Ranking Architects

[Tom_Doak]

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.

If you give Raynor co-credit for most of Macdonald's courses, too, then it's easy to see how he gets in front.  Plus, Raynor did a lot more courses on his own than Macdonald did.  That's one reason I suspect they ranked the architects on the basis of more than just their top ten designs.

[Tony_Muldoon]

A small point about the maths.


This has to incorporate the value of the score given on their website for each of the architects courses, aggregated.  The course score is an average of the posted ratings, or more correctly it's  the mean. This is not a figure you can reliably multiply against some other value and expect it to have any meaningful significance. To use the raw data (which has value) you would need another algorithm again, to account for the differing nos of reviews each course receives.


 Further I think they have admitted the score they give each course is 'adjusted' (or kept in line with received public opinion aka playing safe) presumably to account for the different experience,knowledge and preferences of all their posters.


I.e.  They start with corrupt maths, feed it into a hidden formula and expect it to Have meaning?

[Jeff Schley]

I will only point out a few that I think should be included or higher.

Langford & Moreau - should be included.
C.B. Macdonald - would have him higher
William Flynn - higher
Bendelow - higher
Strantz - higher

Only one woman Alice Dye at 60.  Maybe include Jan Bel Jan.

[Jud_T]

Fazio over Ross?
Norman over Alison and Raynor?
 
Honestly Top 100 Courses isn’t a bad place to look for course options, if not absolute rankings, but this doesn’t help their branding much.

[Mark_Fine]

Like any list, they will always be "wrong" and always "subjective", but if they bring attention to the topic, the pros often outweigh the cons. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

I once joked that for course ratings, eventually someone would take all the ratings and average them (sort of like NCAA college football rankings) which would presumably even out any biases.  Same might apply to architects, this coming from the guy who is obviously ranked 101 by that publication......


My tendency would be to try to make it mathematical to reduce bias, and average the criteria.  Could be one point for every 18 hole course:


Opened - Would naturally put Ross and RTJ near the top of the list, but like Hank Aaron, Longevity Counts)
Ok, longevity, years in business (which would discount Crump quite a bit)
Totally remodeled (maybe two categories, one for tournament specific and the other just because someone sought out their style
Top 100 (perhaps point being 100-ranking so the higher ranked courses would get a few more points
Top 200 (same as above)
Major Tournament Host
PGA tour host
Regional tournament venues
Number of Top 100 (500) holes as nominated by various books and magazines, shows they know what to do when they get a chance)


Number of Countries Worked
No. of States/Provinces Worked
Number of Associates who eventually had their own firms.


I think this would give due to longevity and prolific careers, as it should IMHO.  If that is too top heavy, give a half point for pure numbers, perhaps.  It would also reward designing top courses, putting a Fazio over a Farley, for example.  Successful Associates would be a measure of how much you influenced design past your prime.  The countries and states worked presumes that you were well enough known to be sought out, so national architects would rank ahead of regional ones, like Ralph Plummer.  Yes, the categories still influence the outcome.

I suppose you could add other point rankings as you saw fit, like walkability, etc.  In the age of excel, anyone undertaking this could have a thousand categories, and then use the search function to re-order the list by favorite category, producing more content for the blog (And, hey it would be your ranking, I'm not taking the time to do it.) However, if anyone would offer other categories that would help the system, I would be interested in hearing other thoughs.

I already presume half of you think it would be BS, so no need to chime in, LOL.  I understand, and its not like I thought about this until after my second coffee of the day.  Its a fun exercise to contemplate what such a system should look like, again, IMHO, but I think we all suspect the list wouldn't be much more satisfactory than the one in the OT.  I know some of you would put Crump near the top, but he would be limited to 101 points (1 for the course, and 99-100 for its general ranking)  So, he would start well behind Ross and RTJ who would have about 400 in the total course categories.  That might be my bias as an architect.

[Brad Tufts]

Wow, good discussion!


The list is wacky...like many of the website's US state lists its decent at the top and gets wackier as you go down the list.


I've read most everything and followed this industry closely for 20 years, and there were like 4 people on this list I'd never heard of!


I feel like using the rankings is the only way to numerically do it, but obviously there will be small sample sizes for those that only have done one or two prominent projects.  Peak value is difficult for the same reason.  Maybe career and peak value combined somehow, like how the Black/gray ink and HOF monitor on baseball reference sort of combine to indicate greatness. 


The one or two-hit wonder list (maybe separate from the big list) would be pretty fun too.

[Garland Bayley]

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?

You and Bill Diddel are the obvious omissions!

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:


I actually kind of like your idea, if we are going to define a great career as accumulative.  Bill James did something similar, setting up a "Hall of Fame monitor" that assesses whether a player is tracking toward the Hall of Fame by awarding points for every time he wins an award, hits .300, hits 30 or more HR, plays on a pennant-winning team, etc.


We could do the same for GCA.  Start with two points per course designed, or one per course remodeled.  Add another point if the course is still open.  Then add points for courses that are ranked in all different publications and on down the scale . . . so that a great course is worth maybe 5 or 10 points, like giving one point for each of these:


Ranked in top 5 in its state or region by top100golfcourses
Ranked as best in its state or region
Ranked in top 100 on its continent  [not a fair fight between the USA and Australia/NZ or Africa; might have to come up with something else here based on % of courses on each continent]
Ranked in top 200 in the world
Ranked in top 100 in the world
Ranked in top 50 in the world
Ranked in top 10 in the world


Come to think of it, this would be a fair way to estimate the Doak Scale ranking for each course:  it gets a "3" if it's alive and ticking, and after that the standards are pretty high.


This system would put Ross and Nicklaus and Trent Jones on top [1200 points before it matters what they built!].  You could also just give them one point per course, they'd still wind up ahead but at least it would be theoretically possible to catch them if you designed all 50 of the best courses in the world.   

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,


As I typed, I thought about a point for a course that is still open, figuring longevity of the course itself would mean it had somehow proven itself as worthy, too worthy to tear out.  I suppose you could also subtract a point for courses closed.  Yes, some are random not related to design quality, but it would all even out.  If an architect had designed 20 courses and 10 were NLE, would that say something?


I also think your other points would probably be valuable additions.  That said, offering two points for new courses, while nicely distinguishing between that and renovations, would put the Ross and Jones guys even further ahead to start.  Maybe 1 for still open, and 1 for new, 0.5 for renovations would keep the list a little closer, and involve quality proportionally more to pure quantity?  By quantity only, Bendelow might give Jones a run for his money.


And, if implemented, I could see some architect falling just below another, and investigation whether that new course of another was in reality a remodel?  The end result is going to be more and more parsing, and as we all know, good ideas can get polluted pretty quickly by self interest.

[John Connolly]

I couldn't get past the 5th page ... I kept blowing milk through my nose.

[JBovay]

How about this metric, based on the Eddington number (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Eddington#Eddington_number_for_cycling) or h-index? This system would recognize architects with a portfolio of excellent courses, rewarding both quality and quantity equally.


Place architects into tiers based on the number of courses they've designed that score at least a certain number of points on a 10-point scale:


Average: At least 5 courses that score at least 5/10
Notable: At least 6 courses that score at least 6/10
Exceptional: At least 7 courses that score at least 7/10
Legendary: At least 8 courses that score at least 8/10


If you change the scale, say to a 100-point scoring system, the ordering of the list would change dramatically.

[Adam Lawrence]

The Top 100 guys are good friends of mine.


So this is all I will say about this exercise. The methodology behind their course ratings is shrouded in secrecy and produces some frankly flakey results. It's pretty clearly based on an agglomeration of lots of different data sources. Otherwise they could not possibly rank the number of courses, or produce the number of rankings, that they do.


Consequently, if this architect rating is based fundamentally on their course ratings, I see no way it cannot be shrouded in mystery and flakey.

[Tom_Doak]

How about this metric, based on the Eddington number (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Eddington#Eddington_number_for_cycling) or h-index? This system would recognize architects with a portfolio of excellent courses, rewarding both quality and quantity equally.


Place architects into tiers based on the number of courses they've designed that score at least a certain number of points on a 10-point scale:


Average: At least 5 courses that score at least 5/10
Notable: At least 6 courses that score at least 6/10
Exceptional: At least 7 courses that score at least 7/10
Legendary: At least 8 courses that score at least 8/10


If you change the scale, say to a 100-point scoring system, the ordering of the list would change dramatically.

That would pair with the Doak Scale pretty well.  There would be the usual handful of suspects at 8, a somewhat larger list of talented designers at 7, and a lot more guys at 6.  Although, the Doak Scale is pretty stingy, so some of the big names might not have scored as many 7's as they would expect - for example I doubt RTJ has seven 7's out of all we have seen of his work.

[Bruce Bearer]

The 
Here's a few quotes from the Top 100 Architects page - They clearly state they don't attempt to RANK the architects.
   "...we decided to ...define a scoring system such that we could reasonably identify the Top 100 Architects."


"We’ve stopped short of actually ranking the architects, as we felt that might be a step too far."

[/size][size=78%]Tom introduced the words "Ranking Architects", not Top 100.  [/size]



And, as Tom said, ranking architects "...seems pointless to me. ... I prefer to rate courses, not architects". Why try to come up with a ranking now?

They put together what I think is a pretty nice piece of work. If you look at the bio for each architect it has a list, with photos, of courses the architect designed.  I haven't seen anything like this before so I think I'll just say "Thanks, Top 100!" and now we have a place to find 100 "Top" architects and their courses. 

[Mike_Young]

Well,  why not rank the Top 300 and just put everyone who has ever designed a course on the list?
As one who doesn't expect to be ranked but is not intimidated by the rankings I would say that ranking is often a product of which owner  wants it the most.  It's such a small field and there are more than 20-30 who can produce a great product .  But your focus has to be on finding that particular project.  I know plenty of lawyers probably better than a Johnny Cochran or an F Lee Bailey etc.  Same goes for orthopedic surgeons locally who replace hips vs. : the top 10 ortho's" in the Delta Magazine.  So kudos to the guys ranked in the top 100...even an Ernie Els..did Tom Watson make the list? 
BUT THE REAL ISSUE WITH SOCIAL MEDIA AND LIST ETC TODAY IS THE FAKE LIST SUCH AS FAKE NEWS ETC.  Other than on this site drooled over by 1500 basement dwellers, most people don't even know what a golf architect is and could care less.  But in this day of blow-up dolls and imaginary friends etc the millineals now have imaginary golf archies as well as sites.  And if you know how to push social media you can create a hype that was not here a few years ago.  There is a lot of bullshit flying around out there. 
Safest bet will be to continue to take one of the top dudes if you are building a world class project.  This business is not rocket science. 

[Tom_Doak]

Here's a few quotes from the Top 100 Architects page - They clearly state they don't attempt to RANK the architects.
   "...we decided to ...define a scoring system such that we could reasonably identify the Top 100 Architects."


"We’ve stopped short of actually ranking the architects, as we felt that might be a step too far."

[size=78%]Tom introduced the words "Ranking Architects", not Top 100.  [/size]



And, as Tom said, ranking architects "...seems pointless to me. ... I prefer to rate courses, not architects". Why try to come up with a ranking now?

They put together what I think is a pretty nice piece of work. If you look at the bio for each architect it has a list, with photos, of courses the architect designed.  I haven't seen anything like this before so I think I'll just say "Thanks, Top 100!" and now we have a place to find 100 "Top" architects and their courses.

Bruce:


Yes, they said they didn't rank the architects.   But then how do you explain grouping them in pages of ten, and putting the photos in the order that they did?  It sure isn't alphabetical . . . or chronological. 


They were just trying to avoid scrutiny with their disclaimer, but it was clearly a data-driven exercise, even though their data set is a very mixed bag.


I didn't start my post saying these guys are ranking architects.  I said I didn't think it was a good thing to do, but these guys are clearly starting to do it, and if they are then someone should come up with a decent system instead of just letting this exercise be the ranking.  [That's actually pretty similar to the letter I wrote to George Peper in 1983, about the GOLF Magazine ranking of the top 50 courses in the world.]


P.S.  I am sure some architect will add to their web site shortly that they were named one of the top 100 architects . . . the only question is who will consider that a career achievement?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Thinking more about a conceptual scale (admitting Adam and maybe even Mike are right that there will always be questions)


If pure numbers of design projects at one point each gives Ross, JN, etc., too much of a lead, you could give 0.1, 0.25 or 0.5 points per course instead of 1, depending on the weight you give architect longevity.  That said, not sure a "years active" category shouldn't be added.  Again, might make a few points differential.


If you wanted to favor the old guys, you could give a point for each year any of their courses existed.  Merion, designed in 1913, would get 103 points over Pacific Dunes which gets 19.  Would have to update each year.  If that favors old guys too much, could do course longevity by one point per decade, with Merion getting just 10, vs PD at 2 (in a year)  You could even do every year by a tenth,  so Merion could be 10.3, etc.  with computers, partial points should be no problem.


If you want to reward  per cent of excellence, you could count tournament, top 100 as suggested in my first post, with a second ranking based on % of recognized courses vs. total portfolio, adding a category.  Tom Doak (guessing here) could be 4/40 or 10%.  I might be 2-3 for 60 for 3% or so.  Of course, you would have to debate what constitutes recognition, maybe having at least two current magazines rate you courses i some way, etc.  Factoring in historical rankings would be a project in itself.


Anyway there is some merit, at least as much as the mysterious systems Adam mentions, and there would be some transparency, although endless debates as to what should be awarded points.  The biggest problem would be finding a semi retired architect or editor, probably assisted by a bunch of college grad student assistants, to even attempt this more quantifiable method.


Side note, I actually developed a similar system for quickly evaluating courses for consulting reports, coming up with a dozen design criteria I look for, and starting with a point for each on every hole, of a total of 216 maximum points.  For example, short walk between green and tee is a criteria.  A core course would probably get all 18, and a housing course would probably be much less.  Even the core course, a full point would be for less than 200 feet center to center, a half for under 300 feet, etc.


There is obviously some judgement for categories like "uses topography well" but for the most part, if it isn't downright awkward or ugly, it gets the point.  I also added a point for "ambiance" and "exceptional".  And the final ranking would be a percent.  I supposed the last part would be to give a course with 90% an A, 80-90% a B, etc.  Again, I never actually applied this, except as a test of some of my own courses just to see if it worked out as I would expect.  I think it did, but then, was I too easy or too hard on my own work?


Mostly, these list ideas are a result of long plane flights when I can't sleep.

John Connally gives another great potential for architects - did they write anything of value?  And bonus points if they wrote and a statement makes you spit out your milk.

[Tom_Doak]

If you want to reward  per cent of excellence, you could count tournament, top 100 as suggested in my first post, with a second ranking based on % of recognized courses vs. total portfolio, adding a category.  Tom Doak (guessing here) could be 4/40 or 10%.

I might score higher than you'd guess 

[Peter Pallotta]

But really, if there are musicians' musicians (eg pianist Hank Jones, never a household name but very highly rated by his peers) and actors' actors (eg the now almost forgotten Robert Ryan, who Scorcese called one of the greatest actors of all time), surely there must be the architects' architects. Jazz music and film acting are no less 'subjective' arts-crafts than gca, and like architects, pianists and character actors work in fields/mediums  that involve many other people and where so much is beyond their control. So again: cutting through all the real or imagined 'issues' with such a ranking, aren't any of the professionals here willing to tell us simply and clearly who the 'architects' architects' are? I must be missing or misunderstanding something pretty fundamental in this discussion, 'cause I honestly can't understand what's so hard about that.
P

[Tom_Doak]

Peter:  Dr Mackenzie had a pretty good list of guys whom he entrusted to follow through on his concepts:
Perry Maxwell
Robert Hunter
Alex Russell


The reason you won’t see such a list of active practitioners is that the business is just so damned competitive, and there is almost no one who’s happy to give away a good job right now.  I mean, I’ve spoken very highly of a lot of different designers ‘ courses in The Confidential Guide, but I’m not gonna give you their phone numbers and estimated fees 😉. Maybe when I get to 65, or 50 courses - looks like I’ll get to 65 first.

[James Brown]

How about this metric, based on the Eddington number (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Eddington#Eddington_number_for_cycling) or h-index? This system would recognize architects with a portfolio of excellent courses, rewarding both quality and quantity equally.


Place architects into tiers based on the number of courses they've designed that score at least a certain number of points on a 10-point scale:


Average: At least 5 courses that score at least 5/10
Notable: At least 6 courses that score at least 6/10
Exceptional: At least 7 courses that score at least 7/10
Legendary: At least 8 courses that score at least 8/10


If you change the scale, say to a 100-point scoring system, the ordering of the list would change dramatically.

That would pair with the Doak Scale pretty well.  There would be the usual handful of suspects at 8, a somewhat larger list of talented designers at 7, and a lot more guys at 6.  Although, the Doak Scale is pretty stingy, so some of the big names might not have scored as many 7's as they would expect - for example I doubt RTJ has seven 7's out of all we have seen of his work.

I don’t think quantity should matter that much.  I don’t think a one hit wonder gets to win on points, like say Crump or Bob Jones or whatever, but I don’t think being prolific matters that much either,  I would say after 20-30 courses that the quantity factor should disappear. 


When we just other artists, for the most part we judge whether that have “paid their dues.”  I don’t think Nicholas Cage should get bonus points for making more movies...

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom
in truth, not looking for you to actually present such a list (well, not just yet ) -- more to suggest an answer to your original question, ie in my view there is no 'mathematics' possible nor any defensible 'methodology' save for one expert honestly (but, of course, subjectively) assessing the skills & talents of his colleagues past and present.
Peter

[Kalen Braley]

Tom D,

Did you ever get a suitable response for you OP?

I was thinking a bit more about this and what if the rankings were more NBA style where you had different categories with a different leader list.

For example you could "rank" architects based on:

Total number of attributed and verified courses
Total number of top 100 courses
Best course by designer - So guys like Crump and Fownes could make an appearance.
Most courses by Ex-PGA Tour player

Thoughts?

[Jerry Kluger]

How about ranking them with a deduction for bad courses - how many architects would wind up with a negative score?