[Mike_Young]

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...

[Jim Nugent]

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.

Tom, since you are so sure of yourself, maybe you should give me the odds. 

I also corresponded with the website.  I point blank asked them if they listed the architects in rank order, so Colt was #1, Mac #2, Jack #3 and so forth.  They wrote to me, "We specifically did not rank each architect, had we chosen to do so we would have clearly placed a numeric #1, #2 etc. against each."
They obviously tabulated points.  And it seems clear that the architects in their top ten accumulated the most points.  What isn't clear is that Colt came out on top of everyone else, Mac was in second place Jack third, etc.  In fact the website has now said they did not do that, twice, in two different emails to me.

I agree with you that the question of attribution is tricky.  Especially with (though not limited to) Jack.  By all counts he has very little to do with routing.  I guess they treat everything his firm does (at least the signature designs) as his work alone.  Until he actually routes some courses himself, though, it's hard for me to see him as a real architect. 

btw, the website indicated to me that they are frustrated that we're paying so much attention to precise ranking, and not the bios of the architects or their bodies of work. 




 

[Jim Nugent]

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. 

[Scott Warren]

If Donald Steel is ranked above me it is a crap list.

He was (is?) certainly quite fond of himself.

http://www.donaldsteel.com/index1.htm

Among the claims and self-back-pats on the site is this:

Since 1987, Donald Steel has travelled more widely than any golf course architect in the world. This has entailed 2,000 flights as well as half a million miles at the wheel of his own car, rental cars or enjoying the luxury of being driven. In eighteen years, his passport bears the stamp of 25 countries.

The golf architect world seems as rife as any industry with inflated, confected and otherwise unverifiable claim. When you add in the fact that in a lot of the most meaningful cases you're trying to determine who did what 100 years ago, this list seems even less useful than the top100golfcourses website's course rankings.

It reinforces to me the shame of making lists that claim some type of authority being that website's MO, as it's probably the best resource online for finding out what courses are in an off-the-beaten-path region you're visiting with enough detail (who designed it, some pics, user reviews which often tell you so much in ways other than the author intended) to make fairly reliable conclusions about where to prioritise playing.

The great expanses of distance and time, plus variability of the people creating the data, renders the course ranking lists unhelpful at best, and the same is true of this ranking of architects.

[David Kelly]

I've always found top 100 golf courses invaluable for seeing what courses should be on your radar when visiting say Durham County in England or the Southwest of France and I even find the rankings within countries helpful.

The best architects list is something I'll just ignore.

[Sven Nilsen]

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 count at least 6 errors on the first 10 courses they note for Donald Ross.  They can do better.

[Mike_Young]

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...

[Ulrich Mayring]

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.

Ulrich

[Tom_Doak]

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.

[Ally Mcintosh]

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.

Ulrich, whilst this may play a part, it is a small one. There are umpteen additional variables when trying to rank an architect. At least with a course, you are subjectively ranking one thing. You are not doing this with an architect because every designer starts at a different base level with every project (because of land quality, land size and shape, client preferences, environmental considerations, brief etc...). If a course is effected by these things, it directly relates to its ranking. You have no way of quantifying these variables when ranking the architect.


So as I said, by all means have fun with a mathematical formula that ranks “architects by the quality of their courses” but don’t even try and rank “best architects”.

[Michael George]

I am not against ranking courses or ranking architects.   Kind of like ranking artwork and artists.  No real basis or merit to the rankings but it can be fun and provide some entertaining reading.  However, like art, you cannot quantify it or somehow create some system to do it.  It is subjective.  So be it.

However, this list is atrocious.  I agreed with their first 2 architects.....but that is about it.  There are so many problems, it honestly would take the rest of my day to recount them.....and my time is worth more than that.

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.

[Tom_Doak]

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.

That's a function of George Thomas only showing up in the credits for maybe 4-5 courses ranked on their web site.  And a great example of how you have to decide whether you're ranking an architect by his best designs [in which case, you can just read the rankings of his courses], or on career output, or some combination thereof.

[Kalen Braley]

Tom,

So far after 5+ pages of discussion. I feel your very first sentence of your 1st post remains as the best advice...

"I have always said you shouldn't try to rank or rate architects."

Seems like an exercise in futility, akin to the thousands of religions worldwide who are convinced they got the most accurate and correct view on Gods Vision for the world.  But it certainly also means there will be no shortage of debate or opinions otherwise.

[Garland Bayley]

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.

[Jeff Schley]

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.

[Jeff_Brauer]

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.

Garland, I might be wrong, but I think I have seen lists of greatest composers, which include Beethoven, Lennon-McCartney, etc.  And, its based on someone's idea of the relative value of total output, quality of output, etc.  Certainly, I have seen lists of not only the top 100 rock songs, but I think the top rock bands.


It seems ranking is part of human nature.  Never perfect, but not usually any harm done.

[Tom_Doak]

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.

I Googled this to see if it was true, and sure enough, you find lists of all of the above.


[Sorry to Jeff, though, the top composers were Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart.]


The first-result Google list of the best golf course architects is from Mac Plumart's web site.

[Joe Hancock]

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.

[Mike_Young]

There are ranking architects, ranking odors, ranking everything according to the dictionary...1. rank-smelling - having an offensive rancid odor. ill-smelling, malodorous, malodourous, stinky, unpleasant-smelling - having an unpleasant smell. 

[Tom_Doak]

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.

I haven't thought of it in terms of "harm" but there is no doubt that a huge chunk of business moves on the basis of golf course rankings -- who gets hired, how much they get paid, what courses can charge for green fees, etc.  To the extent that it's a zero-sum game [which it isn't really, but it's competitive], courses that aren't ranked get ignored as potential destinations.


Lots of the things I've done over the years, from The Confidential Guide to getting involved with the GOLF Magazine rankings, have been attempts to improve the system.  Some would accuse me of being self-serving, but I started doing those things as soon as I got into the business, before anyone would have given me any shot at the sort of success I've had.


The problem with ranking architects is that if anyone's ranking became accepted, it would be a more direct thumb on the scale of our business.  Anyone not on the list - the young and talented - would be further disadvantaged vs. the guys who had racked up enough successes to make it.  Some developer from Africa reading the first page of the top100golfcourses Top Architects would think I'm in the peer group of Jack Nicklaus and Robert Trent Jones, Jr., but we don't really work in the same circles at all.


The other problem with ranking architects is that it might easily lead to pay-for-play.  The system that's been deployed is completely opaque, so there is no way to tell.


I like the fact that they have linked all of our courses to our names in one handy location - even though I don't think they should have places I restored, like Camargo, mixed in with my actual designs.  I hope that over time, they will try and do the same for all architects, and just scrap the idea of a top 100.

[Niall C]

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.

The issue in the UK regarding course architects is that generally if someone like James Braid once gave advice on bunkering or a few tweaks here and there, the club tends to give him design credit for the lot. My sense is that is changing though as various societies and fans of the likes of Colt and MacKenzie etc make clubs aware of their course histories. Surely this site can only help with that ?

Niall

[Mike_Young]

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...

[Tom_Doak]

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...

Well then you have to figure out a whole new paradigm for marketing golf courses.  It's hard to forget who designed the course when they insist you put their photo on the scorecard 

[Niall C]

"I have always said you shouldn't try to rank or rate architects."

If architects shouldn't be rated, then should they bother having a website saying how good they are ?  Don't anyone bother to answer that, I'm just being mischievous.

However five and a bit pages in I'm actually surprised at how much ire this topic has raised on a website regarding golf course architecture. Certainly from a UK perspective I've got to think that anything that raises awareness of course design has got to be a good thing. I suspect there are probably members of green committees out there who don't know that golf architects exist, and that isn't a pop at anyone who gives up their time to be on a committee, just a comment on the level of profile of the profession.

If I have an adverse comment on the list is that it appears to be very US centric but I see no reason why it can't morph into a more regional list of who did what rather than perhaps falsely giving the impression of ranking.

Niall 

[Niall C]

Mike

The problem with anonymity in terms of the course design is that members and committee members might get the idea that anyone can do it. Now we all know of gifted amateurs who managed to pull it off and some of them then went on to make spectacular careers of it, MacKenzie and Colt being the two obvious examples, but equally how many mistakes have been made and continue to be made by those without any practical training or knowledge ?

Niall

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()