, trying to fit the music with the words. That doesn't require much creativity. Sometimes a melody will just appear out of thin air. I have music in my head all the time. There are only a few times each day when I am not aware of some melody in my head. Most of the time, it is a melody I know. Sometimes it is a melody that only exists in my head. Sometimes, if I am quiet long enough, I can hear a melody that exists somewhere else, and I am only the vehicle of that which wants to be sung.

Thanks for that Tommy, I like hearing about music and musicians because I don't understand it well and every discussion is virtually 100% learning for me. Only thing I'd say is that we might well have a different definition of "out of thin air". I would say it came out of you and your experience. To me, out of thin air would be like inventing a new note that no-one has heard before.

[Jeff_Brauer]

This stuff hurts my head.
IMHO golf design is just weird and so often hyped.  I will always say there was a concerted effort to hype the drawing of plans in the post WW2 era and it gave us some of the worst golf courses ever.   Basic technical proficiency comes from have a clear concept of the land itself.  I may sound like a nut job but if I come up with the proper routing then all I need is 3 stakes.  I let the land tell me what will fit and just massage what opens up as we begin to work it based on the strategy I want for the hole.  But that's me.  I have had a couple of shapers tell me of working for a contractor where the architect would come out and use a hand level to tell them to lower a mound behind a green because his plan said it needed to be 6 inches lower.  In my book that is pure bullshit and what we call a LOFT problem in golf.

You always sound like a nut job to me, Mike.


You are correct that right after WWII golf architects did feel the need for their profession to be more recognized as a profession.  Most architects did draw plans, and a subset of them found that with cities getting into the golf biz, they required fancier, more like engineers' plans to bid them out.  IMHO, most of the less regarded designs of that era were due to the course purpose, i.e., providing high play public golf courses.  And, some courses not all like now that were designed in the era were done by RTJ, and others who didn't really draw big plan sets, as well.


I have heard those stories of anal retentive golf course architects who measured stuff to the inch rather than look at the near final product artistically as well.  Those that I know entered this profession from the engineering field, but most wouldn't do what you said, and your example shouldn't and doesn't paint a valid picture of gca then or now.  I recall a few along those lines where the gca came out to verify field measurments around the perimeter of the green, so the builder got those to grade but left a hole in the middle of the green, and supposedly the architect didn't notice and approved the green staking.  Urban legend, I am sure.


Besides, gradually over time, as builders got better, architects stopped approving grades, etc.  I think the pressure to keep fees low probably reduced field time in some cases, hiring good builders made that obsolete in others.  I have said this before, but you need to update your griping to things that happen now, not keep regurgitating old complaints, LOL.


Charlie, I also appreciate the music analogy, and they are similar in some ways.  Sometimes, we hit on a routing or green design early and easily, other times it is a result of a somewhat painstaking process of circular thought until somewhere an idea is finalized.

[Tom_Doak]

Several of the better shapers / associates / construction people I know are talented musicians, or their parents were.


I, however, have zero aptitude for music.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()