Interlachen - Golf Digest 2019 Top #100 Design Credits

[Mike Bodo]

Coming up with national and international governing bodies is all well and good, provided some type of universally accepted standardization can be achieved in attributing course design credit (good luck with that!). Problem is politics will usually rule the day regardless of what a governing body decides, as you are destined to have certain private clubs and perhaps even public courses claiming/advertising to be a Ross, McKenzie, Colt/Allison, Tillinghast, etc. BRAND NAME golden age architects that originally designed or had an heavy influence on the courses layout and playing characteristics, that have such little left of their original features that it's a joke to still assign credit to them. I'm going to call them hodge-podge courses, for lack of a better word. Inverness had become that, as you've had four or five archies since Ross tinker with it since it was originally designed. However, with the recent restoration of the course to more of the original Ross features, I would argue that it is safe to assign design credit to Ross and Andrew Green for having taken the course back to its Ross roots. Green's restoration work has literally wiped out a lot of the changes prior architects had done - in particular, the Fazios, who should no longer be given any design credit, IMO, as little to nothing they did at Inverness still stands.

[Kalen Braley]

Still seems like listing anyone in the GD or GW lists is completely unnecessary. Seems to boil down to 2 categories of reader.

1) Those who aren't interested in who designed/built it, they just want to see the list or get ideas of where to try to play.

2) And those who do care, who will research the answer/info on their own anyways.

P.S.  But then again who else even debates this topic other than this site and industry insiders? 

[Tommy Williamsen]

It is going to take a body like Golf Digest or Golf Magazine to come up with a standard to fix this issue of design credit. Without a standard anyone can change it.  I'm not aware of a definition in the industry that is universal, but in my view only the original designer should get credit in addition to anyone who has done a "major renovation". Other than that it is like going for a haircut, you are just trimming what is there, not changing your hairstyle.

The magazines are the LAST ONES who should be setting the standard, to be honest.  They are not really experts in the subject at all.  Ron Whitten is close to an expert -- he did co-author the original book on the subject -- but he also knows every architect, many of whom lobby for credit they don't really deserve, so he's conflicted.

So, who are the experts?

[Mike Bodo]

Still seems like listing anyone in the GD or GW lists is completely unnecessary. Seems to boil down to 2 categories of reader.

1) Those who aren't interested in who designed/built it, they just want to see the list or get ideas of where to try to play.

2) And those who do care, who will research the answer/info on their own anyways.

P.S.  But then again who else even debates this topic other than this site and industry insiders? 

The designers in question are of obvious importance, as GD's summary of the Top 100 and 200 breaks down the number of courses not only by the original architect, but redesigns by architect. For example, their list of the most original designs amongst the top 200 courses looks like this.


1. Tom Fazio = 33
2. Donald Ross = 14 (not including Interlachen)
3. Pete Dye = 12
4. A.W. Tillinghast = 11
5. Doak, RTJ and Raynor = 9 apiece
6. Coore and Crenshaw = 8
7. C.B. McDonald = 7


Their list of the most current redesigns in the Top 200 breaks down as follows.


1. Gil Hanse = 15
2. Rees Jones = 13
3. Tom Doak = 12
4. Tom Fazio = 11
5. Keith Foster = 6
6. Coore and Crenshaw = 5


Golf Digest wouldn't place the amount of emphasis on architectural design they do if there wasn't some type of perceived value to them, which goes back to Jeff's point about the importance of branding. Say what you will, but these names and others not listed here have cache and value. They're brands, whether you wish to admit or not, which is why many clubs and new facilities seek the active individuals on these lists out and why clubs built during the golden age of golf course architecture promote the now deceased original designer, as they realize it has a lot of weight and brand identity.


With the attrition of the number individuals in the U.S. playing golf, there is now a higher percentage of golf course aficionados than I think anyone realizes. There are lot of golfers that aren't as passionate about golf course architecture as those of us here, yet they appreciate and understand the value a name such as Ross, Tillinghast, McKenzie, McDonald Raynor, Park, Doak, Hanse, Fazio, Coore and Crenshaw, Foster, etc. lends to a course or club. I have friends who are golfers that know little of the history of golf course architecture that seek out playing Doak, Hanse and Coore and Crenshaw courses. Heck, you can make it easy on yourself and go to a place like Streamsong and play courses from each of them. LOL!


In summary, we no longer live in our own little golf course architecture incubator here on GCA. With the proliferation of YouTube and vloggers such as No Laying Up and Golfholics touting the virtues of the courses they feature/play and the architects behind them, there's a much broader understanding and appreciation of golf course architecture than at anytime in history. We just don't see it because of the limited range and scope this website has. However, go check out your average Golfholics or NLU video and you'll see there are anywhere from 30 - 40k views on average. That is a lot of eyeballs that may not otherwise know or care about golf course architecture and the individuals responsible for the great plethora of courses - both past and present - that we are blessed and fortunate to play.

[Tom_Doak]

The simplest solution would be to just stop putting credits on the listings altogether.  But then Golf Digest couldn't write misleading statements like "Gil Hanse has redesigned the most courses in the top 100".

No, the simplest solution would be once a course is designed, built and deemed to be great, don't F#*K with it! LOL!! One of the funniest moments in the Ross documentary I referenced is where Les Alexander is extolling the virtues of Holston Hills and expounding that the reason why the course is so good after all these years since it was built is is because the club never had enough money to F@$K it up. There is more truth to that than anyone knows.

As the former consultant to Holston Hills, when we rebuilt the bunkers there, all we had to do was cut sod out of the bottoms and install drainage and sand.  They didn't re-shape anything because they had never let anyone else rebuild them before.  Quite a difference from Bel Air, where there were less than ten of George Thomas's bunkers still in the same location!


It is difficult to even locate a good course now that has not signed up someone as an architectural consultant, since that's all most architects have for work nowadays.  But whether that consultant has done anything to the course that should be considered "architecturally significant" is clearly a matter of opinion.  Giving everyone credit is the easiest solution, but it's not the right one.

[Tom_Doak]

They are a professional society of golf course architects, which practice golf course architecture.  I'm not sure your question.
Tom brought up ASGCA as an alternative to the ratings publications to come up with a standard for publication credit, which wasn't perfect either.
It is pretty clear there isn't a universal standard for attributable design credit. In the field of research done for journal publication there is a universal standard adhered to to list each researcher.  It is incumbent upon the submitter to the publication, to lay out who deserves to be listed as co-author for research publication in the journal.

There is an agency problem with ratings publication magazines as they have alternative motives (profitablity, relationships with XYZ club/architect, etc.) that scientific journals aren't burdened with.  They exist to further the pool of knowledge within a certain domain and it is this pure mission which gives them credibility. In addition their editors are actual researchers in the field itself which as part of their profession, strive to be the editor of XYZ journal. Thus, there is oversight built into the system with a team collectively making the decision on who is published and met the standard.
How to do it for attributable design credit for a golf course isn't universally established. Is it important enough to happen, it doesn't appear so, sans architects themselves, golf courses themselves and us enthusiasts.

Jeff:


The ASGCA has an agency problem, too.  Not every architect is a member [I'm not] and some have not been allowed to join, and while I don't harbor any animosity toward the ASGCA, I certainly would not trust them to treat my design credits the same way they treat those of their members, as I can cite plenty of other ways they try to stack the deck in favor of their members getting work.


I'm not sure there is any group in golf that is anywhere close to neutral, that everyone would trust to address this issue.


You and Mike don't have to explain to me that there is "branding value" in architect's names . . . every architect knows that, which is why so many try to exaggerate their roles in a course they didn't design to begin with.  That's one big reason attribution is a problem; it's hard to find anyone to call b.s. on some of the false attribution that's out there.[size=78%] [/size]

[Tom_Doak]

It is going to take a body like Golf Digest or Golf Magazine to come up with a standard to fix this issue of design credit. Without a standard anyone can change it.  I'm not aware of a definition in the industry that is universal, but in my view only the original designer should get credit in addition to anyone who has done a "major renovation". Other than that it is like going for a haircut, you are just trimming what is there, not changing your hairstyle.

The magazines are the LAST ONES who should be setting the standard, to be honest.  They are not really experts in the subject at all.  Ron Whitten is close to an expert -- he did co-author the original book on the subject -- but he also knows every architect, many of whom lobby for credit they don't really deserve, so he's conflicted.

So, who are the experts?

There are several, but pretty much every one of them is conflicted, often in multiple ways.


I would love for there to be a real standard.  I generally refrain from taking credit for our restoration work, on the grounds that we really put those courses back as close as we could to the original design; but then I see other designers given credit for doing much less at other courses.

[Tim Martin]

The only Golden Age course in the current Golf Digest Top 100 U.S. list that retains just it’s original designer is San Francisco Golf Club. For every other course, design attribution is given to the last firm that did restoration work.

[Tom_Doak]

The only Golden Age course in the current Golf Digest Top 100 U.S. list that retains just it’s original designer is San Francisco Golf Club.

That’s funny, considering how much restoration work we have done at SFGC over the last 15-20 years: rebuilding their bunkers, then their greens, then restoring the three holes they’d changed in 1947.

[Mike Bodo]

You and Mike don't have to explain to me that there is "branding value" in architect's names . . . every architect knows that, which is why so many try to exaggerate their roles in a course they didn't design to begin with.  That's one big reason attribution is a problem; it's hard to find anyone to call b.s. on some of the false attribution that's out there.

+1   And there, my friend, lays the rub of the green (pun intended). 

[Rick Shefchik]

This looks like a simple editing mistake to me. There is no doubt that Interlachen is primarily a Ross course. Watson designed the original 18 holes in 1911, and after the club bought an additional 20 acres of land, Ross redesigned every hole in 1920. Ross's blueprints for each hole are displayed in the club's 100th anniversary book.

Interesting. In the documentary, Donald Ross: Discovering the Legend. It's mentioned by one of the contributors that Interlachen originally started as a 9 hole course and in 1920, Ross redesigned the original 9 and added a second 9 so that the club could host championships. Is the Donald Ross Society wrong in this instance?

Yes, the Ross society is wrong. Watson designed an 18-hole course, and it opened that way. For instance, the current ninth hole was originally the 18th hole, and once shared a double green with the 9th hole, which is now hole #10, reversed. There were always holes on both sides of Interlachen Blvd. The club has a blueprint of Watson's 18-hole course.

[JC Urbina]

Tim,


They use to list the people involved with SFGC but they have since removed any names other then Tilly, did you know Bell Sr was involved with SFGC, does it matter to you that he spent time on site ?

[Tim Martin]

Tim,


They use to list the people involved with SFGC but they have since removed any names other then Tilly, did you know Bell Sr was involved with SFGC, does it matter to you that he spent time on site ?

Jim-It was just a casual observation after looking at the list. I know very little about SFGC and if you say Bell Sr. was there I believe you. I’m not a researcher or historian trying to prove or disprove something so to answer your question it really doesn’t matter to me.