[Matt_Ward]

Just wanted to get feedback from people on the above question.

Frankly, I'm not speaking about the cache the person brings to the table to sell real estate -- although no doubt some people may see this as the primary asset for the hire to start with.

I see plenty of instances on this site if course "X" is done by architect "X" then the facility is a good bit ahead of those with lesser names (but no less talent) involved.

Does the "name game" effect where you play and frankly how much prompting does it take for you to visit / play a layout that doesn't have "star power" behind it ?

Thanks ...

[Doug Ralston]

Oddly, two of my favorite courses are by 'architects' that ONLY designed that particular course. 'Twisted Gun' and 'Stonelick Hills'. Both a very nice, beautiful, playable courses.

That said, I search golfcourse.com under architect's names all the time. Favor Hurdzan, Liddy, Ault, Dye, and [bite my tongue] Hills. Sorry Tom, none of your near me. I will someday try the C & C at Notre Dame someday.

So, yes, it does make some difference, but I will listen to other sources too.

Doug

[Mark_Fine]

Matt,
To be honest, to prompt a visit to see a new course, it usually means a lot to me.  I would venture to say that there are not too many of us that would go out of our way (buy a plane ticket) to just go play anybody's design.  At the same time I try hard not to hold a bias toward any particular architect.  I will not give any architect a free pass but I may look a little harder at some architect's designs if I come across a course or a hole that seems weak on the first go around.  On older courses it can sometimes be a result of the course evolving (and not necessarily for the better).  On never courses such as when I visited Colorado GC (a C & C design), I saw a few things that I wasn't sure of.  But having studied many C & C courses and knowing something about their design philosophies, I realize I might need to digest the holes a bit more before making a final assessment.  

As you know, I see a lot of different courses every year designed by lots of different architects.  Rarely do I see a course that I can't learn something from and/or enjoy at least to some extent.  If you study the field enough, you will begin to figure out who does the best work.  Most people don't do this (which is completely understandable) so they gravitate to "names" that they hear about and/or know of.  Recognition is important in almost every business.  This fact can't be denied.  

[Gary_Nelson]

Having a "Name" architect certainly influences my choice of golf course when on vacation.  Not so much when playing around home.

Playing a course for the first time without a name architect requires (for me) some sort of positive feedback from a golf magazine or this website.  I don't want to waste valuable vacation rounds on a lousy course.  

I submit that a course advertising the architect has put some consideration into the design elements.

[Andrew Thomson]

of course.

Within Australia, I wouldn't buy a plane ticket to see any courses specifically unless they are a Doak or a Clayton - or better still.  Both!

Why?

Because I've done it in the past and been dissapointed.

Having said that, I'll take a long drive to see Magenta Shores, north of Sydney later this years.  First time a particular archi has had a decent plot of land, and I'd like to see what he's done with it.  Has a decent record on very poor land, and despite what some say - Royal Sydney was ordinary before this bloke was there.

[Andy Troeger]

I don't think the name means all that much to me, with the exception of Pete Dye. I've played about 13-14 of his courses and have had good luck at most of them, so I'd likely give any of his courses a shot.

Even with that, however, there's some of his courses I liked better than others, and there's a large amount of difference between them. That's a big plus to me.

Other than that, I don't think I especially seek out or avoid any one architect's work, certainly not the extent that I think some people do. Part of the fun is the exploration, and I'd rather find out for myself whether I like an architect's style than to let anyone else make my decisions for me. Once I've played a few more courses and have a little better background I think I'll be a little choosier about the "name" behind the course.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

It is really pretty hard to separate the buzz for a course from the buzz for its architect nowadays.  David Kidd became a "name" the moment Bandon Dunes opened for play, and people wanted to see it because they heard it was good and because he WASN'T a name and they didn't know quite what to expect.  And for every course thereafter, he's a name.

And those not all of those lesser names have equal talent!  Some have much more than others.

[Craig_Rokke]

I pay a lot of attention to names. Whether it's Blaukovitch, Moran, Weed, Dye, Hanse, William Mitchell, Ferdinand Garbin, Robert White, Tom Doak.....whatever. It at least gives
me a heads up for what may be in store, and also helps
me decide how much of an effort I want to put into trying to get out to see a given course. I also think there are a quite a few very talented architects working in relative anonymity.

[Tom_Doak]

The other thing is that the architect's name is pretty much all you have to go by to judge it, unless a friend you trust has already been there, because no one who writes up profiles of new and old courses will tell the whole truth ...

[Jim Thompson]

Matt,

I can honestly say that the name has absolutely no value to me what so ever.  I guess it may have been a good thing that the first Hills course I ever played was The Thoroughbred (about 200,000 yards of dirt shy of being an ok course) and the first Doak I played was High Pointe. Going through the “Palmer process” at the Ravines, leads me to believe most of his house courses are pretty obvious and lack mental stimulation. The fact of the matter is that the raw land, maintenance, and ownership dictate just as much of the quality of the course as does the design.  On another thread we’re talking about True North right now, frankly all I know about Jim Engh is that if you have a, how do I say this nicely, less then ideal site for a golf course, Jim won’t be afraid of it and will do everything to make it work.  Engh has made dome very good courses on very tough sites, but that almost makes me wonder if the course will good or if he was the only one who would take the job.  I put a lot more value on what friends in the turf side of the business tell me.  If the Toro rep or the Tour Edge rep tell me that I’m going to like a place, regardless of where it is, I’ll probably go to play it.  The same can be said of those on GCA.  I do find myself discounting some opinions due to stylistic differences, but I think that’s normal.

Hope that helps.

JT

[Craig_Rokke]

Jim T-
You really don't find yourself wanting to play a course, or not wanting to, based strictly on the name of the architect?

By the way, who is the guy drumming the cowbell? Or is he drumming a pint of Guinness? Looks like he's spillin' a little  

[Doug Ralston]

Tom;

Actually, I find that if the users on golfcourse.com are quite a fair judge, provided you have quite a few to balance the 'culls'. If a course has better than 4.5 there, and more than 7-8 reviews, it almost invariably pleases me when I play it. Improve the odds even more if course slope is also 135+.

Doug

[Jim Thompson]

Craig,

The name thing really does nothing for me at all.  In fact, for me the Andy Silis rating so far excedes the architects name its almost comical.  Take Art Hills as a name.  Within six hours I can play 11 courses that claim to part of the Art Hills trail.  Two of those courses I really like, two I absolutley cannot stand and the rest are just ok to me.  I'm not trying to pick on art here because I don't think its always his fault, nor is it any architects total fault unless they actually pay for the course themselves.

Cheers!

JT

[Mike_Young]

Jim T-
By the way, who is the guy drumming the cowbell? Or is he drumming a pint of Guiness? Looks like he's spillin' a little  

Come on now...Will Ferrell ... if not mistaken..right Jim???

[Jim Thompson]

read this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46074-2005Jan28.html

than watch this: http://www.funnyhub.com/videos/pages/snl-more-cowbell.html

I am not responsible if your drink comes out your nose while you watch this.

JT

[James Cashmore]

This is an interesting question that invariably comes up from time to time.  Is it worth paying an additional $500,000 or more to a 'name' designer because of what it brings to a project?  Are we really saying that they can contribute so much additional value to a peice of land?  Some research suggests so but my feeling is that if what a lesser known designer produces is good enough, the word will get out and people will come there anyway - particularly for courses that don't have the demands of real estate for the success of their ventures.  And what governs success anyway?  Is it the amount of people that come to play and enjoy it?  Is it the profitability of the course?  Is it the rankings?

Sites that enjoy natural vistas for golf don't need to be messed with a lot to create something truly remarkable.  Most experienced designers with a few of these sites under their belt can produce something as good if not better than some 'named' designers who take on multiple projects at one time and therefore find it difficut to spend the amount of time on site producing real magic.  I'm sure we all know of instances where that's occurred.

I note Andrew Thomson's comments with interest in saying that he would only travel to see a Doak or Clayton course in Australia.  There are so many talented guys here that I feel that comment presents people with an unfair assessment of how good Australian designers are. Guys like Watson, Wilsher, Perrett, Harrison and my father to name a few have some incredible courses under their belt and always relish the chance to work on mindblowing peices of land to show what they can do.

I think there's a place for 'named' designers - but I also think your money could be just as well spent considering someone with a heap of talent and the hunger to work their butt off for you.  Let's not rush to deminish their contribution to golfing history.

[Andrew Thomson]

Interesting comments James.

I’d perhaps give Perret another chance, but the rest of the blokes you named I wouldn’t get too excited about.  The best thing Perret could do is to remove himself from the T and the W and I’m not talking about Tiger Woods….

Name designers aren’t born into a ‘big name’.  Clayton is hardly a ‘name designer’ but the quality of his work will soon make him so.  Doak isn’t a former professional, how did he become a ‘name designer?’  You guessed it – because his work is excellent.

Watson has yet to really work with quality land, so I’ll be giving him a chance at Magenta, from the pics I’ve seen, so far so good – despite his love affair with sand and bright green fescue.

I’ve seen the work of a ‘name architect’ by the name of Peter Thomson, on some excellent land.  Lets hope such land is never wasted again….

As for your father.  His work at Dunes and half of 13th Beach isn’t too bad, but I wouldn’t cross the street to see anything else he has done again.  He has butchered two of my favourite courses in Royal Melbourne East and Commonwealth, and after seeing the pics of Kingswood I doubt I’ll ever venture there again.

He’d be best served building a few resort courses on the Gold Coast where people don’t know a good golf course from their proverbial rear end.

[James Cashmore]

Andrew, I truly find it amazing that your golfing brain is so limited that you would make such a statement.  By all means go on thinking that only 2 designers have any merit doing work here in Australia; it makes you appear biased and totally uneducated.  As for your comments about my fathers work; you could imagine how much weight I hold in your opinion.

For the record, I also feel that Clayts and Doak have done some excellent work here and abroad, and I'm not afraid to say so in public; which I do often.  This discussion is not about them specifically, but more on how much a 'name' is really worth to a project.  Horses for courses I guess.

[Andrew Thomson]

Perhaps you did not read my post?

There are plenty of designers in Australia and they all get plenty of work.  I have merely commented on the quality of that work, and whether I’d be willing to travel to see it.  How am I biased?  I just like good golf courses and I guess I show bias towards those that design good golf courses and bias against people that don’t….so yeah I guess I’m biased!

You’re right, this discussion is about how much a ‘name’ is really worth to a project.  It also depends on the project.  I merely said, that I would only seek out the work of Clayton and Doak if golf was the only purpose of my journey.

But how exactly does one become a ‘name?’

I’d suggest that Tom Doak became a name initially for his excellent books on architecture and courses, but now- first and foremost because he designs excellent golf courses.

I’m not even sure Clayton is a ‘name’ to the masses, but he will be because he also designs quality courses.  I believe he also played a bit of golf in his day as well??  

If you want a decent course, but also want to sell some real-estate you’d go with Norman.

If you want to just sell real-estate and don’t care how bad the course is, go with Thommo et al.

If you want a very good golf course and real-estate isn’t an issue – go with Clayton or Doak.

If you can’t afford those blokes – go with Marsh or Watson!

If you want to butcher a national treasure……

[Eric Franzen]

All architects have their highs and lows so I am more concerned with the actual course when I make my selection on where to play during travel.

Word of mouth might actually be one of the most important factors, when I think about it. Without excellent advice from this site I would probably have missed out on courses like Barona Creek, who has a more of a low profile compared to Torrey Pines South.

[Sean_A]

To be honest I think for the most part the idea of who the archie is for a course is an American thing.  The UK is catching up, but so many courses had so many hands in the pot that it is difficult to know who did what.  I am not terribly influenced by the archie.  I want to play courses based on their reps.  Sure, often times the rep is intimately tied to the rep especially for newer courses where we have a higher certainty of who did what.  Many older courses aren't currently presented in a manner which reflects the intent of the name archie.  However, despite human nature to categorize for easy reference archies can't be properly labelled.  For a more accurate picture it is far better to talk in terms of courses rather than archies.  

Ciao

Sean

[Shane Gurnett]

James Cashmore,

Why do find it so hard to accept the opinion of a well travelled and educated golf architecture enthusiast when it comes to criticising your fathers work. Why do you have to lower the discussion to a personal level just because you dont agree with his objective comments?

Does the truth hurt?

[Andrew Thomson]

you will note that I didn't criticise anyone's work until prompted, I simply listed two architects whose work I enjoy most within Australia.

[Kevin Pallier]

Not much here in Australia though whilst living in the UK I would go out of my way to see a Mackenzie / Colt course.

[Craig_Rokke]

read this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46074-2005Jan28.html

than watch this: http://www.funnyhub.com/videos/pages/snl-more-cowbell.html

I am not responsible if your drink comes out your nose while you watch this.

Jim-
That video is classic!
C.
JT

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()