Unsolicited Recommendation for GM : Standardize Design Credit

[Jeff Schley]

Now is a good opportunity to lead from the front.  With Ran taking the reins as the editor for their rankings, this is another area that needs to be tackled.  It won't be solved overnight, but GM can take the lead by using their panel and "The Commission" (read below) to decide who gets design credit for XYZ course. When publishing their rankings they can only post who they believe should get the attribution. It matters not that everyone adopts it, just like some other entities may not agree (GD, Top100golfcourses, the course itself), but for those who value things being correct and consistent it will be another enhancement and move the standard forward.  As with any change management process it will be a titanic turn type of shift, but one that has to start somewhere and now there is some leverage to do that.

Starting with what constitutes design credit itself. This is a controversial topic because some on this site and the GM panel's livelihood is dependent on getting as much credit as possible.  However, the design credit shenanigans have been all over the map. There is an agency problem that is evident as courses want to put the biggest name as the designer regardless, GCA's certainly wouldn't mind as much credit as they can get, and magazines which publish this aggregation are a gatekeeper for the public knowledge and want to sell magazines. 


There isn't a neutral party which decides who should get what, and GM deciding to undertake this standardization won't equal that either.  However, they can be the one entity which even attempts to do so. It won't be perfect perhaps, but it is a start and I would submit to Ran and GM that this is a worthy exercise to educate the reading public while also further differentiating themselves from other publications and rankings.

So what constitutes design credit? 
As no one really cares what I think (nor should they  ) as I'm not even in the industry, I'd like others on here to try and dial in what I will propose.

• There should ideally be only 1 designer listed unless there has been a significant renovation that has occurred and presently still on the ground. We are already in the deep s..t! haha, but let's put on our s..t boots and trudge ahead nonetheless. We know that some courses have 2/3 or more renovations where the course has markedly changed over the years.
• I propose putting down the original architect as well as those architects who still have their "significant renovation" work still on the ground.  Yes, this will eliminate some GCA's whose work has been deleted for credit, but it doesn't mean it didn't happen and still should be on their resumes with an explanation of why they are no longer listed.

Who gets design credit?

• Original designer - is listed
• Significant renovation still on the ground- is listed
• Restoration - NOT listed

• What is a "significant renovation"?  Good questions and I don't have an easy answer, I would submit that work where 6 or more holes have been re-routed or markedly changed.  This is 1/3 of the holes. I'm open to 9 or more being the standard, just a starting point, but this is where you can identify a sandbox with borders to see if it fits or not.
• Should restorations be listed?  I think absolutely not IMO.  That isn't to dimish the work being done, but design means routing and layout. If you are building a house it is being the architect of the house, not the carpenter, painter, HVAC, etc. You are the one who decides where to put the walls, kitchen, beams, etc. As there are a lot more restorations going on nowadays since new courses aren't being built nearly as much this is a blow to some GCA's resumes we all understand, but an important distinction should be made here.

Research & Data

• You can't rush through this process. We need data and evidence and it will only have to be done once (good news). Then you have a baseline for all courses. Here is where you need some Sven/Mike Cirba/many others on here type of depth for courses whose pedigree has changed over the years. It won't be a quick exercise and will take man hours in some cases I'm sure. It will take research and factual evidence to sway the deciding authority. What we need first is evidence.
• GM will have to select a team to help decipher the history of certain courses, and allow a course to participate (if they choose) for they are invested in this process and put the onus on them to prove it is Alistar MacKenzie or whoever. Courses may boycott this request all together as you are messing with their brand, sorry such is predictable in the oversight process. Once you have the standard established you are deciding if it meets the standard or not.
• You have the panelists from GM who have a ocean of knowledge that can be a part of the legwork, although my sense is that many of these panelists are too busy to participate a great deal. Not an easy answer as you need knowledgeable researchers to work with clubs and others cooperatively.
• Localization of researchers. You can group your manpower by where they live.  UK based guys can be that team, East coast guys can do that area, etc.

All Courses?

• Prioritize the courses as I don't think all are needed for they won't be ranked. How about the 430 courses that the GM panel voted on to start? Not a small task, but much less than the thousands around the word.  As we say, "architecturally significant" courses should be vetted first and foremost.

Who Decides?

• Power, influence..... corruption you say?  Nahhhh.  Well whoever it is, it is most assured that like the rankings that were complied by Ran and the Panelist, it won't be without controversy.  That doesn't mean it isn't a worthwhile cause to try and hit as close to a standard as possible. Embrace the controversy by pointing to the standard. Humans are fallible but hopefully this group will over time become a respected authority.
• There needs to be an approving authority I'm going to nickname "The Commission", which is a tongue in cheek name for what the mafia had back in the day (or maybe still today). I'll call it the "TC" for short. Who is on the "TC"? I'll leave that to Ran or GM to decide, just like he selected his Panelists. But it should be a transparent organization with a public criteria and members.

So there you have the pie in the sky, it will never work, good luck with that, altruistic, total BS proposal. As a details oriented person who is persnickety with facts, as many of us here are, this should appeal to at least one other person on here right?



What do you think? As we have pointed out numerous times there is a problem in this area and now I think GM can further their influence with an objective service to the industry to help differentiate their magazine as well as enhancement to the rankings. Is it a Netflix idea or a Bing search engine idea?

Edit: formatting always it seems

[Tom_Doak]

I agree this would be great.


There would be some difficulty applying your standard of six or more holes "markedly changed".  I would say it's fairly rare for a redesign to re-route that many holes, once vegetation has matured around the previous routing.  So your "marked change" would be a judgment call as to whether work to the greens and/or the bunkers constitutes change.  Personally, I would say that moving bunkers around is not enough to qualify, you have to change a bunch of greens to cross the threshold to where the course is yours.  Even then, as we discussed about my company's work at Concord last week, I'm not sure if that's enough or not.

ADDING:  There are also some cases where a redesign is so thorough that the original designer's name shouldn't be listed anymore.  For sure, the developer who built the original nine holes at Crystal Downs should not be mentioned - part of one green is left.  And I'm not sure a place like The National in Australia should still list Michael Wolveridge, since there are only a handful of holes still in the same place, all new greens, etc.


This will not happen, though.  Ran is too invested in the idea of improving classic courses by restoring them, and to promote that idea, he almost has to talk about who is doing the work.  And for a lot of architects, it's the only work they've got, so they are going to lobby heavily to get their names in print.

[Thomas Dai]

Jeff, you’ve obviously put a great deal of time and effort into writing this so well done. Nicely thought provoking.
Reading it got me pondering music. For example, which version of “All along the watchtower” are folks most likely to immediatley recall, the Hendrix version or the original Dylan and what proportion even think Jimi wrote it?
Similarly, many of The Beatles recordings were published or credited as ‘Lennon & McCartney’ although only one of them may supposedly have written it.
It’s certainly nice though when leaders openly and without being encouraged into doing so give credit to those working for/with them. It says a great deal about the leader when they do this and it also says a lot when they don’t!
ATb

[V_Halyard]

Great post Jeff and this is a topic I have been discussing at both our course and a couple of others that have significant renovation and restoration.
We follow your line of thinking and have added a specific decision block, the "Master Plan".
We credit the Original/Historical Architects. (Two Dead ones)
Next we recognize the Current Architect that generated and executed the Master Plan.
Truthfully, our course originally designed by the dead guys was great but incomplete with a to-be-executed bunker plan.
Evolution and urbanization required significant design, flood mitigation, infrastructure, bunker competing and updating.
This is heavy lifting that should be recognized.
We extended it to future alterations, which must be preformed and approved by our current architects of record, the ones that generated and executed our Master Plan in force.
If said architects are unavailable, the bylaw specs that we must retain a contemporary architect recognized as a leader in classic course contemporization and restoration.
Lastly, this informs our information and collateral including the score card.
We list the Original Architects (Dead) and the Current Architect (Live) that generated the Master Plan and oversaw the Majority Restoration of  the current course.
Lastly we add Majority Restoration which can be subjective. IMO, this credit should represent more than just moving tee boxes and rebuilding a bunker or two.

[Tom_Doak]

Except that Majority Restoration can mean whatever you want it to mean, like bullshit.

[Mike Sweeney]

Who Decides?

• There needs to be an approving authority I'm going to nickname "The Commission", which is a tongue in cheek name for what the mafia had back in the day (or maybe still today). I'll call it the "TC" for short. Who is on the "TC"? I'll leave that to Ran or GM to decide, just like he selected his Panelists. But it should be a transparent organization with a public criteria and members.

So there you have the pie in the sky, it will never work, good luck with that, altruistic, total BS proposal. As a details oriented person who is persnickety with facts, as many of us here are, this should appeal to at least one other person on here right?

Jeff,

I applaud your attempt, and now here comes the cold water. 

In a different piece of my life, a building that I am involved with (development team, certainly not as architect) is about to win an architecture award in December. We have been notified, but it has not been announced. The building has not been built, but we are excited that the award will bring attention to the project and will hopefully give us a bump to actually get the thing built. In a perfect world, that building will last for 100's of years without any major renovations, which is one of the reasons it will win the award. The building will basically never change.

One of the interesting appeals to golf and golf course architecture, is the architecture literally changes every day when the Super decides to cut the green, not water the grass, move the fairway, and/or not replace the sand that was removed by golf shots the day before. Then you have Mother Nature that constantly changes a course. Then you have outside influences such as changing neighborhoods and such.

Another interesting thing about golf course architecture is: 1) we have architects here on GCA that belong to the American Society of Golf Course Architects, and 2) those architects that say, screw that, with Tom Doak dominating that conversation. 

Now nobody at The Naval Academy cares what I think about the Naval Academy Golf Course, but I have been following Andrew Green's work and I actually did a quick visit to see the work last Sunday when I was in Annapolis. This is from Green's Twitter account:



Now Green has been talking/looking/planning this renovation for 15+ years, and he changed par on some holes on the back, and moved and added some bunkers. I genuinely believe he tried to stay true to Flynn while adopting to the realities of:

• They play NCAA golf here, so the modern game has to be factored in.
• Over the years, some of the holes were changed back in the day to accommodate other Navy priorities, so it was never possible to go back to the original.

I have never met Andrew Green, and every impression is he would favor "Flynn" being listed as Architect. I would argue that it should be listed as a "Flynn - Green" golf course, but would wait to see more when the course re-opens next Fall of 2020.

I can't imagine any outside committee of golf goobers could ever understand the nuances of the Naval Academy Golf Course. One of the Admirals on the "Friends of Navy Golf" committee is well known to many of us here at GCA, so let's let them decide the "design credit" rather than Team Ran's Committee.

[Peter Pallotta]

Good post, Mike. But: 
You write (as per the difference between a 'building' and a 'golf course'): "One of the interesting appeals to golf and golf course architecture, is the architecture literally changes every day"
See, I think you're wrong there - or at least, I reveal my perspective on the OP's question by thinking that you're wrong:
To me, a golf course basically *never* changes, unless architects are brought in purposely to change it -- and even then those 'changes' have to be very significant indeed to be worthy of the word
My perspective: a golf course is its *routing*. Full stop.
Re-contour the greens, cut down trees, move some bunkers and play with their looks, improve the irrigation system etc -- all work that sometimes needs to be done and is often done very well, and is even more often very eye catching and media worthy.
But unless the course has been re-routed, it hasn't *changed*.
And to paraphrase/alter the famous Joe H line: the only reason we say it's changed is because there's no 'money' in saying less. No new/enhanced profile for architects, no articles to write for the magazines, no loving video profiles to shoot for bloggers, and no increased membership dues/initiation fees for clubs themselves.
Tell me who routed the golf course (or very intensively re-routed it) and I'll tell you who should get the design credit.
IMHO   

PS - talk about something that does change, and in some ways everyday: our bodies. A little heavier one day, lighter the next; freshly shaven vs scruffy, slobby from too much time on the couch or buffed out after a year lifting weights etc. But my *bone structure* is what 'gives me shape' and 'defines' me -- the bones in my face and back and legs etc. And no matter what changes take place, everyone who knows me recognizes me as 'me' all the time. The bones are the routing. And no amount of (even extensive) cosmetic surgery is going to have me looking like Robert Redford or Peter Lorre or Mike Sweeney. 


 

[V_Halyard]

Except that Majority Restoration can mean whatever you want it to mean, like bullshit.

True enough, which is why we use "Master Plan" of the architect as the lock out against future bullshit changes.

[Mike Sweeney]

Tell me who routed the golf course (or very intensively re-routed it) and I'll tell you who should get the design credit.
IMHO   

Shinnecock, Merion East, and Naval Academy GC are interesting counters to your point because:

• William Flynn did the re-routing of Merion East when Ardmore Avenue was expanded (and then you have the old Merion arguments of Macdonald or Hugh Wilson did the original course);
• William Flynn did an extensive re-routing of Macdonald's Shinnecock when the highway came in;
• William Flynn did a complete re-do of Greenbury Point Yacht & CC for Navy in 1938, and Andrew Green re-routed the Navy course in 2019.

I would also argue that green surfaces are on par with routing for making an interesting golf course, and with Gil Hanse softening greens at Merion East in the name of "modern green speeds", he should get some of the blame/credit for new-Merion-East.


How would you credit those three courses?

[Tom_Doak]

"Softening" contours is not the same as deciding where they should be, and in no circumstances should that warrant design credit.  The rationale is that you are trying to make the green play the same as it did in the original design.


Flynn re-routed holes 1, 10, 11, 12, 13 when he re-did Merion.  That's right on the cusp of enough change for the standard proposed, which I think is about right.


His re-routing of Shinnecock Hills was more substantial than that, and definitely warrants credit . . . I haven't looked but I would bet that Flynn gets the sole credit for Shinnecock on the GOLF Magazine list now.

[Carl Rogers]

Why not just admit that the history of many courses is convoluted and complex, thus just document what happened, when it happened & who did it?  And let the reader-observer-golfer make up there own minds.
Should Gil Hanse be given sole credit for P#4?  Don't know.  I remember reading that part of the resort close to the clubhouse has had a lot of re-purposing over time.

[Mike Sweeney]

"Softening" contours is not the same as deciding where they should be, and in no circumstances should that warrant design credit.  The rationale is that you are trying to make the green play the same as it did in the original design.

And the "arms race" for green speed continues as a leading architect "rationalizes" the destruction of 5th and 12th greens at Merion GC.


This is like a doctor watching a 6'4" 260 pound NFL Defensive End who can run a 4.4 forty smash into a small receiver. At what point do you stop rationalizing the viewing, and express that the size and speed of the players is a problem for their future health?


With two US Opens at Shinnecock being "heavily influenced" by green speeds, I think golf is past that point. At least from a tournament course perspective.


If Ran wants to really make a contribution to golf, he should pull Augusta National GC OFF the list. Its design, updated to accommodate The Masters' conditioning, is not good for historical golf architecture. Yale got pulled from a list or two, and look what happened at Yale. It got better. Yale now quotes a "leading architect" updated views on the bold design which includes some severe greens that probably can't handle anything over an 11 on the STIMP (my guess on STIMP, not Tom's words).


There should be NO standardization in golf, but there can be constructive feedback from architects and advocates. Augusta National can and will do whatever they want> however, when they start getting pulled from Golf.com's architecture list, I believe they will take notice.


Augusta is the key sauce to the equipment issues that plague tournament golf, and Ran can easily spark a conversation now that he is the head of Golf.com architecture. Right or wrong, he is no longer just the head of his quirky golf site.

[Tom_Doak]

I hate that arms race you talk about, and if Gil has destroyed the fifth green at Merion, then I regret having taken him there in the first place.  I have not seen it myself, as I'm scared to go back.


But then, years ago I would have been the one to chain myself on the 11th green at Crystal Downs if someone wanted to change it - and this fall, I oversaw the changes to it, with pretty much everyone at the club cheering it on.  There is a line, somewhere, between severe and unmanageable, and modern maintenance had taken it over the line.


I can't wait for the day Ran boots Augusta off the list, but I think you are hallucinating.  I only just noticed that the byline on the story of Augusta's drop was our own Tuco Ramirez!

[Ian Andrew]

There have always been a lot of questions about design credit. It used to be an issue for the associates within a large firm. It would often be a contentious issue when two architects went there separate ways after being in business together. It can be an issue after a major renovation is done.

Let’s start with the idea of renovation and restoration. In any restoration, the restoring architect should never get credit for the work. That pretty much eliminates me from ever making an important list. I'm fine with this, because I strongly believe that should be the case. Even a project as ambitious as Oak Hill, Merion, Bel Air, etc. should not make any national or international list. The original architect should be the only one listed.

I personally think that an architect must add at least a couple of "great" holes, there is an ambiguous aspect of quality attached to this caveat, before there is any credit given. Simply adding or replacing a few holes is meaningless for attribution. The golf course has to dramatically improve through that change, like say a California GC, for attribution to be due.

A bunker job or rebuilding a few green is not enough. Where it gets grey is rebuilding all 18 greens, and personally I think it would take conceptually changing the way the holes play because of the work to be worthy of co-design credit.

I have always believed that whoever routed the golf course should still be given co-design credit for the course. Even if all the other elements eventually change in a rebuild. Routing is so essential that even just a routing is enough to be listed as the designer or co-designer.

Since it does happen, I think if another architect picks up the rest of the project after a routing is set, they should get credit as a co-designer. On the other hand, I think if the architect is in the field on behalf of the firm, but does not have a the final call on every aspect the design of the holes; they should not get any credit. The person who get to make the final call is the architect. I've been that person making 75% of the decisions, but not with the final call, I am therefore not the designer of record. That's tough to take for some, but if you work for someone, that's you place in the project.

I think if an associate has laid out the course and taken it to completion on behalf of a company they should get sole design credit, but that is rare in this business. But as an associate, if the owner or architect wants to keep the architects name on the project. We have to respect that as their choice. I know you want to separate these out. But once again as someone who would benefit on a couple Canadian projects, you don't get to do that. It's the owner's right and besides, you'll never have all the information to know enough to make the call.

We like to receive the credit for the work I do. It helps me get my next project. It's why some architects take more credit than they deserve on projects and make their role ambiguous in their web sites. I struggle with that aspect, but that's between them and the architect of record to get straight. I know its hard to survive and for that reason I actually understand the latitude some feel is necessary.

What's important when people research attribution is that has gone on for 100 years. For example, I can now definitively prove Capilano was not done by RTJ. I'll either post it here or publish the stupid book on line...
I guess what I'm trying to say is be careful of what/who your using as your source. While we love to be the detective that figures out a new narrative, the truth matters more than a good story, When it comes to attribution, getting back to a simpler attribution system would be healthier.

[Joe Hancock]

This thread really brings forth the reality that one can’t really separate the art form from the business. It’s all about your ability to compromise in a way that you can be honest and true to yourself.


Everyone who plays golf is a steward of the game. Everyone who earns a living from golf owes a higher level of stewardship to the game. Unfortunately, it seems that, like in politics, those who start with the most money can outspend the rest, thus dictating the outcome. Green speeds, maintenance levels, irrigation systems, clubs and balls, rules, etc......name one of those things that isn’t driven by money?

[Mike Sweeney]

This thread really brings forth the reality that one can’t really separate the art form from the business. It’s all about your ability to compromise in a way that you can be honest and true to yourself.


Everyone who plays golf is a steward of the game. Everyone who earns a living from golf owes a higher level of stewardship to the game. Unfortunately, it seems that, like in politics, those who start with the most money can outspend the rest, thus dictating the outcome. Green speeds, maintenance levels, irrigation systems, clubs and balls, rules, etc......name one of those things that isn’t driven by money?

Joe,

That's a very thoughtful post about the "art form", and being a "Stewart" of the game. In  terms of:

Green speeds, maintenance levels, irrigation systems, clubs and balls, rules, etc......name one of those things that isn’t driven by money?

I would argue that Rules can go either way. I played yesterday in 45 degree weather so I was bound to play the local course conditioning and weather conditions, but I could have easily declared on the 1st tee.  "I am playing Ted Dexter Rules today" rather than USGA rules."

https://finegolf.co.uk/2010/01/25/ted-dexters-ten-commandments/

But again, a thoughtful post that Jeff seems to attract on his threads. 

[Jeff Schley]

  "I am playing Ted Dexter Rules today" rather than USGA rules."

https://finegolf.co.uk/2010/01/25/ted-dexters-ten-commandments/

But again, a thoughtful post that Jeff seems to attract on his threads. 

Is there time for Ted Dexter to be a write in candidate for the upcoming UK election?  TED DEXTER for Prime Minister and so many things I predict will run much more smoothly. Mike contact facebook and the Russians to fund some ads real quick, I have Roger Stone's email if you need some reinforcements.

[Tom_Doak]

I would argue that Rules can go either way. I played yesterday in 45 degree weather so I was bound to play the local course conditioning and weather conditions, but I could have easily declared on the 1st tee.  "I am playing Ted Dexter Rules today" rather than USGA rules."

https://finegolf.co.uk/2010/01/25/ted-dexters-ten-commandments/

Actually, it looks as though Ted Dexter got the USGA and the R & A to see his side of things.  The revised Rules include his recommendations on changing the out-of-bounds rule, and the time you have to search for a lost ball.


Is it weird that common sense simplification for the Rules of Golf had to come from an English cricketer, to be accepted by the R & A ?  It is to me, although the R & A isn't really run by Scotsmen anymore. 


I don't imagine that the Scots who wrote the Rules to begin with could have imagined how slow visiting Americans could play, but I'd guess that if they did, the solution would have been to ban them, rather than to change the Rules.

[Thomas Dai]

[quote author=Jeff Schley link=topic=67790.msg1621931#msg1621931 date=1575216362
Is there time for Ted Dexter to be a write in candidate for the upcoming UK election?

No and track record is important .... he made a right mess of being Chairman of Selectors of the England cricket team ... and in England, Old Boy, what, what, jolly hockey sticks and all that, selecting the England cricket team is a significant matter.
Atb

[Jeff Schley]

cricket

Wait.... is that a sport? 

[Thomas Dai]

cricket
[/quote
Wait.... is that a sport? 

... for some more a religion!
atb

[Ira Fishman]

Do architects ever have a say in how a course will describe credit for a restoration or renovation?  Do they ever put in their contract with the course?


Somewhat independently, I am curious if Tom knows what Washington Golf and CC will say on their website. It currently advertises that Flynn and Ross designed it although I do not think there was much Flynn there. My memory is that some of Tom's Associates and a former Associate are doing a major redo although I think Tom said that they are using most of the corridors. Fair to keep Flynn and Ross as architects? Necessary or at least proper to add Renaissance related folks?


Thanks,


Ira

[jeffwarne]

"Softening" contours is not the same as deciding where they should be, and in no circumstances should that warrant design credit.  The rationale is that you are trying to make the green play the same as it did in the original design.

And the "arms race" for green speed continues as a leading architect "rationalizes" the destruction of 5th and 12th greens at Merion GC.


This is like a doctor watching a 6'4" 260 pound NFL Defensive End who can run a 4.4 forty smash into a small receiver. At what point do you stop rationalizing the viewing, and express that the size and speed of the players is a problem for their future health?


With two US Opens at Shinnecock being "heavily influenced" by green speeds, I think golf is past that point. At least from a tournament course perspective.


If Ran wants to really make a contribution to golf, he should pull Augusta National GC OFF the list. Its design, updated to accommodate The Masters' conditioning, is not good for historical golf architecture. Yale got pulled from a list or two, and look what happened at Yale. It got better. Yale now quotes a "leading architect" updated views on the bold design which includes some severe greens that probably can't handle anything over an 11 on the STIMP (my guess on STIMP, not Tom's words).


There should be NO standardization in golf, but there can be constructive feedback from architects and advocates. Augusta National can and will do whatever they want> however, when they start getting pulled from Golf.com's architecture list, I believe they will take notice.


Augusta is the key sauce to the equipment issues that plague tournament golf, and Ran can easily spark a conversation now that he is the head of Golf.com architecture. Right or wrong, he is no longer just the head of his quirky golf site.

Tom Doak literally wrote the book that helped many of us form our views on green speeds and contours (I am often reminded of that when I am in the "library") As a businessman I understand why he might be involved in reducing slope after ego driven speeds drive architecture to the point of unplayability. (Tom like all of us realize the proble isn't the architecture at all but the maintenance arms race but at some point playability has to return if sanity won't)
I'm sure Tom Doak agrees with this and thus his word choice, but my quibble is that reducing slope to accomodate speed absolutely DOES NOT make a green play "the same". Maybe the putting(if you like everything to play about the same speed whether uphill or downhill) but never the effect of tilt and slope on chipping, pitching and approaches.A ball struck from 150 yards takes a far bigger bounce to the side on a 4 degree slope stimping 8 than it does on a 1.5 degree green stimping 12.5. And that doesn't even account for how often faster greens are softer(and therefore first bounce even less) due to needing to keep them more moist at such a reduced height.


On a side note, at a local driving range I was speaking with a Palmetto member and several other locals  and the GOLF 100 list came up- I mentioned Ohoopee at 98(about 80 miles from there)and he hadn't heard of it.
Interestingly, they were all aware ANGC had fallen to 9 and were shocked and gave little credibility to the list.
It was universally agreed the list was poor with St. Andrews at #1 as it is too easy.....


We are indeed a small group...

[Mark_Fine]

I am sorry I don't have the time to read all the posts (I did see a photo though of some bunkers that don't look like Flynn but that is a totally different topic)    Why not just use the format that Cornish & Whitten use in The Architects of Golf?  If for example someone changed one hole, they cite it.  It is not perfect and those of us who have done research know there are mistakes but it is a pretty amazing effort they took on and they did exceptionally well.