Best Architects

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

Mac:

I wasn't directing my comment about ranking towards you, so don't worry about what I think. I was just thinking aloud

It's an interesting thread and it certainly made me have a look again at Ian Andrew's website. It's not easy remembering who designed what and when, so when a topic like yours pops up, it encourages me check up on something again. That's not a bad thing indeed!

As you said, it's difficult to know how much of an architects work remains. How many 100% Old Tom Morris courses are out there today? The same with Colt, Alister Mackenzie, etc. Then you have courses that are said to be by a certain architect, and it turns out that they were designed by someone else. You just have to keep digging for the info. Buy as many books on club history as you can or look up old newspaper archives. It's a lot of fun!

Dónal.

[Mac Plumart]

I know some of you hate this, but I'm doin' it anyway!  


On my site, I keep a list of architects and how many "Unanimous Gems" they have.  Unanimous Gems being courses listed as Top 100 on all the major golf courses rankings lists...Top 100 World and Top 100 US by Golf Magazine, Top 100 US and International Golf Digest, Top 100 Modern and Classic Golfweek.


AW Tillinghast has 7 Unanimous Gems.
-Bethpage Black
-SFGC
-Baltusrol Lower
-Winged Foot West
-Winged Foot East
-Somerset
-Quaker Ridge

Dye and Mackenzie are next on the list with 6.


Do you think Tillinghast was the best?

Also, should courses that are still listed as Top 100 after many years get "bonus" points for remaining on the list for long periods of time...to account for the "flash in the pan" courses that show up and fade away in relatively short amount of time?

[Mike_Young]

I continue to be amazed at how many of these list revolve around climate and population as much as architect. 
If NYC or San Francisco were located in Nebraska sandhills would there be a completely different list of architects and courses?  Or would these same guys have been in those locations?    BTW, not saying these aren't great list....I just think site and climate come before architect greatness

[Tom_Doak]

I know some of you hate this, but I'm doin' it anyway!  

Mac:

Yes, I hate it.

Your "unanimous gem" category is also completely biased toward U.S. architecture only.  Foreign courses can't make the GOLFWEEK lists so Harry Colt and Hugh Alison and Dr. MacKenzie (and any other architect who designed some of their best work outside the USA ) is minimized by your system.

[Mac Plumart]

It isn't, Tom. Ive got one for US and one for International.

For instance, you've got 5.  Pac Dunes, Old Mac, Barnbougle, Cape Kidnappers, and Ballyneal.

Obviously, only the applicable lists apply.  To make a U.S. Unanimous Gem, you don't need the Golf Digest International list to list you and only one of the GW Modern\classic.

Do you think Colt and Alison should be linked together or listed separately?



Edit...I want to ask another question.  I have the international gems list set up requiring votes from GD Int'l and Golf Magazine World.  I've thought about adding Planet Golf to the requirement as well.  Thoughts?  Any other very respected Int'l lists you guys would suggest adding?

[Jud_T]

Mac,

I'd seriously consider adding Links 100 US & World.

[Mac Plumart]

Mac,

I'd seriously consider adding Links 100 US & World.

Thanks, Jud.

[Ivan Morris]

I'm okay with top ten lists but think top-100s are silly and nit-picking. I tend to agree with Tom Doak that architects shouldn't be ranked. Courses evolve and doubt if any architect foresees 'everything.' I'd put Colt above Mac and include Stanley Thompson for starters - I'll have to think about the other seven.

[Mac Plumart]

I continue to be amazed at how many of these list revolve around climate and population as much as architect.  
If NYC or San Francisco were located in Nebraska sandhills would there be a completely different list of architects and courses?  Or would these same guys have been in those locations?   BTW, not saying these aren't great list....I just think site and climate come before architect greatness

Mike, I think you make a great point.  Perhaps akin to, you can't build a great course unless you've got great land.

With this in mind and in tribute to Mr. Tillinghast, I broke out "The Course Beautiful" and stumbled across this.  Which might bolster your point.

Long Island...appeals to me as one of the most fortunate sections imaginable for golf course creation. ...  There you will find dunes in plenty. As Findlay Douglas once remarked to me, "There are thousands of natural golf courses out towards Montauk Point.

You mentioned Nebraska...this comment reminded me of the drive from Denver to Mullen.

[Mike_Young]

Mac,
There is always a trade off.  Long Island does have great sites as does lake Michigan and Oregon.  While the south may not have great golf sites our climate and state produces the best looking women.   

[Sean_A]

...you can't build a great course unless you've got great land.

Do folks think this is true? 

Ciao

[Mac Plumart]

...you can't build a great course unless you've got great land.

Do folks think this is true?  

Ciao

Do you?  Why or why not?  Any examples?


Edit...

Here are the Top 10 U.S. Gems

Pine Valley
Cypress Point
Augusta National
Shinnecock Hills
Oakmont
Pebble Beach
Sand Hills
Merion
Nat'l Golf Links
Pacific Dunes


And here are  the Top 10 Int'l Gems

Royal County Down
St. Andrews (Old)
Royal Melbourne
Muirfield
Royal Dornoch
Turnberry (Alisa)
Royal Portrush
Kingston Heath
Cape Kidnappers
Hirono


Can anyone comment on the quality of the land those courses sit on in regards to creating golf courses?

[Mike_Young]

Mac,
As to your list:
It's not just the land but the ability to grow cool season grasses also. 
the one course that stands out on you list to me is ANGC.  It is always played in an artificial state since bermuda would be it's natural grass and the judging of the course is based on an overseed. 

[Jeb Bearer]

The only course I see on that list that doesn't have a really special property is Muirfield. It doesn't have the variety of CPC, the subtle undulations of TOC, the elevation changes of PV, the drama of NGLA  or Turnberry...

It does have two essentials though, namely sandy soil and wind. So overall, judging solely by that list, one would have to conclude that good property is pretty important.

[Tom_Doak]

The outliers on that list as far as not having the best pieces of property are Oakmont and Kingston Heath.

Oakmont is a bit too hilly and the soil is not great. 
Kingston Heath is sandy, but very very flat and there's only 125 acres.

Neither of them has any great views or beautiful trees.

One succeeds with greens contouring, the other with bunkering.

[Tom_Doak]

Mac,
As to your list:
It's not just the land but the ability to grow cool season grasses also. 
 

Mike:

What's an example of a course built on great land, but which fails to impress because it has warm-season grasses?

Note:  Royal Melbourne and Kingston Heath both have couchgrass (bermuda) fairways, but they are built on great sand.

[Mike_Young]

Tom,
I think Peachtree would be much more recognized and appreciated if it were cool season and the other I can come up with quickly would be the Honors course.  It would move a few notches if it were cool season also.   Oh..Holston Hills also.  And if the sand dune around Jupiter Fl were in the NE it would have several world class sites.

Tom,
Also when I say the ability to grow cool season grasses I am suggesting a comfortable playing climate.  From working in the Central American region and some other tropical areas i can say I have seen dunes and land that would make exceptional golf but for the fact that the average temperatures would not be conducive to playing golf.  That's why I am skeptical of golf in a town like Rio.  It may end up being a very good golf course but it's over 100 degrees there for some periods and has a rainy season. 

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,
I think Peachtree would be much more recognized and appreciated if it were cool season and the other I can come up with quickly would be the Honors course.  It would move a few notches if it were cool season also.   Oh..Holston Hills also.  And if the sand dune around Jupiter Fl were in the NE it would have several world class sites.

Maybe, provided they didn't build housing around those courses in the northeast, like you guys do in the southeast.    And I will have to think if Holston Hills is held back for me because of the grasses.  I've always been a fan of it but never put it in the class of the best northeastern courses.

Tom,
Also when I say the ability to grow cool season grasses I am suggesting a comfortable playing climate.  From working in the Central American region and some other tropical areas i can say I have seen dunes and land that would make exceptional golf but for the fact that the average temperatures would not be conducive to playing golf.  That's why I am skeptical of golf in a town like Rio.  It may end up being a very good golf course but it's over 100 degrees there for some periods and has a rainy season. 

Yes, no doubt, a comfortable climate is part of the deal, and that explains much of the weakness of golf in Asia.  I would guess based on my recent trip to China that climate is the main reason some of their best courses so far are in Kunming.  Hainan Island is supposed to be a great climate [the Hawaii of China!] but Hawaii is not a great climate for golf, either, and Hainan is probably worse except for 3-4 months in the winter.

[Mike_Young]

Tom,
I think it all  depends on how great we are calling great.  But I would think Holston would compare to something similar to Plainfield if it were bent.  JMO.

[Jason Thurman]

...you can't build a great course unless you've got great land.

Do folks think this is true?  

Ciao

Do you?  Why or why not?  Any examples?


Edit...

Here are the Top 10 U.S. Gems

Pine Valley
Cypress Point
Augusta National
Shinnecock Hills
Oakmont
Pebble Beach
Sand Hills
Merion
Nat'l Golf Links
Pacific Dunes


And here are  the Top 10 Int'l Gems

Royal County Down
St. Andrews (Old)
Royal Melbourne
Muirfield
Royal Dornoch
Turnberry (Alisa)
Royal Portrush
Kingston Heath
Cape Kidnappers
Hirono


Can anyone comment on the quality of the land those courses sit on in regards to creating golf courses?

How many of those courses are not on sandy soil? I've always thought that was a huge differentiator when it came to the quality of a property.

I also think most great courses have a "property signature." The way it materializes varies from site to site and climate to climate, but Augusta has the towering pines and flowers, Cypress Point and others have the ocean and coastline, St. Andrews has the town, and Sand Hills has the endless openness. Having a unique setting goes a long way, regardless of how you get there.

[Sean_A]

...you can't build a great course unless you've got great land.

Do folks think this is true?  

Ciao

Do you?  Why or why not?  Any examples?


Edit...

Here are the Top 10 U.S. Gems

Pine Valley
Cypress Point
Augusta National
Shinnecock Hills
Oakmont
Pebble Beach
Sand Hills
Merion
Nat'l Golf Links
Pacific Dunes


And here are  the Top 10 Int'l Gems

Royal County Down
St. Andrews (Old)
Royal Melbourne
Muirfield
Royal Dornoch
Turnberry (Alisa)
Royal Portrush
Kingston Heath
Cape Kidnappers
Hirono


Can anyone comment on the quality of the land those courses sit on in regards to creating golf courses?

Mac

A list of great courses is considerably larger.  I also think one has to decide if sandy soil is enough to be considered great land; I don't.  From your list that I have played, I would say Merion and Muirfield are not great sites.  I think the intimate routing of Merion (despite the road) with excellent interior views, the wonderful mix of 4s and the greens make Merion great, not the site.  For Muirfield (which I think is seriously over-rated and concede greatness only because so many others claim it to be), I think the course is really about the bunkering, not a surprise given the sandy soil, but which makes me suspect its great label.  The routing concept too is good, but I think it is over-hyped a bit.

A few other courses I wonder if one can say are on great land:

Woodhall Spa - very flat, excellent natural bunkering and often penal placement in a wonderful setting.  I also think the greens are quite unique for a great course in that they they are essentially flat.  The course really was draped over the land.  Its quite remarkable that folks would consider Woodhall great.

Little Aston: Other than draining well for inland course and not being too hilly, but offering some elevation change, the site is unremarkable. Many disagree with me, but the superb bunkers and clever greens combine to make a special course.  

I might also throw out St Georges Hill and Woking.  Wasn't Woking a bit of a swamp when it was built?  Even so, do folks think it is a great site - hard on a RR line?  I think not.  The elevation change for a parkland/heathland course is about perfect and it only compliments the lovely greens and good bunkering.  Again, most would probably say Woking isn't great, but I disagree.

Finally, what about St Georges Hill?  I think its a bit hilly.  It may once have been better, but now the course is more parkland than heathland.  

Ciao    

[Mark Pearce]

Sean,

You appear to agree that St Andrews is on a great site but  don't believe Muirfield is.  Yet Muirfield is on a site which is more undulating than St Andrews.  What makes St Andrews a better site than Muirfield?

[Sean_A]

Sean,

You appear to agree that St Andrews is on a great site but  don't believe Muirfield is.  Yet Muirfield is on a site which is more undulating than St Andrews.  What makes St Andrews a better site than Muirfield?

Mark

For links, in terms of every lie and bump in run shot under the sun being on offer without hill climbing, there are no better sites than TOC and Deal.  The shape of the properties is the limiting factor so far as taking full advantage of wind.  Imagine if you had TOC/Deal terrain and a Muirfield-like routing. 

Ciao

[Mac Plumart]

Sean...

If I'm getting your gist, I think you might be correct.  You don't need great land to make great courses...but it should make it easier.  However, a skilled designer with a great team (associates, construction team, owner, members) should be able to some great things on less than great sites.  And I think you listed some good examples.

Mike Young's comment on population makes sense as well.  People need to see that course, before they can rave about it, before it can be regarded highly by the masses.


Two courses that qualify for my Unanimous Gems list are TPC Sawgrass and Whistling Straits.  Great sites?  I don't think they were, but I'm going by second hand information.

[Jeb Bearer]

Two courses that qualify for my Unanimous Gems list are TPC Sawgrass and Whistling Straits.  Great sites?  I don't think they were, but I'm going by second hand information.

Great sites? no. Great courses? debatable. Sawgrass is to much for the average guy, and while its a good test of shot making, in terms of options  playing angles I don't think its the best. (This is all observation from watching on TV). WS looks better, but visually its really, really overdone, and 5 and 18 have to bring it down a notch.

dye may be the best at creating something from nothing, but at the end if the day a bad site will usually yield a few issues.