[Ira Fishman]

The Pine Valley thread prompts this question, or at least resurfacing it. Crump famously brought in/together so many great architects for input and assistance. Could such an approach work today?


Thanks.

[Ben Sims]

Ira,


I would argue that this approach has been turning up aces for several firms for a couple decades now. It’s impressive what good teams can accomplish when no one cares who gets the credit and there’s a leader that is comfortable deploying talent.


That said, that type of description is still internal to one firm. The Crump tactic was a bit different.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Of course it could work. Unless I’m somewhat mistaken, Crump was still the leader so could choose to accept or reject any suggestions given to him by Colt, Tillinghast et al?


It doesnt work if you don’t have a final decision maker.


Tom is the decision maker in his firm. He has brought his team along so well that he’s comfortable delegating much of the detailing to them. But if he hates something and it isn’t too disruptive to change it, he’ll change it.


Most good golf courses have come about through collaboration; but always with one leader. Like almost any other business.

[Tim_Weiman]

Ira,


I would argue that this approach has been turning up aces for several firms for a couple decades now. It’s impressive what good teams can accomplish when no one cares who gets the credit and there’s a leader that is comfortable deploying talent.


That said, that type of description is still internal to one firm. The Crump tactic was a bit different.

Ben,


There may not be anyone better to comment on Ira’s question than Tom Doak, but I agree with your suggestion that the Crump/Pine Valley case is really something different than, say, Sebonack.

[Ira Fishman]

Yes, my question is about bringing together architects from different practices/firms. It kinds of surprises me that no amateur architect has not tried to reprise the Crump role and model. Maybe the economics or egos would not work.


Ira

[Charlie Goerges]

At the time, were any of the collaborators other than Colt considered to be full-time professional architects?

[Tim_Weiman]

At the time, were any of the collaborators other than Colt considered to be full-time professional architects?

Charlie,


Didn’t Tillinghast spend a few days on site?

[Charlie Goerges]

At the time, were any of the collaborators other than Colt considered to be full-time professional architects?

Charlie,


Didn’t Tillinghast spend a few days on site?

He did, but I wonder if he was considered a full time professional at that time.

[Tom_Doak]

Yeah, I've taken the team approach since Day 1 of my career.  At High Pointe I didn't have nearly as much help as subsequently, but I had the previous superintendent at Crystal Downs, Tom Mead, and a 23-year-old intern named Gil Hanse.  [I was only 26 myself.]


Like George Crump, it's my choice which friends and associates to bring on site, and how much of their ideas to use.  Some of my associates would be considered as highly as some of Crump's friends if they had designed more courses on their own, and most of them have WAY more experience at construction than George Thomas or Tillinghast had in 1917.


And as Ally says, there has to be someone in the lead.  Bill Coore and Ben Crenshaw are the only design partnership I've ever seen where there isn't a clear leader -- they are both very deferential to the other, and it helps that they are sympatico about 97% of their thinking.  Mike Clayton and I had a similar relationship, I felt we were usually on the same page, but I had way more experience than Mike at that point so I was still the final decision maker.




Ira, your question was different, but I don't know how well it would work.  Sebonack was a bit of a mess because there was no clear decision maker and the client used that to triangulate between us.  Maybe two young architects who aren't used to being in the lead role could collaborate well, and we have seen a bunch of cases of that recently . . . Brian Ross and Colton Craig, Keith Rhebb and Riley Johns, Brian Schneider and Blake Conant. 


But, once you have been the decision maker for years, it's hard to share the decision making.  I just want a defined role.  I was happy to do the routing for Zac Blair and make a site visit and work on a handful of holes, but leave the final decisions to him and Kye . . . but it did bother me a little that I built one green they later blew up, even though there are four or five that I did with Kye's team.  Likewise, if in my old age I work with my associates but don't want to put in 30 days on the road anymore, I would just take the second chair and contribute my thoughts and advice but leave the decisions to them, instead of trying to negotiate with them.  There is just no room or no time for politics in a creative endeavour.

[Ira Fishman]

Tom,


Thanks for understanding and responding to my question. It does surprise me that one of the wealthy folks who wanted to build a course have not tried to put together a “Dream Team” of architects with the stipulation that he/she gets to make the final decision. Perhaps it is so costly to build a course that it deters the amateur from taking the risk or perhaps they have enough diligence to know that top architects would not be interested for some of the reasons you mention.


I do think that Zac Blair deserves credit for having a distinct enough vision and confidence that he switched lead architects plus got you step in to handle the routing.


Ira

[Thomas Dai]

The buck has to stop somewhere.
However, truly great leaders know how to select and inspire good people around them and don’t hog all the limelight and glory instead sharing it around amongst their team. They also know how to get rid of dead wood and are strong enough to do so when necessary.

Atb

[Tom_Doak]

It does surprise me that one of the wealthy folks who wanted to build a course have not tried to put together a “Dream Team” of architects with the stipulation that he/she gets to make the final decision.

Oh, I’ve heard it floated a couple of times, that’s why the answer is right on the tip of my tongue.


Most of the dream team are in good position not to have to consider such a proposition.  One of the challenges for the younger guys is finding a client who doesn’t want to meddle - that might be the reason the client didn’t choose a bigger name, because they want more control to the point it’s a red flag for us.


In the other hand, the right client can make you better.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()