[Matt Schoolfield]

Updated: https://golfcourse.wiki/architects
Added: Watson, Macan, P.M. Ross, Hackett, Pennik, and replaced Palmer with Seay

I could not find a birth year, or any biographical references for Rod Whitman. If anyone has a good reference for that, please send it my way so I can add him.

I want to address Tom's notes section by section because I take them extremely seriously, and they are a big part of the ultimate goal of the site:

If you wanted to tackle something REALLY useful, you could try to compile the research into which designers should get PRIMARY credit for each course.  Many clubs have done this for their own course via club histories, and many more have been pored over on this site . . . but the information is very scattered and impossible to find when you want it.

I am trying to create a platform for informed people to share their knowledge with an open and unrestricted database. The goal is for courses/clubs, themselves, to be able to share this information in a centralized, navigable place. If you have an account, you can see the edit history, and you can be informed of any changes as they happen. This is something that is trivial for a club historian to do, but days, if not weeks of work for someone like me. The platform, ideally, can be structured such that the debate can be had by the users in the discussion sections.

I understand peoples hesitancy for participation, as I've lived through the repeated crowd-source to enshitification process that the internet promised and then squandered. The only two crowd-sourced websites that I see as having followed through with that promise are Wikipedia (not-for-profit model), and IMDB (for-profit model). The goal of this project, if it is successful, is to follow that pattern (maybe 501c3, maybe B Corp, etc.). I just wanted to build something good for golf. Unlike most golf sites that I see as mostly extractive (e.g. aggregators like Golf Now), or mostly marketing (various ranking sites). Finally, I want to make sure the data is available for the public clubs, especially less fancy clubs, to use at effectively no cost (especially the user-created printable yardage books). The reason why I started my blog was a way to demonstrate to people that I strongly care about golf culture in general, and I that have no intention of trying to capture the value that people who participate bring to the database. I hope people see that signaling as a sign their participation will be valued and not be squandered years down the road.

Listing a course under five or seven names may be accurate, but it is often misleading as well, and in the end, pretty unhelpful.  For example if you were to look at a listing of courses by Tom Fazio and found his consulting work at Bel Air . . . yes, he did work there, but no, there is nothing of Tom Fazio's work in the course as it exists today.


Likewise, who built / shaped what can be very misleading, especially when presented by someone who shaped a handful of tees at course x and make it sound like they were the main guy.  I am not sure all of that really belongs on an architecture database . . . especially not if it isn't confirmed by the club or by the designer(s).  Where it certainly DOES belong is in the club's own histories, but most of them are very poor in that capacity, because they are written by people who don't understand the process.

Yes, I fully agree. I have tried to make significant strides on improving this. I have created categories: 'primary architect', 'redesign', 'restoration', 'renovation', 'expansion', 'modernization', 'modification', 'hole changes', 'green work', 'bunker work', 'small changes', 'past work'. This qualifiers now show up on the list of courses that an architect has worked on. I could easily expand this list as well. There is also a discussion page, where conflicting views can be discussed so that people don't just go back and forth deleting each other's entries. It's a work in process.

The reason why the current listing are vague is that, I was generously gifted a very large database that someone had collected over the years, and there was no distinctions given. Whenever I add course summaries, I try to look into the course history and update the lists to best fit the work that was done, but I am not capable of doing that for thousands of courses, but it's a simple three-click process to make changes, and I'm incredibly appreciative when people do. So thank you, as I know some people here have done exactly that.

Your most important goal should be not to add to the bad information.

Eventually, I want to have a required citation process similar to Wikipedia. That seems prohibitively egregious right now considering I'm the one doing the lion's share of updates. If the site grows to any notable size, it would be trivial to allow verified club or architectural firm accounts to review any changes made before those changes go live. There is dichotomy in users for websites of this type: contributors and consumers. You can watch the enshitification process work as sites stop catering to contributors, and start catering to consumers. Right now, I can't cater to people consuming content because the site is currently being built, so there's going to be incomplete and incorrect information. As I care about the long term goodness of the site, even if someone offered to invest to hire people to do that for me, I'd turn them down. The only way to prevent the process that has ruined most networks is to bootstrap, slowly and on a shoe string budget, and have a revenue model that isn't based on interaction and eyeballs.

I'm fully aware that it may not work, and that I'm just pushing a rock up a hill over and over for no reason, but I think it's worth trying. The site is open to anyone who wants to help, but my target consumer is jr golfers who want to do research on a course they won't be able to do a practice round at before a tournament, and small clubs that can't afford the thousands of dollars that firms like golf genius charge just to calculate who won a net medal play event (a simple math problem!), but also the architecture nerds who like to explore this stuff. The nerds and courses/clubs, however are also the target contributors. Right now, the best thing the site can for architecture nerds, is show a map the courses that a specific designer has worked on, so you can see if there are any in your area, which is especially helpful when you find something unexpectedly close (like how close Aetna Springs is to the Bay Area).

[Ally Mcintosh]

Incidentally Matt,


The EIGCA credit work as follows:


18: New 18 hole course
9: New 9 hole course
9+: Additional 9 holes
A: Major work of 3 new holes or more
B: Rebuilding of minimum 9 greens
C: Other redevelopment work of at least 9 holes


I’m not saying that is the best way to give credit (not least because I’ve a feeling it promotes meeting one of these criteria even when not necessary)… but something along these lines is better than the continual argument of how much - or even what - needs to be done to classify as redesign or renovation or restoration.

[Matt Schoolfield]

Incidentally Matt,


The EIGCA credit work as follows:


18: New 18 hole course
9: New 9 hole course
9+: Additional 9 holes
A: Major work of 3 new holes or more
B: Rebuilding of minimum 9 greens
C: Other redevelopment work of at least 9 holes


I’m not saying that is the best way to give credit (not least because I’ve a feeling it promotes meeting one of these criteria even when not necessary)… but something along these lines is better than the continual argument of how much - or even what - needs to be done to classify as redesign or renovation or restoration.

I hear you, but I'm pretty conflicted about that level of credit. It seems all well and good for new-ish courses or well funded clubs with history books. However, I'm trying to create a system that the old-timer in the muni club can use easily. Again, my main focus is to create generational knowledge so the folks running, say Downs GC, with it's sand greens in the middle-of-nowhere kansas, can easily transmit their known history/course info to the next generation, or to people passing through who might want to stop for a quick round, and throw them a few bucks in greens fees.

This level of detail can easily be added in the main text area, or discussion section, and I may even add it to the 'course facts' section eventually for an added level of detail but right now it seems beyond the scope of my site, especially if it's being recorded elsewhere (namely by the EIGCA) and can be added later.

Edit: I want to add that I take these concerns seriously, but ultimately, I have very limited resources, and the goal of the site is more focused on getting people to add course summaries to every hole on the planet. I may be wrong in that goal, but at the end of the day, it's a side project and I'm doing my best.

[Thomas Dai]

A few more names into the mixer .... Abercromby, Willie Fernie, Ben Sayers, various Parks, Russell, Morcom, H Cotton, K Cotton, Dentone, Koontz, Hotchkin, Campbell, Thomas, Alliss, Clark, Sandow etc etc etc.
Different levels maybe and different countries too, but where do you stop when drawing up lists? Piece of string time?
atb

[Niall C]

David


Yes, lots of names but should the place to start be by explaining why someone should be added to the list of usual suspects ? For instance, you suggest Dentone. I can't say I've heard of his/her work. Which era(s) would you include them in and why ?


Niall

[Thomas Dai]

Why someone should be in or out is the point I was attempting to make Niall and that’s why I mentioned a variety of names from around the World some of whom might not be ones to immediately attract attention but had quite long careers in the business.
As to Dentone, Juan Dentone, at the forefront of Argentinian golf as a player and architect for several decades from the start of the last century. Arg and southern South America in general was a significant place for golf back then with not just a famous Dr from Leeds working there but the likes of Cottons regular visits and Parks as pros etc too. An area of the golfing world I’d very much like to visit.
Atb


PS If Marcos reads this he might like to elaborate on Juan Dentone etc.

[Tom_Doak]

As to Dentone, Juan Dentone, at the forefront of Argentinian golf as a player and architect for several decades from the start of the last century. Arg and southern South America in general was a significant place for golf back then with not just a famous Dr from Leeds working there but the likes of Cottons regular visits and Parks as pros etc too. An area of the golfing world I’d very much like to visit.

I got to see two or three of Dentone's courses on my South American tour.  They were very good.  He certainly influenced golf in Argentina, though I would be hesitant to say that he influenced golf architecture in Argentina, which didn't really thrive into the next generations.


You could make possibly a stronger case for Javier Arana in Spain, or Bernard von Limburger in Germany, or the Akaboshi brothers in Japan . . . and I'm sure there is someone worthy of mention in Sweden and South Africa as well, I just don't know whom.

[Sven Nilsen]

Matt:


Quite the project, good luck.


There are a number of listings like what you are trying to create already on the internet (including the stagnant USGA Architectural Archive).  None of them are complete, and the task of keeping them up to date is nearly impossible.  New information is released and discovered nearly on a daily basis, and even with a crowd sourcing format (leaving aside the difficulties in veracity that format creates), it would be extremely time consuming to stay on top of everything.  Right now, the best examples are those put out by a few of the architect societies (Ed Oden's site on Maxwell perhaps being the best).


Essentially you are trying to create a digital version of Cornish & Whitten's work.  This kind of archive is only useful if the information is correct (which brings up its own concerns as the back pages of this discussion group can prove) and extensive.  A course name and a date for one architect does not get you any where near the complete story for most courses, as there were most likely many cooks in the kitchen in the evolution of a project.  Courses changed names, moved from private to public (and vice versa), had various locations, etc.  The only way to present an accurate picture is to be able to look at the entire history of each individual course, and there is no where on the internet right now that allows you to do that.


The ideal would be to have a complete listing that is sortable by location, date, architect(s), NLE status, etc.  For clubs that moved locations, those locations should be linked.  And for every architect name, as much information as to what was actually done should be included.  Maps, plans, articles and other source materials should be accessible. 


For example, let's say a member of a Langford course wanted to getter a better understanding of the man and his work.  From a timeline of his projects, they should be able to drill down into each course and be able to see as much information as possible about their architectural evolution as possible.  They should also be able to click over to a biography of Langford, with links to those he worked with, etc. 


With the right software tools, and a properly organized database, this kind of tool would be extremely useful (although the potential interested audience may be fairly limited).  Being able to sort an architect's work by year, location and other factors would be very cool.  Having the ability to map those courses to see not only where existing courses are located but also where NLE work was located would be fascinating.  Having links to any available course plans or articles on a course easily accessible would be extremely helpful to researchers.  And you can imagine the timelines you could create using different parameters. 


Hope this didn't come across as discouraging, and best of luck.


Sven




PS - Watson should be listed as William, not Willie, and if you're going to be grouping by era, you'll need to figure out what to do with guys like Park, Dunn and Bendelow whose work stretched between them.

[Tom_Doak]

Sven:


That all sounds terrific, and it is pretty much exactly the sort of thing I would like to leave as a record of my own courses.  The only thing I'm not so keen on is providing plans for the courses online, because there ought to be something that remains my property, and in these days it would be all too easy to copy and paste into a new golf course somewhere.


If anyone is interested in organizing my catalogue as a model for others, please get in touch.  I might even have some funding for this, courtesy of a generous client.

[Stewart Abramson]

Matt S - Apologies if I missed this elsewhere... What are the criteria for including courses? Many architects have done significantly more projects than the number listed on your site.

[Matt Schoolfield]

PS - Watson should be listed as William, not Willie, and if you're going to be grouping by era, you'll need to figure out what to do with guys like Park, Dunn and Bendelow whose work stretched between them.

I found the old thread on the Willie vs William debate, and found the arguments compelling. I've gone ahead and changed all the entries to William.

Essentially you are trying to create a digital version of Cornish & Whitten's work.  This kind of archive is only useful if the information is correct (which brings up its own concerns as the back pages of this discussion group can prove) and extensive.  A course name and a date for one architect does not get you any where near the complete story for most courses, as there were most likely many cooks in the kitchen in the evolution of a project.  Courses changed names, moved from private to public (and vice versa), had various locations, etc.  The only way to present an accurate picture is to be able to look at the entire history of each individual course, and there is no where on the internet right now that allows you to do that.

The ideal would be to have a complete listing that is sortable by location, date, architect(s), NLE status, etc.  For clubs that moved locations, those locations should be linked.  And for every architect name, as much information as to what was actually done should be included.  Maps, plans, articles and other source materials should be accessible. 

So, this is a goal, but I want to be clear that is far from the focus of the project. The project is primarily focused on being a site about golf courses with a horizontal approach, not a vertical approach. That is, most sites talk about "relevant" or "important" golf courses, where as I just want this site to provide information for all courses. The information I'm focusing on is a hole-by-hole walkthrough of the courses, written by regulars/locals. With the revenue-model being unrelated to the actual information distribution, so that the information can be generally freely shared.

In addition to that, I wanted to have a golf course architecture aspect to point people to different courses with work from other architects. I currently do not even have a date field for when architects worked on courses, though I could eventually add that. 

For example, let's say a member of a Langford course wanted to getter a better understanding of the man and his work.  From a timeline of his projects, they should be able to drill down into each course and be able to see as much information as possible about their architectural evolution as possible.  They should also be able to click over to a biography of Langford, with links to those he worked with, etc. 

Here is where I want to parse this dichotomy. What you are describing seems much more like top-level information, especially things like timelines, which is much more the function of Wikipedia (which I do contribute to, and would wildly encourage folks here also contribute, as this forum has exactly the type of experts they need editing/updating articles). I do not see the function of my site to be a replacement for Wikipedia, and I generally link people to Wikipedia for courses notable enough to have an entry. The goal of my site is to focus on information that is irrelevant to Wikipedia, such as how to play the holes on those courses. If the information you're describing does end up on Wikipedia, it will be trivially for me to use and organize to supplement with mappings, etc. (one of the potential end results of the project I've thought of is acquisition by Wikimedia, though that is probably unrealistic).

Much of the functionality you describe is something I'd like to add, but I'm trying to bootstrap in my spare time, so the level of integration you're talking about isn't currently feasible. If the site becomes more than a hobby, this will be a priority.

Beyond that, I appreciate the notes. I hope my response seems reasonable.

[Matt Schoolfield]

Matt S - Apologies if I missed this elsewhere... What are the criteria for including courses? Many architects have done significantly more projects than the number listed on your site.

There are currently three pages where architects are listed: the landing page is a general survey of notable architects, then there is one page that lists all architects by name, and one that lists all architects by number of projects that they have contributed to.

The primary reason for the landing page is two-fold. Firstly, it prevents expensive database reads for the vast majority of people who are just looking for people like Braid or MacKenzie. Secondly, it makes them easy to find, quick and easy for folks curious about the subject, without being overwhelming. 

Thus, for the landing page, I'm looking for architects who are generally:

• Notable enough to have a Wikipedia page (or should have one, e.g., Bill Coore doesn't have one, which is only understandable given the restrictions and extensive citations required for on pages for living persons).
• Have build enough courses for it to be sensible to link to the list of courses they've made (hence, no George Crump).
• Who are "generally regarded" is being influential. I understand the pushback that many would have to this barriers to entry, and I agree, but this isn't supposed to be a definitive list, just a useful tool for curious people who probably know little about the subject.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()