News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Mark_Rowlinson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Put them in order
« on: February 14, 2008, 11:49:50 AM »
In the recent feature interview with Frank Pont there is an informed discussion on the relative merits of Colt and Simpson, with a comparison with Alison, too. These three are roughly contemporary (in design terms) with MacKenzie, Fowler, Abercromby, Braid, Vardon and Herd. There are obviously many ways of ranking them in terms of innovation, lasting influence, best work on a bad site, skill in working with a poor budget, or maybe less quantifiable judgements such as 'great ideas but lousy execution', lovely tee shots but unchallenging approach shots etc. Would any of you like to have a go at ranking them in some way - giving reasons, of course, for your decisions. I've probably missed someone, too. Apologies in advance.

Doug Ralston

Re: Put them in order
« Reply #1 on: February 14, 2008, 09:04:41 PM »
Since I have played none of these architects, I have to use another standard with which to order them.

1. Abercromby
2. Alison
3. Braid
4. Colt
5. Fowler
6. Herd
7. MacKenzie
8. Simpson
9. Vardon

I felt someone should comply. Can you guess my method?

Doug

Andrew Summerell

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Put them in order
« Reply #2 on: February 15, 2008, 05:09:42 AM »
Mark,

I am a huge Colt fan, so I would place him easily at the top of the list. Being an Australian, I love MacKenzie’s sandbelt work, so he would come in second. I’ve only played a couple of course each by Braid & Fowler, but love their work. Braid probably being the simpler of the two. My only experience of an Alison course is not a good one, so he would come in last of the ones I played, although I’m sure most of his was of high quality.

It’s the subtlety & strategy of Colt that I love, with a great depth to his work. You could play a course like Swinley Forest every week for 20 years & still be discovering nuances that you haven’t noticed before. That’s what puts Colt at the top of my list.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Put them in order
« Reply #3 on: February 15, 2008, 05:51:34 AM »
Mark

I reckon I would have to place Dr Mac top of the list.  He is an unsung innovator of heathland golf with Alwoodley.  He also designed world class courses which are still very relevant in architectural terms on two continents - can any other archie from this period make such a claim? 

Colt would have to be second though it is very difficult to know what work is his on many renovations which he gets credit for.  Still, his original work is quite strong.  I am not sure he quite hits the mark that Dr Mac does with world class courses, but he produced several very good courses.  He helped train both Alison and Dr Mac.  Colt can be said to have perfected the melding of heathlands with naturalism.  Colt also produced very good courses on two continents. 

Fowler is sort of a wildcard pick for third.  Despite a rather limited output, Fowler was able to design courses which I believe are on a par with Colt (though not as many) and on two continents.  The aspect of Fowler which is most attractive is that all of his courses have a very different feel, but are still comfortable with the land.  I don't believe Colt was able to do this as well.  Fowler was also an early influence in the heathlands.  Fowler also mentored Simpson and Abercromby. 

The 4th pick is very difficult because chaps such as Simpson & Alison really owe much of their fame to more senior partners.  So much of their original work has been drastically altered or is in far flung places.  As such,  I would pick Braid.  Much like Old Tom, Braid was very influential in terms of the volume of work.  Much of it was rather straight forward, but when given a good property Braid was able to create endearing and long lasting courses.  Oddly, Braid is today thought of by some as a penal architect, but his best work uses the land to great effect in creating strategy.

I think my list stops there except to say I wish Aber designed more courses.  If Addington is any indication of his work he really could have been one of the very best archies.

Ciao
« Last Edit: February 15, 2008, 05:56:08 AM by Sean Arble »
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Put them in order
« Reply #4 on: February 15, 2008, 05:58:04 AM »
Mark

I reckon I would have to place Dr Mac top of the list.  He is an unsung innovator of heathland golf with Alwoodley.  He also designed world class courses which are still very relevant in architectural terms on two continents - can any other archie from this period make such a claim? 

Colt would have to be second though it is very difficult to know what work is his on many renovations which he gets credit for.  Still, his original work is quite strong.  I am not sure he quite hits the mark that Dr Mac does with world class courses, but he produced several very good courses.  He helped train both Alison and Dr Mac.  Colt can be said to have perfected the melding of heathlands with naturalism.  Colt also produced very good courses on two continents. 

Fowler is sort of a wildcard pick for third.  Despite a rather limited output, Fowler was able to design courses which I believe are on a par with Colt (though not as many) and on two continents.  The aspect of Fowler which is most attractive is that all of his courses have a very different feel, but are still comfortable with the land.  I don't believe Colt was able to do this as well.  Fowler was also an early influence in the heathlands.  Fowler also mentored Simpson and Abercromby. 

The 4th pick is very difficult because chaps such as Simpson & Alison really owe much of their fame to more senior partners.  So much of their original work has been drastically altered or is in far flung places.  As such,  I would pick Braid.  Much like Old Tom, Braid was very influential in terms of the volume of work.  Much of it was rather straight forward, but when given a good property Braid was able to create endearing and long lasting courses.  Oddly, Braid is today thought of by some as a penal architect, but his best work uses the land to great effect in creating strategy.

I think my list stops there except to say I wish Aber designed more courses.  If Addington is any indication of his work he really could have been one of the very best archies.  Also, I might very well have picked Park Jr as #5.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Put them in order
« Reply #5 on: February 15, 2008, 06:24:06 AM »
Do you really think Tom Simpson owes much of his fame to a senior partner, Sean?

I think he is perhaps one of the most underrated architects there is. For me, he is certainly the most interesting both in character and in work. I guess this is partly to do with my familiarity with many of his courses however.

Rich Goodale

Re: Put them in order
« Reply #6 on: February 15, 2008, 06:28:51 AM »
I'd rank them (using a modified Ralston algorithm):

1. Braid, Herd, Vardon (tied)
4. Abercromby, Alison, Colt, Fowler, Simpson (tied)
9. Mackenzie

Of course, if I knew the data I'd rank them by height.......

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Put them in order
« Reply #7 on: February 15, 2008, 06:53:00 AM »
Do you really think Tom Simpson owes much of his fame to a senior partner, Sean?

I think he is perhaps one of the most underrated architects there is. For me, he is certainly the most interesting both in character and in work. I guess this is partly to do with my familiarity with many of his courses however.
Ally

Perhaps you are right about Simpson.  He is a bit of an enigma.  I know that he is often given credit for a few big guns like Ballybunion and Cruden Bay, but I am not sure this is entirely accurate - especially at Cruden Bay - I think his input has been over-emphasized.  A few other courses are in doubt as to what of Simpson survives or what he actually did - Porthcawl, Rye & Co Louth come to mind.  Though I admit that there must have been something special about the man to have had the opportunity to work on so many name courses I think we have to look at his solo original designs to get a a clearer picture.  Unfortunately I haven't seen any prominent examples.  Hopefully, I will get a chance to see New Zealand very shortly.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Ian Andrew

Re: Put them in order
« Reply #8 on: February 15, 2008, 08:20:35 AM »
Mark,

I would have IM'd this but I can't send messages to you.

I put together what I considered the 25 Greatest (dead) Architects in order with my reasoning for each on my blog last summer. Here is the whole piece which goes in depth for each architect and why I selected them where I did. I decided on combine quality of work with influence to make my decisions.

Here is the start of the full piece: http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2007/05/do-i-dare-do-produce-list-of-top-25.html

Here is their spot in the final list after some reconsideration through hindsight and commentary from others:

1. Alister Mackenzie
2. H. S. Colt
11. Charles Alison
12. Willie Park Jr.
13. Tom Simpson
15. Herbert Fowler
19. James Braid

the others didn't make the list
« Last Edit: February 15, 2008, 08:24:44 AM by Ian Andrew »

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Put them in order
« Reply #9 on: February 15, 2008, 09:49:42 AM »
Put them in order

That is the ultimate challenge – virtually impossible to compare one against the other.

Perhaps by addressing them in their appropriate time period, then a league table may be possible as per GCA with the A, B C & D categories.  Yet, I fear that this is also next to impossible. We may be able to work backwards from 2008, for nearly 100 years. But then massive gaps appear, incorrect statements are made and even the Welcome page of GCA.com seems to endorse the ideas or thoughts of Simpson and a few of the later designers, who seem perhaps, guided more by their arrogance than by historical knowledge.

In general, the courses fall into one of four distinct architectural periods.

Pre-1899: The architectural skill employed in these courses is minimal and yet the lesson learned is invaluable: nature provides the most enduring challenge. The architects of this day spent only one or two days on site to stake out the tees and greens. They had few decisions to make: they didn't have the ability to move much land. These courses have been largely modified over the past century to adjust to equipment changes.

The early architects, designers or whatever you want to call them, had the difficult problem of creating virgin courses on small sections of land, with very little guidance apart from their own knowledge of golf. They did not just design a course in the morning and leave it never to return. In many cases they returned and tweaked the course. Bunkers in the early days seemed to be installed months after the course was opened. No earth moving yet there are reports in 1891 of some major designs costing thousand of pounds to build. Yes, they used natural features because Golf
in those days WAS Natural, they worked with nature. As I have previously mentioned these were the Real Golden Days of Golf not the time of Simpson and his colleagues. They just developed the ideas from the creators. Some like Simpson, not just satisfied with his endeavours, he tried to rubbish those that has preceded him. Why, well, who knows, but mud has stuck.

I will not list a single group of 5 or 10 designers/architects or their courses for the simple reason that I have not played all the courses in the world. There are modern designers who deserve praise for their work. But so do the guys that started the idea of designing or creating a course, smoothing out the imperfections as it developed, returning to modify or extend it to the full 18 we know today. Later Architects and Designers where able to capitalise and continued the growth of the sport with  massive help of larger budgets and new land sufficient to house a 18 hole course or two; all deserve respect. I say the earlier ones should be given credit for what they actually started and achieved.

If I had to choose I would accept ignorance in preference to arrogance, at least I would still have the opportunity to learn to correct my ignorance. 

Doug Ralston

Re: Put them in order
« Reply #10 on: February 15, 2008, 10:01:25 AM »
I'd rank them (using a modified Ralston algorithm):

1. Braid, Herd, Vardon (tied)
4. Abercromby, Alison, Colt, Fowler, Simpson (tied)
9. Mackenzie

Of course, if I knew the data I'd rank them by height.......

LOL;

Mr Goodale;

I have recently read some small amount about some of these guys, in my learning process here. When I saw Mark's post nearing page 2 extinction, I though to retrieve it somehow, as I thought it interesting. Glad to see a few who really do know something of this have taken up the charge.  ;)

Doug

PS: My next list will rate posters on GCA in order of sense of humor. Where shall I start?

JMorgan

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Put them in order
« Reply #11 on: February 15, 2008, 10:48:00 AM »
On the ineffable, ineluctable meter of GCA Influence, combining both Joe Public and The Certifiable 1500 in a top secret "blend" of multivariate methodologies:

Colt
Dr. Mac
Braid
Simpson
Alison
Fowler
Abercromby
Vardon
Herd

What's that?

-Colt. 
(That's it.)
-MacKenzie.  "Good Doctor, where were you on the night of January 23, 1926?"
-Braid is probably the most underappreciated for extent of work and the number of designs that remain unchanged to this day.  Plus I think he was the tallest of the bunch.
-Vardon: I'm surprised you didn't match Braid in volume and quality of designs.  Not even close. 
-Fowler: most likely to succeed that disappointed? ... a personality/business thing?

Why do I get the feeling that Mark is Tom Sawyering us into doing his homework?
« Last Edit: February 20, 2008, 01:44:20 PM by JMorgan »

Mark_Rowlinson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Put them in order
« Reply #12 on: February 17, 2008, 11:14:13 AM »
Not at all! I'm just curious about the opinions of others.

Several conversations sparked the post in addition to the excellent feature interview with Frank Pont. For better or worse I get mixed in a few golf club centenary books and I come to reassess my very limited knowledge of the architects and their work each time. I've done the MacKenzie original (Alwoodley) and been lucky enough to get to know a Sandy Herd original (Stockport) that is very little altered to this day. (The detail work was carried out by Peter Barrie, the club's first professional). I'm about to get invoilved in the Mere centenary book (mostly Braid with input from George Duncan) and I'm also involved in the Sandy Lodge book (Harry Vardon, with much input from George Markes, the club's founder). I'm involved in pulling together the work of the members at Ringway (originally Colt, later modified by Braid) for their centenary book, so you will see that I do have some interest in what other people think about these architects. I'm not involved in anything to do with a Simpson course, a Fowler course, or an Aber course. Fortunately Fowler and Aber were not prolific architects and I have played most of their UK courses. I know more of Simpson's work in Belgium than at home.

So it is a genuine request for learned and valued opinion, not just being lazy about my homework!

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Put them in order
« Reply #13 on: February 17, 2008, 11:22:36 AM »
Mark:

I refrained from trying to "put them in order" because I don't believe anyone can really do that ... you can put the finished products in order if you want, but to put the architects themselves in order would require an understanding of their aims and what they had to work with, and I don't think there is anyone alive who can make the comparisons.

However, I did appreciate the list that went with your question.  There is too much focus here on particular designers [Colt and MacKenzie] and not nearly enough respect given to some others; I don't think often enough about Braid's work, and I couldn't tell you anything useful about Herd's or Vardon's, but that doesn't mean it ought to be dismissed.

But I wish someone would post good reviews of a couple of their courses, instead of just trying to rank them compared with Fowler or Willie Park.

Mark_Rowlinson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Put them in order
« Reply #14 on: February 17, 2008, 12:23:32 PM »
Tom, Thanks for your response.

Braid certainly deserves serious attention for St Enodoc. You will know better than I what his input at Carnoustie was. Blairgowrie is probably his other best-respected effort, although I can hear Paul Turner shouting Perranporth loud and clear! I have a particular affection for Berkhamstead (a view also shared with Peter McEvoy) but I've not noticed many others on GCA singing its bunker-less praises.

As we know Vardon did not like travel and his output is small. It is a toss up whether Sandy Lodge or Little Aston is his best work. I think Sandy Lodge as originally laid out was pretty testing but some of the bunkering has been lost and the inland links nature of the course has been lost to some extent. The greatest loss was probably the 18th, a par three played up and over a sand face equal to that at St Enodoc. It had to be removed because of health and safety (applying to the local railway as well as to players), plus the difficulty of maintenance.  South Herts, at which Vardon was the professional for many years, and which he altered piecemeal, is not a memorable course. 

I am not sure how many or which courses Herd designed. There is no question about Stockport. Herd laid it out, but, as I say, the detail construction work was done by Peter Barrie, the club's inaugural professional. Barrie certainly took control of the greens and their approaches and the course still makes a very interesting test for those who continue to play the running, ground game. Unfortunately, a large number of trees were planted in the 50s and 60s to separate the fairways of what had been an open and barren course and these are now too restricting in places, and some of the bunkering has been modernised, but it is still possible to play Herd's course more or less as he intended a hundred years after its inception.

I've been lucky enough to play pretty well all of Fowler's UK courses and I always come away refreshed. I don't think there is another architect who is so unrecognisable. His designs are so very different. Quite clearly he responded to what he saw in the land with which he was working and his response was very different on each occasion. You only have to play Bull Bay once to recognise this.

I'm not sure what the roles of Fowler and Simpson were at the Berkshire. Who did what? I think that New Zealand may be the only original of Simpson's I've played in the UK and I found it charming, utterly original, engagingly quirky and something of a period piece.  I don't know how much of the work at the likes of Co Louth, Lytham, Porthcawl is his. However, where his work in Belgium survives there is much of interest - I would cite the short two-shotters at Royal Belgique as excellent examples of timeless holes for most of us - ie those of us who do not aspire to 300-yard drives and are more often than not content with 200.

Abercromby is certainly high on my list of creative designers, mostly through the originality of The Addington. I like Coombe Hill, and its par 3s are first rate, but the two-shotters are much more straight-forward (I didn't say easier) than the Addington. I like Worplesdon, and the 18th is as tough a par 4 as players of my inability come across, but it's not as inventive as its neighbour Woking, nor (to my mind) as charming as its other neighbour West Hill (Butchart). My judgement is probably clouded by the unfortunate double crossing of a dangerous main road during the round. What was known as Manor House Hotel and is now Bovey Castle has some interesting skirmishes with a stream on the front nine, but I should be hard-pressed to name an architect for the rest of the course - fairly mundane, to be honest. I've not seen it since it was upgraded. it may now be better.

I don't know any of Alison's solo work, so I cannot comment.

MacKenzie, for my taste, shows the most originality. Colt, for me, shows the surest hand - it will always be good, sometimes great, and the craftsmanship is readily apparent. Fowler excites me because he is so unformulaic. Abercromby's Addington excites me also, his other work less so. From my experience of Braid courses (only a handful of this prolific designer's work) I'd say he deserves a higher profile than he appears to have as a designer. From what I can tell, there doesn't appear to be much Herd remaining intact, so it's probably not possible to judge him. I'm sure Sandy Lodge will help raise Vardon on my appreciation scale. I suppose the order in which I've mentioned these men reflects my rating of them, but it leaves out Simpson because I don't know enough about what he did at his rebuilds and I'm ignorant of who did what in his work with Fowler.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Put them in order
« Reply #15 on: February 17, 2008, 12:50:52 PM »
Mark:

You didn't mention Liphook when talking about Simpson.  Have you not played it?  If so, you must.

Norbert P

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Put them in order
« Reply #16 on: February 17, 2008, 01:49:21 PM »
I'd rank them (using a modified Ralston algorithm):

1. Braid, Herd, Vardo*n (tied)
4. Abercromby, Alison, Colt, Fowler, Simpson (tied)
9. Mackenzie

Of course, if I knew the data I'd rank them by height.......

Richard, always the gamesman.

Highest regard to the letter "D"
Then the letter "O"
Finishing off with affinity for the letter "C"

So they all add up to spell DOC !   


*o is trumped

(I won't go into the alphanumeric option.)
"Golf is only meant to be a small part of one’s life, centering around health, relaxation and having fun with friends/family." R"C"M

Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Put them in order
« Reply #17 on: February 18, 2008, 09:09:10 PM »
Mark, I don't know about ranking them but as you know I am a big Fowler fan. I have to admit, however, that Colt may be the most under appreciated architect of his time.  It amazes me how many Americans have never heard of either.
Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

Mark_Rowlinson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Put them in order
« Reply #18 on: February 20, 2008, 01:21:16 PM »
Tom, I know Liphook well. I thought it sailed under the banner of being Arthur Croome's design. Have you ever been in the pub on the old A3 just beyond the 9th green (original 18th)? There are b&w photos of the course in the old days - hardly a tree in sight.

Rich Goodale

Re: Put them in order
« Reply #19 on: February 20, 2008, 01:56:28 PM »
I'd rank them (using a modified Ralston algorithm):

1. Braid, Herd, Vardo*n (tied)
4. Abercromby, Alison, Colt, Fowler, Simpson (tied)
9. Mackenzie

Of course, if I knew the data I'd rank them by height.......

It's much easier than that.  I'll give you a hint.  If Doak were added to the list he would be tied with Mackenzie.

Richard, always the gamesman.

Highest regard to the letter "D"
Then the letter "O"
Finishing off with affinity for the letter "C"

So they all add up to spell DOC !   


*o is trumped

(I won't go into the alphanumeric option.)

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Put them in order
« Reply #20 on: February 20, 2008, 03:13:07 PM »
In the mid-20's Charles Ambrose did a series of articles of inland golf architecture. The pool of holes he drew from were by Colt, Simpson, Fowler, Croome and Abercromby.

I know little about Croome and Abercromby. Would love to know more. But back in the day both were highly respected. Abercromby's Addington, for example, seems to have been one of Ambrose's favorite courses. 

Bob