Which architect builds the least bad holes?

[Ran Morrissett]

I ask this question for two reasons:

1) it takes talent to knock character into every hole.

2) it takes guts to walk away from projects (i.e. money), even if the project is doomed to have clunker holes because of the marginal property or because of environmental restrictions or because of housing concerns or because the pre-determined clubhouse location by the owner ruins the better routings, etc.

Of the dead and buried architects, who would you pick? Harry Colt perhaps (I can't think of a single bad hole that he ever did)? Howard Roark   ?

Of the alive and kicking ones, who would you nominate? C&C obviously given their selective nature. Who else?

Cheers,

[TEPaul]

It's a very good question Ran and unfortunately one I feel unequiped to say much about feeling restricted by not knowing much about all of what the vast array of architects did in their careers.

People better able to answer something like that are maybe you who have seen a lot all over the world or certainly Doak who may have seen the most and obviously has a great "eye". I guess comprehensive raters would be good at it too.

Despite my limited knowledge though my "sense" is having seen approximately 25% of his career inventory of about 40 courses is that it just might be William Flynn. It seems his entire career inventory is good to great from what I've seen and heard. Certainly MacKenzie might be in there. Colt might be the tops but I don't know anything about his courses except Port Rush, a great course but not every hole is even good!

It's not real fair because of his single course but Crump has got to win because there aren't many courses in the World that have all holes that could be considered great to close to it (certainly not an even average one on the course) and Pine Valley is one of those! With a one course career inventory it does seem unfair to others to include him but if an amateur builds one golf course in his life and it becomes the #1 course in the world, how can he be overlooked.

On the other end of the spectrum I would put Palmer & Co. The courses of his I've seen (not many) have a few really wonderful holes and also some of the most egregiously bad ones I've absolutely ever seen in my life. The bad ones make absolutely no sense architecturally or strategically and in some cases you look at them and wonder how he would expect even a Tiger Woods to play them. Interestingly these poorly designed holes of his are completely exacerbated by cart paths--some right in the ideal landing area! Even a rank architectural amateur would know better than that.

[TEPaul]

Actually looking at your post again and your No 1, that it takes talent to knock character into every hole, that's definitely true it does take talent to do that but it takes more than talent!!

Even with all the talent in the world it also takes time!! It seems to me that fact has been proven over and over and over again with various golf courses and their architecture. If the most talented don't take the time it's probably not going to happen. That's definitely been true of hugely talented architects in the past, in the present and it will be in the future, I'm sure. Only those that really that the time, provided they do have real talent have a chance to create real quality throughout.

So maybe MacKenzie should win this contest. His career inventory is not small, medium to large actually and he was definitely a man on the move. So working as fast as he sometimes did with the overall quality of his career inventory maybe he should win.

But then there's Colt, an even larger inventory than MacKenzie's. Is Colt's career inventory course for course and hole for hole more solid than MacKenzie's, or Flynn's, or Alison's? Don't know enough about Colt's to tell, or even MacKenzie's or Alison's. Flynn's sure looks strong to me though, course for course and even hole for hole.

[ian]

I always thought the greats creted some weaker holes because they were always trying to push the design envelope. THe ones who fit the bill for me are also the architects who take no chances. They are the ones who consistantly build 200-300 good courses without ever creating a classic. I would nominate Trent Jones and Dick Wilosn, but I guess it becomes a weak compliment to their work.

[Paul Turner]

Ran

Colt built so many courses, there's bound to be a few boring holes out there (I've seen photos of Effingham and it looks pretty dull).  Whether these are actually "bad" or not, I don't know.  How do you define bad?  I guess a hole that has very little character like the 18th at Machrihanish or odd/strange holes like the 14th at St Enodoc or 15th at Cruden Bay? (in which case, Painswick would be the baddest course on the planet;))

Tom P

I'm curious which holes you didn't care for at Portrush?  Simply because I remember you defending the 18th on an earlier thread; which I think would be most peoples choice as the dullest hole, because of the flat terrain.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ran,

Some heart and brain surgeons won't take difficult cases, thus their mortality statistics are favorable.  Other surgeons take the most difficult cases, with higher incidences of mortality, but when adjusted for patient risk factors, their mortality statistics are improved.

Some surgeons refer more difficult or extreme cases to special surgeons who can handle those cases, how do you compare them ?

How do you compare quantitatively and qualitatively architects who select only plumb sites from architects who
take on all sites ?  

[redanman]

Overall,  probably Flynn et al.  The overall quality of the courses may be the most consistent. Right off the top of my head I can't think of a single barking dog (Nothing that tree control can't save that is) except #11 at Lehigh!  Just kidding, Mark!!!!!

Modern, Fazio, of course.  He tells us so, therefore it must be true.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Yes, it's probably William Flynn, although he also built one of the world's worst holes, the C-shaped steeply uphill par five ninth at Philmont North.  When you think of all of the decent holes that have been altered over time, it's amazing that this abomination survived.  

At this point, my twisted sense of justice applauds this preservation.  

[9Philmont North]

Woof woof woof wooof wooof arf!


Bill, how could you forget ME?

 On another thought, think Matt Ward can hit me in two?












(Thanks Mike!)

[Craig Rokke]

I have to think that "bad holes" are a sometimes necessary
evil. Not every site is conducive to the creation of great hole, after great hole. What would you rather have: a semi-clunker of a hole along with the 5 or 6 excellent holes its creation allowed the architect to string together, or a bunch of average holes?

Case in point: Inniscrone #10. It has its detractors, and we
know Gil Hanse would have probably preferred to do it another way. But look at the succession of very strong golf holes that follow that one.

Isn't that still very good architecture--getting the most out of
a challenging environmental or site-oriented situation--even if it is not perfect?