Ranking Architects

[Nigel Islam]

The best thing about the list is the pictures of the architects. Some of those are awesome.

[Tom_Doak]

   Who’s the better writer - Harper Lee or James Patterson?  Easy choice, i’d say.
   I’d try to make this subjective call objectively.  Take the top 200 (or 100) courses.  Give the architect of each course a score based on the course’s ranking.  Say numbers 1-10 get 100 points to 91; the next 10 get 80 points; the next 10, 70; etc.; the last 100 get 5 points each.  Don’t know how this would come out, but might be fun.

For fun, I did this for the web site's own top 100, to see if it correlates with their list at all.  [A: not much!]  I could only use their top 100 since they did not list a second 100.

It's tough to do because you wind up crediting Old Tom Morris AND Harry Colt AND Tom Simpson for Muirfield, and going through the same exercise for several of the famous UK links.  But I didn't try to apportion credit as that's not fair, either ... we're not going to split the points between Coore and Crenshaw, or me and my associates.

I will note that a method that only takes into account three courses in the total oeuvre of Donald Ross seems wanting, but those who got more than 100 points by this method:

795   Alister MacKenzie (12 courses)

488   Harry Colt (9 courses)
471   Old Tom Morris (6)
401   Tom Simpson (7, though Morfontaine was his only original design)

360   me !  (6 courses)
320   Coore & Crenshaw  (7)

260   A. W. Tillinghast  (6)
240   Seth Raynor  (4)
210   Donald Ross  (only 3 courses in the top 100 in the world acc. to this web site?)
210   Perry Maxwell  (4)

180   James Braid  (4)
174   C. B. Macdonald  (2)
160   Pete Dye  (5)
140   George Thomas  (2)
140   Hugh Alison  (3)
110   Willie Park Jr.  (2)
110   Kyle Phillips  (3)
105   Alex Russell  (2)


FWIW.

[Peter Flory]

How about this for a way to blend everything together and balance peak with volume?  If all golf courses were converted to public facilities with $50 greensfees and you could only play one architect's original designs for the rest of your life with guaranteed 3.5 hour pace of play, which architect would you pick?  You have a teleporter to get you to the location and you have the option to convert the course to the original layout with retro or modern conditioning if you choose. 


If you pick Crump, you are stuck playing one course.  If you pick Pete Dye, you have courses all of the country to choose from.  If you go with someone with even more courses, you have diminishing returns as you'll never use most of them.




 

[JHoulihan]

Without the hard numbers printed, we can only guess and make assumptions. Here are a couple thoughts about this list (and maybe even extrapolated to other top 100 lists).

Average or mean = Sum of all the numbers in the set divided by the amount of numbers in the set
Median = Middle value when set is listed in numerical order
Mode = Value in list that is repeated most often
Range = Difference between highest and lowest value


My personal thought about this and other lists is that the order is listed in such a way that not only arranges "best to worst" but also reward "best" and penalize "worst" courses.


Median and mode I feel could make many of the earlier examples rise to the top due to the fact that designers should be rewarded for the 9 and 10 options and especially more if divisible by 10 courses than 100.


I have yet to find a math equation that exactly fits the description but maybe math man Jim Colton can weigh in.


Justin

[Ally Mcintosh]

Here's the list:


1.  Harry Colt
2.  Alister MacKenzie
3.  Jack Nicklaus
4.  Coore & Crenshaw
5.  Tom Doak
6.  Robert Trent Jones Jr.
7.  Pete Dye
8.  Tom Fazio
9.  A.W. Tillinghast
10.  Donald Ross


11.  Robert Trent Jones
12.  James Braid
13.  Tom Simpson
14.  Greg Norman
15.  Old Tom Morris
16.  Stanley Thompson
17.  C.H. Alison
18.  Willie Park Jr.
19.  Seth Raynor
20.  Herbert Fowler


21.  C.B. Macdonald
22.  Tom McBroom
23.  Martin Hawtree
24.  Doug Carrick
25.  Seiichi Inoue
26.  Perry Maxwell
27.  David McLay Kidd
28.  Kyle Phillips
29.  Robert von Hagge
30.  Gil Hanse


31.  Gary Player
32.  Alex Russell
33.  Mike Clayton
34.  Tom Weiskopf
35.  Bob Harrison
36.  Frank Pennink
37.  Eddie Hackett
38.  Rod Whitman
39.  Eric Apperly
40.  Mackenzie & Ebert


41.  A.V. Macan
42.  Peter Thomson
43.  William Flynn
44.  Dick Wilson
45.  Donald Steel
46.  Archie Simpson
47.  George Lowe
48.  Pat Ruddy
49.  Osamu Ueda
50.  Vern Morcom


51.  Ernie Els
52.  Schmidt & Curley
53.  Ron Fream
54.  Peter Matkovich
55.  Nick Faldo
56.  Mike DeVries
57.  Graham Marsh
58.  Nelson & Haworth
59.  Guy Campbell
60.  Alice Dye


61.  Dave Thomas
62.  Rees Jones
63.  J.H. Taylor
64.  John Harris
65.  Cabell Robinson
66.  John Morrison
67.  Walter Travis
68.  Willie Campbell
69.  Tom Dunn
70.  Willie Watson


71.  Bob Cupp
72.  Michael Hurdzan
73.  Shiro & Rokuro Akaboshi
74.  George C. Thomas Jr.
75.  Dana Fry
76.  Ross Perrett
77.  Fred W. Hawtree
78.  Philip Mackenzie Ross
79.  Dan Soutar
80.  S.V. Hotchkin


81.  Bernhard von Limburger
82.  P.B. Dye
83.  Bob Grimsdell
84.  Arthur Hills
85.  Arnold Palmer
86.  Fred G. Hawtree
87.  Devereux Emmet
88.  Tom Bendelow
89.  Javier Arana
90.  Harry Vardon


91.  Brian Silva
92.  John Abercromby
93.  C.K. Cotton
94.  C.K. Hutchison
95.  Mike Strantz
96.  Robbie Robinson
97.  Perry Dye
98.  Charles Redhead
99.  Ron Kirby
100.  Allan Robertson

Where the hell am I?

[Jeff Schley]

Without the hard numbers printed, we can only guess and make assumptions. Here are a couple thoughts about this list (and maybe even extrapolated to other top 100 lists).

Average or mean = Sum of all the numbers in the set divided by the amount of numbers in the set
Median = Middle value when set is listed in numerical order
Mode = Value in list that is repeated most often
Range = Difference between highest and lowest value


My personal thought about this and other lists is that the order is listed in such a way that not only arranges "best to worst" but also reward "best" and penalize "worst" courses.


Median and mode I feel could make many of the earlier examples rise to the top due to the fact that designers should be rewarded for the 9 and 10 options and especially more if divisible by 10 courses than 100.


I have yet to find a math equation that exactly fits the description but maybe math man Jim Colton can weigh in.


Justin

From a stats point of view the standard deviation is much more valuable than the median, mode or range.  This will give you the results in relation to the mean with 1 standard deviation (above or below the mean) accounting for 68% of the distribution, 2 sd's 95% and 3 sd's 99%. 

So in our application we are judging how the courses they designed are ranked/regarded.  The greater the number of standard deviations, the less likely we are to believe the difference is due to chance, or put another way attributed to their expertise as a designer.

The inherent flaw from the beginning is that the ranking is subjective with different criteria so from the outset we have data risk; trying to take data from diverse subjective rankings and making a concrete analysis in statistics.  But, we have no other alternative, thus it could at least lead to another point of view based on the data we have.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I think a key factor is missing from the posts above - the other side of the coin!


It’s a fun parlor game to argue wether Colt or Mackenzie’s top 5 are better. There’s no correct answer and it doesn’t really matter anyway. But far more critical in the analysis to me are the missed opportunities and blown chances. With so few new courses being built these days, if I was a developer I’d start by crossing OFF the bottom names of the list before focusing on splitting hairs at the top.


How many names would be left on your list of architects of whom you’d write a big check to build a course, and then come back 2 years later to see how they did with your money and land?


How many guys could you absolutely 100% trust to deliver something you’d be happy with? Those to me would have to be the top of any list.


Michael

This is actually part of today’s problem.


50% of developers know their GCA and will play safe with one of your “trusted” architects.


The other 50% are even more conservative and will choose a big name who has built many courses or has worked on many famous courses, usually not a GCA darling.


So a small number of names (both good and not so good) get the work. This was less the case when 400 courses a year were getting built. And in those times, whilst there was a lot more poor design, there was also a lot more variety and different styles.

[Kyle Harris]

Travis, Emmet and Bendelow jumped out as being too high. Obviously you could parse the list until the end of time.

I'll fight for the Oxford Comma here.

Emmet and Bendelow never worked together.


Are there even 100 architects worth ranking?
Isn't the farmer down the street who builds a golf course on the north 40 "replacement level?"

[Thomas Dai]

Firstly, whilst such lists do profile a topic of conversation perhaps they should be confined to those who are no longer with us not only for personal and respect reasons etc but also because the passage of time gives time for reflection including objective rather than subjective appreciation and reasoning.


Secondly, an observation - quite a few names included were once the ‘helpers/associates’* to famous others - and fair enough, everyone has to learn one way or another - and several of Mackenzies ‘helpers/assocaites’ are included although Luther Koontz in South America isn’t? Is his exclusion because his work on his own wasn’t very good or because his lower profile geographical working area has meant he didn’t/hasn’t got the same level of publicity/recognition as others?


Atb



* ‘helpers/assocaites’ is my term. Apologies if the wording is inappropriate or degrading but I couldn’t think of another concise description. I’m sure all get my drift though.

[Tim Martin]

Travis, Emmet and Bendelow jumped out as being too high. Obviously you could parse the list until the end of time.

I'll fight for the Oxford Comma here.

Emmet and Bendelow never worked together.


Are there even 100 architects worth ranking?
Isn't the farmer down the street who builds a golf course on the north 40 "replacement level?"

I never meant to imply that they worked together but rather that all three as I clarified in my last post were short changed for purposes of their rank in the subject list. I guess I need to work on my grammar.

[Jim Nugent]

The article says, "We've stopped short of actually ranking the architects..."  So did the website rank Colt 1st -- or is he one of the top ten, along with the others in the first group?
Whatever calculus they use to figure their rankings, it doesn't give much weight to courses rated in the top 100.  I say this because Jack only has one course in their top 100.  Muirfield Village, ranked 65.  Yet they rank him in their 10 ten architects of all time.  They must give lots of points for the huge quantity of lower-ranked courses his firm has turned out. 

[Bill Shamleffer]

I agree this list is not worth spending then a few minutes glancing at.  I was just curious of who did NOT make the list.


One absence jumped out at me.


NO Geoff Cornish.  I guess the fact that he has no GREAT courses is a justification.
But in the world of building architecture, Cass Gilbert is well respected for designing many solid classic looking public use buildings; alongside with the respect given to Frank Lloyd Wright for many cutting edge astonishing personal spaces.

[Tom_Doak]

50% of developers know their GCA and will play safe with one of your “trusted” architects.

The other 50% are even more conservative and will choose a big name who has built many courses or has worked on many famous courses, usually not a GCA darling.

So a small number of names (both good and not so good) get the work. This was less the case when 400 courses a year were getting built. And in those times, whilst there was a lot more poor design, there was also a lot more variety and different styles.

Ally:


I suspect you know it, but that is the way of the world, not just in professions like architecture and golf architecture but in almost all things.  "Choose the guy who is already busy," is a time-tested heuristic.  To make matters worse, technology has redoubled the "winner take all" tendencies of capitalism. 


We've also talked here about how this tends to make the firms who are getting the work more conservative in their designs, so they won't kill the goose that laid the golden egg.


I've spent a lot of years thinking about how I might be able to change that, as I get older.  Bill Coore and I have both turned down a lot of projects over the years, but up until recently we've had very little success in handing them off to young designers we respect . . . because the potential client is pissed off at us for saying no, and because they are only focused on others on "our level" [formerly Fazio and Nicklaus, now Hanse, Kidd, Phillips, etc.] instead of thinking about someone younger and hungrier [and less expensive].  And, to be fair, it's hard for us to advocate for someone if they haven't got at least a couple of their own projects under their belt.


What clients don't understand is that, if we could all produce the same results, [and that is a big if of course], a debut Ally Macintosh design might be easier to get into the top 100 than a second Mike DeVries design or a sixth Tom Doak design.  There is a lot of tokenism in these rankings, and I've heard many panelists admit they have a sort of informal ceiling on how many courses any one designer "should" have, or how many courses should be non-US, etc.  My international work is some of my best work, but a great course has an easier path to the top 100 if it's the best course in New Zealand or China or Canada, than if it has to compete directly with all the best courses in the UK or America.


But why clients won't listen is because if their course DOESN'T make the top 100, then a design by a guy who has several courses in the top 100 is perceived as way more valuable than a design by a guy who has none.  And most developers do not really believe their own hype.

[Tom_Doak]

One absence jumped out at me.

NO Geoff Cornish.  I guess the fact that he has no GREAT courses is a justification.
But in the world of building architecture, Cass Gilbert is well respected for designing many solid classic looking public use buildings; alongside with the respect given to Frank Lloyd Wright for many cutting edge astonishing personal spaces.

Mr. Cornish was one of the top 10 PEOPLE in the golf architecture business.  When nobody else would even answer the emails of an 18-year-old kid who wanted to be a designer, he wrote back to say "There is always room in this business for someone with real talent."


But if you're going to put him in the top 100 DESIGNERS of all time, then I don't understand your criteria.

[BCrosby]

Kyle Harris asks:

"Are there even 100 architects worth ranking?  Isn't the farmer down the street who builds a golf course on the north 40 "replacement level?"

Good questions. There were/are lots of guys who happened to have a D-6 who were asked to build small town munis and privates. I'd bet the bulk of courses in the US were built by guys who - roughly - fit that description. I'd also guess that most of their courses still exist.
Some of their work is quite good; they get little or no attention today or ever. That needs to be corrected. Every region has a group of such "builders". They deserve more recognition than they have gotten.

Bob

[Ally Mcintosh]

50% of developers know their GCA and will play safe with one of your “trusted” architects.

The other 50% are even more conservative and will choose a big name who has built many courses or has worked on many famous courses, usually not a GCA darling.

So a small number of names (both good and not so good) get the work. This was less the case when 400 courses a year were getting built. And in those times, whilst there was a lot more poor design, there was also a lot more variety and different styles.

Ally:


I suspect you know it, but that is the way of the world, not just in professions like architecture and golf architecture but in almost all things.  "Choose the guy who is already busy," is a time-tested heuristic.  To make matters worse, technology has redoubled the "winner take all" tendencies of capitalism. 


We've also talked here about how this tends to make the firms who are getting the work more conservative in their designs, so they won't kill the goose that laid the golden egg.


I've spent a lot of years thinking about how I might be able to change that, as I get older.  Bill Coore and I have both turned down a lot of projects over the years, but up until recently we've had very little success in handing them off to young designers we respect . . . because the potential client is pissed off at us for saying no, and because they are only focused on others on "our level" [formerly Fazio and Nicklaus, now Hanse, Kidd, Phillips, etc.] instead of thinking about someone younger and hungrier [and less expensive].  And, to be fair, it's hard for us to advocate for someone if they haven't got at least a couple of their own projects under their belt.


What clients don't understand is that, if we could all produce the same results, [and that is a big if of course], a debut Ally Macintosh design might be easier to get into the top 100 than a second Mike DeVries design or a sixth Tom Doak design.  There is a lot of tokenism in these rankings, and I've heard many panelists admit they have a sort of informal ceiling on how many courses any one designer "should" have, or how many courses should be non-US, etc.  My international work is some of my best work, but a great course has an easier path to the top 100 if it's the best course in New Zealand or China or Canada, than if it has to compete directly with all the best courses in the UK or America.


But why clients won't listen is because if their course DOESN'T make the top 100, then a design by a guy who has several courses in the top 100 is perceived as way more valuable than a design by a guy who has none.  And most developers do not really believe their own hype.

I agree entirely with everything you say here.


I hope my post didn’t sound bitter - truth be told I’ve had more luck in getting work on some great links courses than many other designers have in their lifetime. And I haven’t yet built myself halfway up to a full “sales pitch” head of steam because I’m so busy with non-golf projects.


Although I’d be lying if I said the tendency for every other British links course to use the same R&A approved architects time and again doesn’t niggle a little. It would be ok if all the work was actually necessary.

[Ulrich Mayring]

If you're ok with ranking courses, then you should be ok with ranking architects, as that is just an aggregation of existing data. There aren't any new numbers or evaluations introduced, it's just a question of looking at the existing course rankings differently.

In this case they might have gotten the aggregation formula wrong, but that is a technicality that is easy to fix. The real value is the original text written about each architect and the pictures. I suspect that the list might have been received a lot differently if it was organised alphabetically.

Ulrich

[Ally Mcintosh]

Don’t agree, Ulrich.


Ranking architects is a fools game.


Courses at least are based purely on quality. You tell me if Gil Hanse (building high budget courses on great sites) is a better architect than Mike Young (building low budget courses on not so great sites) because I’ve no idea.

[John Emerson]

Biggest travesty is no mention of Langford &/or Moreau.  No Findlay?

[Mark_F]

I think it was seeing Tom McBroom's name next to C.B. Macdonald's that got my head spinning.

Tom,
Surely it was seeing Martin Hawtree's name there.  Clearly the list's organiser's have never played the third hole at Yarra Yarra.

Still, at least Mike Clayton made it ahead of Ross Perrett and Ernie Els.

[Tim Martin]

Wayne Stiles and Herbert Strong should be somewhere on the list.

[George Pazin]

My best friend and I have the “who’s the best, Jack or Tiger?” argument several times a year. He’s all Jack, I’m all Tiger. I think the points we tend to fall back on have relevance here.


His argument tends to be centered on the majors: 18 v 15 (no longer 14, as it has been for a long time🙂). My argument centers on what Tiger has done that Jack didn’t: 4 in a row, more in a shorter period of time, more overall wins, higher win rate, etc.


He revels in bringing up the new guys: well, Spieth won a bunch early, is he the best? Rory’s wins have featured records, is he the best? With each, I say, you need to meet some minimum just to be in the discussion.


The relevance here: I think each architect needs to meet some minimum to even be in the discussion. I don’t pretend to understand how credit is given for courses, but I think to be in the discussion for best, you need to have some minimum met for notable designs, and high ranking designs.


So I’d argue for blended criteria: you can’t just have one great course (as fantastic as PV and Oakmont are), and you can’t have one great and a boatload of solids. You have to have a certain number of greats and a certain number, period. What those numbers are, I have no clue. I look at the list, and more than a few names strike me as strange (and that does not mean the foreign guys I’ve never heard of). But I’ll admit, I don’t know those guys’ portfolios. You need to meet minimums, and they it’s about the quality of your best, imho.


To tie it somewhat to Tom D’s analogy, my understanding of the NFL hall of fame procedure is that the voters get together and have a big BS session, Voters make their cases, pro and con. Then they vote. That would seem to be a way to approach this, but the logistics are admittedly tough...


————


Oh, and no one ranks painters because everyone knows there’s Jean Dubuffet and everyone else!


But the guy who painted that church ceiling in Italy ain’t bad either... and my friend Mark is just incredible, you should see his paintings and even doodles.

[Tom_Doak]

If you're ok with ranking courses, then you should be ok with ranking architects, as that is just an aggregation of existing data. There aren't any new numbers or evaluations introduced, it's just a question of looking at the existing course rankings differently.

In this case they might have gotten the aggregation formula wrong, but that is a technicality that is easy to fix. The real value is the original text written about each architect and the pictures. I suspect that the list might have been received a lot differently if it was organised alphabetically.

Well they got quite a few things wrong in my bio, even with some help from me . . . I have not read the others, and don't know that I should, as I have no idea where they have sourced their material.  Projects like this are much more accountable when there is a byline involved, for me anyway.


I do not think that ranking courses is the same thing as ranking architects.  If they were clear to say "we are ranking architects according to x number of their best courses," or something like that, ok . . . but as is, many will read it to mean something different than that, which no one involved is qualified to do.  Also, without a formula of some kind behind it, it does make one wonder if every place was decided on the merits.


I'm dying to know how they come up with Jack Nicklaus as the #3 designer all time and me at #5.  I mean, I could come up with a formula that puts Jack third, but I can't sort out how my measly 35 designs would be right behind him using that formula.


Some of the placings are so odd that this almost has to be data-driven, but what were the data?  I suspect they have given points for building one of the top five courses in each of the many regions they cover, thereby counting the third-best course in, say, Finland on par with the third-best course in New York.  That's the only way I can imagine some of the modern architects' placings on the list, other than outright bribery.

[George Pazin]

How about this for a way to blend everything together and balance peak with volume?  If all golf courses were converted to public facilities with $50 greensfees and you could only play one architect's original designs for the rest of your life with guaranteed 3.5 hour pace of play, which architect would you pick?  You have a teleporter to get you to the location and you have the option to convert the course to the original layout with retro or modern conditioning if you choose. 


If you pick Crump, you are stuck playing one course.  If you pick Pete Dye, you have courses all of the country to choose from.  If you go with someone with even more courses, you have diminishing returns as you'll never use most of them.

This is actually a really interesting concept. I’d almost say, here is your limited basket, and break down courses by some desirablility number. Then, like fantasy sports (early days, no clue how it works now), you have XXXX dollars to spend locking in courses for your life. You can pick 4 top course, or 2 top and 6 middle, or 1 top and 20 lower, etc. and that’s it for you, for life.


I know I could pick a handful of courses I’d be happy with playing forever, and the crazy thing is I’ve probably only played one of them....

[Nigel Islam]

The first thing that jumped out at me was the RTJ Junior was ranked ahead of his father. Also that Raynor was ranked ahead of MacDonald.