Back in high school, my parents gave me a copy of Bill James' Historical Baseball Abstract.
Of course, he faced the same dilemma.
His solution was to offer two separate lists: Career Value and Peak Value.
We’ve stopped short of actually ranking the architects, as we felt that might be a step too far. But we’ve loosely sequenced the order in which the architects appear within our ten paginated pages of ten architects.They just did some math, really, on their course ratings, it appears.
Travis, Emmet and Bendelow jumped out as being too high. Obviously you could parse the list until the end of time.
The article does say this:QuoteWe’ve stopped short of actually ranking the architects, as we felt that might be a step too far. But we’ve loosely sequenced the order in which the architects appear within our ten paginated pages of ten architects.They just did some math, really, on their course ratings, it appears.
Travis, Emmet and Bendelow jumped out as being too high. Obviously you could parse the list until the end of time.
You thought Gary Player should be ranked a better designer than Travis or Emmet?
Who’s the better writer - Harper Lee or James Patterson? Easy choice, i’d say.
I’d try to make this subjective call objectively. Take the top 200 (or 100) courses. Give the architect of each course a score based on the course’s ranking. Say numbers 1-10 get 100 points to 91; the next 10 get 80 points; the next 10, 70; etc.; the last 100 get 5 points each. Don’t know how this would come out, but might be fun.
Here's the list:
1. Harry Colt
2. Alister MacKenzie
3. Jack Nicklaus
4. Coore & Crenshaw
5. Tom Doak
6. Robert Trent Jones Jr.
7. Pete Dye
8. Tom Fazio
9. A.W. Tillinghast
10. Donald Ross
11. Robert Trent Jones
12. James Braid
13. Tom Simpson
14. Greg Norman
15. Old Tom Morris
16. Stanley Thompson
17. C.H. Alison
18. Willie Park Jr.
19. Seth Raynor
20. Herbert Fowler
21. C.B. Macdonald
22. Tom McBroom
23. Martin Hawtree
24. Doug Carrick
25. Seiichi Inoue
26. Perry Maxwell
27. David McLay Kidd
28. Kyle Phillips
29. Robert von Hagge
30. Gil Hanse
31. Gary Player
32. Alex Russell
33. Mike Clayton
34. Tom Weiskopf
35. Bob Harrison
36. Frank Pennink
37. Eddie Hackett
38. Rod Whitman
39. Eric Apperly
40. Mackenzie & Ebert
41. A.V. Macan
42. Peter Thomson
43. William Flynn
44. Dick Wilson
45. Donald Steel
46. Archie Simpson
47. George Lowe
48. Pat Ruddy
49. Osamu Ueda
50. Vern Morcom
51. Ernie Els
52. Schmidt & Curley
53. Ron Fream
54. Peter Matkovich
55. Nick Faldo
56. Mike DeVries
57. Graham Marsh
58. Nelson & Haworth
59. Guy Campbell
60. Alice Dye
61. Dave Thomas
62. Rees Jones
63. J.H. Taylor
64. John Harris
65. Cabell Robinson
66. John Morrison
67. Walter Travis
68. Willie Campbell
69. Tom Dunn
70. Willie Watson
71. Bob Cupp
72. Michael Hurdzan
73. Shiro & Rokuro Akaboshi
74. George C. Thomas Jr.
75. Dana Fry
76. Ross Perrett
77. Fred W. Hawtree
78. Philip Mackenzie Ross
79. Dan Soutar
80. S.V. Hotchkin
81. Bernhard von Limburger
82. P.B. Dye
83. Bob Grimsdell
84. Arthur Hills
85. Arnold Palmer
86. Fred G. Hawtree
87. Devereux Emmet
88. Tom Bendelow
89. Javier Arana
90. Harry Vardon
91. Brian Silva
92. John Abercromby
93. C.K. Cotton
94. C.K. Hutchison
95. Mike Strantz
96. Robbie Robinson
97. Perry Dye
98. Charles Redhead
99. Ron Kirby
100. Allan Robertson
Without the hard numbers printed, we can only guess and make assumptions. Here are a couple thoughts about this list (and maybe even extrapolated to other top 100 lists).
Average or mean = Sum of all the numbers in the set divided by the amount of numbers in the set
Median = Middle value when set is listed in numerical order
Mode = Value in list that is repeated most often
Range = Difference between highest and lowest value
My personal thought about this and other lists is that the order is listed in such a way that not only arranges "best to worst" but also reward "best" and penalize "worst" courses.
Median and mode I feel could make many of the earlier examples rise to the top due to the fact that designers should be rewarded for the 9 and 10 options and especially more if divisible by 10 courses than 100.
I have yet to find a math equation that exactly fits the description but maybe math man Jim Colton can weigh in.
Justin
I think a key factor is missing from the posts above - the other side of the coin!
It’s a fun parlor game to argue wether Colt or Mackenzie’s top 5 are better. There’s no correct answer and it doesn’t really matter anyway. But far more critical in the analysis to me are the missed opportunities and blown chances. With so few new courses being built these days, if I was a developer I’d start by crossing OFF the bottom names of the list before focusing on splitting hairs at the top.
How many names would be left on your list of architects of whom you’d write a big check to build a course, and then come back 2 years later to see how they did with your money and land?
How many guys could you absolutely 100% trust to deliver something you’d be happy with? Those to me would have to be the top of any list.
Michael
Travis, Emmet and Bendelow jumped out as being too high. Obviously you could parse the list until the end of time.
Travis, Emmet and Bendelow jumped out as being too high. Obviously you could parse the list until the end of time.
I'll fight for the Oxford Comma here.
Emmet and Bendelow never worked together.
Are there even 100 architects worth ranking?
Isn't the farmer down the street who builds a golf course on the north 40 "replacement level?"
50% of developers know their GCA and will play safe with one of your “trusted” architects.
The other 50% are even more conservative and will choose a big name who has built many courses or has worked on many famous courses, usually not a GCA darling.
So a small number of names (both good and not so good) get the work. This was less the case when 400 courses a year were getting built. And in those times, whilst there was a lot more poor design, there was also a lot more variety and different styles.
One absence jumped out at me.
NO Geoff Cornish. I guess the fact that he has no GREAT courses is a justification.
But in the world of building architecture, Cass Gilbert is well respected for designing many solid classic looking public use buildings; alongside with the respect given to Frank Lloyd Wright for many cutting edge astonishing personal spaces.
50% of developers know their GCA and will play safe with one of your “trusted” architects.
The other 50% are even more conservative and will choose a big name who has built many courses or has worked on many famous courses, usually not a GCA darling.
So a small number of names (both good and not so good) get the work. This was less the case when 400 courses a year were getting built. And in those times, whilst there was a lot more poor design, there was also a lot more variety and different styles.
Ally:
I suspect you know it, but that is the way of the world, not just in professions like architecture and golf architecture but in almost all things. "Choose the guy who is already busy," is a time-tested heuristic. To make matters worse, technology has redoubled the "winner take all" tendencies of capitalism.
We've also talked here about how this tends to make the firms who are getting the work more conservative in their designs, so they won't kill the goose that laid the golden egg.
I've spent a lot of years thinking about how I might be able to change that, as I get older. Bill Coore and I have both turned down a lot of projects over the years, but up until recently we've had very little success in handing them off to young designers we respect . . . because the potential client is pissed off at us for saying no, and because they are only focused on others on "our level" [formerly Fazio and Nicklaus, now Hanse, Kidd, Phillips, etc.] instead of thinking about someone younger and hungrier [and less expensive]. And, to be fair, it's hard for us to advocate for someone if they haven't got at least a couple of their own projects under their belt.
What clients don't understand is that, if we could all produce the same results, [and that is a big if of course], a debut Ally Macintosh design might be easier to get into the top 100 than a second Mike DeVries design or a sixth Tom Doak design. There is a lot of tokenism in these rankings, and I've heard many panelists admit they have a sort of informal ceiling on how many courses any one designer "should" have, or how many courses should be non-US, etc. My international work is some of my best work, but a great course has an easier path to the top 100 if it's the best course in New Zealand or China or Canada, than if it has to compete directly with all the best courses in the UK or America.
But why clients won't listen is because if their course DOESN'T make the top 100, then a design by a guy who has several courses in the top 100 is perceived as way more valuable than a design by a guy who has none. And most developers do not really believe their own hype.
I think it was seeing Tom McBroom's name next to C.B. Macdonald's that got my head spinning.Tom,
If you're ok with ranking courses, then you should be ok with ranking architects, as that is just an aggregation of existing data. There aren't any new numbers or evaluations introduced, it's just a question of looking at the existing course rankings differently.
In this case they might have gotten the aggregation formula wrong, but that is a technicality that is easy to fix. The real value is the original text written about each architect and the pictures. I suspect that the list might have been received a lot differently if it was organised alphabetically.
How about this for a way to blend everything together and balance peak with volume? If all golf courses were converted to public facilities with $50 greensfees and you could only play one architect's original designs for the rest of your life with guaranteed 3.5 hour pace of play, which architect would you pick? You have a teleporter to get you to the location and you have the option to convert the course to the original layout with retro or modern conditioning if you choose.
If you pick Crump, you are stuck playing one course. If you pick Pete Dye, you have courses all of the country to choose from. If you go with someone with even more courses, you have diminishing returns as you'll never use most of them.
The first thing that jumped out at me was the RTJ Junior was ranked ahead of his father. Also that Raynor was ranked ahead of MacDonald.
Here's the list:
1. Harry Colt
2. Alister MacKenzie
3. Jack Nicklaus
4. Coore & Crenshaw
5. Tom Doak
6. Robert Trent Jones Jr.
7. Pete Dye
8. Tom Fazio
9. A.W. Tillinghast
10. Donald Ross
11. Robert Trent Jones
12. James Braid
13. Tom Simpson
14. Greg Norman
15. Old Tom Morris
16. Stanley Thompson
17. C.H. Alison
18. Willie Park Jr.
19. Seth Raynor
20. Herbert Fowler
21. C.B. Macdonald
22. Tom McBroom
23. Martin Hawtree
24. Doug Carrick
25. Seiichi Inoue
26. Perry Maxwell
27. David McLay Kidd
28. Kyle Phillips
29. Robert von Hagge
30. Gil Hanse
31. Gary Player
32. Alex Russell
33. Mike Clayton
34. Tom Weiskopf
35. Bob Harrison
36. Frank Pennink
37. Eddie Hackett
38. Rod Whitman
39. Eric Apperly
40. Mackenzie & Ebert
41. A.V. Macan
42. Peter Thomson
43. William Flynn
44. Dick Wilson
45. Donald Steel
46. Archie Simpson
47. George Lowe
48. Pat Ruddy
49. Osamu Ueda
50. Vern Morcom
51. Ernie Els
52. Schmidt & Curley
53. Ron Fream
54. Peter Matkovich
55. Nick Faldo
56. Mike DeVries
57. Graham Marsh
58. Nelson & Haworth
59. Guy Campbell
60. Alice Dye
61. Dave Thomas
62. Rees Jones
63. J.H. Taylor
64. John Harris
65. Cabell Robinson
66. John Morrison
67. Walter Travis
68. Willie Campbell
69. Tom Dunn
70. Willie Watson
71. Bob Cupp
72. Michael Hurdzan
73. Shiro & Rokuro Akaboshi
74. George C. Thomas Jr.
75. Dana Fry
76. Ross Perrett
77. Fred W. Hawtree
78. Philip Mackenzie Ross
79. Dan Soutar
80. S.V. Hotchkin
81. Bernhard von Limburger
82. P.B. Dye
83. Bob Grimsdell
84. Arthur Hills
85. Arnold Palmer
86. Fred G. Hawtree
87. Devereux Emmet
88. Tom Bendelow
89. Javier Arana
90. Harry Vardon
91. Brian Silva
92. John Abercromby
93. C.K. Cotton
94. C.K. Hutchison
95. Mike Strantz
96. Robbie Robinson
97. Perry Dye
98. Charles Redhead
99. Ron Kirby
100. Allan Robertson
Where the hell am I?
How about this metric, based on the Eddington number (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Eddington#Eddington_number_for_cycling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Eddington#Eddington_number_for_cycling)) or h-index? This system would recognize architects with a portfolio of excellent courses, rewarding both quality and quantity equally.
Place architects into tiers based on the number of courses they've designed that score at least a certain number of points on a 10-point scale:
Average: At least 5 courses that score at least 5/10
Notable: At least 6 courses that score at least 6/10
Exceptional: At least 7 courses that score at least 7/10
Legendary: At least 8 courses that score at least 8/10
If you change the scale, say to a 100-point scoring system, the ordering of the list would change dramatically.
Here's a few quotes from the Top 100 Architects page - They clearly state they don't attempt to RANK the architects.
"...we decided to ...define a scoring system such that we could reasonably identify the Top 100 Architects."
"We’ve stopped short of actually ranking the architects, as we felt that might be a step too far."
[size=78%]Tom introduced the words "Ranking Architects", not Top 100. [/size]
And, as Tom said, ranking architects "...seems pointless to me. ... I prefer to rate courses, not architects". Why try to come up with a ranking now?
They put together what I think is a pretty nice piece of work. If you look at the bio for each architect it has a list, with photos, of courses the architect designed. I haven't seen anything like this before so I think I'll just say "Thanks, Top 100!" and now we have a place to find 100 "Top" architects and their courses.
If you want to reward per cent of excellence, you could count tournament, top 100 as suggested in my first post, with a second ranking based on % of recognized courses vs. total portfolio, adding a category. Tom Doak (guessing here) could be 4/40 or 10%.
How about this metric, based on the Eddington number (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Eddington#Eddington_number_for_cycling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Eddington#Eddington_number_for_cycling)) or h-index? This system would recognize architects with a portfolio of excellent courses, rewarding both quality and quantity equally.
Place architects into tiers based on the number of courses they've designed that score at least a certain number of points on a 10-point scale:
Average: At least 5 courses that score at least 5/10
Notable: At least 6 courses that score at least 6/10
Exceptional: At least 7 courses that score at least 7/10
Legendary: At least 8 courses that score at least 8/10
If you change the scale, say to a 100-point scoring system, the ordering of the list would change dramatically.
That would pair with the Doak Scale pretty well. There would be the usual handful of suspects at 8, a somewhat larger list of talented designers at 7, and a lot more guys at 6. Although, the Doak Scale is pretty stingy, so some of the big names might not have scored as many 7's as they would expect - for example I doubt RTJ has seven 7's out of all we have seen of his work.
For example you could "rank" architects based on:Total number of attributed and verified coursesThoughts?Wow..that could be eye opening....
But really, if there are musicians' musicians (eg pianist Hank Jones, never a household name but very highly rated by his peers) and actors' actors (eg the now almost forgotten Robert Ryan, who Scorcese called one of the greatest actors of all time), surely there must be the architects' architects. Jazz music and film acting are no less 'subjective' arts-crafts than gca, and like architects, pianists and character actors work in fields/mediums that involve many other people and where so much is beyond their control. So again: cutting through all the real or imagined 'issues' with such a ranking, aren't any of the professionals here willing to tell us simply and clearly who the 'architects' architects' are? I must be missing or misunderstanding something pretty fundamental in this discussion, 'cause I honestly can't understand what's so hard about that.
P
Fascinating discussion.
Let's keep the scoring extremely simple, until it is proven that it needs to be more complicated to produce an enlightening list. I love the idea that every course scores 1 point for its architect for every year it's been open!
That would clearly produce a list that rewards sustainability more than quality and as such this list could be a great addition to the quality-bound course rankings. Also, all the great old courses would start with 100 points or so and guys like Harry Colt or Donald Ross might be unstoppable, as they would gain points every year.
Keep in mind that Top100GolfCourses.com includes no unremarkable courses, so the "18 Stakes" architects will not feature too high on that list.
Ulrich
I'm about 99% sure the website's rankings are by groups of ten only. i.e. Colt is not ranked number one, but one of the top 10, along with the others in his group. Similar, in a way, to how Doak gives 10s to a select group of courses, but doesn't put the 10s (or 9s or 8s or other scores) themselves in order.
I do wonder how many points the great Philadelphia courses were worth, compared to the rest of South Korea's top ten, but seeing where William Flynn placed in their ranking I would guess their numbers did not jib with the Doak Scale which has the tenth best course in Philadelphia above all but one or two in Korea.
Back in high school, my parents gave me a copy of Bill James' Historical Baseball Abstract.
Of course, he faced the same dilemma.
His solution was to offer two separate lists: Career Value and Peak Value.
That's one of my favorite books.
However, as I mentioned above, I don't think Career Value in golf architecture means much once you go past a certain # of courses, unless you just want to honor guys that had a great career.
Example: Jerry Mathews designed around 100 courses in Michigan, so how would you compare his career to mine, or to Mike DeVries?
Please, someone else chime in on what's the best way to do this. I've got some ideas, but since I'm on the list, I will get a lot of grief for suggesting anything.
Pantheon Director These are the directors who have transcended their technical problems with a personal vision of the world. To speak any of their names is to evoke a self-contained world with its own laws and landscapes. They were also fortunate enough to find the proper conditions and collaborators for the full expression of their talent. Includes John Ford (http://www.theyshootpictures.com/fordjohn.htm), Alfred Hitchcock (http://www.theyshootpictures.com/hitchcockalfred.htm), Ernst Lubitsch (http://www.theyshootpictures.com/lubitschernst.htm), Jean Renoir (http://www.theyshootpictures.com/renoirjean.htm) and Charles Chaplin (http://www.theyshootpictures.com/chaplincharles.htm). The Far Side of Paradise These are the directors who fall short of the Pantheon either because of a fragmentation of their personal vision or because of disruptive career problems. Includes Frank Capra (http://www.theyshootpictures.com/caprafrank.htm), Blake Edwards (http://www.theyshootpictures.com/edwardsblake.htm), Joseph Losey (http://www.theyshootpictures.com/loseyjoseph.htm), Vincente Minnelli (http://www.theyshootpictures.com/minnellivincente.htm)and Douglas Sirk (http://www.theyshootpictures.com/sirkdouglas.htm). Expressive Esoterica These are the unsung directors with difficult styles or unfashionable genres or both. Their deeper virtues are often obscured by irritating idiosyncrasies on the surface, but they are generally redeemed by their seriousness and grace.Includes Stanley Donen (http://www.theyshootpictures.com/donenstanley.htm), Joseph H. Lewis (http://www.theyshootpictures.com/lewisjosephh.htm), Don Siegel (http://www.theyshootpictures.com/siegeldon.htm), Frank Tashlin (http://www.theyshootpictures.com/tashlinfrank.htm) and Budd Boetticher (http://www.theyshootpictures.com/boetticherbudd.htm). Fringe Benefits These directors occupied such a marginal role in the American cinema that it would be unfair to their overall reputations to analyze them in this limited context in any detail. Includes Claude Chabrol (http://www.theyshootpictures.com/chabrolclaude.htm), Sergei Eisenstein (http://www.theyshootpictures.com/eisensteinsergei.htm), Roberto Rossellini (http://www.theyshootpictures.com/rosselliniroberto.htm),Michelangelo Antonioni (http://www.theyshootpictures.com/antonionimichelangelo.htm) and Roman Polanski (http://www.theyshootpictures.com/polanskiroman.htm). Less Than Meets the Eye These are the directors with reputations in excess of inspirations. In retrospect, it always seems that the personal signatures to their films were written with invisible ink. Includes David Lean (http://www.theyshootpictures.com/leandavid.htm), Lewis Milestone (http://www.theyshootpictures.com/milestonelewis.htm), Billy Wilder (http://www.theyshootpictures.com/wilderbilly.htm), John Huston (http://www.theyshootpictures.com/hustonjohn.htm) and Rouben Mamoulian (http://www.theyshootpictures.com/mamoulianrouben.htm). Lightly Likable These are talented but uneven directors with the saving grace of unpretentiousness. Includes John Cromwell (http://www.theyshootpictures.com/cromwelljohn.htm), Delmer Daves (http://www.theyshootpictures.com/davesdelmer.htm), Henry Hathaway (http://www.theyshootpictures.com/hathawayhenry.htm), Mervyn LeRoy (http://www.theyshootpictures.com/leroymervyn.htm) and Andrew L. Stone (http://www.theyshootpictures.com/stoneandrewl.htm). Strained Seriousness These are talented but uneven directors with the mortal sin of pretentiousness. Their ambitious projects tend to inflate rather than expound. Includes Jules Dassin (http://www.theyshootpictures.com/dassinjules.htm), John Frankenheimer (http://www.theyshootpictures.com/frankenheimerjohn.htm), Stanley Kubrick (http://www.theyshootpictures.com/kubrickstanley.htm), Sidney Lumet (http://www.theyshootpictures.com/lumetsidney.htm) and Robert Rossen (http://www.theyshootpictures.com/rossenrobert.htm). Oddities, One-Shots, and Newcomers These are the eccentrics, the exceptions and the expectants, the fallen stars and the shooting stars. They defy more precise classification by their very nature. Includes John Boorman (http://www.theyshootpictures.com/boormanjohn.htm), John Cassavetes (http://www.theyshootpictures.com/cassavetesjohn.htm), Francis Ford Coppola (http://www.theyshootpictures.com/coppolafrancis.htm), Charles Laughton (http://www.theyshootpictures.com/laughtoncharles.htm) and Lindsay Anderson (http://www.theyshootpictures.com/andersonlindsay.htm). Subjects for Further Research These are the directors whose work must be more fully evaluated before any final determination of the American cinema is possible. There may be other unknown quantities as well, but this list will serve for the moment as a reminder of the gaps. Includes Clarence Brown (http://www.theyshootpictures.com/brownclarence.htm), Tod Browning (http://www.theyshootpictures.com/browningtod.htm) and Henry King (http://www.theyshootpictures.com/kinghenry.htm). Just a thought. |
And who the hell should be the ones to categorize us? Please keep in mind that many "journalists" who professes to know much about golf course design is also sneaking around the margins of the business trying to make consulting fees to recommend architects to potential clients, at most just one step away from trying to score some of those clients for themselves!While "professes" is the key word here, this would be a much more interesting topic than ranking architects... ;D
Tom, since you are so sure of yourself, maybe you should give me the odds.I'm about 99% sure the website's rankings are by groups of ten only. i.e. Colt is not ranked number one, but one of the top 10, along with the others in his group. Similar, in a way, to how Doak gives 10s to a select group of courses, but doesn't put the 10s (or 9s or 8s or other scores) themselves in order.
Jim:
Do you want to give me 99:1 odds on that? I'll bet you as much as you are willing to lose.
The exercise was data-driven so they have numerical results from 1-to-whatever.
If they really wanted to do as you say, they would have rearranged the first ten architects somehow. Tell me how it looks to you like they did that? It's not alphabetical or chronological.
I'd bet anything the pictures are in order of the results, but they've just tried to back off from those results.
I had a good back-and-forth email exchange today with their editor-in-chief, who explained some of their process to me.
It was a cumulative thing, awarding 1000 points for the #1 course in the world, and stepping down from there, right on through their regional rankings. This would explain the positions of Nicklaus and RTJ Jr. in the top ten - they've done a lot of courses on multiple continents that show up in the rankings in Asia, Europe, etc.
They also divided the points for each course among the architects who worked on it, on a case by case basis, which could cause a lot of angst: do you give all 1000 points for Cypress Point to MacKenzie, or do you give some to Robert Hunter based on his time there, or Seth Raynor based on the story about #16, or whomever?I wouldn't want to be the guy who had to make all of those calls . . . but, the effect is that it breaks up the points earned for a lot of older, famous courses, and not for relatively new ones by signature designers.
I do wonder how many points the great Philadelphia courses were worth, compared to the rest of South Korea's top ten, but seeing where William Flynn placed in their ranking I would guess their numbers did not jib with the Doak Scale which has the tenth best course in Philadelphia above all but one or two in Korea.
If Donald Steel is ranked above me it is a crap list.
PS to my last post. I started clicking through each architect they list: they present a huge wealth of info about the architect and the courses he designed and/or renovated. e.g. Colt alone has 14 pages of course profiles, with 6 or so courses per page. Click on each course, and you get still more info. Could be a great resource for seeing who did what.
I think all of the arguments against ranking architects could also be used against ranking courses, but aren't, because course rankings are a fact and here to stay. Architect rankings are something new, so there may be a winnable fight in there, which isn't the case for fighting course rankings.
I think all of the arguments against ranking architects could also be used against ranking courses, but aren't, because course rankings are a fact and here to stay. Architect rankings are something new, so there may be a winnable fight in there, which isn't the case for fighting course rankings.
Yes, though I think there are additional reasons to argue against ranking architects.
I think the worst ranking is George C. Thomas Jr. at #84. Why did I even spend the time reading his book? What a hack. ::)
PS to my last post. I started clicking through each architect they list: they present a huge wealth of info about the architect and the courses he designed and/or renovated. e.g. Colt alone has 14 pages of course profiles, with 6 or so courses per page. Click on each course, and you get still more info. Could be a great resource for seeing who did what.Jim I totally agree, I clicked on the names and you have to all courses they are associated with. I'm not sure if they have adopted a methodology for design credit, but it is pretty all encompassing it appears. Nice resource indeed.
Composers are ranked by the music they compose.
Directors are ranked by the movies they direct.
Architects can be ranked by the courses they create. And, you don't need architects to do the rankings.
Composers are ranked by the music they compose.
Directors are ranked by the movies they direct.
Architects can be ranked by the courses they create. And, you don't need architects to do the rankings.
If there is no harm in rankings, why is there so much effort put into them by those who benefit? For each course that benefits, surely there are some that must suffer?
I think the notion that there is no harm in rankings is wrong. I also recognize it’s a part of the business, but the fact that rankings won’t go away doesn’t mean there is no harm.
It will be a great day for golf when course architects are as well known as the architects who did the clubhouses . Marketing makes suckers of us all...
That's what I was saying. Needs to be that way with the course. You either like it or you don't. Architect should not matter... :)It will be a great day for golf when course architects are as well known as the architects who did the clubhouses . Marketing makes suckers of us all...
Mike
I'd imagine that's a comment regarding US country clubs ? It certainly is in no way accurate about UK golf where I've never heard anyone comment on who the clubhouse architect is.
That's what I was saying. Needs to be that way with the course. You either like it or you don't. Architect should not matter... :)It will be a great day for golf when course architects are as well known as the architects who did the clubhouses . Marketing makes suckers of us all...
Mike
I'd imagine that's a comment regarding US country clubs ? It certainly is in no way accurate about UK golf where I've never heard anyone comment on who the clubhouse architect is.
Scott
Re Donald Steel, I think he also claims to be the only architect to have worked on all the Open rota courses. I've no idea if that's true in terms of other architects portfolio's but certainly quite a claim. He certainly is/was a very fine writer although you might be better place to judge that than me.
Niall
I started with how many courses each architect was credited with in the World Top 100 (that was to be part of my scoring system). I got the following data (this was from about a year and a half ago)... Colt (7), Mackenzie (9), Old Tom Morris (6), Coore & Crenshaw (4), C.B. MacDonald (2), Tom Doak (5), A.W. Tillinghast (7), Donald Ross (4), Seth Raynor (4), Perry Maxwell (2), Robert Trent Jones (2), George Thomas (2), Pete Dye (6), Jack Nicklaus (3), Tom Simpson (3), Herbert Fowler (2), and Stanley Thompson (2). I limited my list to architects who had at least 2 in the World Top 100 at the time I examined that list (again, over a year ago).
1. My first score was to be based on how many are among the best 100 courses in the world.
2. My second score was to be based on the highest quality of one's work. For me, I am pretty much in agreement with the Doak scale, so I would apply that scale and give a second score to architects that had courses that were 9's or above on the Doak scale.
3. My third score was to be based on how prolific the architect was, and my measure was going to be not only how many courses did they build, but how many "good" courses did they build. I settled on..."how many Doak 7's or better did they build during their careers?". That to me, is an important measuring stick. Pete Dye and Donald Ross built a lot of courses, and no doubt have a good list of Doak 7's or better. Both of them would score high in category 3. But...this is where my project lost steam...how to sort through each man's work and come up with a tally in this section of scoring, was going to be a big chore, and I was probably not going to be familiar enough will the complete body of work of each man to assess how many 7's or better they had.
But to me, those 3 categories would provide a pretty accurate and reasonably thorough measure of how one would want to rank the best architects of all-time.
Knowing what I believe to be true using these 3 criteria, my top 10 would look like this:
1. Mackenzie
2. Colt
3. Old Tom Morris
4. Tom Doak
5. Seth Raynor
6. Coore & Crenshaw
7. A.W. Tillinghast
8. Donald Ross
9. George Thomas
10. Pete Dye
TS
Hi Ted,
I started with how many courses each architect was credited with in the World Top 100 (that was to be part of my scoring system). I got the following data (this was from about a year and a half ago)... Colt (7), Mackenzie (9), Old Tom Morris (6), Coore & Crenshaw (4), C.B. MacDonald (2), Tom Doak (5), A.W. Tillinghast (7), Donald Ross (4), Seth Raynor (4), Perry Maxwell (2), Robert Trent Jones (2), George Thomas (2), Pete Dye (6), Jack Nicklaus (3), Tom Simpson (3), Herbert Fowler (2), and Stanley Thompson (2). I limited my list to architects who had at least 2 in the World Top 100 at the time I examined that list (again, over a year ago).
1. My first score was to be based on how many are among the best 100 courses in the world.
2. My second score was to be based on the highest quality of one's work. For me, I am pretty much in agreement with the Doak scale, so I would apply that scale and give a second score to architects that had courses that were 9's or above on the Doak scale.
3. My third score was to be based on how prolific the architect was, and my measure was going to be not only how many courses did they build, but how many "good" courses did they build. I settled on..."how many Doak 7's or better did they build during their careers?". That to me, is an important measuring stick. Pete Dye and Donald Ross built a lot of courses, and no doubt have a good list of Doak 7's or better. Both of them would score high in category 3. But...this is where my project lost steam...how to sort through each man's work and come up with a tally in this section of scoring, was going to be a big chore, and I was probably not going to be familiar enough will the complete body of work of each man to assess how many 7's or better they had.
But to me, those 3 categories would provide a pretty accurate and reasonably thorough measure of how one would want to rank the best architects of all-time.
Knowing what I believe to be true using these 3 criteria, my top 10 would look like this:
1. Mackenzie
2. Colt
3. Old Tom Morris
4. Tom Doak
5. Seth Raynor
6. Coore & Crenshaw
7. A.W. Tillinghast
8. Donald Ross
9. George Thomas
10. Pete Dye
TS
First of all, we rank everything. To think that we shouldn't rank golf architects is preposterous.
I'm going back to my criteria above. Seems like nobody else liked it, but I think it checks all the boxes. Start with who built the best golf courses in the world (where else would you start?). Give credit to those who built more of them than everybody else. Then give additional points for the highest quality courses in the tops in the world list, then give additional points for breadth of work. That is all.
TS
I suppose my question to everyone would be, aside from the numbering of 1-100 did anyone actually take the time to dive into the extensive research and try to learn something from the great detail and course lists that are provided in this "listing"?
I can't imagine how much work went into this and that alone is hugely commendable. However, on top of that I've not personally seen such a complete list with detailed information that is as easily accessible outside of perhaps purchasing several books. If you know of one please share it.
To me it's ludicrous to suggest that because you don't like or agree with the numbers of this list you are not going to look at it. Unless of course you already know more about all these architects than the author/researcher. After all this is supposed to be a site about Golf Course Architecture so if detailed information about Golf Course Architects isn't of interest I guess I'm stumped.
Back in high school, my parents gave me a copy of Bill James' Historical Baseball Abstract.
Of course, he faced the same dilemma.
His solution was to offer two separate lists: Career Value and Peak Value.
That's one of my favorite books.
However, as I mentioned above, I don't think Career Value in golf architecture means much once you go past a certain # of courses, unless you just want to honor guys that had a great career.
Example: Jerry Mathews designed around 100 courses in Michigan, so how would you compare his career to mine, or to Mike DeVries?
I suppose my question to everyone would be, aside from the numbering of 1-100 did anyone actually take the time to dive into the extensive research and try to learn something from the great detail and course lists that are provided in this "listing"?
I can't imagine how much work went into this and that alone is hugely commendable. However, on top of that I've not personally seen such a complete list with detailed information that is as easily accessible outside of perhaps purchasing several books. If you know of one please share it.
To me it's ludicrous to suggest that because you don't like or agree with the numbers of this list you are not going to look at it. Unless of course you already know more about all these architects than the author/researcher. After all this is supposed to be a site about Golf Course Architecture so if detailed information about Golf Course Architects isn't of interest I guess I'm stumped.
I did. The "detailed information" you note as the result of "extensive research" is replete with errors. They could do better.
Very neat to see Tom D, Gil, Bill C, Mike Hurdzan, etc. on the list. To me it would seem logical to have two lists — one of the dead guys and one of the living. Or, perhaps a modern and classic — like Golfweek does. In the meanwhile I think that I'll explain to my family that I'm probably somewhere near "110th," at least that will make me feel better :)Forrest you have their love, which makes you #1 to them.