Which Architect should get credit?

[John Shimp]

What are some examples of courses that have given architectural credit to a redesigner/restorer as opposed to the original designer and router?

What level of work does it typically take for a switch in credit to be made?  Or is there a typical?

Palmetto Golb Club in Aiken, SC is such a course.  It was initially primarily laid out by Herbert Leed's in 1892-95.  Subsequently Ross did a little work in the late '20's-- mostly irrigation I understand.  Then in the '30's A. Mackenzie lengthened the course by around 400 yds, redesigned and grassed the formerly sand greens, and did extensive bunker work.  

Palmetto is now clearly claimed to be a Mackenzie course by the club and most others recognize it as such.  From what i have heard, he may not have ever walked the site although some planning work on ANGC is known to have been done by him from the Palmetto clubhouse before the Palmetto plans were done.  Wendell Miller carried out the actual plans.  Palmetto's bunkers have recently been restored with input from Tom Doak's firm (they look great) and look and play like Mackenzie bunkers.

[Brent Hutto]

Hi John, long time no see  

I might suggest that a useful rule for an architecture lover would be to ask "Whose design intent is most substantially represented by the course as it exists today?" when talking about an old, much worked-over course.

By that criteria, from what little I know about architects, then Palmetto would seem more a MacKenzie course than not. Everyone else involved (Miller, Doak) presumably gave it their best effort to reflect at least some guess as to how Dr. MacKenzie would like to see the course play. That tends to make it a "MacKenzie course" in my book.

As to what architect ought to get "credit" for general consumption (as opposed to our purposes here) then that depends on whose name is best for marketing, wishes of the membership, etc.

[BCrosby]

I think the main determinant as to whether an architect ought to continue to get design credit is whether his routing is still being used. On the theory that routing is the most important and most permanent design decision.

For that reason, Palmetto ought to continue to list Leeds as its architect, with rennovations by MacK. Unless MacK's work was more extensive than I thought it was.

Bob

[Mike_Cirba]

In my opinion, the original architect should continue to get design credit as long as a substantial or significant portion of the original routing remains in use, similar to what Bob said, with a little more laxity for minor routing changes.

Of course, the exception to that is if Macdonald & Whigham advised the original designer for 3 or so days over 3 years, then it's clear that based on their superior intellect, that credit should shift over to them by default.  

Particularly if the original designer went overseas after building the course.  

[John Shimp]

Two ideas have been put out.  First is whether course character (eg. bunker/green styles) ought to determine who gets credit.   Second, is routing.  Both are interesting.  

Are there other examples of courses like this where the designer of record is in question?

One other I can think of is Pinehurst #4 where I think Fazio stuck with the Ross routing but completely changed the character of the course.  I played it several times as a Ross but haven't played it as a Fazio (and may not unless it is free business golf ).  Fazio has loaded up #4 with pot bunkers to honor Ross.  I saw some of these when I watched the US Open at #2 summer before last.

So, #4 is now considered a Fazio despite largely using Ross' routing.  I agree with this change in credit btw.

[Tom_Doak]

John:  There is no official rule of thumb, otherwise there would be many less pages of arguments in the archives of GCA.

The standard rule is that whatever architect's name would give the club most stature, is the one used by the club, and we sometimes later discover the credit to be entirely in error.

I personally don't believe attempts at "restoration" or "sympathetic redesign" should be credited to a subsequent architect.  Unless we change the routing significantly, or build a new set of greens, I would not claim a course to be "mine" ... Atlantic City is the only previously existing course which uses my name.  Some other architects prefer to slap their names on as many old courses as possible; it would be nice if the magazines were more consistent about this, but sometimes it is a matter of "who you know".

[BCrosby]

These are all good questions. It is a mystery to me that no guidelines exist for giving design credit v. credit for renovations. Did Whitten describe the criteria he used in his book?

Let me take a shot at some guidleines.

It seems to me that if an architect routed a golf course, a presumption exists that he gets the design credit.

That presumption can be overcome if and only if subsequent changes to the course involve (a) a new routing or (b) substantial changes that materialy alter playing character of the course. Those would include changes to the strategy of a large number of holes, or the relocation of greens, tees or major hazards.

Extending tees, reshaping or restoring bunkers, expanding greens, etc. should not be deemed "substantial changes" for purposes of assigning design credit.

What am I missing?

Bob

 

[Jeff_Mingay]

This thread reminds me of a story I've relayed here before:

Beach Grove G&CC near Windsor, Ontario, Canada. The Beach Grove course was routed on paper by Dev Emmett, according to a period article featuring in the Canadian Golfer magazine, and subsequently constructed by Thompson, Cumming and Thompson.

That's Geo. Cumming, Nicol Thompson, and his now famous little brother, Stanley, who owned and operated a golf course construction firm during the 1920s that built several courses for other golf designers, including Chas. Alison at York Downs, Toronto.

These days, who do you think Beach Grove claims designed the course, despite evidence to the contrary? Dev Emmett? Wrong. Geo. Cumming or Nicol Thompson, who designed some pretty good courses throughout the province of Ontario? Wrong again.

Funny, they claim Nicol's little bro., Stan, designed it  

[BCrosby]

East Lake is a great case study.

Ross gets design credit because he rerouted the old Bendelow 18. Follow-on changes by George Cobb, Rees and others don't give them co-design credit bescause they didn't (a) reroute the course or (b) materially change EL's playing character.

Bob

[Matthew Hunt]

I think George Comb should get the credit for RCD as he made the course the way it is today.

[Tom_Doak]

Bob:

The ASGCA has some kind of standard for when a "renovation" counts as a "new course" for the purposes of qualifying for membership in the organization, along the lines you describe.  (Personally, I don't agree with that because it might convince a young architect to move around greens and tees needlessly so he can qualify for membership, but that's another story.)

However, I don't think the ASGCA polices whether one of their members can publicly claim design credit for those courses even if they don't qualify as "significant changes" under the membership guidelines.  Rees Jones, for one, has taken credit on many courses where he didn't make substantial changes.

Cornish and Whitten's book included a lot of faux credits.  Cornish listed every course he had consulted on, including Crystal Downs, where all he did was suggested capes in the bunkers (later shown not to have existed) and change the mowing lines to reduce fairway acreage.  I don't really blame them, that was the first attempt at assembling all that info, and all they had to go on was the architects' own records or their word.  Naturally they were all assumed to be gentlemen about such things and not to take credit for things they shouldn't.

Then there's the issue of whether a design associate gets credit or not, which is a huge can of worms.  If you want to give them credit in today's world, there is no way to be consistent going back to the old days.  And, frequently, the associate who most looks to gain some credit for his role isn't the one who really contributed the most on that project.  As someone mentioned the other day, we would really require Hollywood "credit meetings" to sort out stuff like that.  And nobody really wants to read a laundry list of names for the designer ... including the client, who is more interested in promoting the guy whose name he paid for.

If you figure out sensible rules for credits, and correct everything historically, I will be glad to abide by your new rules.  But I'm pretty sure others will not.

[BCrosby]

Tom -

It seems to me that associate credit ought to work like ownership of patents developed by employees while on the job. If they were working for ABC Corp., then ABC Corp. owns the patent rights.

Ditto for employees of architectural firms. If they are on your payroll, your firm gets the design credit for their work.

It's a rule that works well in the realm of intellectual property. My guess is that it would work in the gca world as well. In effect, that is the way it works now anyway, doesn't it?

Bob

 

[Tom_Doak]

Bob:

Yes, that's the way it generally works, although there is starting to be some expectation that design associates receive some credit ... Ron Whitten often takes pains to list them in the credits when he is writing anything like the Best New courses results.  And some of the big-name architects object when he does so, because they don't want to help their associates make names for themselves.

I've got no problem listing my own associates as co-designers, but it does bother me that by doing so, I cause some people to believe they really did ALL the work on the course.  Gil Hanse contributed a lot to Stonewall, but no more than Don Placek contributed to the second course there ... but Gil's name is out there and not Don's, because Gil has gone on his own.  That's just one of thousands of examples of how the credit system is not equal for all.