This episode of the Frida Egg Podcast is brought to you by us the Friday Egg. We are doing a small little sale for all podcast listeners. If you use the code winter Blues and the pro Shop you will get ten percent off. We've got a lot of stuff in there. We've got hoodies, We've got t shirts, We've got hats, we've got polos. We also have golf course prints. We've got a lot of new prints up in the shop.
If you didn't get one for Christmas and you wanted one, you want to spruce up your office or your your you know, the walls of your home. Check these out. We've got over sixty courses up and we will continue to be adding to that list. So use the code winter Blues and get ten percent off your check out at proshop dot Thefrida Egg dot com.
I miss the green, for example, I'm already upset. When I find my ball in the bunker, I'm really upset. And when I find my ball in a frid Egg, Friday Egg, the Dread and Friday.
Fridagg Bride Egg Lie, I'm about ready to run off of the hump. Welcome back to another edition of the Frida Egg Podcast. I am excited for this episode. Spend a few years in the making, COVID kind of put a pause. I wanted to get down to Arizona to see uh David Kahn and Tim Jackson's work at Scottsdale National before I had him on.
They are young. I guess young.
Young is a relative word in the architecture community.
I said this to a friend.
They're like, I didn't know any any golf architect was young relatively speaking.
They're young. They worked for Tom Fazio.
They are evolved off of that tree, and they are building some really thought provoking stuff. Scottsdale National was really a cool course to see. Unbelievable the earthwork that they did to build that golf course and how real it looks.
So I was quite excited.
We went down and spent a day with Tim and David and talked a lot, and they've got some different opinions than many that come on this podcast, So it was it was fun to get a little bit different perspective on golf course architecture, and certainly a duo that I would be looking out for and excited about their future work as they get more and more jobs in the coming years. So without further ado, here is David Kahn and Tim Jackson.
How would you guys describe your design style?
Yeah, no, I haven't either. How would we describe a design style? I'll say this we we we I think our design style hopefully is we don't want to necessarily repeat what we've done in the past. I mean, I think there's a lot of golf course designers. You could you know, you could be air mailed into the middle of a golf course do a three sixty. You know who designed the golf course, just based upon the style, the features, the look. You know, when you're on a
Pete Die golf course. There's a lot of great peed Die golf courses. You know you're on a peed Die golf course, right when you're on a you know, a Nicolas course. A lot of times you know you're on a Nicholas course or you know, a Palmer course or things of that nature. We we don't necessarily like to you know, we try to do different things quite honestly. You know, we want each project to be unique, not
be a replication of what's been done in the past. So, I mean, I don't know if that's necessarily designed style, but that's a thought that we have quite a bit.
Yeah.
I mean, not only is it important for the client to give them something different to help their product and business differentiate from competitors, but as a designer selfishly, it's more fun to explore new ideas. So, you know, I think we we have overarching philosophies that apply to every project, but the physical manifestation of those philosophies, we hope, are you know, varied to the point where it doesn't seem like we're just copy and pasting.
Would you guys think.
It's fair to say that you'd fall into the maximalism camp.
What is the maximalism can?
I don't know.
You know a lot of architects today identify themselves as minimalists, like where they want to move as a little dirt as possible and kind of let.
The lay of the land be the I don't I don't know how the world out there defines maximalism, but I will say that we try very very hard to maximize the potential of the design in every project. So if that's the definition of it, then I'd say, without a doubt, where maximalism maximalists, that does not mean we look to move the most amount of dirt in every project. But if that's what's required to maximize the potential, then absolutely, we're not scared to do it.
Yeah, you know, I think that, and I'm gonna be very honest. There's not a lot of designers out there that can successfully take on a project where, in order to maximize the golf potential, say you need to move four or five million cubic yards of material and then create great golf by doing that, right, there's a lot of designers that can take a great piece of ground
and design a great golf course. You know. I think once you know that you can take a piece of property that may be featureless, that may not have the greatest elements, the greatest starting elements, and create great golf, it gets pretty easy after that, quite honestly.
So you think, you know, I think like conventional thought recently is like you need a great site to build great golf.
Can you build great golf anywhere?
Absolutely?
Yeah.
I mean they're different, they're different, you know, kind of vibes and results at the end of the day. But I think that if the desire is there from the client and if the funding is there, depending on what you're starting with at a certain point there is money that is required to build these things, then I don't think there are any excuses for not being able to create something spectacular.
Yeah, you know, the.
You always want to spend the client's money as efficiently and as responsibly as possible, right, but you also want to make sure that you achieve the client's goals. And you know, again there's a starting point and there's a desired end result. And if you have the experience to understand and know what it's going to take to get from point A to point B, and the client's willing to support that, there's no reason to hold back from that.
In our opinion, you know, we we've not necessarily been blessed with the opportunity to work on a lot of amazing in sites natural sites for golf. In our careers. We've had to work on a number of projects, both when we were with Tom and as Jackson Cohn that required a lot of heavy moving, have a lot of heavy lifting to create the golf, essentially create the environment
and kind of put the golf in it. I guess, you know, for for lack of a better term, and we feel that we've been you know, relatively successful with that.
Fortunately, when you say Tom is Tom.
Yes, yes, yes, yes, So you know, in terms like I think like what are the misconceptions about moving dirt to create something? What?
What do you guys think.
Some in meeting with clients or you know what, or just general conversation.
Well, you know, I think that I think that when you look about how golf is written about, and you look about at the golf writers that are kind of active today in golf, they have collectively a very narrow bandwidth on how they feel golf should be created, right, And I think that a lot of people read that and a lot of people feel that that's the way that golf should because they say that's the way the golf should be right. You know, the end result is
really what matters. And I'll be honest, you know, there's a lot of guys that we've encountered in our career, critics who are just aboring at the thought that we would take a piece of ground and move the amount of dirt that we do, and we could take them out there and they could never tell what was a cut or what was a fill. The whole key is you have to do it on a scale that you create believability in the end result, right, you know, I think that you know, we've been fortunate we were taught
how to do that. You know, it's not something that I think that you you know, just instinctively know how to do. But again, you know, we had a lot of pieces of ground in our career that the expectations were very high as far as what the end result for golf was going to be, and the starting point was not that great.
I think that's something, you know, having senior guys work at Scottsdale National the other course, like something that you know, when you think manufactured golf, you kind of like my mind goes to containment mounds and you get those like eight to ten foot containment mounds down the right or the left side, and you know, little mound here, something that kind of like what amaze me what you just said is making it look real and the scale of it.
You know, can you talk about that, like what what have you guys learned to make stuff look real that is very manufactured you know in essence like it's completely created, but it looks like it's been there for a long time.
So you know, in order to trick the human mind, it has to be built at a scale large enough where you can't immediately or ever perceive you know that dirt was actually moved at that immense scale. And what I mean by that is, you know, like to your point, the old kind of nineteen eighties shaping where it's just mounds left right of the golf hole. There you can clearly see the man made very rhythmic, very engineered slope.
Clearly man touched that. And that doesn't en and up itself make it bad, but it's it's just striking to the eye. It's like, well, that's somebody built that. And and in our minds, and we learned a lot, you know, working with Tom and senior designers there. When you move dirt, when you have to move dirt, when you need to
move dirt, move it at a scale large enough. And and what I mean by that is, don't just necessarily do it within one golf hole, have that cut, have that fill, you know, transition from one to another to a third, maybe a fourth golf hole. And when it's done at that large of a scale, it looks like a very natural landform. Obviously the shape and esthetic and you know the contouring of that movement has to be done in a very organic and natural way and not
very rhythmic, like I said, not engineered. Constant planes, constant slopes are immediately scream you know, engineered. And like I said, I love Pete die work, and he did a lot of that angular, very sharp contouring, and it's it's awesome,
you know, it's just not the style. I guess to go back to your first question of you know, what appeals to our eye, and that's something we did on the other course of Gustil National is really really large cuts, really really large fills, not not vertically but also horizontally.
Well, I think too. I guess the most extinct way of saying is that you have to manufacture in a way that looks as natural as possible when it's all said and done right, and and a lot of that is how it's put back together. So you know, there's always the base movement that you're creating, the cuts, the fills, the elevations. But then what do you do with those those cuts and those fills and elevations when it's all said and done. What's the vegetation that goes back in?
You know, what's the you know, the the rock worker and in the you know, in the essence Discustile National. You know, we had to blast the lake into the irrigation lake, you know, into the ground with I think was a sixty foot cut to the bottom of irrigation lake hit bedrock at eighteen inches eighteen inches right, So that was you know, fifty eight and a half feet of
rock that needed to be excavated out of there. That rock was repurposed around the golf course and placed in a way that it actually added it and enhanced and made the environment look more natural than if we didn't have that. I mean, there's so many areas of Scotstill National that are so heavily manufactured and nobody knows they feel.
You know, one of the bessest compliments I think we had from Rand Morris set is everyone's going to think, you guys had this amazing site for golf because the end result looks so real and it looks so nice, and it is real. I mean, it is real.
It's just you know, you know, the interesting thing about all of rock out there was in our initial budget we had we were bringing in rock from offsite because we always wanted that look to kind of match the natural surroundings. We had no idea that we were sitting
on solid bedrock. And so when we started making the cut for the lake and we found that mother earth right underneath there, eighteen inches down, and immediately we're like, well, stop, stop ordering the truckloads of rock to come in, and we have it all right here. And so, you know, we utilize that kind of happy accident and repurposed that all over the property to uh to kind of eminitize the landscape and you know, make it a believable landscape.
And on the landscape architect pinnacle design that was involved in that project was equally as important to making that scene in that environment believable because we could have built all the cool landforms in the world. But if you top that, like Tim said, with the with the wrong vegetation or just kind of poor planting or really manufacture kind of we call it the bad hair transplant equally spacing equally sized plants, then it just it ruins the whole effort.
Yeah, golf architecture likes to be considered an art, but what you just hit on is an interesting, you know, divergence from so many other forms. Like if you're a painter, you just you sit in your house and paint stuff and then people buy it and then maybe you start to do some custom commissions, right, like really successful painters though just paint stuff. But golf like you're you're always tied to what an owner, a developer, a client, a
committee wants. So in a way, your your art form is somewhat constrained.
Right, Well, you try to choose the projects I think where it's least constrained, hopefully, but there's considerations, there's always compromising considerations along the way. Right. You can't design in
a bubble, you can't design in a vacuum. And you know, it's you know, we understand that many of the clubs that we work with now you know, existing clubs, you know there's members that are very passionate about their golf courses, right, and you have to, you know, you have to be able to take what they feel they want their golf course to be and you know, show them what you think the potential could be and then you try to bridge that gap a lot of times because there's a
pretty big disconnected times as far as what that might be with kind of maximalism.
I'm curious, you know, in creating these environments. You know, maintenance, and you know, I think a lot of people assume if you move a lot of dirt then you're going to have a higher maintenance budget. Is that true?
No, not at all. No, you may have a slightly higher construction cost maybe. I mean in the big scheme of things, when you're building a golf course, moving dirt is not a big line item blasting, you know, dealing with rock absolutely is, But just moving the dirt is not is not that expensive. It's again, it's what you put on top of it. How many square feet, how many acres of turf do you how many square feet acres of bunkers, how many square feed acres of greens?
That's what matters is It doesn't matter if you found that site as is and you grasped it, and may you know that maintenance is pretty much the exact same as opposed to if you manufactured it. If you have the same amount of square footage of golf at the end of the day, it doesn't matter how you got there. The maintenance, the maintenance starts at that point forward. So it's it's it's independent. Yeah, it's part of the earthwork.
A lot of it goes into how well golf course is constructed as far as what the maintenance requirements are. The follow right, and I'm going to give you a
prime example between maximalism and minimalism with that. Okay, So you know, again, one of the things that we learned from Tom Fazio is that the infrastructure that you put in the ground supports which you do on top of that, and if you don't get the foundation right, you're going to have issues after the fact, right, So you know, we know, we feel like we know what it takes from an irrigation standpoint, from a drainage standpoint, the things that the members never see to be able to have
a successful project. And we work with the golf course superintendents. My degree is in agronomy, it's not in landscape architecture, right, so I'm a turf fed So I'd love talking with those guys. And it doesn't necessarily mean that it affects what we do from a design standpoint. Sometimes we have a lot of conversations about maintenance and what that, what that means, but we always try to give them what
they need to be successful to support the design. So there's a very well known architect who did a project out west and he wanted irrigation spacing in a desert environment, high desert environment that was going to create dry areas and wet areas because he didn't want everything perfectly green, right, minimalist designer, minimalist design I don't want perfect irrigation spacing because I want this browned out looking areas.
Right.
No understanding of what that was going to do to the golf course superintendent when the members came to him and said, why does the golf course look this way? Right, the minimalist architect dictated the irrigation design in a way that was going to create so much more maintenance for the golf course superintendent because his guys were going to be out there on hoses, hand watering areas. Because the members would never have accepted that.
Right.
We recognize the fact that we want to support the golf course superintendents of what they need to achieve the expectations. It's not always about us at the end of the day. We want to give them what they need. But there's a minimalist designer was his thought, and he was going to create far, far more maintenance for the superintendent. Was all said and done.
Yeah, I mean, in to kind of oversimplify, you can put more money into the construction to then reduce maintenance needs moving forward. So you know, it's it's it's it's not the minimalism. It's absolutely maximalism. But you know that can be in any aspect of life, not just golf. You know, you can put it into your house, more sustainability. You can put solar on your roof. Well, that costs a lot, but look now you have no power bill moving forward.
So there are.
Ways you know, with the construction of the golf course with better irrigation system, you know, better spacing, better head control, all that stuff that costs an arm and a leg to put in upfront, but you know that that pays dividends in the long run.
Well, I always, like everybody always like, oh good architecture costs more money, but like when you look at it from the design standpoint and building, it's something that's gonn't really sound.
It's construction. Construction costs.
It actually saves you a lot of money in the long run because if if it if it cuts your maintenance bill by one hundred thousand dollars for thirty years, So you're you're probably high fiving, you know about hey we save some money.
Yeah, No, I mean yeah, So it's you know, for us again, it's it's it's it's not Maximuslimbers. It's getting it right, you know, quite honestly. And you know, again, you know, hopefully working with clients, have the resources to be able to build something correctly.
And getting it right for that client, and you know, good or bad it that's that's what we do. We work for a client. We're not We're not an artist just going in our basement and drawing on a canvas and saying I like it. It's that would be great, But we don't have that much money to just go and you know, buy hundreds of acres of land and
just kind of fiddle around. So we are, at the end of the day working for somebody that has to meet some degree of a bottom line, and it's our responsibility and task to be able to maximize those opportunities with staying within that constraint in those realities.
So yeah, you know, I think i'd love to hear who This is a question I love to ask architects, and I've been particularly interested with your guys's answer. Who's on your Mount Rushmore of golf architecture. So you get four spots, right, I want to hear who you guys is Mount Rushmore of golf architects.
For me, Mike Strants would have the biggest head chiseled in the mountain. I'll have to think about it. I would put Pete Die up there as well. I tend to gravitate to the guys that break the mold and are risk takers, and probably half the population dislikes them and the other half of them. So I kind of like those polarizing figures, you know, the safe designers that go down the middle of the road and have a long,
successful career. I just I don't you know, to me, they don't move the needle enough to kind of admire their talent and their courage.
I mean, in a way, designs should be slightly provocative.
Yeah, I mean it's my opinion that the best designs out there are some of the most controversial as well. I mean honestly, because again, if it's plain Jane, it may be good maybe you know, good aconomic conditions, It may be a cool environment, but if it's not really pushing buttons and making you think and question and stopping in your tracks, and it's just they think it's missing the mark. You know, strategies, getting getting the math of
golf is very black and white to us. It's very straightforward. Once we know those numbers are correct, and we know a hazard wants to go here, and it wants to be about yay, big, yay, long, yey wide. You know, once you have that, that's where the fun begins. It's not like, hey, just go put a circle bunker there and call it a day. It's like, no, okay, we've positioned it correctly, so it's going to play.
Right.
Now, let's build the art. What are people going to look at and get excited about because you know, Tim has this kind of saying a lot. I'm surprised he hasn't said it. Yeah, and I'll probably butcher it. But you know, we stand on a golf tee or you know, a golf hole. The majority of golfers cannot even understand strategy. They don't it doesn't register, and then the few that actually do understand it, a very small percentage of them
can even execute. So now you're looking at let's just call it, ninety five percent of golfers in the world are literally just there enjoying the scene and trying to hit a golf ball that they can find the next shot. So, you know, we don't put all effort into the beauty. We put equal effort into getting the math right, getting the strategy, the options right, and then really focusing on the art because that's what people engage with.
Yeah, we're going to get back to the Mount Rushmore thing. I'm not letting you off the hook that easy, but it's something you talked about that I want to touch on while we're here. You talked about having to push the bounties, having to build provocative stuff. What's an example of something that you built that was particularly provocative.
Well, I think that you know, for us, probably the prime example is the you know, the bad little Ninus
Constan National. You know, the concept behind it, you know, initially, you know, for mister Parsons was to create, you know, essentially a course that could be set up is the hardest part three course in the world, which doesn't sound like a lot of fun right in and of itself, but when you're out there and it's set up on Fridays on challenge days and you see members and their guests having just the most amazing time, you know, watching a guy you know hit it to you know, fifteen
feet and walk off a green with a twelve. You know, it doesn't sound fun, but it is, It really is because of the challenge. It's there. The hardest part for us, and Dave talks about the math of golf course architecture golf course design was finding the margin between almost impossible and impossible on the on the bad Little nine, because impossible is not fun, but almost impossible is fun in
that particular environment. Right, So, and you know, and we took a lot of heat for this when we when we talked about this from certain components of the Minimalist architecture group. You know, we have a young man that works for us, and he had a video game that he could build basically golf in and so he built the Bad Little Nine in this golf game and just hundreds and hundreds of thousands of shots were hit to try to find those margins between impossible and almost impossible.
Now it's a you know, it's not the classic way of designing golf. It's using you know, new technologies and tools, but it worked. It worked in the end results you know, kind of kind of showed that.
Do you think that's actually a you know, a way forward sometimes for designer is using these video games.
Do you think that's effective?
Like means for if you're you know, building a course, like trying doing that and trying it out before you put it into the ground.
Yeah, it is, and it is for two reasons. One and probably the most important, is to be able to communicate to an owner or a client or a group of owners what.
The vision is.
It's it's you could say a thousand words to an owner explaining your vision and they it's not going to register. But if you show them a picture, if you show them a video of show them a three D space, they're gonna they're gonna get it. So it's very valuable
from that respect. But the other one is if you truly are trying to create something different that there are no case studies for you can't go step on properties and analyze the contouring and the spaces to then all right, we're gonna you know, glean some information here and then go apply it in a new way. When you're when you're searching for that needle in the haystack of something different, experimenting and exploring that in a in a in a virtual space. It's pretty much the only way you can
do it. And and thankfully we live in a in a time where the physics of a video game are real and so you know, it wasn't just guessing that slopes needed to be certain certain severities and and spaces need to be a certain size to be able to make those shots work. It was it was proving it out for us. And then we took that new math and we're able to bring that in the dirt and make it come real.
And it still just a foundation though too. I mean, you know, you whether it's in a video game, whether it's a plan on a desk, you need to do it in the dirt, and you need to do it in the field. But you have to have a starting point, right, And for many architects the starting point is the you know, the plan that they draw all the grading plan that's on a piece of paper. You give it to the contractor they got out there and they stake it out and they start doing cut some fils or whatever it
may be. This was just different. Our starting point was was this video game, and we still made adjustments, we still modified it in the dirt. We still spend a ton of time out there making sure that it looked the way we wanted to look and have played the way that we wanted it to play. But it was just a different way of going about it. But we didn't again, we didn't. We wanted to make sure we got it right. You know, when we told Bob about
the concept, you know, we kind of pitched it to him. Bob, you know it's it's gonna be so tough if a member, you know, shoots power or better, you know, they're gonna get free dues for a year. He's like a little little much on that one, guys, right, So you know it's a thousand dollars on Friday, and he looked at his boys. I don't want to write a lot of thousand dollars checks, right.
But you still have to.
You still have to have it be you know, the goal is you have hope it's achievable, and it is and some day someone will do it. Some days no one's done it yet when it's been set up the way it's supposed to be set up properly. But some day someone will do it because the opportunity is there. Because we got the math right, just have.
To be kind of perfect for you throw no hitter pretty much.
He had.
He had a great phrase to me once. He's like, you know, some somebody will do it one time and we'll pay up. And if that happens the next time, I just I won't cut a hole on the ninth grade. No one will do it again.
We you know, it's obviously the bat will dine. And I think like other short courses are in similar veins, like you see a lot bigger, more daring design that pushes boundaries. What is it about par three courses that uh play golfers accept those bound is being pushed that they then turn around and reject them on a standard golf course.
I don't know what it is about it, but there's a stigma, especially in this country, about eighteen holes, you know, par seventy two seventy two hundred yards or I don't want to play. It's it's an unfortunate truth all too often, and I think I think the exact opposite is viewed
for par three courses. They almost undervalue them and think it's that's not real golf, So they don't really care if you're kind of breaking the mold there, and I hope, I hope that we're in a transition where that type of creativity and different is going to be more accepted in let's call it more you know, a big boy golf, you know, because at the end of the day, we're all I think, we're all playing golf to enjoy it
and have fun. But there's just something about the golfer that just loves loves that misery and so anyway, so yeah, I just think it's I think part three courses is just not really regarded as real golf courses, so they just kind of let its lie, yeah, you.
Know, And I think that it goes back to what they've mentioned too. I mean, we're most of the projects they work on, we're beholden to a membership, we're beholding to an owner and and you know, memberships as a whole are pretty risk averse as far as that goes.
And I'm sure you know you know that and understand that and appreciate that, and we certainly do, you know, working on a project in Louisiana right now, and it's it's just for a couple of brothers, and it's you know, it's gonna end up being probably you don't know, ten eleven twelve greens whatever it is, and it's on about thirty to thirty five acres of land and all interacted.
Fairways seventy acres as a fairways.
Right, Yeah, but the but the point being is like we're having so much fun, so much fun down there because like you throw the rules out, you know, and they want something that is stunning. They want something that they can take their buddies out there and you know, and have fun with and and brag about and you know to some extent. And but you can you can just be so much more creative in that type of environment.
You can be so much more creative because I think the you know, the expectation is a little bit different. You know, when you're when you're working on a say a top hundred club and you're doing a master plan. I mean, there's a mold that's kind of expected to be fit as far as what you're going to do. There's not a lot of clubs that are going to kind of hit the reset button and lets you blow it up.
Right.
You may feel, you may know in your heart at the end of the day that if you had that opportunity, you feel like there be it might be a better golf course there, right, but you know, it just comes down to whether or not you can ever actually get to that point because they are so risk adverse.
Yeah, I mean, I agree, it's you know, it's it's interesting with with clubs and you know, you guys have worked with clubs committees, You've worked for single owners like Bob Parsons, like I think everybody has seen as commercials PHG and obviously a brash guy you worked with these you're working with these brothers, you know, I guess you know in your experience, is there different setups that work
better in certain cases? Is there different you know, are there personality traits that you notice with you know, owners that you know kind of is it hands off better, very involved better? Like is there you know situations that promote you know, better work.
I'll answer my opinion without a doubt. A dictator is the best, even even a dictator with a bad attitude I would take personally over at committee and and and if we're being just truly honest, I mean a dictator that's hands off, I mean, you know, if if they feel they have hired a knowledgeable, talented person or team let that talented person or team do their work. And you know, I think I think from a creator standpoint, the experts in the field, in any field excel when left to do their work.
You know, I'll, you know, we we it's been kind of across the board, right in my opinion, NPCC. We had a great group of guys that we worked with there, that we were fortunate to work with there, that were very supportive. You know, what we felt we wanted to do from a design standpoint, and what we wanted to do from a design standpoint was very different from the golf course that they had and the members played, and and and so we had a lot of you know, we it was it was a it was a good experience.
I mean, you know, they they just wanted the best golf that they could have. And we've had other clubs that we work with that wring their hands over whether that nose in the bunker is going to be two feet this way or two feet that way. It's just it's not a lot of fun when you're you know, when you're kind of going through that process, and and so you know, it's it's certainly more the more freedom
that we have as designers. I think in any not just golf course architecture, golf course design, I think any designer, the more freedom they have that feel, the better result they feel they can produce. Again, if the client wants what he feels, they have to offer, right and so it's you know it, it's pretty rare though, you know. I mean that's the lesser condition when you have those opportunities. In this project in Louisiana, for example, is just it's
you know, right down the right down the hammer. The guys are great and they're just like you guys give us the most amazing golf that we can possibly have on this property, which is awesome.
I'd love to talk you know, with NPCC obviously, anybody that you know, Monterey Peninsula Country Club. It's it's right next to Cyprus, It's right next to Pebble Beach, so you know, you know your neighbors, you know where it is. It's right on the right on the Pacific Ocean. You know, creating in that environment versus creating say in Scottsdale, like
where you had a very flat desert site. You know a lot of it was graded out for home so it was dead flat, you know, to talk about creating in environment that's already like very beautiful and aesthetically pleasing, versus creating from kind of almost nothing.
Well, you know, I mean, obviously the Monori Peninsula is one of the most beautiful places on the face Earth, right, So I mean, you know, you're again your starting point
is relatively strong. You know, NPCC, you know Seth Rainer routed it and then you know, really you know, passed away before any detail work was from design standpoint, and the club doesn't have you know, a tremendous history on how they pretty much got from that routing to the golf course they played right, and they've they've tried over the years to try to you know, kind of figure that out to varying degrees of success. But you know, we we actually have you know, plans where we were
rerouting the golf course at NPCC. They have the the Point Joe Range and you know, there's five acres of land down at the ocean, like you guys have a
practice facility up here. But we couldn't find better golf quite honestly, right, So we we kind of fell back, you know, on Rainer's routing, but it was you know, it was a complete re detailing of every golful elevations, you know, green contours' locations, and really, you know, there wasn't any you know, in that instance, any Seth Rayner in NPCC other than the routing, right as much as that, I guess is a calling card or an identifiable characteristic
from a design standpoint, and and so you know, for us it was it was relatively easy, I think, and maybe Dave can you know, maybe he doesn't feel that way, but when we like toured the golf course, when we were asked to come up and take a look at it, it was like we it didn't take us long to figure.
Out what we thought. It just started appearing in the head right away.
Right, and and you know, and they had, you know, again they had they had very identifiable goals. They had to reduce the amount of turf grass that they were irrigating. There's a finite amount of water on the Moner Ray Pententsul.
The seven courses share essentially a certain allotment, and there's some years where hey, if the water runs out, there's no more water, right, so every square foot of turf grass, you know, was important to them as far as much they had out there and how they were going to operate, and it's very expensive water Coachella Valley. You know, the the aquaford that underlays that is massive, and you know
the golf courses in the Coachella Valley. Basically for an acre foot of water spent about I don't know, maybe eighty or one hundred dollars. It's a replenishment fee for three hundred and twenty five thousand gallons of water. That same amount of water on the Minory Peninsula costs over five thousand dollars. So you know, it was really critical for them that you know, that money was well spent. They had a great golf course, but it was going
to be sustainable for them moving forward. So for us, that meant taking the areas that we took turf grass away within what we did from a design standpoint and making it a positive not a negative. And you know, for us it was like, hey, this is the dune's course, right, let's let's create more dunes, right, And a lot of it's manufactured. It really is. But again, when you go out there and you play the golf course, not a lot of people would know that if they didn't know
the story if they weren't told. So it was taking a need that the club had, making it an opportunity, you know, with all within all the other redtailing that we did from a golf design standpoint, but to actually enhance that environment and just you know, further separated from the shore course that was like a really really strong expectation from the club is that the shore course that Mike stranded, which is just amazing and just a tremendous golf course, and I know Dave's a big fan as well,
but they wanted something completely different. They wanted two distinctly different designs and that was important to them.
Yeah, it's I vividly remember the first time after touring the property, I kind of felt jipped and I turned Tim on like the dunes course, like we're the f for the dunes. We didn't see any dunes. So that's like, you know, so right away it's like we gotta we got to create dunes, you know, and and again do
them at a scale big enough and believable enough. And we had great templates, you know, right along that stretch of the seventeen mile drive to kind of inspire us of how to create them, because they have to fit. If you build dunes that look out of place there that is a major eye sore. So again the same same landscape architect Pinnacle Design helped out kind of vegetating on top of the landforms that we created, you know.
And and it was like back.
Of nine, that's a created dune, right.
That one was was there was natural, okay, but what we did it was it was severely overgrown. I mean we cleaned it out and kind of made it, you know a little bit more presentable. The uh, you know the one off of the tea on eleven was there really twelve and thirteen where where the and and some of fifteen around the tees where that's where kind of the heavy lifting was done to kind of make more more length of dune, more holes that ran through the dune environment.
In that area before was a little bit more subtle and kind of wavy, if you would say. And then it's creating more of that big dune scape that you saw in just little pockets around the court.
Yeah, there were there were little pockets. And now it goes from nine through the teas on seventeen. So I mean there's a there's a good chunk of the golf course that meanders through this dune environment and onto the coast on on the fourteenth hole, and so it was it was a really you know, we felt much needed detail to kind of you know, make the make the course fit its.
Name with U.
You know, somebody like me who big admirer of Golden Age design, big Seth Rainer fan. You know, I look at the dunes course and you know, immediately I would be like, oh, this should be restored Seth Rainer on on the coast. But just you know, this is not about that, but more so the question, in your guys' opinion, are too many courses restored that should be renovated?
I you know, the simple answer is probably yes. But I mean we don't have enough personal experience to kind of know what went into other other projects to really, you know, make a valid, truthful comment on that. But I think a lot of times clubs. You know, something we did at MPCC, we asked him right off the bat, do you want this to be a restoration?
You know?
Well that came from the club like, no, we want the best course possible.
Exactly like anybody that ever had an issue with it, Like the club bade the decision.
Right, have they hired you guys to renovate?
Well, here's the key to though, right, I mean in Man, so many times like there was no rainhole tale to the golf holes as well. Right, he passed, he ro out of the golf course and he passed away. Right. So anyone that would come in, you know, the architect that was there in the nineteen ninety five restoration or project, you know, said he was doing a Seth Rayner type of golf course, right, and you played that golf course,
You're like, no, that is his golf course. Because you could go see that golf course one hundred other different places and they kind of looks the same, right, you know, if anyone would ever and this is kind of interesting when you're doing it. We've only been asked to do one restoration as Jackson cind Design. We restored sunny Lands, which was Dick Wilson's project for Walter Annenberg in Rancha Morage, California.
And it's an amazing property and it has this amazing history in the Annenbergs were incredible people and what it's transformed into is just this, you know, really really cool. The museum museum essentially so they wanted a museum quality restoration, right, so at sunny Lands, and you know, Dick Wilson passed away in nineteen sixty five. I was born in nineteen seventy four. Day was born in seventy seventy nine, right, So I mean he was long gone before we came
into this world. And so you always go back, now, Okay, you research what can we find, right, aerial photography, old plans, notes, green sketches, whatever it may be. And there was really a dearth of information on sunny Lands. There wasn't a whole lot there. Robert von Hagey had inherited Dick Wilson's design firm essentially, and all you know, he had a fire in his office in Texas in nineteen eighty one and a lot of that history was lost. Right, So
we found like one plan routing plan number two. We found some old aerial photography from you know, Riverside County, and we found the old golf course superintendent Tony Kuwahar, who was ninety one years old and still thinking care of a golf course. And that was all we really had to go off of, right to do this museum quality restoration. We went and looked at three courses that we thought were kind of the most original Dick Wilson
designs that were still left. But we had to make a lot of assumptions, right, We had to design in the style of Dick Wilson as opposed to a true restoration. So many times when I think golf course designers say
they're doing a restoration, they don't. They don't really restore exactly what was there, nor could they quite honestly, right, And if anyone would go back to one of our projects and say, hey, we found a Jackson con design plan for whatever project it is, and the golf course that's there today is not that we wouldn't expect it to be, because we make so many changes in the field, right, We make so many adjustments, and you have to You can't.
You can't draw something on paper and have it turn out nearly as good as being out there in the field with the shapers and making those adjustments. So to me, it's kind of like, you know, all right, well, if they go back to the plans, well, who's to say that those architects didn't make those adjustments in the field that you know, And if you're going back to a planner.
You're really to an a restoration. When you're looking at an aerial photograph, you're looking at it two dimensionally, right, there's no third dimension in that, right, So there's so much assumption that goes back into it. To me, we don't, you know. And if a client comes to us and says, we want you guys to do a restoration, We're like, we're not your guys, right, And we try to be very honest about that. Now it's sunny Lands. You know,
we were young designers, we were just starting. It was a great opportunity for We had fun doing it, we really did, and we did it as faithfully as we could. We had to write one hundred and ten page paper on how we were going to restore nine holes of golf that were built in nineteen sixty five.
Right. It's yeah, I think like people think because you get the plans, that's all we have, the sketches. But it's like anything like I can't imagine somebody wrote. You know, bands write a song and it's perfect right away, right, Like they play the song over and over and over again and make little tweaks to, you know, little parts of the song lyric here, you know, you know, note here.
Whatever you would say, right, and I wouldn't say.
It's like the same thing with the green, right, Okay, we like the green here, but it might be you know this, this might be a little harsh. Right.
Even if you stumbled on the most intricate plans, the most detailed plans that as built plans, photos, three D models, you still have to ask yourself, is that the best it can be?
And I don't.
I don't.
I don't know.
I know we ask that to ourselves and of our clients, but I don't know if other architects asked that to their clients. I don't know. So so to answer your first question from minutes ago, you know, I don't. My hunch is that too many courses are being restored that could be better. But I don't know the ins and outs of every decision.
Well, and I do think there are certain golf courses that you know, historically for whatever reason, I mean, hey, they they probably should be restored, right, you know, the question is who's going to do it and how faithful are they going to be? You know, there's there's been you know, some courses in you know, I live in southern California, that have in relatively recent history been quote
unquote restored. Right, And you go out there and look at it, and you look at you know, all the information that's available, and you're like, ah, I mean kind of right, but not necessarily faithfully right. And it's hard right every designer like, we're we're all biased, whether we admit it or not. Right, I mean, we see things a certain way. You know, even when we restored Honey Lens, I mean, you know, you know it was we were doing our best.
They could have ten different architects with the same information restore the same course, and you're going to get ten variations of that. And that's not a bad thing. But that's the truth because you because we're not.
Sting a course from nineteen twenty and if we dog this is what everybody struggles with, is like, well should I keep leave the bunker here? But the intent was for that to be off the tee and I could move it thirty yards up into this other hill and you have it, you.
Know, And if you could incarnate Dick Wilson and bring him back in twenty ten and do that restoration, he would have a different iteration of it. I guarantee I don't know how it would vary, but it would. It's human nature.
I think this like I think restoration. I think the boom of restoration. I don't think there's that many great restoration opportunities anymore. I think the big next wave is renovation, with a lot of courses coming like that real in nineteen sixty, reimagining these golf courses, reimagining even older courses, like some you know, Golden age courses that maybe it was Tom Bendolo. No offense, I'm not trying to drive by Tom Bendelo, but you know we've got this Tom
Bendolo course. Like what can we do reimagine this? You know? With like the housing golf courses, do you have any idea create you know, ideas around like how do you make a golf course with houses and water on Hou's on one side, water on the other, How do you make How would you reimagine those?
Do you do?
You have you thought that at all? Is it obviously site specific? Site specific, but like just generally well.
It you know it it is so site specific. I mean I'll say this, I mean, you know, we're fortunate to be in a position and this is one of the things mister Fasio taught us, and this is one of the things he told us specifically when we started Jackson cond Design was make sure you guys choose your
clients as much as they choose you, right. And if you're able to do that, you know you're able to involve yourself in projects that are engaging, to hold your interest and that you think you can have a positive outcome on.
Right.
You know, I don't know if we would be the guys to look at a Tom Benda Loo golf course with houses on one side, water or another and come up with something that we feel that we would, you know, be happy with the end result. Right. And you know, when you really think about it, when you really think about the true amount of quality, great courses in the United States of America versus how much banal architecture is out there. Man, there's there's there's not a lot of truly, truly,
truly great stuff. And I think there's more of it now over this last twenty five years, with a lot of courses that have been built.
I'd be remiss.
You know. I think most people know Bob Parsons. He's a brash personality, obviously extraordinarily successful businessman, you know, was in the military. Also, you know, he got into golf. He loves golf, and he's got a golf equipment company, and he decided to you know, build his golf paradise effectively.
I think, you know, I'm really curious how it was working with Bob Parsons, just because you know, I think a lot of people probably see the commercials think okay, but like what was the experience like for you guys working with him as a as an owner?
The wonderful for the most part, for all the part. Actually, you know, he was a dream client to be frank, you know, never talked about budget once only one of the best. Was very interested in our ideas, but very quick to say if he wasn't on board with those ideas, which completely fair. You know, he's a bit of a wild card, so we were always on eggshells at times. But you know, there was a mutual trust gained you know, over time, and and he allowed us to spread our
wings and maximize the opportunity for him on that property. So, you know, being able to have an unlimited budget is awesome, but being able to have unlimited creativity is way better. If you have unlimited creativity in a small budget, you can still create awesome golf. Obviously, the budget was was so big because of the starting point and his expectations.
I mean they were worlds apart. We started with a dirt parking lot with not one piece of vegetation, and so you know, his expectation of what was built that required a certain amount of capital. So you know, thankfully, you know, he never once questioned or whittled down our vision to you know, meet some some desired number, and he just let us. He let us go and and really didn't want to see it until we could surprise him at the end.
What's an example of having unlimited creativity at the golf at Scottsdale National that like in for most people obviously will never see this golf course, but like if you could explain like what you were able to do that, you know, because you had this unlimited freedom of creativit.
Yeah, mean the surface is simply just you know, not micromanaging, not saying, you know, you can't put any bunkers at two hundred and twenty yards, or I don't want anything on the right side of the golf hole, or you know, it's just kind of armchair architecting, which which we get a lot in most all.
Of our projects.
It's it's the nature of the business, especially in the renovation world, where there's already you know, a golf course and an expectation and you're changing it. Even if you're changing it for the better, it's change, right, you know. So so not having that that that leash, you know, allowed us to explore ideas of how we were going to achieve his goals for the project and and do
some bold and brash things to meet his personality. So you know, nine foot false false fronts on the fifth Green for example, which is also twenty two thousand square feet, you know, a lot of sand, a lot of a lot of strategic impactful sand, a lot of visual sand. You know, just the boldness of of the golf, the strength at times of the visuals. You know, the blasting that we had to do. We had to do seventy five plus dynamite blasts to build that thing. And that
was never a topic of conversation with him. It's like, you got you do it, do what you need to do. So you know that that is an incredible opportunity where there was really if we felt it was the best idea, and we knew how to make it happen. We went and made it happen, and versus having to go back to a committee and say, hey, we have this thought, what do you think of this? And then it's it's a pow wow for two weeks and then you know, it just gets watered down or or not done at all,
or or maybe it does happen. But with Bob it was it was not the idea.
Will change, you know, once there's conversation, you know, almost like when it's just say hey, we're going to do this, where it becomes your vision, and like you know, when there's collaboration, collaboration can make things better, absolutely, but it also can divert it and send it down some trail that it just basically takes an idea and moves in a different direction.
Well, and you know, and Bob had some overarching goals for for the golf it's costal, national, and he expressed those to us very clearly as far as what he wanted. But then you know, once we had those marching orders, i mean, everything after that was really kind of left to our devices to achieve that.
For him, there were very broad strokes and those were our that was our bible, and and every decision we made needed to kind of fall into one of those buckets. But they were very freeing buckets in order we could have executed him in a in a myriad of ways.
And well, and Bob, you know, he does have a brash personality, but he's actually one of the most charitable people and has a heart of gold and wouldn't want anybody know that. But he's actually he's actually a great human being. He really is. But we were, you know, we were at that stage in our careers. We could not have asked for a better owner or a better opportunity, quite frankly, and you know, it was, you know, it was it was. It was touch and go for a while.
And Bill Corr, you know, gave us a tremendous you know, kind of endorsement to Bob to allow us to have that opportunity, which we you know, we had the opportunity to thank him, you know, and which was you know that he you know, just we were really really blessed, really fortunate.
Yeah, Like, how did that opportunity come about? Like, I mean, obviously, I think one of the things from from Bob's perspective is like he did, you know, in a way take a little bit of a risk too, which I think, you know him as an entrepreneur, someone who bucked the trend and did something different probably helped him be more comfortable taking that risk.
Right Well, I'll say this, Yes he did take a risk, but Bob also wanted something that no one else had, and at that time nobody had a Jackson con you know, designed golf course and Scott Hopmin was a huge, huge, huge part of the project as well, huge part of the project. Scott's extraordinarily talented guy, you know. So you know, yes, he took a risk, but yes, there was gain for him as well in doing that, you know, to a
large degree. And you know again you know, right spot, right time, you know, kind words and you know this one of the things that you know, Dave and I talk about a lot is like give us a you know, give us a the flags, give us some paint, guns man. We're like so comfortable out in the field doing that designing and really enjoy that. You know, we're still learning the business side of this, to be quite honest, and
it's it's pretty cutthroat. I mean, it really is. You know, when you read things that guys say about you that have never visited your project, or never seen you or never met you, and are very comfortable saying those things about you, man, you realize at this point in time, I mean, it's it's it can be pretty harsh, it really can. So it's nice when you have a guy like Bill Krr who's kind enough to step in and say, hey, the boys are talented, they can do the job.
Well, guy, get back to the Mount Rushmore.
To light you off the huck.
I named two of mine, and I would put Bill and Ben as a third, mashed their face together. The fourth one doesn't come so easy for me. So if you have tim yours, you can chime in and I'll circle back. Yeah, I think of a fourth.
Yeah, I'm a you know, I'm a I think Mike Strantz was an artist who happened to be a golf course designer. I'm a big, big fan of of of Core Crenshaw as well. You know, I really enjoy a lot of their golf courses. I enjoy I think a lot of what they do. It's it's it's distinctly different, I think from what we do at times. But you know, I still have a great appreciation for it and what they produce. Ultimately, I have two more. You know, I I think I agree with you. I think I think
Pete die. You know, it's interesting when he did when he did the stadium course at PGA West. Tom and I had this conversation we were doing a project Madison Club in laking To, California, and Tom was like a he was very he was very positive about what Pete I did at at TPS are at at PGA West Stadium course, which actually shocked me because it was like
so antithical to what Tom Fazio would ever design. But he was so like appreciative of of, you know, what Pete did, and it kind of put like laking To California on the map in a way. And and so that kind of really struck me because you know, a lot of designers, I think they they only have appreciation for what they do or what people do that's similar
to what they do. Right, And and I'll say this, right, I mean, you know, in golf course design today, there's a lot of golf that's being produced that looks a lot like a lot of the other golf that's being produced now. Maybe good, right, But there's a lot of similarity in that in those design styles, in in you know, the expression of the design. Right, So it will be interesting,
like where does golf go from here? Because now we've had twenty years of the minimalism, We've had twenty years of those types of golf courses and that type of design. You know what's coming next? You know, you know, I don't know. So you know, strands Coret Crenshaw and I'll throw that. You know, I grew up playing a Bill Diddle design, you know, back in the Midwest man. And you know for Laport, Indiana, you know, municipal golf course, and it was it was you know, that was my stopping grounds.
Right Johnson.
It's called Beechwood, Yeah, beech Woods the name of the golf course. But I thought it was Yeah, But you know, Bill Diddle was actually the guy that Pete Allie went to when they started in golf course design. You know, he is out of Indianapolis and and Alice lived in Indianapolis and Pete moved there when they got married, and you know, and and you know.
He says, I think I remember for the buck billed that I was like, why the hell, would you want to become a golf market.
Yeah, I think pretty much. Yeah, I think that was a quote, right, Yeah. And and you know, but there's you know, there's there's design characteristics that you know that I grew up playing on that golf course that still stick with me quite honestly, right. And you know, there's not a lot of people out there that like, like, who's Bill Diddlell Right, and he was one of the you know, founders of the Golf Course Architects Society, you know, a pretty influential guy kind of back in the day.
But he did design, you know, he wasn't like Bendalow thirty six stakes in an afternoon, right, And you know, whatever happens after that, we'll see. But but you know, it's like I said, Dave and I, we're not we're not golf course stops. We have an appreciation I think, for for what people do and and we know how they do it at times, which you know, really I think impresses upon us what the end result is and how they get there. But but there's also you know,
there's also a lot of stuff out there. I mean, here's the thing, you know, and it kind of goes back to you know, I think a lot of the golf writers today and how they view golf course architecture and what it should be, and how that kind of dictates the taste of the people that play golf and engage in golf and because they feel, hey, these writers are the experts, right. If we all looked at golf the same way, if we all design golf the same way, golf would be pretty damn boring.
Right.
You need to have that big tent, You need to have that wide band with you need to have guys that are designing different things and doing things in different ways so there's different end results, right, And so you know, I think that should be celebrated, not frowned upon. You know when you again, when you know, projects that we work on get critique because well, gosh, they move more dirts than they should have.
Who cares?
What's the end result?
Right?
And is it different? And is it engaging? And is it fun?
Variety is the spice of life. Absolutely.
It also goes to like.
And the other thing is that you know, I think about this all the time with the Golden Age guys, is like, you know, you start to look at like the sophistication of where it was going. You know, Rayner and McDonald like length for Moreau are were I think more there's some more sophisticated shaping earth moving with those
guys than you know, Rainer McDonald had done. They were evolving and they were hitting their peak, and then the depression hit, you know, and in architecture, you know, you had them, and then you had Maxwell who was just condemning the steam shovel, you know, and he was you know, minimalist, and it's like but then the depression and World War
two hit and everything halted. But there was like a very clear like there was maximalism and minimal like and both of them push architecture forward, you know, evolution, more new stuff like, and that's where it has to go. It has to be new stuff. And I think like different styles should be celebrated.
Well, you know, I'll say this too. I think you know, there I don't know if there's you know, another sport, if there's another engagement that everyone always tries to kind of identify and in place golf course designs and boxes right and in you know, it's such a gosh, man, I don't know, it just it's to me, it seems like such a fool's Errand you know, at times, you know the golf course ranking system, right, Hey, if you like a golf course, you know, who cares what is
ranked or if this one's higher than that or whatever, Right, I mean, it really doesn't matter at the end of the day, right, I mean, Listen, some clubs get to put a plaque on the wall, and you know, they're pretty excited about where they are on that list or whatnot. And we understand, you know, certain memberships is important. We get that, and we understand that. But there's so much effort that is put in into identifying ranking golf courses. What style is this? What style is that?
You know?
Again, ultimately it's the end user experience that matters, right, It's not necessarily wasn't maximal, wasn't minimal? Was it this or was it that? Did you have a good time out there today? Did you have shots that we're engaging? Did you have things that really got you excited about you were doing? If you did great, the rest of it doesn't matter.
Do you want to go back and play it again? Right? Yeah, Like that to me is always the biggest thing. It's like, God, do I like, really, do I want to go back and play again, Like I want to hit that shot again? Like you know, that's the stuff that matters the most.
Dave and I say this all the time. If we walk off the eighteen green and we want to go back to the first tea, we were successful. End of story.
Yeah. Yeah, Variety is It's everything, And I think I hope we're trending this way, but I think in the past, you know, a variety comes on different scales too. Everyone seems to focus on the variety within the golf course, within those eighteen holes, having a good variety of angles and distances and pars and elevations and all that, which
is great, but you do that fifteen thousand times. Now we have no variety from course to course, and I think we need to zoom out a level and think of the actual golf course and the golf experience as having more variety.
So just a dumb.
Example, I mean, if there was an eighteen hole part five course, I know you're saying it would be fun, but just that concept is variety. It may be very mundane on paper because it's part five, part five by five, but if as executed well, you can have incredible variety within those part fives, and then the course as a whole, amongst the collection of golf in the country or the world has immense variety. And so I hope, I hope we can. I hope clients can, you know, get on
board with it. I hope other designers get on board with it, and I feel like they are. It's slowly starting, and I hope it's it's momentum is growing and it's not just a little blip. But I think golf, you know, on a much more macro scale needs more variety.
Yeah, And to some extent, I think there's a de traditionalizing that. That's a term of golf in America today, right, and the top golf Right, here's a here's a you know, here's an entity that's been created that has a quote
unquote golf experience. It's you know, vastly different, right from the traditional golf experience that you have, right, Just as an example, you know, there's there's there's going to be I think more types of golf experiences, whether it's you know, not a traditionally teen golf course, right, because that would be you know, something that's been done so many times before. But those are going to be created. And I think they're going to be created because there's a need for that.
There's a desire for that. And you know, society is changing, right and and so you know, and it's you know, the model of the traditional country club. You know what that's been for the past one hundred years. It'll be interesting to see where that goes moving forward.
You give me a club and a ball, I don't care where I am. I'll make some sort of golf fun out of it. Right in this house right here, going to a hotel, you're putting four hundred feet down the hallway. You just it's a it's fun to hit the ball and try to get it close to a target.
I mean, you're talking to somebody that logged hours upon hours whiffleball golf through my neighbor's front yards. Trees were the holes. You know, the street was in the old water hazard. And you know, me and my buddy would just play up and down the street, hacking divots out of our neighbors.
Yet, if I could wave a wage, if I could wave a magic wand over the golfing population, I would wish that all of them just become kids. Again, because they embrace the spirit of the game and don't have that preconceived construct of what golf should or shouldn't be. They just are enjoying playing the game, and the game is literally just hitting the ball towards the target. That's all the game is. There's a lot more flexibility and what that can unravel into.
All right, David, we're letting you off the hook. It's you're gonna have three heads on your mount Rushmore. You'll be able to leave the fourth blank.
Yeah.
So you know, the way I I interpret your question is which architects would I want to kind of see their resume? That's how I read that question, And and Strands and Pete Dye and Core Crenshaw. I would love the lifestyle to provide me the opportunity to go play all those courses. I can't, but but I really would love to. And and so the fourth person, you know, is very well known to us and not to everyone else. But honestly, I got to put Scott Hoffman in that category.
He has never gotten the credit he deserves, you know. I mean, he worked a long time under Tom Fazio. That's where Tim and I met him. I have learned a tremendous amount from Scotty. We were fortunate enough for him to join us. Uh, you know JKD for four or five years. He was instrumental in Scottsdale National. I think he has hands down the best router of a golf course. He is absolutely the best greater of a golf course.
Yeah, he's doing something in in Nebraska right now that's going to be really really cool. And you know, Scott's you know, he's he's a pretty modest guy, doesn't seek the limelight, doesn't want the limelight, but he is he is so so very talented. He's a great friend of ours and you know, and we're hopeful that we'll continue to collaborate, you know, in the future moving forward on projects.
And Scott has a very specific narrow bandwidth of the type of projects that he wants to collaborate on, which is fine by us.
We don't want to be in that position.
Yeah, but but yeah, he is. He is one of the most talented people that no one's ever heard of.
It's uh, you know that you guys. Also, you know, we talk about variety. I think you got we got the first Mount Rushmore without McKenzie on it. So that's exciting.
There you go, new Mount Rushmore. So thank you guys.
People can find you you're You're on social media a little.
Bit, you know, a little bit mostly Instagram. Yeah, that's kind of where we contribute the most, but it's not I wouldn't call us having a tremendous We're too busy, you know, having fun doing work. But every once in a while we post some stuff, but we don't have a huge following and don't really seek it out. But for those that are interested, yeah, at JK D Golf Design is where he could find us and look forward to seeing more of your works.
That's you know, I think I'm excited with I know you guys have got a bunch of stuff in the pipeline and excited for everybody to see more and more of your work.
Man, We're thankful to be alive in the very flourishing time of the industry and we'll ride this wave as long as it's here. But I appreciate you having us on and thank you for coming all the way to scott Still to spend the day with us.
Thank you for listening to another edition of the Frida Egg Podcast. Today's episode was edited by the great meg Adkins.
Thank you Meg.
And as a reminder, we have a sale in the pro Shop for you podcast listeners. If you use the promo code winter Blues, you will get ten percent off your order. We've got hats, we've got winter hats if you're in dealing with winter, and.
All sorts of stuff including Prince.
So check it out pro Shop at the Friday dot com and thank you for listening to another episode. We will be back on Friday this week and we also have Bill Corr coming next Tuesday. So we've got we've got some good pods on the dock and so talk to you soon and thank you for listening.