[Mark Bourgeois]

You know, like in baseball.  “VORP” stands for “Value Over Replacement Player.”

For our purposes let's think of it as Value Over Replacement Designer: VORD.  A replacement designer is not a great designer or even an "average" designer but one who's "freely available."  Not a chump, but I dunno, maybe a YaBB god -- prior to Tommy's unholy deicide a few months back.

So…what are the highest VORD courses ever?

Consider: a high VORD design is one where another architect thinks, "No way I could have done that!"

Not necessarily a "great" course, it’s a course where the architect did so far better than a replacement architect as to provoke wonder and inspire.

The beauty of VORD is to judge an architect based on the variables he can control, excluding those he can't, like the site.  We’re not judging the overall experience, ambiance, setting, none of that crap – not even the architecture in the totality of its end result.  Just how well the architect did with what he was given.

For example, how bout St. George's? How many architects would have incorporated the ridges as uniquely and as brilliantly as Thompson?

And as an example of a great course that may not carry a high VORD, what about Sand Hills? If the architects found 130 or whatever potential holes, then couldn't a replacement made a pretty good - not necessarily “great,” but above average, maybe well above average - course?  (On the other hand, they did decide to spend enough time on site to find all those holes; other designers might not have.)

Or how bout Cypress?  Fantastic site, great course, but how much better than Raynor's is MacKenzie’s?  Maybe Raynor or – keeping it real – a replacement architect wouldn't have done as well, but again we're talking VORD....

(Another course generally well-regarded but nevertheless sometimes damned with a low VORD is Turnberry Ailsa, especially on the routing.  But as Donald Steel has pointed out, Ross worked within the prewar footprint and in fact utilized much of that routing, in order to save on costs. So maybe the VORD is higher than popularly believed)

Lastly, it should be noted that while great or really good courses on mediocre terrain likely are high VORD, that may not be not axiomatic, either.  Such terrain may have just one prominent feature, which would might have been spotted, and used, by a replacement-level designer.  One example might be Ross’s Linville, a very good course whose one prominent feature, a stream, might have been used, although perhaps not to the same degree, by someone less skilled.

High VORD, low VORD, no VORD – whaddya got for me?

Mark

[Rich Goodale]

If you are talking of increase in value in percentage terms (i.e. VORD = (D+RD)/RD), The VORD of Painswick is infinity, as no other designer would have even tried to (much less been able to) build an 18-hole golf course on that site (i.e. RD = 0).

[Mark Bourgeois]

But how do you know it's infinity?  Good catch on noting the role of budget: most architects might take a bulldozer and dynamite to the site, but if they didn't have the budget...

Is Stanley Thompson the career VORD leader?  Besides St. George's, Banff and Cape Breton are supposed to be pretty unique in a VORD way.

What course design has the highest VORD?  Pinehurst #2 and Royal Worlington sound like candidates, Muirfield, too?

What about modern designs?  Has the goal of consistency or evenness of design wiped out both high and low VORD courses?

What course do you nominate for all-time lowest VORD?

Mark

PS You're right VORP technically is a counting stat but for this discussion it's probably better to think of it as a rate stat...

[Kyle Henderson]

As always, I must limit my discussion to my small body of experience. I think it will be tough for most of us to know the extent of site limitations placed on the artchitect, but I take a stab at this.

My high VORD nominees for Northern California are:

Morgan Creek (Phillips), Stevinson Ranch (Harbottle III), and Wildhawk (JMP Design) All three include some undesirable mounding, but have a lot of interesting fairway contours and green complexes created on a small parcel that was flat and featureless before construction)

Low VORD nominee: Eagle Ridge (although the housing lots may have tied the architect(s)'s hands

[Tom_Doak]

Mark:

For one thing, it's pretty hard to compute VORP in a field which has no statistical method of evaluation.  Who's a replacement-level architect?

Personally I think MacKenzie's style works infinitely better at Cypress Point than Raynor's would have worked.  And nobody knows to what extent Raynor's routing was different, for better or worse.  So how can you judge your own example?

[Art Roselle]

I know it doesn't really have one designer, but I think TOC has to have one of the highest VORDs.  I am pretty confident no other architect would have designed anything close to what ended up there.

It would seem that most of the other best candidates would be inland courses on good, but not spectacular ground.  Pinehurst #2 is a good call, but I would put Merion and Oakmont on the list too.  Those are on good sites, but nothing spectacular.  I would expect that inserting a random replacement architect would be pretty likely to result in something rather ordinary (at least by comparison).

[Mark Bourgeois]

Art

See, I think that DQs TOC, unless you want to deal with elements that can be tied to a specific designer like Robertson.  This might be called "Fragment VORD." Have at it...

Tom

Well, it sounds like you'd actually put MacKenzie's VORD score for Cypress really high.  I have a hunch getting a high VORD on a great piece of property is perhaps the toughest VORD achievement of all, a 1972 Steve Carlton-type achievement.

I did try to think of whether one actually could calculate golf architect VORDs.  I figure no: it probably would just end up as some type of false precision.  (Although: with a sufficiently-large database, such as Golf Digest's or Golf Week's, it might be possible to finagle something, but make no mistake there would be a lot of statistical torturing.  My second thought was to ask Matthew Hunt.)

The problem with using a qualitative, nonparametric VORD is that it becomes highly "judge-dependent," and laymen aren't very well qualified to judge.

I guess if someone like you can't figure it, that doesn't really bode too well on the qualitative front, but over on the Matt Ward thread, Ian Andrew said he factors into his ratings how well the architect did relative to the land he was given.  So he's got a little VORD action going there.

And re Thompson's use of ridges, I stole nakedly from your profile of the course, which I extrapolated to mean that architects find it very difficult not to look at someone else's finished design and think through how they would have done it, and whether they could have done better.

Who is this mythical replacement-level architect?  Dunno, but someone of your talents may be able to look at a finished course, and knowing something of the architect's design constraints (notably budget and site) as well as how well an inexperienced (for example) architect (maybe an experienced shaper or intern?) would do with the property.

You might might be able to come up with a pretty good list of all-time VORD courses.  You could even put it in your next Gazeteer, if you don't mind adding a five-page, single-spaced footnote to explain the concept...

Mark

PS
A simpler concept to use in lieu of VORD, and potentially more susceptible to quantitative analysis, would be something like "value over average designer."  You could use course rankings, with an analogous "ballpark adjustment:" what type of commissions (budget, sites) did the designer get?

The mind reels...better to adopt a Golf Magazine qualitative approach and have a panel of architects judge.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Another point re VORD and the common man: Wouldn't this give us a greater appreciation of the architect's skill and contribution?  Isn't that better for the profession than us lumping in factors over which the architect had zero control?

Mark

[Tom_Doak]

Mark:

You are right that I can probably make some educated guesses about what an architect could realistically have done differently.  And so can other architects, which is why I appreciate their comments on our work.  

That's also one reason The Confidential Guide was so controversial -- wherever I implied that the architect missed something, some considered it unprofessional.  Apparently there are some architects out there who don't believe "design" is a subject for critique at all -- that as long as the drainage works and the grass grows, everything else is just a matter of opinion, and all courses should basically be considered equal.

But, I have learned from experience that even a fellow architect looking at another's work has to make a lot of assumptions about the restrictions on the site and on the design -- and many times those assumptions are totally wrong, because the rules and regulations are so different from one place to the next.  For that reason, I tend to stay away from VORP discussions, other than to say when I'm amazed at what the architect did manage to do.

A couple of good examples of that:  Caledonia GC and Monterey Peninsula CC, both by Mike Strantz.

[Mark Bourgeois]

You know, Tom, comments like that are like gifts and very much appreciated.

I have never been to Myrtle Beach nor ever motivated before, but one year from now I hope to have played at least three rounds at Caledonia.

I do my best to hunt down high-VORD courses offered up by any architect on here, no matter the location...

Cheers
Mark

[Ian Andrew]

Mark,

I needed a few comments till I got the idea of what you were going after.

Here are a few of the courses where the architect exceeded the site – in my view:

Pinehurst #2: I've been around Pinehurst quite a few times over a twenty year span. The site is good but nothing spectacular, yet the playing experience is unique to golf. The combination of green contour and run-offs make a good player struggle – yet the width and opportunity to play on the ground allow a weaker player to get around comfortably.

Merion: 105 acres is too tight to find 18 holes – let alone a great course – yet there it sits 18 great holes in a row. The fact that it makes perfect use of the property, has a unique rhythm to the round, and makes you excited to play every hole – I don’t believe there is a single architect who could do better on that property.

Muirfield: This is the ugliest of all the great links – the property is good – but the setting is decidedly average. On the other hand the routing deals wonderfully with the wind, the bunkering has terrific flexibility depending on the conditions and the course makes you think and plan all round.

Others that fit the bill: Garden City, Seminole, Riviera, TPC Sawgrass The Old Course, Carnoustie,

[Mark Bourgeois]

Ian, these are helpful. What about courses that don't make Top 100 lists? What are some of the highest VORD designs you've seen?

Thanks
Mark

[Mark Bourgeois]

To save time on answering everybody's IMs -- what is it about VORD that inspired so many to write! -- here's a blast update on The February Conjecture.

Looking left on 5 fairway (or was it 4?) at Noordwijkse last February, one is  inspired to ponder one of golf's greatest Might Have Beens. And thus The February Conjecture.

Take the course's Doak Score and divide it by a Doak Score for the unimproved property. Judge the land along analogous lines to the Doak Course score, but rate the land.

So, better than 1.0 = good VORD.

For example, Noord----- gets a 6 on the finished product. But the property is at least a 9! So VORD is 0.67. Underachiever.

The February Conjecture is not yet perfect, as construction, budget, etc constraints have not been factored. I know this because when I ran Spanish Bay by Tom Watson he just went OFF and that's supposed to be bad.

Consider this VORD.2 progress though -- and this post the official call for papers.

At Noord-----, a horrible forest, if you can believe it a dunesland forest, was planted by a mining co to stabilize the land, then the Govt locked down those trees, forcing the club to route through it rather than destroy it. At least, that's the club's story....

Mark

[Peter Pallotta]

Mark -

how about H.S. Colt at Swinley Forest? If you say "yes, high VORD there," I'm saying this concept of yours isn't so nebulous after all.

I've come to praise VORD not to bury it.

Peter

[Mark Bourgeois]

That's gotta ping the meter on VORD.2.

Here's another: St Georges Hill. Doak 8, but Darwin described being lost in the property while the course was under construction, with no way to see how a golf course could be fashioned from it.

Rank amateur? I think not. Seasoned VORD.2 rater.

Course = 8
Land = ~6
VORD.2 = 1.33

What meat doth this version of VORD feed on, that it has grown so strong?

Mark

[Peter Pallotta]

Mark -
you encourage me, a VORD neophyte. How about Herbert Fowler at Eastward Ho? How about Walter Travis at Garden City?

When could they say till now, that talked of VORD, that her wide walls encompassed but one man?

Peter

[Tom_Doak]

Mark:

Your highest VORD scores are really going to be determined by your score for the lower-rated properties ... and therefore by your own lack of imagination. 

If there's enough acreage to make a golf course, I figure there is a chance to build a 6 on the Doak scale every time out of the box.  All you've got to do is do a good routing and build a really good set of greens, and you're there. 

I guess that's not true if you've got overhead power lines everywhere, like the Karsten Course at ASU, but if those bother you at the beginning they're going to bother you just as much at the end.

[Bill_McBride]

You know, Tom, comments like that are like gifts and very much appreciated.

I have never been to Myrtle Beach nor ever motivated before, but one year from now I hope to have played at least three rounds at Caledonia.

I do my best to hunt down high-VORD courses offered up by any architect on here, no matter the location...

Cheers
Mark

Don't skip True Blue next door, it's similar to Caledonia but with more elbow room, it's not as cramped by the acreage available.

[Phil McDade]

Mark:

I think Lawsonia is a pretty good example of a VORD course. Langford took a good, but not great, site, and turned it into a really interesting (in some ways fascinating) course. Partly this reflects the way that Langford and Moreau incorporated their classic design elements -- severely pushed-up greens, gull-wing bunkers (both fairway and near green sites), and interesting internal green contours.

But L&M also utilized the terrain to create some interesting blind and semi-blind shots, and as well as a course that tests (old cliche, but true here) all parts of your game and all clubs in the bag, because of varied approach shots. There is also a local knowledge component to the course (which sits near, but not within view, of a major lake), particularly on the back nine, regarding how putts break on some greens.

I can see a lesser architect making an average course out of what is, for the most part, only an above-average piece of property. L&M made a great one.

[Peter Pallotta]

Mark - the experts say there is a flaw in the VORD theory. But Bill and Phil and I are hanging on to it, never fear.

Here's an analogy - do you know why I think Martin Scorcese is a great director? Because I can't imagine any other director even making Mean Streets, Raging Bull, or Goodfellas, let alone making them so well. Do you know why I think someone like Norman Jewison is not a great director? Because I can't think of a single film he's made that I couldn't imagine being made better by another director, say Sidney Lumet. Do you know why John Cassavettes is my favourite director? Because he pushed and pushed and often failed but occasionally captured better than anyone else the truth and heart of the human experience, at least as I know it.   

Peter

[Mark Bourgeois]

Mark:

Your highest VORD scores are really going to be determined by your score for the lower-rated properties ... and therefore by your own lack of imagination. 

If there's enough acreage to make a golf course, I figure there is a chance to build a 6 on the Doak scale every time out of the box.  All you've got to do is do a good routing and build a really good set of greens, and you're there. 

I guess that's not true if you've got overhead power lines everywhere, like the Karsten Course at ASU, but if those bother you at the beginning they're going to bother you just as much at the end.

Tom, I believe you have noted your course scale effectively is logarithmic or at least nonlinear.  So the solution is simple: make the VORD scale logarithmic!

I just need a few estimates from the experts -- that includes you Peter! -- on how many properties you see that rate a "5" for every property that rates a "10".

Also, Tom, or anyone familiar with TCG, how many courses in there rate a "5" and how many rate a "10"?

I can use these figures to calculate the exponents in the formula.

I urge all to help -- VORD.3 hangs in the balance!

O! That a man might know the end of this day's business...

Mark

[Mike Nuzzo]

Isn't the vord the score for the architect?
So then the architect that can turn Lubbock or Shadow Creek into a 6+ or so would get a high score.
If someone could have turned that unnamable course in Canada into a good course that would be the winner.  It was a very mountainy site - worse than a flat site.

Site scores:
Too mountainy = 0-2
Dead Flat = 3
Dead Flat with power lines = -1

Tom,
If you can turn any site into a 6, how do you explain all those 3s & 4s out there.

Cheers

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()