Corrected Architects - Golf Magazine Top 100 World

[Robert Thompson]

If Graham Cooke gets his name on Highlands for the crap he did there, then surely Ian Andrew should have his on St. George's for the fine restoration job he did there.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Tom Doak,
Would you include Hunter for Cypress Point?

Ian,
Before I remove Cooke, can you describe what changes he made (besides doing it for the accolades )?

What was RT responsible for at Augusta?

Does this fall into Shackelfords top ten untouchable claim?

So I assume everyone is happy with mother nature the designer of The Old Course?

Patents no, copyrights probably.
I hope GCA is genteel enough to avoid a suit of any sort about it though.

If Vanilla Ice won, so could I...

[Tom_Doak]

Robert:  Don't drag me into the Kingsbarns debate.  That is an ugly dispute between client and architect, both of whom seem determined to butt heads about it instead of finding a way to resolve it and move on.  [Of course, if a client really wants to take design credit for his input, there is little that an architect can do besides complain or insist that his name be taken off the course, which Kyle of course would not do.]  

I did visit the site [very EARLY in construction in 1998, when they were shut down by weather, and not late in the process as Mark apparently implied], and made some suggestions for a couple of holes at Mark's prodding.  I told him he could pay me if he used any of my thoughts, and we never got paid a dime, so I assume he didn't use them.

Mike N:  I honestly don't know how involved Hunter was at Cypress Point.  Geoff has seen more about it than I have.  I would certainly include Maxwell for Crystal Downs and Russell and Morcom for Royal Melbourne, and Hunter for The Valley Club, and Jones for Augusta National, so maybe Hunter should get a mention for Cypress Point too.  But is it fair to imply that MacKenzie always needed assistance, and that Ross and Tillinghast never needed any?  Should Raynor get a co-design credit on all of Macdonald's work, Bell with Thomas, and Toomey with Flynn?

[Ian Andrew]

Before I remove Cooke, can you describe what changes he made

added paths for all 18 holes.

1 no change
2  no change
3 simplified bunkers
4 added new back tee, simplified bunkers, added one
5 no change, simplified bunkers
6 added back tee (nice change to be fair), simplified bunker lines
7 no change
8 no change
9 no change
10 no change, simplified lines
11 added back tee accross river to turn four into par five
12 no change
13 no change, simplified bunker lines
14, lost all lines on great bunkers
15, no change
16 no changes
17 added front left bunker, simplified lines
18 simplified bunker lines

[T_MacWood]

Ian
I see your point about rewarding the architects that made the positive contribution, but on the other hand having your name associated with a great design shouldn't always indicate the architect's contribution had been a positive.

IMO you have list Fazio at both Inverness and Oak Hill, both acknowledged disasters. You have to list RTJ and Rees at Baltusrol and Quaker Ridge. Rees at Bethpage and Hollywood. And whoever is responsible for the new holes at SFGC. Dick Wilson at Scioto. RTJ at GCGC.

The way I look at it a hypothetical student of golf architecture would benefit from knowing Cooke did something at Cape Breton. He shouldn't go to Cape Breton with the idea everything he sees is the work of Stanley Thompson. When he understands more than one person is responsible, and uncovers who did what, he then can then determine if Cooke (or whoever the architect is) made a positive contribution or not. Having your name associated with a course may also be a case of who is to blame.

I do think there should be a way of rewarding well done restorations...perhaps an asterisk or another symbol, with a note at the bottom of the page.

[T_MacWood]

Tom
Geoff Shackelford did list Bell with Riviera and LACC. Why not list Hatch and McGovern behind Ross at the courses they were involved (maybe in parenthesis)...I think it would be very enlightening. And where we know Tilly worked with a Burbeck or George Low or Peter Lees, list them behind Tilly.

Mike
There were men or architects involved with the Old Course. I'm not sure who exactly did what...I've read little tid bits here and there about Robertson, Morris and John Low. I also know Colt and MacKenzie advised the R&A at different points, I don't know if they physicially did anything.

I believe MacKenzie acknowledged Hunter as his partner at the time Cypress Point was designed and built.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:  I appreciate "scholarly research" as much as anyone, but I don't think it's wise to change the whole protocol for who gets credit on a design, in hindsight, based on spotty evidence and the biases of individuals on this site.  I would love to hear Brad Klein's opinion of who besides Ross should get credit for any of his designs.

What did Rees Jones do at Quaker Ridge?  I haven't been back there for a long time, but I thought he only rebuilt the bunkers.  Trent Jones just did the one ugly green at Garden City, I think it's ridiculous to give him co-design credit for that.

How about a new standard ... you can only credit someone who had 25% input on the present design.  Or 15% if you insist ... but if we don't have some standard like that we can argue about this until the cows come home and we'll still be nowhere.

[T_MacWood]

Tom
You are correct Rees mostly rebuilt the bunkers at QR (his new bunkering scheme at the 14th is particularly offensive to me), and until they are restored IMO his name should be listed. It would be doing Tillinghast and company a disservice not mention Tilly is not completely responsible for the current bunkering. Ditto with the new holes at SFGC.

The same with Travis and the 5th & 12th holes at GCGC.

I don't like the idea of assigning a percentage...if someone has left something significant, they sould be listed. I consider wholesale bunker alterations/remodeling or a single new hole as significant.

[Mike Nuzzo]

I don't like the idea of assigning a percentage...if someone has left something significant, they sould be listed. I consider wholesale bunker alterations/remodeling or a single new hole as significant.

I agree with your thoughts, but for The Architects of Golf.
For Golf Magazine, I'd say major contributors only.

I got one private im about who designed the old course, without any details...  ??
I'll put that one on hold for a while.

Next up

Who designed Augusta?
Golfweek and Golf Magazine both have MacKenzie/Jones.
Golfweek, The Architects of Golf(TAoG) and Doak's MacKenzie book all have 1933
Golf has 1932

[Mike Nuzzo]

But is it fair to imply that MacKenzie always needed assistance, and that Ross and Tillinghast never needed any?  Should Raynor get a co-design credit on all of Macdonald's work, Bell with Thomas, and Toomey with Flynn?

I don't think it is unfair that MacKenzie was strong enough to get assistance - I'd guess he wanted the help.
I wouldn't credit Raynor for Macs work, as he was an associate / employee.

[Tom_Doak]

Raynor was never an employee.  He was paid independently, in fact, he was the only one getting paid since Macdonald never took a fee.

As for Augusta, you've got to put MacKenzie and Bob Jones.  None of MacKenzie's regular guys were there, it was built by a contractor.  And Jones had a great deal of influence on the lack of bunkers and the different tee shot strategies.

But do you put anyone else?  There's a laundry list of possibilities.  Trent Jones made the next biggest contribution, in my mind.

[T_MacWood]

"For Golf Magazine, I'd say major contributors only."

Mike
What should Golf's standard be? What do you consider a major contribution or more to the point what don't you consider a major contribution?

Tom
Did MacKenzie have regular guys? It seems to me he went through several stages of different regular guys.

I don't believe Wendell Miller deserves design atribution at ANGC, but he was MacKenzie's regular guy in the latter part of his career.