Credit where credit's due

[Mark_Rowlinson]

A remark in Joseph Rigo's Seminole thread set me wondering.

A  doubt is raised.
How much of Seminole is Wilson? How much Ross?

I happen to have an old copy of 'Executive Golfer' on my desk. This course is credted to Toomey and Flynn, that to George Thomas. At what point can we still say 'It's a Ross course, a Flynn course (or should that be Toomey and Flynn?) or a Thomas Course,' and at what point do we have to admit publicly that only 20%, 30%, 50% or 75% is Ross, Flynn or whomever? 

As someone with an interest in wine, I am well aware of the various dodges to bend the truth - manipulation of the various AC, DOCG and other defining denominations.

Should we not start a sort of AC regulation in golf? This is pure Park or pure Tillinghast. This is a bastard of 19 dfferent architects, but Ross had a hand in it somewhere.

I've chosen the AC model deliberately. Look how many different grape varieties you may use in Chateauneuf-du-Pape, or many a Bordeaux, for that matter. Then look at Montrachet, Chambertin, Ch Grillet or Coullee-de-Serrant - single grape varieties unsullied by blending. Krug champagne, acknowledged by many as one of the finest, is said to be constituted of 40 different wines - hardly different from beloved Ganton which is said (by some) to have had more than 18 architects involved in its 18 holes.

It's a minefield, and much of the relevant information we know not. For that matter, is it really important that a course is 100% designed by a particular architect? Pine Valley is hardly demoted because we are not 100% sure of its parentage.

This is hardly a meaningful post, but given advertising trading standards as well as the parallel application of strict wine regulations I wonder how legal it is that a particular club can claim a Ross or Flynn course in print. How much of it has to be Ross or Flynn?

[Ian Andrew]

There have always been a lot of questions about design credit. It is an issue for the associates within a firm. It is a much bigger issue when two architects go there separate ways. It is an issue after a major renovation.

My thoughts: In any restoration, the restoring architect should never get credit for the work. The original architect should be the only one listed. I personally think that an architect must add at least a couple of holes before there is any thought of giving some credit. A bunker job or rebuilding a few greens is not enough. Where it gets grey is rebuilding all 18 greens, and personally I think it would take all 18 greens to give design credit. I think this is the area most abused in the attempt to build either false credibility or a public track record.

I have always believed that whoever routed the golf course should be given design credit for the course. Routing is so essential that even just a routing is enough to be listed as the designer or co-designer. I think if another architect picks up the rest of the project, they should get credit as a co-designer. On the other hand, I think if the architect is in the field on behalf of the firm, but did not have a hand in the conception of the holes; they should not get credit.

I think if an associate has laid out the course and taken it to completion on behalf of a company they should get design credit. Hurdzan Fry has an interesting way of handling this. They name themselves as the architects of record and then name the individual as the course designer - that sits well with me. I always thought this is a wonderful way of giving credit where credit is due.

I have always struggled with people having themselves listed on courses as co-designers when all they did was screw up the bunkers, route cart paths through fairways and lengthen the course.

[John Sheehan]

My thoughts: In any restoration, the restoring architect should never get credit for the work. The original architect should be the only one listed.

Ian, I am not sure I understand your reasoning here.  There are many types of restorations.  Some are to bring a course back to it's original look/aesthetics and design intent.  Some original courses have been changed (sometimes drastically) by other architects before the restorer is brought in.  Just looking through this website and reading some of the back-threads regarding restorations, one can see the incredible amount of research that an architect must do before they even begin a restoration. That's not to mention the work they have to do to actually restore the course to the decided upon restoration timeframe.  Why, after putting this kind of effort into a restoration should an architect not get credit of some kind?  Or am I misunderstanding those statements?

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Ian, Thanks for bringing up the issue of restoration which is quite a difficult area. Exactly what and how much is being restored and to what set of criteria?

I'm thinking also of courses such as Royal County Down and Wallasey, both of which can claim the involvement of Tom Morris, but I don't know how much, if anything, of his survives at either. How much Colt survives at Rye? Should we be giving credit to lots of different architects?

Above all, how much Ross or Park, Flynn or Tillie must survive in order that the club can ligitimately claim that the course is by that particular architect? 

[Rich Goodale]

Good thread Mark, although I think your Appelation Controllee model doesn't really have legs (as it were), as it focuses on the land/terroir and not who designed or planted or even looked after the vineyards.  If a new owner decides to plant more or less Malbec and replace it with Merlot is that a serious "design" decision, or just business?

As for GCA, as you and I know well many of the older courses, particularly in the UK, have more fathers than some families.  Even if we can identify the various DNA samples, how do we attribute patgernity to a course like Dorooch, for example?

1--Ross (1921)
2--Sutherland (1921)
3--Morris (1877)--tee revised by Steel(?) c. 1985
4--Morris (1887)
5--Morris (1887)
6, 7, 8, 9, 10--Duncan/Grant/McCulloch (1946)
11--D/G/M (1946--tee and fairway only), Morris (1877, green)
12--Morris (1887)--green moved by Sutherland/Taylor (1904)
13--in and out and in of routing from 1887 to 1946
14--Morris (1887)
15--Morris (1887)
16--Morris (1887)
17--Taylor/Sutherland (1904)
18--Morris/Taylor/Sutherland (1887 and 1904)

NB--these are all guesstimates based on the facts I know and have inferred

As for the routing, Old Tom Morris did much of the bare bones (clockwise, mostly stick to holes played along the 3 levels which separate the land from the sea, greens on plateaux), but Sutherland, Taylor, Ross and most importantly "D/G/M" made fundamental changes, over a 40-50 year period.

So, is Dornoch a "Morris" course?  In many ways, yes, but in many other significant ways, no.

Multiple attribution problems arise at most of the great GBI links--County Down, Portrush, Lahinch, Portmarnock, Ballyliffin, Waterville, Ballybunion, The Old Course, Carnoustie, Prestwick, North Berwick, Aberdeen, Cruden Bay, Troon, Hoylake, Ganton and Turnberry, just for a few more notable examples.

There are far fewer examples of such multiple parentage in the modern age (or even the first "Golden Age"), at least for courses that still have a lofty reputation.  Why?

Well just maybe it is because 100+ years ago, golf courses were not treated as shrines to creativity and/or craftsmanship, but as venues for playing a game.  If the game on a particular venue could be made more interesting or challenging, why not make the change?  The real question is do you want to play over a musuem or on a venue which inspires and maintains your interest and pleasure?  The obvious answer is "both!"  I think this is the general philosphy of club in GBI, and the enduring quality of their courses argues strongly for the "both" options, even if it means overwriting some golfing history.

IMHO.

[Melvyn Morrow]

I understand what Ian is saying in that the ‘Spirit/Soul of the Course’ is set by the guy who routed the course. And yes, he should be given credit for the original work.

However I would go one set further and believe that each modification (again I agree with Ian in that to qualify as a modification 2-3 holes plus must be reworked), should be recorded by the club, given a full and detailed history on the development of the course(s). As previously mentioned the records are the property of the club but I feel that their history should be published and made available in the form of Historical Booklets issued and updated by the club. 

I accept that not many are that interested in golf history but it will give a true written account of the development of the course from concept. If this had been applied some 80-100 years ago it may have stop the ongoing posts on Merion with everybody understanding its actual history.

As for Royal County Down, hardly any of Old Tom’s design is left as the course has moved, leaving part of Old Tom’s course between the site of the old station and the Slieve Donard Hotel, however there may be a couple of green that are still in play. Slightly more remains at Wallasey parts of five holes remain if my memory serves me right.

I wish that all clubs had kept their original course records (safe) as it would have been most interesting to walk in the footsteps of the original designer, to try and understand what was in his mind.

[Paul_Turner]

Mark

I think Ian has it basically right with routing getting most credit.   But what happens if the general routing is intact but many of the green sites have been shifted by various degrees 

When should an architect get struck off the credit list?  Old Tom at Muirfield and RCD?  Colt only has half a dozen greens in play at Rye.

The GB&I ancient links (and some golden age courses 1900-1930 too) were mostly changed because of technology.   And most stayed relatively static for many decades until the recent improvement in tech and the perceived need to toughen the courses.

If you want to just put a name next to a course (say in a mag ranking) then I think, usually, you can be reasonably accurate with no more than 2 or 3 "architects".

[wsmorrison]

Mark,

As regards Flynn courses, William Flynn was the one and only designer. 

Toomey was responsible for managing Toomey and Flynn, Contracting Engineers the group responsible for building most of Flynn's designs.  William Gordon and Red Lawrence worked as construction supervisors for Toomey and Flynn.  Dick Wilson worked under Gordon or Lawrence as a construction foreman.  Ellis Maples worked as a construction foreman for Toomey and Flynn at Plymouth CC, a 9-hole course in North Carolina.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Paul

IMHO the original designer should be credited as the course designer.

However I would also be interested in knowing the changes being made
from the initial design. Information based upon who, when and what was done. A modification will change the design intent of a hole, although of course not on untouched holes. As you say many of the early courses went unchanged for many years (10 -30 years) only being modified to accommodate the new technology i.e. extended Tees and adjustment to locations of hazards. 

Clubs that move or relocated to a new section of land will have a new course designer and he should then be credited as the original designer of that course. 

[Paul_Turner]

Melvyn

I don't think the original architect should get credit for a current course if there's virtually nothing left of his design.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Paul

My feeling is that they should, firstly to stop confusion and secondly
he/she was still the original designer. Hence, why I believe that Clubs
should have a clear record of all involved, including what they did and
when. Otherwise we just add to the overall confusion and at the end of
the day all most people want to know is who did what and when. 

What?

[Sean_A]

I agree with Paul.  To be the archie of record I would think a minimum of 50% of the course should be theirs and ideally the routing would be included - though sometimes this gets tricky.  Sort of supporting roles may involve an overhaul of 2-3 holes.  If a restoration job was done it should clearly be noted as such rather than designer. 

Ciao

[Paul_Turner]

Melvyn

You could have a "historic timeline" such that  RCD would go something like:  OTM, George Coombe/Members, Harry Colt, Donald Steel.

But as far as what's in the ground now and the design credit.  I think, to avoid confusion, OTM should be dropped.  Then the credit should be done in order of significance, so for RCD it would be:  Coombe/Colt/Steel. 

We don't give architectural credit of a building to the original designer if his design was demolished and a new one built on the same site.

A course like Rye is very tricky because 4 or 5 guys contributed roughly the same amount to the current course.

I don't think having an "architect of record" is often of much worth unless it's clearly a one man show. 

[Melvyn Morrow]

Paul

I understand you point of view but I don't agree.

Why is Rolls Royce not called BMW
Why is Bentley not called Volkswagen

They are the latest owners and responsible for the new designs

When I joined GCA.com I read others talking about spirit & heart of
the game, I agreed at once.

For me the record, the true record is what matters in history, so it is
important therefore should be mentioned, even if the design goes through
a  99% change. Its part of the clubs story, of individuals that made the game possible in those times and places, who persuaded people to play the game – I don’t want part of the story, I want the whole story  -  it’s
our heritage – we need to safeguard it, all of it.

That’s how I feel.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Wouldn't it be lovely to have all the records to enable us to determine exactly who did what. But at many British clubs of my acquaintance there are no such records.

Two clubs with whom I am currently working have no early records because they were lost in fires - both quite recent, in fact. Nobody had thought to have their documents copied and those copies kept elsewhere.

Another club on whose centenary book I am working have no surviving records before 1929. And those that do survive from after that date are merely the minutes of the board which detail transfer of debentures and such like. There are no records of altertions made to the course in the inter-war years or even of the purchase of a horse or motor tractor.

At Alwoodley there are no records of MacK's design work or the construction of the original course apart from MacK's drawn map of about 1910 which shows work in progress on the state of construction of bunkers - which had been completed and which hadn't (and there is nothing to say that they were or were not built). MacK's postulated 10th dpended on the acquisition of a few acres of land outside the then club boundaries. That was not acquired until after MacK had left Leeds for good. His drawing also suggested moving the 11th hole. Despite the best endeavours of all concerned in the centenary book we were unable to say whether the 11th was ever moved. The minutes record that permission was granted several times over a number of years to undertake this, but there is no record saying that it had or had not been done. There are no records of greenkeeping activities or expenditure which might have thrown light on it. Yet the club's minutes are intact. Clearly the course was the least of their interests.

As I mentioned in another thread Bramall Park was redesigned (1922) by MacKenzie and some time later (1934) Braid was brought in: 'Not happy with the design of the new course offiicals sought the advice of James Braid....and certain alterations to greens were made and 15 bunkers added with five existing ones enlarged.' It's not possible now to identify which greens or bunkers these were from such a meagre record.

Happily, Wilmslow Golf Club, of which I am these days a member, has full course plans for each of the five generations of the course it has had since it moved to its current site in 1903 (having been on a different site since 1889). But that is quite rare in my limited experience in this country.

When I was consulting at Hartlepool I found that Arthur Croome had visited to give advice on rearrangements to the course (a series of land deals, mineral deals and erosion have meant many different course layouts and occupation of different parcels of land in roughly the same area). I thought I might stumble across a second Croome course (Liphook being often claimed to be his 'only' course), but to no avail. Whatever advice he gave does not survive and there are few records to show what or where any of the courses were.

[Peter Pallotta]

Good and interesting thread, thanks gents.

It seems to me you can try to attribute design credit either mathematically or intuitively; that is, either by using percentages or by relying on personal experience. The former feeds the business and the practical demands of the industry, the latter feeds a sense of history and the golfers' needs. Personally, instead of being told that after long study a panel has determined that 50% of a course's routing is by architect X and 10% of the greens by architect Y, I'd much rather have one old expert look around a course for a while and say, "Yup, that's a MacKenzie alright".

But of course, a "sense of history" isn't the same as "history". 

Peter