[Ted Sturges]

The golf course industry media machine is largely responsible for WHO among architects is currently rewarded with the most work (and the highest fees) for designing new golf courses today. For instance, Golf Digest (and their "Top 100 List") is a force in establishing name recognition among golf architects today.  Same for GOLF, Golf Week, Links, etc. In the marketplace today, this media machine seems to be, by far, the largest influencer of who gets the choice projects.  

What if, like the UPI NCAA basketball top 20 poll, there was an active and dynamic ranking of the current golf architects working today?  Like the NCAA basketball rankings, the poll would be voted on by "astute experts" and it is based on their overall body of work.  If such a ranking existed, I believe the golf development dollars might be spent much differently.  

Below is my first draft of how I would rank the Top 20 living architects working today.  This is only one knucklehead's (me) list and I hope that it will spark discussion and debate.  

Also, it will certainly point out who I may have left off due to my own lack of knowledge/exposure about a certain architect.  Please share your ideas on how this list might be different from that of your own.

Here's mine:

1. Pete Dye
2. Coore & Crenshaw
3. Doak (Renaissance Golf Design Team)
4. Tom Fazio
5. Mike Strantz
6. Weiskopf/Morrish
7. Smyers
8. Hanse
9. Nicklaus
10. RTJ Jr.
11. Silva
12. DeVries
13. Norman
14. Steel
15. Liddy
16. Cupp
17. Palmer/Seay
18. Hills
19. Rees Jones
20. Ron Kern

(I haven't played any Joe Lee, Bobby Weed or John Fought courses, and I'm sure there are plenty of other deserving candidates that I left out).

TS

[Richard Mandell]

Richard Mandell

(Did you expect me to say someone else?)

Maybe Roger Rulewich

[Michael Dugger]

How about Jeff Brauer??
John Harbottle??
David Mcklay Kidd??

[OTM]

Compared to us dead guys, which list is better:

1. MacKenzie
2. Macdonald
3. Tillinghast
4. Thompson
5. Colt
6. Ross
7. Thomas
8. Raynor
9. Travis
10. Crump
11. Wilson
12. Flynn
13. Willie Parks
14. Fownes
15. Maxwell
16. Fowler
17. Langford
18. Simpson
19. Leeds
20. Old Tom Morris

Hmmm....no wonder this site gets the reputation of favoring the old.

[Brad Klein]

I'd go for the idea of this top-20 live guys list if we could only arrange for face-offs between two of them. Then at least we'd have a mechanism like basketball or football games.
Otherwise this strikes me as an absurd attempt to devise a list for its own sake.

[Chris Kane]

Ranking golf courses themselves is subjective enough - trying to rank the architects would be even harder, and subjective to outside factors.

[wsmorrison]

Looking at how an architect uses a property that had an existing golf course and is completely remodeled, or what holes are remodeled and what kept (Flynn's work at Shinnecock is an interesting exercise), along with Brad Klein's response and knowing that Doak and Hanse are currently working on courses next to each other got me to thinking of a way to compare and contrast (some would prefer to rate) architects.  

Give them (head to head or en masse) a topo map or computer model of a specific piece of land and let them come up with something that can be analyzed.  We could throw in a classic site topo or computer simulation and see if they can figure it out.  We would then see how they did versus the old masters and gain an insight into their differing approaches to the same piece of ground.

Of course, time is money to us all and I doubt they could fully apply themselves to such an academic endevour that is mostly a losing proposition to them.  But it is an interesting concept.  My guess is the results would be quite different, yet perhaps there would be some commonalities if there were difficult parcels of land within the site.

Can you imagine the different versions that would arise from the plot of land that Sand Hills sits on, if you gave the topo to 20 different architects, you'd get 20 completely different versions.

I would be especially interested in the routings of the courses by the individual architects, not necessarily the nuances of individual holes.  I believe that it is the routing that indicates an indentifiable architectural genius or at least the superior practitioner.

[wsmorrison]

Cypress Point was mentioned a while ago as a site where it wold be difficult to determine how other architects would rout differently on that same piece of ground.  Although I have never been there, is it possible that another iteration could be viewed as excellent?

Mark Fine,
How would architects of today routed the Lehigh property?  Would they have?  It is an excellent course with a brilliant routing.  What might be done differently?

Tom Paul,
I doubt any of the many outstanding architects that visited Pine Valley as it was being constructed over so long a period of time would have told Crump that he screwed up the routing, yet it was a difficult process that left him stymied for quite a long time.  What might have been done differently in terms of overall routing?

To all,
We know that Merion was not ideal in the beginning and in fact went through a more than 20 year maturation process involving different routings and hole progressions.  This is a wonderful case study in design evolution.  The result of this evolution, extraordinary!

Just some thoughts.  Have a wonderful 4th of July celebration!  God bless America.  

    

[BV]

This list of modern archies is BS.

Insulting and absurd due to omissions and inclusions independent of order.

"No comment"

[ian]

I didn't realize architecture stopped at the American border.
Donald Steele, for one, couldn't make your list?

[Paul Daley]

Mr Steel may well be in the top-10, and there would have to be at least 5 non-Americans in the top-20 - maybe more.

Gaining and and acknowledging a 'worldwide' perspective is the key. Rankings are so awfully insulting , but rest assured, it's a big wide world out there! Another thing to acknowledge is how we are constantly seduced by the industry;some of the best practitioners are bereft of marketing machines.

[Wilson Pickett]

Paul
Who might they be?......educate us.....there are two non-Americans on the list and I question if they are deserving. Norman? Are you keeping score?

BillV
What are you talking about....your post is confusing....I don't know what the hell you're trying to say. Omissions and no order??? Who? It is in order. Are you trying to be funny or just silly?

[T. Campbell]

BV's post is great - instead of making an educational post listing the 5-10 architects that weren't mentioned (as Sturges had asked for people to do), he makes a cheap shot one that is pointless and rude. What a guy.

Ian, Steel is listed at #14 with the correct spelling of his name. After seeing the mounds at Red Tail, it makes me wonder if that is generous.

Fazio's "body of work" should make him #2. Niether #2 or #3 have 10 plus courses to match Fazio's best.

What additional architects should there be listed?   None from Canada obviously. Probably some from Australia? What about Nick Faldo from England? What about Robin Nelson? What about PB Dye?

[Paul Daley]

Wilson P:
With respect, will politely decline offer to name names.
By the way, are you back making music?  

[ed_getka]

Ian,
 I don't think Ted's list is based on a bias against non-American architects, it is probably a function of being an American and perhaps he doesn't play abroad much. I personally wouldn't have Donald Steele on any list I would make for the simple reason I haven't played or even seen one of his courses.

[ian]

T Campbell,
Sorry missed it in the first look. Its more the point and I was trying to back it up with an example. Kinda weekens my arguement doesn't it. Let me try to find a list.

Ian

[Chris Kane]

There is no Australian architect who would make that pointless list - YET.

[Justin_Ryan]

C'mon Chris, the Shark may live in Florida, but he still calls himself an Australian.  I think Tony Cashmore would probably fit in quite comfortably above a few of the others on the list as well.  Although we often bitch about the quality of many of the new courses being built out here, there has been some good work done by Cashmore, Bob Harrison for Greg Norman and Mike Clayton.  It is interesting that Norman's reputation as a designer in the States seems poor but is excellent in Australasia/Asian region.  It just goes to show the difference a good associate can make.  I suspect the success rate with new courses is possibly better here than in many other parts of the world, perhaps Ran or someone more widely travelled could comment.

Wilson Pickett
I'm sure that Paul Daley's upcoming book will shine a spotlight on many of the unheralded designers from around the world.

[Chris Kane]

Justin,

How many weeks a year does Greg Norman spend in Australia?  Cashmore has done some reasonable work, but some questionable work too - as have many of the firms that Ted Sturges lists.

Mike Clayton has designed one course, admittedly a very good one, and therefore couldn't really be listed amongst the top 20 designers yet.  If St Andrews Beach is anywhere near as good as I suspect it will be, then its a different story.

The point you make about Norman is true - the Americans here appear to hold him in similar esteem to Nicklaus and co., but with Bob Harrison in Australia he is considered one of our best architects.

A problem with this list is distinguishing between perception and reality - for example, TWP here get a lion's share of the work, probably because that name sells real estate.  That alone doesn't mean that they're better than Cashmore, Clayton, Watson etc.  

Where would you put Kevin Hartley on this list Justin?

[BV]

Spend the money, get the press.


Guaranteed to make you money

Fazio
Nicklaus
Rees Jones
Weiskopf
Name-a-tour-pro

No need for more of a list. Most don't care about quality beyond a certain minimum (Which would be considered pretty low by this effete intellectual snobbist group-YAPCR paraphrase).

If you don't have the money  to throw around, you'll never get much press.  If that were the case all you'ld ever hear about is ....oh never mind......

The original statement / premise of this thread is so fallacoius, that's why I was so rude and insensitive and hurt feeeeeeeeeeeelings with my post.

"The golf course industry media machine is largely responsible for WHO among architects is currently rewarded with the most work..........."


Another liberal plot      

That's what's so bullshit about this.

Give me  a friggin' break.

Brad is 100% correct (about the absurdity), make a short list, decide
a) Who can you afford
b) What do you want?
c) Sign him up
d) Build the project

That's why Fazio will build 200 top 20 courses over 20 years-because all that matters is a certain formula.

Regionality determines who gets most projects.  Local projects for local firms.  The high profile cases are determined by the people who spend the money.


Like the guy I know who belongs to among others Castle Pines and The Estancia's logic......... He decided to "invest" in the Preserve at Carmel....."Fazio and Carmel, how can I go wrong?"  Same guy who called Sand Hills the most boring course he's ever seen, because all of the holes looked the same.

There's your bad guy "Media Machine" at work.
G M A F B

[edeudo]

Jay morrish has done the work and weiskopf and nicklaus get their names on the courses.......i suspect that most of the good course work credited to weiskopf and nicklaus was actually done by morrish        it's the same with other "teams"        devlin/von hagge      crenshaw/coore
   the "name" gets his foot in the door for the architect to do the work.        von hagge gets little notice, but he designed what i think is the best layout i know of---certainly the best in texas and better than any course i've played in northern california, including cypress, spyglass, pasatiempo.
That course is Crown Colony in little ol' Lufkin, Tx

[TEPaul]

Never having seen the real benefit of ranking golf courses, at least one against another, it seems to me ranking architects is even more difficult.

I can see some interest in what Rich Goodale came up with using a 'Michelin system' or 'three star system' but with architects I could only see something like a top ten or dozen, next ten or dozen and so on.

How for instance would you rank the career inventory of a Donald Ross (400 courses) against William Flynn (40 courses)? Ross built some really good courses and many that were mediocre. Flynn however has an almost entire career inventory that is remarkably high quality throughout! How do you compare and rank even those two, for instance, given that apparent fact? How do you rank Crump or Fownes? How do you deal with the fact that they both only built one course although each one is world class.

How do you deal with Coore and Crenshaw's dedicatedly low production modus operandi or Fazio's client satisfying design concentration, no matter what that may be?

As far as trying to analyze improved routings on any golf course using reiterated topo routings, that's an excercise in futility, in my opinion.

To make that work in even a vague analytical way would take tremendous familiarity with each and every property and practically every detail of it as well. Routing is a very fundamental and important process but one that logically needs to take place on the ground (from a golfer's eye level) and for any of us to make sense out of that necessity just looking at a topo would be very difficult indeed.

That's why I thought the effort to analyze whether Cypress's routing could be improved was a futile one with those trying to do it the way they were trying to do it. What difference does it make really if holes went to the right of #14 into the dunes there and along the shore? How would any of us who don't know that land understand if that's better ground for golf holes or not? All we can tell is they may have been closer to the ocean--and what does that mean exactly as to the quality of the architecture?

There's a certain amount of interest looking at a routing on a topo but there's also an awful lot that can't be known from that unless you really know every detail of the landforms on the ground and in most every detail and from every on-ground eye level perspective.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Before he got into designing himself, old AWT (not Tillie, but Asshole Whitten from Topeka, as he now signs his emails - at least he keeps his sense of humor) used to rank the top 25 architects annually.  

In the mold of "What have you done for me lately" the rankings changed, based on what they actually opened.  Most years, I was a "tie for 26th" in Ron's words, but actually did make No. 18 one year.  Talking with other architects, they really got frosted going from architect of the year to down - or off - the list, even if they only opened one course!

The ranking (or rankling) of architects is just good fun, if you accept that no one will agree, nothing will be final, and that is not the point of the lists.  BV makes some valid points, but the free market pretty well determines who gets what job anyway.  That is a whole other story.

As far as architects ranking goes, I think changing them annually would be the only way to go.  Doak may not have made the list a few years ago, with only 10 courses to his credit, but would now.  Others who were on (not to be crass, but thinkd RTJ and Desmond Muirhead) would need to be removed while others would need to be dropped in the ranks or elevated.  The way the marketplace and public ranks architects changes fast.  So a one time list would never work.

Even then, the nuances of how to rank an architect would be great, but I think most agree that end product - w/o excuses or acknowleding difficulty of site in most cases - would be the criteria.  Even then, and using Doak as an example, what would merit the higher rating - Pac Dunes on a perfect site, or Texas Tech, probably a bit less of a course, but a greater technical acheivement, giving what he started with?  Would Tom drop in anyone's rankings if they liked TT a bit less than Pac Dunes?

Just some food for thought while you munch your morning cheerios!

[E.B. White]

BV,
You may have made some points but without even basic sentence construction or grammer it is hard for people to tell.

Is your point that the golf media has nothing to do with who gets the biggest and most noteworthy projects?

[jg7236]

1.  Tom Fazio
2.  Pete Dye
3.  Robert Trent Jones Jr.
4.  Dr. Michael Hurzdan
5.  Jack Nicklaus
6.  Ed Seay
7.  Keth Foster
8.  Thomas McBroom
9.  Thomson Wolveridge and Perett
10. Coore and Crenshaw
11. John Fought
12. Graham Marsh
13. Hawtree Ltd.
14. Gary Roger Baird
15. Tom Weiskopf
16. Clyde Johnston
17. Kyle Phillips
18. Don Knott
19. Jason McCoy
20. Ron Garl

Will be on my next top 20 list:  
Neal Meagher, Todd  Eckenrode, and Josh Taylor.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()