Hmm - more clear cut than I thought

[Peter Pallotta]

The love vs money, amateur vs professional, time vs talent dichotomy.  Here's the top 20 classics from Golfweek:

1. Pine Valley Golf Club - Love
2. Cypress Point Club - Money
3. Shinnecock Hills Golf Club - Money
4. National Golf Links of America - Love
5. Merion Golf Club (East) - Love
6. Oakmont Country Club - Love
7. Fishers Island Golf Club - Money
8. Crystal Downs - Money
9. Pebble Beach Golf Links - Money
10. Augusta National Golf Club - Love + Money
11. San Francisco Golf Club - Money
12. Prairie Dunes Country Club - Money
13. Chicago Golf Club - Love
14. Seminole Golf Club - Money
15. Los Angeles Country Club (North) - Money
16. Winged Foot Golf Club (West) - Money
17. Pinehurst Resort No. 2 - Money
18. Garden City Golf Club - Money
19. Oakland Hills Country Club (South) - Money
20. Riviera Country Club - Money

So, 5 1/2 designed for love; 14 1/2 designed for money.  (Though in the top 10, it's a much closer 4 1/2 to 5 1/2).

Sorry - the weather was getting warmer and I had fooled myself into thinking I'd be golfing today, and then of course today it froze and I got depressed. And this thread was born.

Peter

[Tom_Doak]

Peter:

If "love" simply means the architect didn't take a fee, then you can add LACC and Riviera to the "love" camp -- George Thomas never took a fee.  And I'm not sure if Jack Neville got paid or not.

However, I think this is a false dichotomy.  All you're really sorting out is which architects were rich enough not to want or need a fee.  Most of those courses were designed with love.

[Mac Plumart]

I think you need to go to the next level.  The vast majority of golf courses were probably designed for a fee.  BUT look at what the underlying club is all about.  Is it a business scheme designed to make the developers rich?  Or is it a group of serious golfers who are willing to pony up whatever it takes to have a great place to play golf for the rest of their lives?  In the later instance, the members put their money up for the love of the game...not in hopes of making a profit off the game.

[DMoriarty]

Peter:

If "love" simply means the architect didn't take a fee, then you can add LACC and Riviera to the "love" camp -- George Thomas never took a fee.  And I'm not sure if Jack Neville got paid or not.

However, I think this is a false dichotomy.  All you're really sorting out is which architects were rich enough not to want or need a fee.  Most of those courses were designed with love.

You may want to switch Pine Valley to the money camp, unless Colt was working for free. 

[Mike Cirba]

Peter,

Garden City was designed and then improved by amateur architects.

[Don_Mahaffey]

To me, what I look for in a modern architect is are they working on THIS project, or pumping the PR for the next commission? That, to me, is the definition of doing it for love or money. When a designer is always worried about how something will be perceived, or how it will be ranked, instead of what is best on this ground, today, then its about money and business, not love of the art.

[Tom_Doak]

I think you need to go to the next level.  The vast majority of golf courses were probably designed for a fee.  BUT look at what the underlying club is all about.  Is it a business scheme designed to make the developers rich?  Or is it a group of serious golfers who are willing to pony up whatever it takes to have a great place to play golf for the rest of their lives?  In the later instance, the members put their money up for the love of the game...not in hopes of making a profit off the game.

Mac:

It's simpler to get to that level than you'd guess.  The bottom line is that 98% of courses built before 1945 were built without a profit motive, and 98% of courses built after 1945 were built with a profit motive.

Even the usual-suspect developers who get the most praise on this site [Mike Keiser, Herb Kohler, Mark Parsinen] are putting up their own money to build these courses, and they fully intend to make money on them.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, gents, for making a decent thread out of this.  It is indeed a poor dichotomy (Time vs Talent would've been the more interesting -- if perhaps no more telling - dichotomy, but I don't know enough to try that one). Tom's use of the term "profit motive" and Don's cautionary note about perceptions/rankings make me glad I started it.

Peter 

[Dan Herrmann]

Peter - do you see any cultural differences existing today between the Love and Money clubs?  In other words, would a "Love" club like Pine Valley different today than if the motivation was financial?  Or vice-versa?

[Ian Andrew]

Peter,

Here's one for you.

Look at the top architects financial status before they became an architect.
You will find there is a common theme that continues even to this day.
While there are exceptions the statistics are pretty one sided.

[Tom MacWood]

Peter
I believe Colt was paid to design Pine Valley. Do you believe Fownes loved Oakmont more than Ross loved Pinehurst #2?

I'll write this one off to cabin fever.