RT Jones Sr. - GOAT?

[Ken Fry]

Jeff,

If I were a betting man, I'd have to think these two views will be the next thing to go out of fashion in the desert....

[Ben Hollerbach]

Tom,

Do you see this lack of small detail focus as any different than the shifts in style that was experienced in the art and architecture worlds during RTJ's time?

For me, the weakness of Mr. Jones' courses is the lack of small details that make the short game interesting.  His method and time on the ground were not a lot different than Donald Ross's, but using bigger equipment eliminated a lot of the small detail that came naturally in the days that greens were built by real horse power and finished by hand.  In the end, the appeal of construction methods in Mr. Jones' day was "efficiency," but it efficiently reduced character.

To everyone,

Post War America was heavily influenced in looking towards the future and streamlining the world around us. Victorian style homes with their heavy use of filigree transitioned into the simplistic space focused Mid Century Modern design. The same with Post-Modern art bucking the highly detailed works of Neoclassicalism and Realism paintings for more general use of shapes and colors.

The world of art has not yet returned to the classical styles, Contemporary art plays more off of Post-Modern and Expressionist art. the Victorian and Craftsman revivals seem to have run their course, Mid Century is becoming extremely popular once again in architecture and furniture design.  Yet in golf, we seem to refuse to examine the good for what this period may have generated and dismiss it for not matching the stylistic choices of previous design periods. No one today would criticize Picasso for the style he pioneered and demand that his work be painted over in favor of another style.

Without RTJ, would Golf Club Atlas exist today? He took the idea of name brand architecture and made it mainstream. Other architects may have marketed their brand, but it wasn't until the Open Dr. that people demanded architects over courses.

[Jason Thurman]

Michael Jordan is the GOAT.
Pele is the GOAT.
Simone Biles is the GOAT.
Minnesota Fats is the GOAT.


That is the list. RTJ Sr. is not on it.


Ira

I would add only Gretzky and Shakespeare.


GOATs have a few things in common, including prolific production. RTJ checked that box, as Mark notes.


But prolific production alone doesn't make a GOAT. If it did, Kareem would eclipse Jordan. More MVPs, more points, over more years and bolstered by more inches of height. But Jordan wins out because of the transcendent moments.


A GOAT can't just compile a large body of good-to-excellent work. A GOAT has to hit the highest notes of greatness, repeatedly. 63 in the Garden, hit The Shot, make specTACular moves, come back for 72 and a title, strip Malone and rise over Russell, and just bring a level of time-after-time exceptionality that peers can only marvel at. All the greats make it into the record books. GOATs become part of the fabric of our oral history and their journeys become the stories we tell.


RTJ ain't The GOAT. Nor is Kareem. But they probably share a commonality as the most underappreciated Rushmore-level Great of their field. Kareem had the most productive basketball career ever, spending 10 years as the game's best player and another 10 as an elite championship-level all-star. He built his game around his signature move. If he didn't do as much never-before-seen stuff as Jordan, it's because his bread-and-butter game was so splendidly unstoppable that he didn't really need to. There are four unassailable names that should top any knowledgeable basketball fan's list of greatest players ever. Kareem is one of them, and probably the one most likely to get overlooked by an armchair critic.


THAT sounds more like RTJ to me. Wildly prolific, dominant in his era, a little more one-dimensional than the guys often placed above him, but he might have had the most bankable "signature" moves. The comparison probably insults Kareem a bit, in the sense that I wouldn't consider it nearly as unforgivable for a GCA aficionado to omit RTJ from their all-time top 4 architects list as I would consider a Kareem omission on the all-time top 4 basketball players ever. Kareem won 6 titles and 6 MVPs. RTJ might have peaked with the fourth or fifth best course on 17 Mile Drive. But considering his prolific portfolio, consistent good-to-great work, and influence on both design and the business of architecture, it's real hard to put him lower than 5th or 6th, albeit in a shallower and less competitive field.

[Sven Nilsen]

On the Mount Rushmore of GCA, he doesn’t make the cut.

[Ira Fishman]

Michael Jordan is the GOAT.
Pele is the GOAT.
Simone Biles is the GOAT.
Minnesota Fats is the GOAT.


That is the list. RTJ Sr. is not on it.


Ira

I would add only Gretzky and Shakespeare.


GOATs have a few things in common, including prolific production. RTJ checked that box, as Mark notes.


But prolific production alone doesn't make a GOAT. If it did, Kareem would eclipse Jordan. More MVPs, more points, over more years and bolstered by more inches of height. But Jordan wins out because of the transcendent moments.


A GOAT can't just compile a large body of good-to-excellent work. A GOAT has to hit the highest notes of greatness, repeatedly. 63 in the Garden, hit The Shot, make specTACular moves, come back for 72 and a title, strip Malone and rise over Russell, and just bring a level of time-after-time exceptionality that peers can only marvel at. All the greats make it into the record books. GOATs become part of the fabric of our oral history and their journeys become the stories we tell.


RTJ ain't The GOAT. Nor is Kareem. But they probably share a commonality as the most underappreciated Rushmore-level Great of their field. Kareem had the most productive basketball career ever, spending 10 years as the game's best player and another 10 as an elite championship-level all-star. He built his game around his signature move. If he didn't do as much never-before-seen stuff as Jordan, it's because his bread-and-butter game was so splendidly unstoppable that he didn't really need to. There are four unassailable names that should top any knowledgeable basketball fan's list of greatest players ever. Kareem is one of them, and probably the one most likely to get overlooked by an armchair critic.


THAT sounds more like RTJ to me. Wildly prolific, dominant in his era, a little more one-dimensional than the guys often placed above him, but he might have had the most bankable "signature" moves. The comparison probably insults Kareem a bit, in the sense that I wouldn't consider it nearly as unforgivable for a GCA aficionado to omit RTJ from their all-time top 4 architects list as I would consider a Kareem omission on the all-time top 4 basketball players ever. Kareem won 6 titles and 6 MVPs. RTJ might have peaked with the fourth or fifth best course on 17 Mile Drive. But considering his prolific portfolio, consistent good-to-great work, and influence on both design and the business of architecture, it's real hard to put him lower than 5th or 6th, albeit in a shallower and less competitive field.

Jason,


I agree with your two additions. And yours is one of the better definitions of GOAT that I have seen.


Ira

[Kalen Braley]

I've got to think any GCA GOAT discussion must heavily weigh quality vs. quantity.  Yes he built a shit ton courses and he's no doubt at least top 3 in that category.

But how many were noteworthy much less top 100?

P.S.  I would agree with the prior comment that he seems to be irrationally disliked..

[Bernie Bell]

"P.S.  I would agree with the prior comment that he seems to be irrationally disliked."


Wait until someone starts a Tom Fazio thread.

[Mark_Fine]

Jason,
Nice summary.  Some good points made and an interesting comparison.  If you think about the impact he had on GCA, there are few that compare. 


Sven,
I respect your opinion but usually you make a compelling argument to back it up?  It is not that black and white.  Many here for example don’t care for Fazio’s work but he is another architect that has had a major impact on GCA though I don’t think in the same league as RTJ.  I think a GOAT in GCA has to have a major widespread impact on millions and millions of golfers, done ground breaking work in the profession (no pun intended), have a vast collection of well known and recognized designs, spurred on his competitors to keep up or try to surpass him,... RTJ checks all these boxes and many more.  If he is not on the Mt. Rushmore of GCA, I would like to hear who you think is? 


Kalen,
I just saw your post.  RTJ in his prime had a bunch of courses in the Top 100 and my aren’t we giving a lot of credence to all these Top 100 lists that this site constantly bashes    Take a look at his body of overall work.  It is pretty impressive and on a bell curve the far majority are on the high end of the curve.  He didn’t build a lot of crap.  If his name was on it, it was going to at least be well above average. 


Bernie,
Lol I just saw your post.  Funny that I just mentioned Fazio in this post 

[Mark_Fine]

One other point to make is that unlike Ross or someone like Bendelow who both designed a ton of golf courses, RTJ’s work was far more consistent on the higher end.   Bendelow was as we all know was the Jonny Appleseed of GCA and built hundreds of courses but his designs were mostly lower end basic golf.  These were needed and his contribution to GCA was amazing.  Ross also designed many basic golf courses but obviously did many great ones as well but his bell shaped curve was much flatter than RTJ’s. Just my opinion. 

[Sven Nilsen]

Mark:


There are a plethora of Mount Rushmore threads on this site.  Here are a few of them:


https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,57942.0.html


https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,66657.msg1592465.html#msg1592465


https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,67558.0.html


Sven

[Kalen Braley]

Mark,

I figured he had a few up there several decades ago in his prime.  Which 10 would you select for his all-time best list?  That may be a good place to start.  I admittedly don't know much about his prior work compared to the stuff built in the last 25 years.

P.S.  As it pertains to notable rankings list, aka the big 3, I think there is a bit of nuance there.  Many have pointed out, rightly so that they are imperfect and have flaws, and I would agree.  However, whether we as a collective group like the rankings or not, they are in fact the best thing we have to work with.  Thousands of raters with thousands of data points fit in to varying algorithms, that are at least attempting to be objective.  Is it perfect? no...but we still need to ask ourselves "is there a better alternative"?  I don't know of one.  We've tried putting together lists here at GCA, but they've also had their fair share of controversy. But I sure as shit know I put little stock into rankings made by 5 buddies with group think who go on road trips and make slick videos.   

[Ben Hollerbach]

Kalen,


The following RTJ courses have been ranked at least once since 1979 by Golf Magazine

• Congressional
• El Rincon
• Firestone-South
• Peachtree
• Pevero
• Point O'Woods
• Royal Dar Es Salem-Red
• Sotogrande
• Spyglass Hill
• Valderrama

Beyond this list, Robert Trent Jones GC, Hazeltine, Bellerive, Chanticleer, Southern Highlands, Golden Horseshoe, The Dunes, Old Warson would be among his best.

[Sven Nilsen]

I'm probably going to sound like a broken record, but Tom Bendelow remains the most underrated figure in early American golf.  You have to look beyond just his course designs to truly understand his impact on the expansion and development of the game up to 1920.  Even his design efforts are undersold, with the misnomer of "18 stakes" being ubiquitously thrown around when in fact much of his work was more involved.  To compare Bendelow's work in the 1890's and 1900's (when he did the bulk of his design work) with anyone that came later makes no sense.  The game changed and construction techniques improved drastically.  This is like comparing a Model T to a Corvette.  Unless you look at what each meant at its time, there is no debate.


As for Ross, there is no comparison between Ross and RTJ at the high end.  Look at any rankings list (other than a purely modern list) and you can see why.  RTJ's two top end courses, Peachtree and Spyglass, are great, but they don't measure up to Ross at his best.  There was a thread a little while back on the top 100 Ross courses.  It became evident that there are way more really, really good Ross courses out there than most people want to admit.


Sven

[Tim Gavrich]

I'm probably going to sound like a broken record, but Tom Bendelow remains the most underrated figure in early American golf.  You have to look beyond just his course designs to truly understand his impact on the expansion and development of the game up to 1920.  Even his design efforts are undersold, with the misnomer of "18 stakes" being ubiquitously thrown around when in fact much of his work was more involved.  To compare Bendelow's work in the 1890's and 1900's (when he did the bulk of his design work) with anyone that came later makes no sense.  The game changed and construction techniques improved drastically.  This is like comparing a Model T to a Corvette.  Unless you look at what each meant at its time, there is no debate.


As for Ross, there is no comparison between Ross and RTJ at the high end.  Look at any rankings list (other than a purely modern list) and you can see why.  RTJ's two top end courses, Peachtree and Spyglass, are great, but they don't measure up to Ross at his best.  There was a thread a little while back on the top 100 Ross courses.  It became evident that there are way more really, really good Ross courses out there than most people want to admit.


Sven

It seems that in broad terms, RTJ did in the post-WWII era what Bendelow did in the pre-WWI era. Peachtree and Spyglass Hill are getting a lot of mileage here, but let's not overlook the fact that many dozens of RTJ Sr.'s courses are both publicly accessible and relatively affordable to play, too.


If this is true, we owe RTJ some similar thanks to what we owe Bendelow, don't we?

[Tom_Doak]

Sure, but nobody is nominating Tom Bendelow for the Mt Rushmore of golf arcjitects, unless Sven meant to.


RTJ was the most successful architect of his era in terms of making $$$.  I think he valued that more than making top 100 lists, which were only getting started when he was sixty.  And I think that a lot of the dislike of him, and of Tom Fazio, is the perception that their focus was on making money, instead of sweating the details, even though in reality no one can speak to what was in their hearts.

[Mark_Fine]

To add some that I know/played that are excellent and were at some point on a Top 100 list or at least best in state list:


- Mauna Kea
- Wilmington South
- Valencia
- Atlantic Athletic Club
- Hominy Hill
- Metedeconk National


Sven,
I don't discount Bendelow's contribution to GCA, it was huge but most of his courses were 3s and 4s or less (I trust we agree on that).


As far as Ross goes, yes his great courses are truly great but he did a lot of courses that were not so great because he was in it for the money too    RTJ as far as I know, did not mail in his designs and tried to keep them at a very high standard.  That is my understanding but I will admit I have played mostly the best of his best and haven't sought out to play just anything with his name on it. RTJ had/has a lot more than just two top end courses.  I consider anything in that Doak 7 range pretty impressive and he has a bunch of those.  He also did a ton of redesigns and yes many of those have been changed yet again but that is going to continue to happen on literally every architect's designs. 


 

[Ira Fishman]

Mark,


Once again, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. On a quick review, there are five or fewer Doak 7s among RTJ Sr. courses. Your metric, not mine. Five is not a "bunch".


Ira

[Bernie Bell]

How many RTJ 7s does Doak have?

[Mark_Fine]

Ira,
How did you come up with 5 RTJ courses that are Doak 7s?  That might be your assessment but that is not mine.

[Ira Fishman]

Ira,
How did you come up with 5 RTJ courses that are Doak 7s?  That might be your assessment but that is not mine.

I looked at the CG.


Ira

[archie_struthers]

 




Ben, did a double take about half way thru your post to see the author again. For a second thought that the "lurker" had returned to give us an early Christmas present. Good stuff !

[Mark_Fine]

Ira,
The what?  If the CG is the Confidential Guide, that is Tom's assessment not mine. I just use his scale as do many others to asses golf courses.  We don't all agree with his number for each course and I am sure you don't either. 

[Ira Fishman]

Ira,
The what?  If the CG is the Confidential Guide, that is Tom's assessment not mine. I just use his scale as do many others to asses golf courses.  We don't all agree with his number for each course and I am sure you don't either.

You are the one who based your argument on the Doak Scale. If you disagree with his assignments of ratings, please offer your own.


Ira

[David Ober]

Michael Jordan is the GOAT.
Pele is the GOAT.
Simone Biles is the GOAT.
Minnesota Fats is the GOAT.


That is the list. RTJ Sr. is not on it.


Ira

I would add only Gretzky and Shakespeare.


GOATs have a few things in common, including prolific production. RTJ checked that box, as Mark notes.


But prolific production alone doesn't make a GOAT. If it did, Kareem would eclipse Jordan. More MVPs, more points, over more years and bolstered by more inches of height. But Jordan wins out because of the transcendent moments.


A GOAT can't just compile a large body of good-to-excellent work. A GOAT has to hit the highest notes of greatness, repeatedly. 63 in the Garden, hit The Shot, make specTACular moves, come back for 72 and a title, strip Malone and rise over Russell, and just bring a level of time-after-time exceptionality that peers can only marvel at. All the greats make it into the record books. GOATs become part of the fabric of our oral history and their journeys become the stories we tell.


RTJ ain't The GOAT. Nor is Kareem. But they probably share a commonality as the most underappreciated Rushmore-level Great of their field. Kareem had the most productive basketball career ever, spending 10 years as the game's best player and another 10 as an elite championship-level all-star. He built his game around his signature move. If he didn't do as much never-before-seen stuff as Jordan, it's because his bread-and-butter game was so splendidly unstoppable that he didn't really need to. There are four unassailable names that should top any knowledgeable basketball fan's list of greatest players ever. Kareem is one of them, and probably the one most likely to get overlooked by an armchair critic.


THAT sounds more like RTJ to me. Wildly prolific, dominant in his era, a little more one-dimensional than the guys often placed above him, but he might have had the most bankable "signature" moves. The comparison probably insults Kareem a bit, in the sense that I wouldn't consider it nearly as unforgivable for a GCA aficionado to omit RTJ from their all-time top 4 architects list as I would consider a Kareem omission on the all-time top 4 basketball players ever. Kareem won 6 titles and 6 MVPs. RTJ might have peaked with the fourth or fifth best course on 17 Mile Drive. But considering his prolific portfolio, consistent good-to-great work, and influence on both design and the business of architecture, it's real hard to put him lower than 5th or 6th, albeit in a shallower and less competitive field.

Completely agree about Kareem. Few people understand just how dominant he was for the first 7 or 8 years of his career. And you're right, then he just kept going and going and going. And when he was young, he could handle the ball a bit, too. Was just crazy good.

[Tom_Doak]

Ira,
The what?  If the CG is the Confidential Guide, that is Tom's assessment not mine. I just use his scale as do many others to asses golf courses.  We don't all agree with his number for each course and I am sure you don't either.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but calling a course a "Doak 7" when I gave it a score less than 7 is b.s.