An Important Architecture Attribution Question!

[TEPaul]

On a recent and on-going North Shore GC thread ("Re: North Shore Long Island: Tillie--Raynor?") Bill McBride asked the following question (perhaps as much rhetorically or mirthfully as anything else):

"Here's a question: when Tom is done with his work, will it be a Raynor or a Doak?"


SO, the question(s) of this thread is------Should some standardized method of architectural design attribution criteria be created and recommended to clubs for the benefit of clarity in the future?

And if so by whom? By the ASGCA? By the USGA? By GOLFCLUBATLAS.com? By all of the above and others?

Personally, even if it is often not specifically clear at times I've found the method used in Cornish and Whitten's impressive tome and chronicle of most of the world's golf courses "The Architects of Golf" a very passable method to be used. It attempts to first list an original architect followed by any and all who did design work to the course over its history. It even contains a key that no particular distinction is made with the redesign listing ("R") if it be one hole or many if that cannot be exactly determined.

Of course with individual clubs the architectural attribution can be made more comprehensive and exact by the inclusion of all the facts extant by including them all in the club's archives. But for efficiency of architectural attribution, at least with the original architect of a original design or extremely comprehensive redesign (as was the case with North Shore GC in 1914-1916), I would subscribe to and endorse the policy and philosophy promoted recently on the North Shore GC thread by Tom Doak----eg it should go to the person who seemingly did the most design work during the original project.

Of course if an existing design was completely redesigned at some point that would be considered a different set of circumstances vis-a-vis the original design and its architect. But even that could be included in the evolution and entire history of any golf club and golf course.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

I believe that it needs to be done on a case-by-case basis. Let me give you a good example that explains why.

In 1908 in Tallahassee Florida a group of dedicated golfers decided that they needed their own golf course. Traveling up to Georgia to play just was no longer meeting their needs and so a 9-hole course was built on the grounds of Mrs. Reinette Hunt's estate named The Grove. So they built their own course under the direction of an unknown Scottish local.

As this group grew in size and a regular club was formed the need for a better course and their own site was seen and so in 1914 ground broke on a new 9-hole course. It was originally named the Florida Hills Golf Club yet later issues of the American Golf Guide would also list it under hill City before it was officially named the Tallahassee Country Club.

The course designer? H.H. Barker.

Between 1914 and the middle 1930's the members tinkerred with it, yet it remained relatively unchanged including keeping the original sand greens. In December 1935 Tilly visited the site and redesigned and re-routed the existing 9-holes and also designing a new second 9 holes. The redesign was complete including entirely new green complexes (grass greens now). Construction was completed by 1938.

So should the lineage be Barker (od) Tilly (R&A) even though the redesign, in effect, eliminated almost the entire Barker 9?

During the late 1940's to 1957 the course was again redesigned and lengthened by over 300 yards. Who was responsible for this? No one knows. In the 1990's the course was once again changed, this time reducing its length by 400 yards, and again, no one is sure who is repsonsible.

This past year the club has once again done major green rebuilding work in order to save greens that had been damaged and the work was done by the members themselves.

There is even one hole that has been redesigned. It will be lengthend by more than 20 yards, a central hazard area added, mounding installed and the green complex changed. Should the person who designed this essentially new hole be listed as well?

There are so many courses that have gone through this exact type of course evolution that attributions can be very difficult... 

[Gary Slatter]

Is Bay Hill now a Palmer design?  It seems to have lost it's Dick Wilson name and yesterday I noticed during the telecast it was referred to as a Joe Lee design.   I think Wilson would be happy to credit Palmer with the new look!

[TEPaul]

"There are so many courses that have gone through this exact type of course evolution that attributions can be very difficult..."


Phil:

I'm sure most all of us who do this stuff realize it can be very difficult sometimes, and the example you just gave would be one of them but in my opinion the medium sized paragraph you just used to explain it all should suffice for a pretty comprehensive architectural evolution from beginning to date on that particular course and others like it. There is arguably far more architetural evolution information in that single paragraph than most interested in the history of that course ever knew----of that I have little doubt.  
 
 
 

[Carl Johnson]

Here's a brief thread on essentially the same subject that I started last year.  It did not get much traction, although it did elicit a comment from Tom Doak.

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,39574.0/

[TEPaul]

Carl:

That is a point and a pretty good one but we should probably start with this kind of question at the beginning and come up with who should be logically included and who shouldn't.

By that I mean with original projects. There is no question at all that there is all kinds of collaborations that go on out there in the field on architectural projects throughout time but is it ever necessary to include in their architectural (design) attributions all of them, including such central project participants as original construction foremen and greenkeepers which was the capacity Robert White was hired and contracted by NS to do?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Since the club invites architects to either fulfill the CLUB'S mandate, or offer one of their own, as Phil indicated, these issues have to be viewed in a case by case perspective since each club's motives may vary.

Other than the USGA, clubs rarely allow an outside agency to guide them in determining what should happen to their golf course.

It's much more of an INTERNAL issue than an EXTERNAL issue.

[Ian Andrew]

SO, the question(s) of this thread is------Should some standardized method of architectural design attribution criteria be created and recommended to clubs for the benefit of clarity in the future?

And if so by whom?

Tom,

I think that researchers have always done the best job of sorting through the facts and agendas and making a case for an accurate attribution. You can not count on associations, architects, societies or governing bodies because politics and personal benefit always get in the way of accuracy. Researchers are left to produce facts and justify their conclusion -  and that still remains the best way of all.

I think we credit too many people for too little work. Restoration should never be credited EVER and only major renovations that have fundamentally changed a course should be worthy of mention. Too many people are listed in the design credits when their impact was largely aesthetic.

[TEPaul]

"I think we credit too many people for too little work. Restoration should never be credited EVER and only major renovations that have fundamentally changed a course should be worthy of mention. Too many people are listed in the design credits when their impact was largely aesthetic."


Ian:

Restorations should NEVER be credited in design attribution!? Very interesting take on your part and it would seem to me pretty damned principled too. And I note that some who have done it like C&C have never wanted to have design attribution credited to them in such things as real restoration projects.

[Tom_Doak]

I don't think any redesign should be credited unless greens are changed significantly or the routing is changed significantly.  That's why I've only ever listed Atlantic City as a redesign of ours.  Everything else was pretty much a restoration ... although North Shore may not be.

Tom P:  I saw Ron Whitten out walking The Old Course on Sunday morning (he and Eric Iverson were the only ones I saw that morning, by the way), and I asked him what standard he had used to credit things, and he said he pretty much listed everyone who had consulted on a course at one time or another ... but that he did go back and edit out the guys if he found that they only wrote up a plan and the work was never carried out.  I guess you can't argue with completeness.

Ron said he is contemplating putting The Architects of Golf online, because that's the only format that allows him to update details as they become available.  However, he did mention that one of the few things holding him back is the suggestion by someone here years ago that "he owes it to the game" to give away all his research for free.

[BCrosby]

Tom D -

Whitten owes golf nothing. To the contrary, golf owes him a great deal for the work he put into The Architects of Golf. It is an amazing achievement.

I hope he sees his way to update it on-line. A crazy comment on here years ago should not be a reason to hesitate doing it.

Bob

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

One of the difficulties in uncovering the "complete" architectural history of any course lies in the fact that many times a superintendent or a chairman/committee simply made changes that were not documented, and with time, were accepted as always having been part of the course, when in fact, they were amendments to the course.

I've seen that occur time and time again.

And, as the members who were present during the alteration, resign, retire or die, the changes become more obscure and attributed more to having always been part of the golf course.

Thus, it's almost always a frustrating pursuit, a search for the Holy Grail of sorts.

While Green Committee and Board minutes can be revealing, often times those minutes are sanitized or don't chronicle ad hoc changes.

Aerial photography, coupled with Green Committee/Board minutes can be invaluable, but, they're not always all encompassing when it comes to detailing alterations.

While I applaud thorough research, thorough research often doesn't uncover specific changes, who made them and why they were made, so I think you have to look at even the most successful research project as only telling 90 % to 95
% of the story on these old courses.

A modern day version of my "words of caution" might be Sebonack and Atlantic where detailed books were written to chronicle the concept, creation, construction and completion of the golf course.  Yet, as thorough as these terrific books are, they're not 100 % inclusive of all the facts.   

While chronilogical aerial photography can identify changes/alterations, attribution and motive is often far more difficult to uncover, no matter how good the research effort.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Tom P:  I saw Ron Whitten out walking The Old Course on Sunday morning (he and Eric Iverson were the only ones I saw that morning, by the way),

Tom,

If this is about who spent the most time studying The Old Course, I can assure you that I was out on two seperate occasions:

- The first was to do some voluntary caddying in horrible conditions on Thursday morning.
- The second was to study the valley of sin at 4 o'clock on Sunday morning with a bottle of whisky and 20 others.

I think the former was of more use than the latter.

For a couple of reasons, it was unfortunate that I had an early flight on Sunday.

[Adam Lawrence]

I had a wander round too and bumped into enough golf architects to make me ask myself what the collective noun for a group of them is (I haven't improved on a 'hazard' up to press).

[Carl Johnson]

Back to the original very difficult question.  Isn't it important to decide, first, the purpose(s) of the attribution?  On the basest level, clubs/courses are going to want to hype the most prominent designer name, that is, prominent to its own or presumed constituency or target audience.  Reason number two: "historical accurancy" -- kind of an academic "classification" approach that golf scholars could debate forever.  Reason number three: to give credit where credit is due, that is, looking at it not from the outside standpoint, but rather by putting yourself in the shoes of those involved at all levels and asking "How would I like to be recognized?" or "How do I think it would be appropriate to recognize me for my contributions to the finished design?"  Reason number four: what does it mean to the golfer on the practical playing level?  It seems to me that all are legitimate ways at coming at the issue, and I am sure you can come up with more.  Sure there are those who will disagree, or will have different perspectives on the issue, but I think it is worth talking about the "purpose" issue.

[Tom_Doak]

TEPaul,

Since the club invites architects to either fulfill the CLUB'S mandate, or offer one of their own, as Phil indicated, these issues have to be viewed in a case by case perspective since each club's motives may vary.

Other than the USGA, clubs rarely allow an outside agency to guide them in determining what should happen to their golf course.

It's much more of an INTERNAL issue than an EXTERNAL issue.

Patrick:

An excellent post.  It was so good I will even use green to commend you.

One of the reasons for the phenomenon you cite is because so many people now put architecture (and architects) on a pedestal, and want to separate them from mere contractors and superintendents.  To me, if you're making changes in the dirt, that's architecture.  That is one reason I have so much trouble with attributions ... associates tend to get credit based on whether or not they are perceived to have graduated to becoming "architects," instead of for what they have been doing all along the way.

[Melvyn Morrow]

No Tom, not on a pedestal

I do not - why would I give credit to people who can't even bother to respond to e-mails. I would go as far as asking are standards slipping? Nevertheless IMHO there are still a good few out there that certainly deserve respect.

Melvyn

[Tom_Doak]

Melvyn:

Sometimes we get behind on our email, and sometimes we just need a break from it.  (For example, my in box currently says "326 New Messages.")

It's really amazing that between the traveling (just got home from 20 days on the road) and email, that I have any time to do anything else.  How did Old Tom keep up?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tom

I am surprised, a man with your experience, you should know what a good designers does or in Old Tom’s case did – you control technology not become a servant to it.

One day the penny will drop and our R&A Masters may learn that something needs to be done rather than go running back to the warm and familiar feeling of having their head deep in the sand. Technology is a friend, all that is required isto know what you are doing to get the best out of it for a specific use.

I am certain it will cause you not problems once you have time to let the mind catch up with the body.

Melvyn

[paul cowley]

Something that hasn't been mentioned.....how to sort out design attribution associated with the modern phase of many golf professionals who do little more than lend a name......the Weiskoff's, Nicklaus's, Love's, Crenshaw's etc excluded.

[TEPaul]

"However, he did mention that one of the few things holding him back is the suggestion by someone here years ago that "he owes it to the game" to give away all his research for free."


TomD:

That's becoming a very big issue these days but a separate one I think from the initial question on this thread if there should be some sort of standardized criteria for architectural attribution. Again, I did say that the C&W tome "Architects of Golf" seems to be a good method with how they created the alphabetical attribution list of so many courses in the back of the book and then supplemented and enhanced them somewhat in the "Architect Bio" section.

However, giving away research for free is another question as there are a number of people out there and including on here who have some pretty impressive personal collections of research material. Many don't want to give it away for free, and some tend to use it piece-meal almost as "information currency." Obviously that's their good right since they took the time to find it and collect it.

If they for instance provided it to the USGA Architecture Arhive that would provide a central clearing house spot for all to go to but since much of this material is in the form of old newspaper and periodicals and such it would present something of a problem of redundancy such as putting the LA84 collection of such important golf periodicals as Golf Illustrated and American Golfer on the USGA AA because much of the same thing is on there already under what is known as The Segl (Seagle).

[Ally Mcintosh]

Although I enjoy researching the history of Irish courses (including who was involved), I really think that architectural attribution is a bit of a killer...

The only reason you need it through your career is to sell yourself for the next project... And you don't really need it when you are gone, do you?

It all seems to be a team game to me... Who should get the credit for "most" creative input to The Castle Course at St Andrews for instance?... I can think of at least 3 people who might qualify...

Also, with redesigns and renovations, there are about a million different shades of grey... It most certainly has to be taken on an individual basis I would have thought...