Architects rating architects

[TEPaul]

I realize this is probably technically impossible (ASGCA and other association policy) but if all architects could rate all other architects by secret ballot how do you suppose the rating would come out?

[Jim_Kennedy]

TEPaul,
It would be a tie. They would each have one vote.

[David Wigler]

Tom,

I have heard many architects criticize and compliment other architects.  The modern architect who I hear almost no one criticize is Pete Dye.  My guess is he would win in a landslide.

[TEPaul]

David:

Maybe Dye would win in a landslide. Am I wrong in saying that in the modern age (basically 1950 on) there have probably been three real "sea changes" in architecture, its style, playbabilities etc? 1.RTJ  2.Pete Dye 3.Tom Fazio.

RTJ's might be considered the most significant, Dye's possibly the most respected for a number of reasons and Tom Fazio's, I don't know how the profession would categorize his architectural "sea change" except to say it definitely was one.

[Mike_Sweeney]

As a comparison, here is the final coaches poll for NCAA basketball prior to the tournament.

1. Duke (29) 29-3 773 3
2. Kansas (1) 29-3 727 1
3. Oklahoma (1) 27-4 710 4
4. Maryland  26-4 679 2
5. Cincinnati  30-3 674 5
6. Gonzaga  29-3 580 6
7. Pittsburgh  27-5 530 7
8. Alabama  26-7 498 8
8. Arizona  22-9 498 14
10. Marquette  26-6 446 10

They had a few misses, but some were right on. My guess is that the more people that are allowed into the vote ( 1 time architects, Ernie Els, Fred Couples...) the more it becomes a popularity contest, thus Jack Nicklaus or Pete Dye. My guess is that Jack would not make the top 5 if there was a poll on GCA. Thus, the criteria of who gets to vote is important. I will suggest the following criteria - Either the person or his firm had to be the lead designer on at least 3 ground breaking (new) courses in the last 5 years. I would also be very interested to see them rate those architects which have passed away.

[Mike_Sweeney]

P.S. In reference to the NCAA poll above, it looks like a conspiracy against small private Jesuit schools (Gonzaga and Marquette) !

[David Wigler]

Tom,

I think you are absolutely correct.  RTJ, Dye, and Fazio would be the three.  Given that RTJ gets a lot of criticism for uninteresting courses that are unfairly penal and Fazio gets a ton of criticism for strategically devoid courses focused on beauty, Dye should win easily.

Mike,

Are you being sarcastic?  The tournament proved the opposite.  Gonzaga and Marquette were clearly frauds bolstered by weak conferences and weak non-conference schedules (Not Gonzaga's fault - no one would play them but still a fact).  If anything, you could argue there was a bias for small Jesuit schools as their ranking far exceeded their play.

[THuckaby2]

As a graduate of a small Jesuit school which from time to time has jumped up and bitten the big boys, I am here to attest that the wise Mr. Wigler is absolutely correct, particularly in the case of Gonzaga, the most over-rated team I have ever seen... and I base that statement not on anything having to do with their defeat at the hands of Wyoming, but on seeing them many times throughout the year - they are in the same league as my beloved Broncos.  Somehow the media got on their bandwagon early and wouldn't let go.  They were a good team - legit top 25 - they just belonged nowhere near the top 10.

End of basketball rant.

I have no idea how arkies would rank themselves... but I do find this interesting!

TH

[TEPaul]

I'd love to see a bunch of small Jesuits (do they wear clerical collars) play a bunch of big rawhide cowboys! After the game do they both pray, go out drinking together or neither?

[THuckaby2]

TEP:  given all the judicial proceedings right now involving the clerics of my faith, you don't want to know what I think Jesuits would do with big rawhide cowboys.

Ok, that was sick.  But no sicker than the seemingly daily news about what priests have been doing... As a "survivor" of 16 years of Catholic school education, I feel like I need to hold a news conference to announce I HAVEN'T been molested!

Sorry Tom, I may have just given the death knell for your very worthwhile thread here.

TH

[Bob_Huntley]

Tommy:

Me thinks that thou protests too much.

[TEPaul]

16 years in Catholic schools and you HAVEN'T been molested?

Can you prove that? I'm a reasonable man, but I do have my limits of credulity, you know!

[THuckaby2]

Dammit Bob, I knew SOMEONE might say that... coming from you... well.... ok, I ought to shut up now.

That did crack me up in any case.  

TH

[THuckaby2]

Oh crap, the esteemed Doyen is on the same wavelength as Mr. Huntley also... what hath I wrought?

You guys can understand my need for a news conference anyway, obviously!  

TH

[TEPaul]

Golf Architecture trivia question of all time!

Of all the world's architects past or present who were provably molested during their Catholic School years who is  considered the best architect and how did the molestation(s) influence his architecture, including his philosophies on both features and strategy?

The winner will have two days at Pine Valley! The contest will end at midnight tonight.

Bonus Prize: For anyone who also comes up with the correct name and spelling of the molestor will received an otherworldly suprise bonus prize!

[THuckaby2]

OK, I have a feeling that Rich Goodale can win this with half his brain tied behind his back, but given I seem to have brought up this whole Jesuit/molestation thing, I gotta give it a shot.

My nomination is Alister MacKenzie.  Let's assume he spent some time in Catholic school, and you scholars who know one way or the other just pipe down.  He was likely molested in his early teen years, trusting the priests during a "retreat" he was required to attend.  The attention to parts of his anatomy heretofore unexplored leads him to consider a medical career, to find out for certain what all the hulabaloo is about.  These anatomical curiousities carry him through his war duties, during which he cleverly crafts a public campaign publicizing his interest in camoflauge, when only later do MacKenziephiles uncover what he was REALLY camoflauging.  His anatomical interests later also become manifested in "finger" and "bearded" bunkers, showing all the world the horrors of his troubled youth.

That's it in a nutshell.

And yes, I am scared this all came to me so quickly (pun CERTAINLY not intended).

 

TH

[Mike_Sweeney]

Geez !!

I just came back to read this thread and now I have to go out hire a shrink and examine my 8 years of Jesuit training at St. Joe Prep and Boston College.

Trivia question, what Hugh Wilson designed course is one of St. Joe's Prep's (Philadelphia) home course (at least when I was on the golf team) ? You Philly guys should get this.

[Bob_Huntley]

From his prickly attitude, as demonstrated in his correspondence, I would think that MacKenzie was not Catholic at all, but a rather dour Presbyterian. But being English born he might just be an Anglican.

For the life of me I cannot think of one architect of this particular persuasion, although I believe Des Smythe, the Irish Ryder Cupper, does come to mind. Anyone with a swing like his, had to have suffered some severe emotional and physical trauma when young. His architectural output  is not known.

[THuckaby2]

Oh sure Bob, ruin my fun!  

Being married to a Presbyterian as I am, and enjoying our ecumenical battles far too much to ever give in, I refuse to give them credit for my favorite architect, truth be damned!

TH

[John_Conley]

As a comparison, here is the final coaches poll for NCAA basketball prior to the tournament.

1. Duke (29) 29-3 773 3 .....

They had a few misses, but some were right on.

Mike Sweeney???

Huh???  What relevance does a coaches (usually filled out by the ass't SID or someone equally competent to assess 325 or so Division 1 basketball teams) poll have with golf course architects evaluating each other?  Also, most of the architects I've talked to admit that they see less of others' work than I (probably "we", considering all of us phreaks on the board) do.

"They had a few misses.."  Where?  If you are asking the coaches who they think is best, you can't have misses.  If you are implying that these aren't the best teams, I ask you, "On what do you base that?"

The fact that Cincinnati lost in their second game hardly invalidates their whole season, when they consistently played at a high level.  (more on that later)

Wiggles:

Clearly frauds???  Quick, name the only three teams to advance to the Sweet 16 the last three years.  That's right.  Duke, Michigan State, and GONZAGA (who was a breath from the Final Four when they played a late-charging Florida).  This year's team was every bit as good as the one Dan Monson coached three years ago and the two in between.

Poor conferences?  No.  Can't be.  Cincinnati, #5 in the final AP and USA Today polls, actually was slighted by the pollsters when you consider their season-ending RPI was 2 !  Conference USA, with Marquette and Louisville - both of whom have won a National Championship in the last 25 years - Memphis, Cincinnati, and DePaul is consistently in line with the Big East and other top conferences for basketball.  It has surpassed the Atlantic 10, with all of their defections to the Big East over the past few years.

CollegeInsider.com ranks the mid-Major schools and correctly indicated that S. Ill. and Kent (both in their Top 5) might do well in the NCAAs.  Who was #1 ALL YEAR LONG in that poll - taken from actual assistant coaches who have to map out game plans against these teams???  Gonzaga, who advanced to the finals of the Great Alaska Shootout with wins over St. John's and Texas before losing to Marquette.  Yes, that Marquette.  The 'zags also went 2-1 against the champions of Los Angeles.

Tommy H:

I know you were on record before the loss to Wyoming, so you are right about that.  My question is, "How can you be a legit Top 25, but be nowhere near the Top 10?"  Are the lines so clearly defined from one rung to another?  Absolutely not.

I knew all along that 3 teams were a cut above this year.  Maryland (my personal fave this year, LOVE Wilcox), Duke, and Kansas.  By the end of the year, you can add Cinci and Oklahoma to the mix.  But the rest of the Top 10?  Not clear at all (remember our BCS argument???)

You people seem to want #3 to beat #5 every time they play.  If you know a lick about basketball - at ANY level - you know that there is very little difference between a lot of the Top 100 teams (I think there are about 325 D-1 today).  #26 versus #99 is an almost equal match when played on a neutral floor, as evidenced year after year.

Gonzaga has certainly proved that a team from the WCAC can play with bigger schools, like Steve Nash (that's for you!) and Loyola Marymount before them.  Were they NOT deserving of a Top 10 ranking?  If not them, who?  Some team with 8 losses who went 9-7 in conference?  That's a tough argument to make.

Here are the final RPI tallies.  I find computer ranking much better than human judgment, because a good formula takes all of the criteria we collectively agree are important into account and determines the outcome with rules in place BEFORE HAND.  No moving target about how it was now so important for Nebraska to win the Big 12, which seemed to be the knock-du-jour for BCS bashers.

The man who runs collegerpi.com has a 97% accuracy rate over the last decade at picking the at-large NCAA bids, including 100% this year.  The RPI is used almost as law, which makes it very similar to the BCS criteria.

Anyway, FWIW, here are the numbers.

1. Kansas
2. Cinci
3. Maryland
4. Duke
5. Oklahoma
6. Arizona
7. Alabama
8. Connecticut
9. Mississippi State
10. Pittsburgh
11. Kentucky
12. Illinois
13. Texas Tech
14. Xavier
15. Florida
21. Gonzaga
23. Marquette

I had USC and UCLA going to the Final 4 in our office pool, based on the assumption that they could beat anyone when they played well.  Turns out I should have had UCLA and Missouri.  My point is that Syracuse, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois, and Florida were at some time during the season in the Top 5 - some even as high as #2!! - and then started losing.  You will never get the order you seem to crave in college sports like basketball.

[Mike_Sweeney]

Okay I admit it, I have a little chip on my sholder. The Dukies came to Boston College in late January, and when I turned on the TV it was something like Duke 32 and BC 8. Thus our year went out the window and my views were slanted.

Just like golf architecture, I still think that Spanish Bay is underated, and that has nothing to do with the 81 that I shot that day .

[THuckaby2]

JC:  I too choose to believe the RPI is indeed the best indicator of college basketball strength.  Jerry Palm and I have been e-mail acquaintances for years.  You're preaching to the choir there!

It has Gonzaga #21.  That seems right to me.  Over-rated means putting them #6, whining about deserving a 2 or 3 seed.  That's silly.  They got the seed they deserved, then lost to a better team that day, given all the "intangibles" in WY's favor.

We are the WCC, by the way - took away the "A" several years ago.  But I do appreciate the Nash reference.

But here's the difference between a Santa Clara fan and a Gonzaga apologist:  we NEVER claimed any of the Nash teams were under-rated or wanted any better seeds or anything of the sort.  Those teams weren't CLOSE to top-10 status, let alone top-25.  RPI's for such at the best were low 30's, which was correct to us.  We enjoyed our victories and didn't whine about slights.

OK, Ran is likely to delete this toot-sweet.  Just had to get my $.02 in!

TH

[Rick Shefchik]

Tom:

I want a shot at the prize, so I'll guess it was William Flynn, done by either Sir Guy Campbell or Maj. C. K. Hutchinson in the conservatory with a candlestick.

How did this tawdry event influence Flynn's architecture? When presented with the 300-acre site that became Shinnecock (and we needn't go any farther into the significance that name held for him), Flynn realized that he needn't limit himself to only part of the land by using traditionally tight routing. His experience had taught him to let go, be free and use every inch of the property. He also made sure that the two par fives would play in opposite directions, because of his unshakeable belief that a good golfer ought to be able to go both ways.

See you at Pine Valley?

[TEPaul]

Look, guys, cut out this basketball stuff, will you? If you want to talk about basketball I'll find you a basketball website.

Molestation at Catholic school is much closer to golf architecture than basketball is anyway!

[David Wigler]

John,

College Basketball is best argued on a different DG, but I will reply this once.  Gonzaga and Marquette were frauds.  Cincinnati also was a fraud.  They play in conferences where they do not have a consistent level of talent and there records are inflated by wins against vastly inferior schools.  Put Gonzaga or Marquette (Or Cincinnati for that matter) in the SEC, Big Ten, ACC, etc. and they are .500 teams (Maybe slightly better - no more).  

History is beyond irrelevant in college basketball where you turn over an entire team every three years (Early departures).  I watched Gonzaga the last two years.  This year’s team lost the big guy in the middle (Cannot think of his name), was not physical enough and was spanked not by Duke but by Wyoming (Another no better than .500 team in a power conference).  Why do I say .500, look at the facts?  Gonzaga played only four games against NCAA teams not from their own conference.  Their record 1-3.  

Marquette is just as bad.  Marquette's record against NCAA tournament teams 3-5.  Most major conferences use pre-season tournaments to warm up for their conference schedule.  If you eliminate preseason tournaments, Marquette's record falls to 1-5.  Their only victory was against Cincinnati.  They only played three NCAA tournament teams from the major conferences.  Their record 1-2 (And Wisconsin, Indiana and Wake Forest weren't exactly Duke and Kansas).  The facts are that Marquette went 23-1 against weak teams and Gonzaga went 28-1.  They are good against bad teams.  Put Michigan State (A .500 team from a major conference) against Gonzaga or Marquette’s schedule and they would have gone 29-3, been rated very highly by computers and gotten beat in the first round when faced with a tournament team.  Yes, this year they were frauds.  Now don't get me started on Virginia Tech and Kansas State doing the same thing in football.