[Tom_Doak]

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

As with athletes, or any other sort of professional, you have to be clear going in whether you are trying to rate the sum total of one's career, or the level of their peak ability.

In baseball, to cite something I know a lot about, if you're going for career output, you've got to stick with the guys who put up numbers over a long time - the 500 HR club, the 3000 hit club, pitchers with 250 or 300 wins, etc.  If, instead, you're going for peak ability, you may have room to mention guys like Roger Maris and Pete Reiser and Jose Fernandez [or, Sadaharu Oh and Oscar Charleston and Chino Smith and others you don't have comparable numbers for], but you have to define the minimum you're willing to consider . . . lots of guys have put up one great season and not lived up to it.  But just mixing a few of the latter into the other list looks silly.

In architecture, or golf architecture, it's even sillier to try to do this, because a career could span 400 courses [some very good and some not], or just one great one.  How do you compare those two accomplishments?  One is more about running a successful business, than it is about design.  And on top of that, some people try to separate the design from the quality of the site, which is weird for a business where the whole idea is to incorporate the qualities of the site.


So, why am I bringing this up?  Because www.top100golfcourses.com went there anyway, and just published their list of the Top 100 Architects.  Read it and weep here: 

https://www.top100golfcourses.com/architects


I certainly can't complain about my place on the list - they even used a picture with my dog in it, to get on my good side.  But when they've got Bob Cupp, Michael Hurdzan, George Thomas and S.V. Hotchkin all in the eighth ten [and Greg Norman in the second ten], it's pretty clear they didn't think through the difference between "peak performance" and "career value" very well, if at all.

And by either measure, having William Flynn in the fifth ten is an egregious mistake.

So, if a publication such as this is going to do a ranking such as this, shouldn't we try to help them avoid stupid stuff? 

But to do so, we would have to define the problem:  how do you evaluate an architect's career? 

If you give additional points for every course they've ever built, you are going to reward some surprising people.  I think Donald Ross, Jack Nicklaus and Robert Trent Jones would be the top three, and some engineering firm in Japan in the 1960's might be in the top ten.  Do we want to go there?

If you're going to try to put George Crump on the scale, even though he only built one course, I think that's equally crazy.  Ranking Pine Valley and Oakmont as high as they are gives Crump and Fownes the credit they deserve, but comparing them to other architects when they only designed one course is impossible -- you've either got to put them right at the top, or come up with some weird formula to explain why you pushed them down the list as far as you did.

So, in the end, I think you have to define the problem as ranking the combined scores of the architect's top 10 or 25 or 50 courses.  Honestly, that's pretty hard to do, too, because except for Donald Ross, almost anyone's 50th course is irrelevant to a list of great courses . . . even on the Doak Scale, building a bunch of 5's is in no way comparable to building a 9 or a 10.

What say you all?  What # of courses defines an architect's career?  Or has anyone got a better way to do it? 

[Ruediger Meyer]

Dear God. Stopped reading the list after seeing Jack Nicklaus ahead of Donald Ross and Greg Norman ahead of Tom Morris.


If you really want to rank architects, put them in eras and not mix them all together. No one knows what MacKenzie would have done with a bulldozer or Nicklaus without one. (or in the latter case one of his associates. This is a whole different problem)


No one voting on this has actually played one of the classic courses untouched by time or other people. So it makes no sense at all to rank them. Top100golfcourses didn't do themselves any favor. To me it hurts their credibility

[Jonathan Mallard]

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.


An example: Babe Ruth ranks at the top for his overall career, and for his best years.


Ted Williams ranks higher for his peak years relatively than for his overall career, which was still very good even though he lost 5 years in his prime.


But folks like Thurman Munson, Herb Score, and Roy Campanella are certainly more favorably viewed in comparisons of their peak years vs comparisons of their overall careers.


Hope that helps.

[Joe Hancock]

How about people decide with their personal preferences, wherever they may be in their golf journey? This is another list to bolster other lists, amongst other things.

[Tom_Doak]

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?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The article does say this:

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.

[Tim Martin]

Travis, Emmet and Bendelow jumped out as being too high. Obviously you could parse the list until the end of time.

[Tom_Doak]

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?

[Tom_Doak]

The article does say this:

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.

They tried to do some math, but didn't explain the formula.


Whatever the formula was, I think Flynn being ranked so low must have been a math error.  Either that, or they have never been to Philadelphia.

[Tim Martin]

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?

Let me rephrase it for you. They were all far more deserving than given credit for. I’m pretty sure you knew what I meant.

[Matt Kardash]

I just don't see the point to even make an attempt at doing this. No one is trying to rank the greatest painters of all-time, are they?Let's not waste our time. Spring is here, it's nice outside, everyone go outside and do something more productive. That is an order. 

[Kalen Braley]

Tom,

Great post and very interesting to see an attempt this.  It was good to put some faces to names, but you're right, I don't know how in the hell one could possibly accomplish this in a meaningful way...

Any notables left off the list? I didn't see Gene Bates on there, he's done a few good ones.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom -
I think it has to start with the premise that architects *can* be ranked -- not their courses, but their talent. Now, from what I can tell, you have always argued against that, ie against the notion that the designer can be separated from (and judged independently of) the design, or that his understanding of architectural principles can be 'quantified' and his ability & ingenuity in making those principles manifest on the ground can be 'ranked'. On that front, I've always had the temerity (or foolishness) to disagree with you; and, knowing that I myself couldn't do that kind of judging has never led me to conclude that someone else couldn't either. But if we (ie you) can now bring ourselves to accept that premise, we then have -- as Joe H suggests -- another potential 'list', with the value and import and interest of that list wholly dependent on the credibility and bona fides of the person creating it. (I believe that Bobby Orr was the greatest player ever to lace up a pair of skates; it means little coming from me, but a lot more coming from the likes of Don Cherry.) You and Joe and Ian and Mike and Don etc etc can indeed produce such a list, right today if you'd like; and I for one think it would be a very useful (and even important) list -- mostly because it would bring to the fore the very concept of gca's fundamental principles. But again, it all & completely depends on embracing what so many of you in the industry seem so loath to embrace (especially publicly), ie that there are, to put it bluntly, very talented architects and less talented architects and no talent architects and the most talented architects of all time.
In short: I'm convinced that there are those who know which architects past and present are which, but that those who do know simply aren't telling.
P

[Tom_Doak]

Peter:


I really don't think there is anyone who can rank architects on the basis of their skills.  It's just too hard to pull out of the project overall.  Plus, to be sure, there are different guys who would do better in different situations . . . but there is already way too much typecasting in the business.


I don't really want to see anyone get into ranking architects, either; I tried my best to dissuade the editors of the web site in question from going there.  But -- just like ranking courses -- if I can't stop them from doing it, then it's in the best interest of the profession to try to make it a more rational process.  Hence this thread.


I don't think I've ever argued that some architects aren't better than others.  But when you put it that way, especially for guys that are still alive and practicing, you stop judging them by their output.  Nobody is really that great unless they're trying hard, and getting other talented people to help them, and the best way to encourage that is to keep everyone hungry.  You have to make our next project be our calling card, because that's the only project you can hire us for.

[JReese]

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

[Tom_Doak]

I think it was seeing Tom McBroom's name next to C.B. Macdonald's that got my head spinning.


Actually, all of the four guys above Perry Maxwell would [or should] be pretty shocked to be above Perry Maxwell on any kind of list.  But, Maxwell didn't build that many courses, so I guess if you were rating the sum of the 50 best courses they designed - or just comparing their 25th best - it could happen.


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. 

[Peter Pallotta]

T -
I think I understand what you're saying, and the issue/task is no doubt more complex than I realize. In short, I suspect I don't even know what I don't know.
But if I were a trained & working architect, or if I'd seen & played hundreds of all the best courses by all the name architects past and present, here's the 'technique' I think I'd use:
I'd take an architect's 5 best courses, and then I'd try to think of which architects would've done a better job of it, would've produced a better and more interesting course out of the same site. If I could think of 10 names fairly quickly, the architect in question would be 'ranked' (at least) 11th of all time; if I couldn't think of even 1 other name, that architect would be the greatest of all time.
I know, simplistic and maybe even misguided -- but if I thought I understood the art-craft as well as you do, I'd jump at the chance nonetheless. (Well, maybe only if I were a 27 year old just starting out  )
Best to you, hope all is well

[JReese]

Surprised that a Langford & Moreau or an H.J. Tweedie couldn't crack the top 100

[Sean_A]

Isn't ranking archies an extension of ranking courses?  I am not convinced its worth while to rank courses and less convinced about archies.  But as Pietro states, it might be a worthwhile read if certain people did the ranking, though I fear the list would reflect those certain people's favourite courses...which doesn't really add anything to the discussion.  Honestly, my gut says stay away from this sort of project.

Ciao

[Carl Rogers]

Hopeless and absurd.........

[Michael Wolf]

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

[Michael Wolf]

I just went back and counted 18 names on the list who I think I know enough about that I’d trust with my money enough to write a check and trust to deliver (without looking over their shoulder during the construction) something I’d be happy with

[jeffwarne]

They lost me when theydescribed Atlantic as a "seaside" course" (I'm really not sure if the picture is even Atlantic-looks like 13 in the background bt not sure what hole would be visible in the foreground)
I'm 6 foot 5 and in 6 years working at Atlantic, I never saw the sea.....which is about 2-3 miles away
I do enjoy the course though

[Jim_Coleman]

   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.

[Bill Gayne]

Donald Trump isn't a top ten GCA?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()