Corrected Architects - Golf Magazine Top 100 World

[Mike Nuzzo]

Thanks Tom.
I'll go with yours.
I don't think an associate should get design credit, but possilbly listed as the principal for ASGCA accreditation...
And I presume Marion didn't have as much as an impact as Crump (our first prescedent)?

Geoff -
I'll be referencing my copy of The Architects of Golf, which is also not perfect.
I hope you will contribute in addition to what you have already printed, which was the conduit to start this thread.

Next up...

The Old Course?

Cheers

[Tom_Doak]

Geoff:  Absolutely Michael should be credited for Barnbougle and for St. Andrews Beach, if it someday makes the list.  GOLF Magazine didn't check with me on that credit, probably because they didn't want to let me know the course had made the top 100 list until it was officially published.  I was pointing out that Brian Schneider deserves credit, too, but is GOLF going to print every associate architect who works on every course?  And every architect who ever worked on the classics?

The problem with this exercise is that no matter how thoroughly we argue who deserves the credit, the need for simplicity in making a two-page listing of the courses means that some people are going to be left out, and that it will be easy for an outside reviewer to criticize the credits on that basis.

If you want to be helpful, get in the discussion here.  How should Cypress Point be listed?  How about Riviera and LACC?

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Tom,
Thanks for clarifying though you still seem to brand Clayton as your associate, whereas I thought I read on here that you were joining forces with his firm on Barnbougle Dunes? With him having his own company that would seem to be quite a different situation than being one of your associates.

Why is it again we all need to be "helpful" to Golf Magazine? Aren't they part of a multi-billion entertainment conglomerate? It seems rather odd that they can't Google or crack open The Architects of Golf.

Anyway...my suggestions, for what they're worth:

Cypress Point: MacKenzie/Hunter (1928)
Riviera: Thomas/W.P. Bell (1927) (the course opened officially June 24, 1927)
LACC North: Fowler/Thomas (1921), Thomas/Bell (1928)

Thomas was a new member at LACC in 1920 and since he was a Pine Valley guy, an architect himself and obviously knowledgable, he was asked to carry out Fowler's plans. I was lucky enough to see some of those plans Thomas had to work with and they are nice, but as you can imagine Thomas deviated slightly in places as construction got going. After Riviera was finished, he and Bell re-did the North Course, leaving many Fowler elements, taking out some that Thomas seemingly had mixed feelings about removing (the old #17), while totally revamping other aspects of the course to update the drainage, look of the bunkering, etc... So that's why I say Fowler should still have his name on it since some of the framework is his. While Bell brought his usual engineering and construction artistry to the redo, helping to give us the course that remains today (think about #11 and what a man-made feat that was!). And I suggest 1928 as the reopening of the North, but I'm not sure of the precise date.

As for the listings regarding the recent work at these facilities, it would depend on the policy of the magazine. Currently that policy is clearly...no additional credits for the Top 10 courses, add a member of the Jones family everywhere else you can. Just kidding!  

Since no one really added new holes at Riviera or LACC, I'd say leave them off. Coore and Crenshaw would rather not be credited because those are the kind of gentlemen they are. I suspect John Harbottle would view it the same way (again, out of respect for Thomas). The Fazio group probably has the opposite point of view (after all, what's the point of doing this if you don't get some ink?). But of course, if you do credit Fazio, that's not accurate since he's made one stop and that was a visit on the way to a paying job.

Again though, I think we need to reconsider the point I brought up on my original post: if a magazine lists architects who only make significant changes, does that encourage renovation over restoration? I think so, which makes me lean toward not listing anyone but the original architects (the current Top 10 policy), and those who made key early revisions (Alison at Pine Valley in 1920-21, Egan at Pebble Beach in 1928, etc...). But is it a magazine's job to make such a distinction? I don't know.
Geoff

[Mark_Fine]

Frankly this is a monumental task and will always have controversy.  What about all the changes made by grounds committees?  Do they get credit as they surely have changed golf courses over the years.  Many times there is no architect involved.  

I'm sure we are all aware of courses that have had greens and tees moved and countless changes to bunkers and other hazards that totally change the character and integrity of a  design.   Many times, much if not all of the work is done inhouse (by the superintendent).  

How should this be credited or is it just ignored?
Mark

 

[A_Clay_Man]

.  I was pointing out that Brian Schneider deserves credit, too, but is GOLF going to print every associate architect who works on every course?  And every architect who ever worked on the classics?

I suppose a magazine that prides itself on thouroughness and accuracy, would spend the few lines of type to be so.

Sort of like Wild Horse spending the money for fescure green surrounds.

It's worth it, if you want things right.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Geoff,
Please tell me why Alison should be listed under Pine Valley - if that is what you are saying?

I agree with Riviera and it's updated.
Augusta will be the precedent maker for renovation work...

Maybe Golf will make a donation to GCA.

The Old Course:
Should Old Tom be listed?

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Mike,
Oh boy, this may need its own 10,000 view thread, but lost in all of the arguing over Crump and Colt are Alison's recommendations to Pine Valley in 1920/21. Most of his suggestions were carried out and proved pivotal in finalizing the course that we know today. Though his suggestions involved some minor changes (taking the pimple out on 18), some major (addition of the since-lost alternate fairway on 17), the impact of taking a great but flawed design and turning it into perfection seems worthy of a credit to me. But I'm not sure if the club would agree.
Geoff

[Tyler Kearns]

If you rebuild/redesign an entire course you build 18 new greens from scratch for consistancy of the growing conditions and your design preferences. He may have kept the concept, but I would be very certain that the green is Flynn.

Ian,

True enough. That is precisely one of the complaints the new superintendent at my home club (Glendale) has. When Cornish redesigned the course, he left 6 Thompson greens intact, and thus he is trying to create consistent putting surfaces on different growing mediums. You've seen more renovations than I, and I thought the situation at home was a little more common.

TK

[Joel_Stewart]

Should Mark Parsinen be given co credit along with Kyle Phillips at Kingsbarn?

[Steve Lang]

 

In scientific journal citations the first or prime (corresponding) author of a paper is normally cited, (e.g., Williams, 2003)... on the paper itself all contributors are included... so who is the first architect of record is perhaps most meaningful, not who grabbed the "publicity" or whose name was used to garner financial support...like Tillinghast at Bethpage vs. that park superintendent who lived there and really built it???

Whether 9, 14, or 18 holes.. when it opened for play is when it should be credited...  like Ottawa Park, Toledo Ohio, 1899 (9 holes)...

call a spade a spade on modifications.. citing them as such like: Ottawa Park, Toledo Ohio, 1899 (9 holes); Jermain/Ross, 1916 ( expansion to 18 holes); Hills, 1996 (rebuilding)

[Mike Nuzzo]

Should Mark Parsinen be given co credit along with Kyle Phillips at Kingsbarn?

Good question.
Fortunately we'll be able to ask both Kyle and or Mark.
In the mean time we have 61 courses to go through before #65.  

[Mike Nuzzo]

Steve,
Pine Valley is being measured as an 18 hole course.  When it became one is what the ranking should identify.
But yours is a good precedent if we'd choose to go that route.

Papers are dated such for intelectual proerty rights... I assume.  There are no patents in golf design.

[Brian Phillips]

Should Mark Parsinen be given co credit along with Kyle Phillips at Kingsbarn?

Joel,

The answer there is no.  I cannot go into details about how I know but it is a pure Kyle Phillips course.  

One way the relationship has been described to me is the same way Keiser has a relationship with all the architects at Bandon.  He doesn't take any credit for any of the courses but he certainly had input to all the courses there.

Brian

[michael_j_fay]

Isn't Pine Valley in Pine Valley, NJ?

[Ian Andrew]

Tyler,

Banff is a new Thompson course that happens to use land where an old Ross course was. It was 18 new greens. Bigwin Island, for us, was a new 18 over an old long lost Thompson course (5700 yards). You don't keep any greens in these circumstance, regardless of a common green site between the two courses. That's why I think #7 at Shinnecock is a Flynn green.

Most courses have a mix of greens from different eras, and that is the most common situation (like yours).

[T_MacWood]

Inverness was originally a nine designed by a gentleman named Nicholls, expanded to 18 by Rockefeller, redesigned by Ross, then altered by Fazio.

Inverness: Nicholls 1903, Rockefeller 1911, Ross 1919, T Fazio

[Mike Nuzzo]

Inverness: Nicholls 1903, Rockefeller 1911, Ross 1919, T Fazio

Tom,
I'm guessing, but I'd say there wasn't much Nicholls or Rockefeller in the design when Ross was done, and would have a hard time crediting them in this context.
Am I wrong?

I don't want to talk about Fazio yet, as Augusta is going to be the precedent.

Thanks

[Joe Perches]

There are no patents in golf design.

Patents no, copyrights probably.

I hope GCA is genteel enough to avoid a suit of any sort about it though.

Relevant NYTimes article

[BCrosby]

Tom MacW -

There is no Bendelow left at East Lake. Ross did a complete rebuild in '22, using a different routing.

The more interesting question is how much Ross is left. George Cobb made several major changes in '61. The specifics of his changes are not well documented, though you can figure out most of the big stuff from historic aerials.

Rees made a number of changes in the early '90's after the club was purchased. Though he kept the basic playing corridors, Rees relocated several greens and tees and made a number of material changes to green surrounds. All of which changed the character of the course considerably.

Following your lead on attributions, I guess East Lake goes Bendelow '08, Ross '22, Cobb '61, Rees '94.

Bob

[T_MacWood]

"I'm guessing, but I'd say there wasn't much Nicholls or Rockefeller in the design when Ross was done, and would have a hard time crediting them in this context."

Mike
My impression is Ross did keep some of Nicholls and Rockefeller's work. Ross did not claim Inverness as a solo or original design, which he often did when he totally redsigned an exisiting course (like Beverly, Metacomet and East Lake). Rockefeller was also invoved in the contruction of the Ross holes. There are four completely new Fazio holes.

Bob
It appears to me that there is little or no Ross left at East Lake. That being the case shouldn't it read: Rees Jones 1994

[Ian Andrew]

Mike,

The Canadian courses should read:

St. George's:

Stanley Thompson (opened August 1929), Robbie Robinson renovation 1966)

Highland Golf Links

Stanley Thompson (Cooke's inclusion is wrong)

[T_MacWood]

Ian
How much of his own stuff did Cooke leave at Cape Breton?

I've always had the impression his was not a pure restoration.

[Ian Andrew]

Too bad I could have shown you. (I donated all my old photos to the course when I was there). Every nice line got rounded, every photo ignored, and towards the end a few bunkers were shifted or added as the on site guy got his "confidence"

The course is great because of Thompson, even Graham's renovation could not screw up the magnitude of this course. The problem with giving him credit is he turns this into a claim that he designed one of the top 100 courses in the world.

I still think this should be about awarding an architect for adding to what makes the course great, as opposed to rewarding them for attendance. Something else Graham would get poor marks for at Highlands.

[Ian Andrew]

Mike,

Augusta

I would only add Trent Jones, because he rebuilt enough of the course to change the overall qualities of the course.

Cupp, Nicklaus, Fazio have all combined to tweak every single green on the course, but it is still the same essential course today that it was post Jones.

Tees, green, bunker additions are not enough to be included.

[Robert Thompson]

Brian: Your comments about Mark Parsinen are interesting, since he'd very much disagree with you. He said several of the holes are more than partly his design and that Tom Doak was even brought in to consult towards the end, though that didn't sit well with Kyle.
I think Kyle feels it is a solo design -- whether it is or not isn't clear to me.