Are architects the right people to rate golf courses?

[Peter Pallotta]

Aren't they congenitally predisposed to judging the architecture instead of the course?
Are they able and willing to put aside their extensive training and experience and talents in order to humbly 'see' what a mere golfer sees naturally and without effort, ie how a golf course actually plays, for them in particular, instead of how the course was designed and intended to play, for a wide range of golfers?
If they are good architects they probably have their own distinct design aesthetic and ethos and value system and favorite strategies -- and yet we expect them to treat all other design aesthetics, value systems and strategies fairly and open-mindedly and without prejudice? How likely is that?
If you give them a chance, most architects will yak on about routing challenges they managed to overcome and environmental restrictions they were able to transcend and tight budgets they were able to work around and less than ideal sites they found a way to transform etc etc -- none of which matters or should matter in the least to golfers wanting to play great golf courses, or at least the very best ones they can, and who are therefore simply looking for help in identifying which courses these are, not for a master class on how very hard it is to build them.
So, why exactly do we listen intently / read carefully when architects are sharing their personal ratings or rankings?

[Michael Chadwick]

Perhaps for the same reason I consult a doctor for a health concern instead of my next door neighbor.


I think your question is more about whether the consensus of ratings should be from common golfers or industry professionals. My hunch is that most publications probably have a mix, or at minimum GOLF does.


As for me, I prefer listening to the opinions of people who have expertise in the fields from which they're expressing an opinion.   

[Peter Pallotta]

Perhaps for the same reason I consult a doctor for a health concern instead of my next door neighbor.

Pithy, but I'd suggest a poor analogy. A doctor could tell you which one of your friends is the healthiest and is likely to live the longest, but not the one whose company you'd enjoy the most, and the one who you could trust more than anyone else to always be there for you in a pinch  -- in short, the friend who'd prove to be your best friend, and a great friend.
PS - I see now the edit / expansion, so pithy is not the right word.

[Joe Hancock]

Perhaps for the same reason I consult a doctor for a health concern instead of my next door neighbor.

Different deal. Doctors are bound by laws, codes of ethics, requirements of education and training, etc.


Golf course architects are *sometimes* bound by the same, but are not required to be. Architects are most often injecting their own personal preferences into the mix, thus Peter’s question. Some architects will give the client exactly what they want, even if they think it’s the wrong choice. Doctors aren’t supposed to do that.

[Michael Chadwick]

Perhaps for the same reason I consult a doctor for a health concern instead of my next door neighbor.

Pithy, but I'd suggest a poor analogy indeed. You doctor could tell you which one of your friends is the healthiest and is likely to live the longest, but not the one whose company you'd enjoy the most, and the one who you could trust more than anyone else to always be there for you in a pinch  -- in short, the friend who'd prove to be your best friend, and a great friend.
PS - I see now the edit / expansion, so pithy is not the right word.

Perhaps for the same reason I consult a doctor for a health concern instead of my next door neighbor.

Different deal. Doctors are bound by laws, codes of ethics, requirements of education and training, etc.Golf course architects are *sometimes* bound by the same, but are not required to be. Architects are most often injecting their own personal preferences into the mix, thus Peter’s question. Some architects will give the client exactly what they want, even if they think it’s the wrong choice. Doctors aren’t supposed to do that.

I suppose I should've gone with my plastic surgeon for the analogy

Peter--in that case, it seems to me you're asking who an individual golfer should trust for recommendations. A fair question, though I again side with (some) architects instead of someone being randomly paired up with me on the tee.

Joe--agreed, personal preferences can (and maybe ought to) enter the mix, and that's no different from deciding for yourself whose reviews or what company's algorithm you'll permit to persuade you for the next film you're going to watch.

Peter's OP strikes me as an insider/outsider dichotomy he wants to explore, hence the analogy and side I chose.   

[Peter Pallotta]

Michael -
I think the insider - outsider dichotomy is an accurate way to characterize this, but what I'm suggesting is that perhaps the very traits and qualities that make them insiders are the same ones that foster a disconnect with all of us outsiders, ie that shape their POVs in ways that actually aren't very helpful to us, and certainly don't meet us where we are.
I read recently a very fine architect say that a certain golf course by a renowned golden age designer was the greatest one in its particular country -- and I couldn't help but think that he was (too) focused on the 'architecture'... because when it comes to the 'course'  -- the actual playing of it -- the consensus view of today's well travelled golfers does not agree with him. 

[Sean_A]

I think archies are more than capable of seeing courses as a consumer product and offering good reasons why some courses are better products than others. Some archies use consumer reports to partially guide decision making. They all started out as consumers and some continue to be consumers to one degree or another. They will have their biases like anybody else, but that isn't necessarily bad.

Golf design to me is a bit unusual in that a skill like routing is on display because it at least partially explains issues like drainage, desire or not for shaping, playability, flow, walk, green locations etc. Esoteric issues the golfer doesn't need to know about such as budget, infrastructure, planning restrictions etc are only of interest to those trying to figure out how good the design is rather than how good the course is. Or maybe some are fascinated by the decision making process.

Ciao

[Blake Conant]

Are they able and willing to put aside their extensive training and experience and talents in order to humbly 'see' what a mere golfer sees naturally and without effort, ie how a golf course actually plays, for them in particular, instead of how the course was designed and intended to play, for a wide range of golfers?

You’re essentially asking if a golf architect can be empathetic. The ones that are make good critics, the ones that aren’t don’t.


Same goes for the “mere golfer”. Best I can tell there are a ton of regular golfers most concerned with their score, fast greens, flat tees, and nice bunker sand. They also dislike bumpy cart paths. Not sure I need to read their critique of a golf course.

[Ally Mcintosh]

There’s critiquing based on the architecture rather than the course… and then there’s one step further: Critiquing on the architect rather than the course.


I think non-architects are actually more likely than architects to base their rankings on who the architect is. It’s something to hold on to.


Most architect’s I play with (myself included) do their utmost to just enjoy the experience and put the day-job out of their head. Thinking about architecture too much can ruin your love of playing the game whilst you’re in the midst of it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Peter,


I tend to think gca's shouldn't be the course raters in most cases, not that it is so critical that we should revolt when it happens.


I had the opportunity to be on the Dallas Morning News panels, and did it for a while, but declined most years.  That said, if the gca is is conflicted trying to rank his course, the pro, the owner, etc. all have the same conflict of interest.  Having the widest range of panelists helps take the bias out, and even then, editors of the lists tend to take out the highest and lowest score of a course before averaging, figuring that an extreme ranking/rating has a background story.


If an architect has a strong set of design ideas (i.e., CBM and his template holes, or other philosophies) it is hard not to judge any golf hole in terms of how I would have done it differently, unless it is really, really superb, i.e., Sand Hills.  Of course, the gca nerds who tend to sign up for golf panels might have the same problem, and as someone noted, there has always been a trend towards panelists voting higher for architects they like over the course itself.  Or, voting higher for a course with an aesthetic they liked. 


I understand this is a bit of a straw man argument in and of itself, but what rating would a carbon copy of Sand Hills, in another setting, and with bunkers styled like Augusta instead get around here?  The strategy would be the same, but the rating would go way down for the aesthetic.


In the end, I have just talked myself out of further participation in what will just degenerate into another ratings discussion that I hate, in part, thanks to me, LOL.

[Sven Nilsen]

Who other than the caddie can walk miles in so many others' shoes?

[jeffwarne]

Are they able and willing to put aside their extensive training and experience and talents in order to humbly 'see' what a mere golfer sees naturally and without effort, ie how a golf course actually plays, for them in particular, instead of how the course was designed and intended to play, for a wide range of golfers?

Same goes for the “mere golfer”. Best I can tell there are a ton of regular golfers most concerned with their score, fast greens, flat tees, and nice bunker sand. They also dislike bumpy cart paths. Not sure I need to read their critique of a golf course.

Many get lost in the "experience" and /or formalities.
Wine tours, lodging,dinner, locker room-especially if those are "world class".


Personally I'd simply rather play till dark,which is a rare priviledge indeed, and head to my humble mom and pop hotel and do it all again the next day.

[Kalen Braley]

I'd like to think the better analogy is the high profile food critic.

Nearly all of them are accomplished chefs and know the ins and outs of cooking, raw ingredients, techniques, etc.  And while their input is certainly valuable, there is no denying the masses may actually rather dine at Chilis or TGIF Fridays...or even fast food.

So for me, it seems like the "right" people to rate courses should be as diverse a group as possible to get a representative sampling of everyone, and that should certainly include a few architects...

[Peter Pallotta]

Someone once observed that every profession justifies its own existence; a group of linguists would conclude that WW II started because Chamberlain didn't understand German grammar!

How could an architect *not* assume/conclude that the 'architecture' is what makes a golf course great?

And how could that assessment of the 'architecture' not include brownie points for their colleagues in the design business for having, say, dealt smartly with a very poor section of the land, or for having solved a thorny routing question?

Understandable, and fair enough -- but what does any of that have to do with the quality of the resulting golf course that I'm actually going to play, just as I find it and not as it might have otherwise been?

I'd say probably very little -- such that the extra rating points / higher rankings that come from an architect having judged a golf course are, to me, the average golfer, not only unhelpful but potentially misleading.

[Tom_Doak]

Architects may have a somewhat biased eye, but they have two great advantages over other critics:


1)  they have a broader experience because most have gone to see a lot more courses than the average golfer.  When I was doing the GOLF Magazine ratings back in the day, the panelists who had seen the most courses included Pete Dye and Robert Trent Jones, even though they weren't known for doing that.


2)  architects do not let their own good or bad play influence their opinion of a course, because we are so tired of golfers doing that to us. 

[Steve Lang]

Who other than the caddie can walk miles in so many others' shoes?

HERE HERE!

OR LIVE THE PAIN OF BAD EXECUTION... BUT ALL MADE WELL BY RIDING A CART WITH SOME ICED BEER ON A DAY OFF.  HARD TO IMAGINE WELL THOUGHT OUT OPINIONS BEING GENERATED ON A DOUBLE BAG OR A CADDY KILLER TYPE DAY LIKE TRAILS AND OLD MAC..




I LIKE THE IDEA OF CONFIDENTIAL "ARCHITECT'S RATINGS" BE PRESENTED SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM PLAYERS' REVIEWS, A PROFESSIONAL BIAS CAN BE BETTER JUDGED LONG TERM..

[Cal Carlisle]

So, why exactly do we listen intently / read carefully when architects are sharing their personal ratings or rankings?

I think people are always interested in what people think of their peers, whether it's golf architects, chefs, football coaches, etc. They know what goes into the whole thing. They've got the ultimate credibility in their respective field of expertise. I think most know substance when they see it. I think it's one of the reasons why people loved Anthony Bourdain so much, not only was he cool as hell, but the guy had credibility.

[Tim_Weiman]

Architects may have a somewhat biased eye, but they have two great advantages over other critics:


1)  they have a broader experience because most have gone to see a lot more courses than the average golfer.  When I was doing the GOLF Magazine ratings back in the day, the panelists who had seen the most courses included Pete Dye and Robert Trent Jones, even though they weren't known for doing that.


2)  architects do not let their own good or bad play influence their opinion of a course, because we are so tired of golfers doing that to us. 

Tom,


Let me put it simply: The Confidential Guide makes clear that listening to an architect, especially one who is well traveled, can make a lot of sense.


Besides your Doak scale, for me what stands out about the Guide is your decision to avoid repetitive hole by hole descriptions and, instead, identify and write about what is worth highlighting about a course.

[John Mayhugh]

Personally I'd simply rather play till dark,which is a rare privilege indeed, and head to my humble mom and pop hotel and do it all again the next day.

Well, for sure I would trust non-architects like Jeff to tell me where to play. But that's because I know him and what he likes, and I'm sure his recommendations wouldn't disappoint. But if you get a broad range of the population (with unknown tastes) submitting choices, the odds of me getting sent to a place that doesn't interest me go up (e.g. Nine Bridges & Ellerston ahead of Sandwich & Swinley - hard pass).

If I like an architect's work, then I can generally assume I'll agree with his recommendations. I think any golf course architect that can't assess the course that's on the ground (rather than focusing on how it got there) isn't going to be much of an artist. Guys that build great courses are some of both. The professionals that I've met or been exposed to through GCA are infinitely more qualified to produce a ranking list when compared to a bunch of golf course nuts like me. The only reason you need more raters is for coverage of less prominent areas and courses. It's possible for something good to get missed with a small panel.

[SL_Solow]

Of course it varies depending on the architect (panel) and the "lay critic" (panel).  My opinion has been shaped by my experience in participating in renovations at a golden age course and having been invited to work with members at other golden age courses undergoing renovations.  I have only observed the construction at new courses.


Invariably a significant number of members who object to work of the architect because it does not fit their game.  The more sophisticated members who take this tack will suggest that the architect has failed to consider a particular class of players.  I have been fortunate enough tp work with architects who are far better at considering the varied needs of golfers than their critics.


On the other hand I once was told by an architect that a course could only be great if it challenged a tour professional to break par from the back tees.  I innocently inquired whether Cypress Point of The National were great golf courses.  It was a very short conversation.


So I believe that there is no correct answer.  If I had to pick one or the other, give me the person who makes a living designing/renovating courses.

[Ira Fishman]

Back in 2013, Golf Architecture published a Top 100 based on a survey of I think 200+ architects. It is a useful list because it does reflect tastes/philosophies that differ from the dominant view here although that dominant view is heavily reflected in the list. I do not remember if there was any requirement that the architects needed to have played a course or an indication of how many total courses each played. Maybe Adam Lawrence can pop in and speak to the methodology and why they have not repeated the exercise.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ira -
your post reminded me of what Bob Crosby describes in his wonderful essay(s) as the Behr-Crane debates, where architects Behr and Mackenzie defended the Old Course against Crane's criticisms and proposed changes. In the many decades that have followed, architects (some more prominently than others) have continued to advocate for what they value and believe in and think best about golf course architecture, and to rate and rank golf courses accordingly. That's a positive, and the way it should be. But what of Joshua Crane, eh? To borrow language from earlier in the thread -- what of the 'outsider's' perspective on great golf architecture?

[Sean_A]

Perhaps the soul of Crane lived in RTJ and was manifested first at Oakland Hills for the 51 Open? A USGA mindset that was arguably dominant for four decades and highly influential for scores of courses built in this era.

At the end of the day, I don't think it matters much who is on panels. Those lists are more similar than not. I think which media stars and archies (many of which are really part of the media these days) have the ears of golfers. It's up to golfers to recognise potential biases as is the case for anybody else.

I have an uneasy feeling about a complete divorce of the course and architecture. Two of my great pleasures in golf is coming across good holes over awkward land that keep a routing flowing and efficiency of design which makes a certain number of holes possible, but also quick and enjoyable to play. I often cite St Enodoc's 4th as an example of keeping a routing going, but also scoring high design points. A classic example of the latter is the Sacred 9. I think savvy golfers can recognise these design traits if they chose to spend time asking why they like playing certain courses.

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean, I wouldn't want to see the divorce of architecture and the course either; the former is a very pleasant part of the overall experience for me. But I'm suggesting / theorizing that, because I'm not an architect or an expert, I can never run the risk of focusing on and preferencing the quality/qualities of the 'architecture' over those of the 'course' as a whole and complete and finished and playable package; while architects, on the other hand, not despite but precisely because of their training and studies and love of the craft, probably do run that very risk. As you note, however, whatever the case may be most lists do come out looking pretty similar -- but I suppose there are many reasons for / dynamics that can explain that phenomenon.

[Sean_A]

Sean, I wouldn't want to see the divorce of architecture and the course either; the former is a very pleasant part of the overall experience for me. But I'm suggesting / theorizing that, because I'm not an architect or an expert, I can never run the risk of focusing on and preferencing the quality/qualities of the 'architecture' over those of the 'course' as a whole and complete and finished and playable package; while architects, on the other hand, not despite but precisely because of their training and studies and love of the craft, probably do run that very risk. As you note, however, whatever the case may be most lists do come out looking pretty similar -- but I suppose there are many reasons for / dynamics that can explain that phenomenon.

You speak for yourself, but there are some pundits who act as though they understand why and how a routing came to be and why that routing is superior to the alternatives.

I agree, archies probably do run the risk of focusing on the wrong thing if rating a course. I do read some comments about dubious shaping, bunkers not fitting their location etc. And yes, archies may tick a course for such aesthetic mishaps. But I think its highly likely to be small beer. I think most archies most of the time will have fairly similar overall opinions as the rating crowd. I would expect some sharp differences here and there, just as I would with anybody else. That's normal.

Have you seen evidence of rogue archies?

Ciao