[Mark_Fine]

How would you rank the top designers (dead or alive), when it comes to having the most obvious design styles/traits?

[Mark_Fine]

I should add here that when I review a course, I rate what I find (not what I might expect to find).  The golf course is what it is and if someone other than the original designer improved it or mucked it up, so be it.  However, I do think it is interesting to check out courses, especially older ones, and try to identify what you think has changed vs. what the designer might have originally intended.  To do that, you need to know quite a bit about the designer as well as the course itself.  Sometimes, extensive information on the course is not available or too time consuming to uncover (most of us do have day jobs).  In those cases, you have to go on your own instincts based on what you know about the architect and what you have seen of his work.  But with some architects, identifying what they did and didn't do is not easy.  

[A_Clay_Man]

Mark- Who do you do reviews for?

And as to your question, I think I know what you are asking for, but it really is unclear. Perhaps it's a semantics issue in regards to design style/traits/intent.

But my answer would easily be Pete Dye. There is little doubt whos' course your playing when you play a Pete Dye hole. Sure, as with all stereotypes there's an 87 percent 13 percent truth/false ratio, so not every hole he ever built or designed screams out "PETE". But, A whole hell of alot do.

[Dave_Miller]

I'm with Adam.  Pete Dye is the most obvious to me.  For the most part you cna tell the course was designed by Pete.

Although I have to admit I have become more favorably impressed with some more recent designs than some earlier ones.

Cheers,
Dave

[Craig Van Egmond]

But are you playing a real Pete Dye hole or are you playing a Perry Dye trying to be Pete Dye hole?

Perry does a very good imitation of Pete but I don't think he really understands how Pete makes it work.

There is an architect in the Pacific Northwest named Bill Overdorf who has some very distinct green stylings that  I find very recognizable. He has created some very good layouts in the PNW area.

[Mark_Fine]

I tend to agree about Pete.  I've always felt its pretty obvious when you see a Pete Dye course.  You can tell he's had his bulldozers all over the place!

What I'm getting at is how do you know "whose course you are really playing"?  Which architects work is the easiest to distinguish?  

I play a lot of golf courses and see many designs of different architects.  But I often wonder whose work I'm really looking at?  For example, recently played the following:

Brooklawn CC - Old Tillinghast but marginal routing with numerous back and forth/up and down similar looking golf holes.  How much input/say did Tillinghast really have here??

Charles River - Wonderful old Ross design with every bunker  grass faced.  Was that the original intent?  

Misquamicutt Club - Another old design that Ross "changed"?  How much did he really do here??

Brookside CC in Canton - Once again an old Ross design that has very severe back to front greens and a mixed style of bunkering with some flashed sand and some grass faced (even on the same hole).  

Kirkland CC - A 1921 Alison design (that some give credit to Colt for as well even though Colt was supposedly never on site).  The green have receded and the bunkers have shrunk dramatically from what I can see.  Unfortunately most of the old photos and plans were lost in a fire.  

Get my point?
Mark

[Dave_Miller]

Mark:

I served on the restoration committee at Charles River.  

All research, including old photos, old green committee minutes, and interviews with members who had been there as far back as the early 30's plus newpaper photos from as far back as 1924 indicate all the bunkers were grass faced.  

I believe this was the design of Donald Ross at the time the course was designed.

In addition Donald Ross was a dues paying member of the club and we have many photos of him on site during construction.  I believe this was how he did the bunkers at Charles River.

Best,
Dave

[Ran Morrissett]

Doesn't Seth Raynor have to be the most obvious? Just one look at the formulaic set of par threes is generally all that is required.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Raynor, Alison, Thompson and Ross for the old guys. C&C and Rees for the modern guys. Forgive me if this thread implodes.

[Mark_Fine]

Dave,
I'm sure you are correct.  It's just interesting to try to figure out why at one course everything is grass faced and at another it is not?  I do not believe it was because the land and/or site dictated it!  

Ran/Tom,
I agree Raynor is the most obvious along with Alison.  I haven't played enough Thompson courses to judge that one.  Ross I'm starting to wonder about?  Flynn's better courses show a lot of similarity but some of his lesser designs make me question his "consistency".    

[Slag Bandoon]

Everywhere I look, The Mad Russian is there.  He's been plagiarized for years and it's time ALL the architects fessed up!

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mark,
I didn't think it would take 7 postings to get to Raynor.
As for a modern guy, how abouit Desmond Muirhead?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()